Kash Patel on 1/6 Failures, Judge Orders COVID Vaccines, Fmr. Prosecutor Slams Defense Lawyers

Former Trump official reveals National Guard troops were offered prior to the events of January 6th but were rebuffed due to political concerns. Ohio judge forces COVID vaccines on Defendants during sentencing. Former Federal Prosecutor relishes in Avenatti’s sentence and slams defense lawyers, rude! ​

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

🔵 Former Pentagon official and Chief of Staff confirms that the National Guard was offered prior to the events on January 6th, 2021.​
🔵 Kash Patel, former Chief of Staff to the Acting U.S. Secretary of Defense under Trump, confirms that the extra security was denied due to political reasons.​
🔵 Who is Kash Patel and what is his background?​
🔵 REMINDER: Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser specifically rejected federal support on January 5th, 2021.​
🔵 Meanwhile, Feds agree to pay $6.1 million to create a special Capitol riot prosecutions database.​
🔵 Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt says 1/6 was much worse than 9/11 and all the resulting wars.​
🔵 FBI is ridiculed for concerns over a Capitol Hill Architecture Lego set. ​
🔵 Franklin County, Ohio judge admits to mandating COVID-19 vaccines to defendants at the time of sentencing. ​
🔵 Judge Richard Frye in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio required vaccination for 3 of the last 20 defendants sentenced.​
🔵 WSYX reporter Lisa Rantala interviews a defendant who explains he did not want to take the vaccine but felt pressured into the agreement.​
🔵 Who is Judge Richard A. Frye in Courtroom 5F?​
🔵 Did Judge Judge Richard A. Frye violate Ohio Canons of Judicial Conduct? We review Rule 2.3 and 2.4.​
🔵 Former Federal Prosecutor Francey Hakes gloats over Michael Avenatti sentencing.​
🔵 Ms. Hakes calls all defense lawyers full of “BLUSTER” and “INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE.” ​
🔵 Review of other prosecutors we have discussed on this channel to decide which side has more arrogance or bluster. You decide!​
🔵 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 #Jan6 #1/6 #CapitolHillProtests #KashPatel #Trump #LincolnProject #CHPD #Justice #DOJ #USAtto

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group 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 a 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, as I mentioned, it's Friday, but that doesn't mean we're done with business for the week. We got to check back in on the January 6th stuff, because there is a former chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense under the former president, Donald Trump guy by the name of Kash Patel was out there yesterday, giving a new interview, describing a little bit more about the security failures from the other end of the spectrum. Recall that back during January 6th, Donald Trump and his administration were still in office. And so after the whole ordeal unfolded in front of our very eyes, there was a transition to a new administration. And so there's been a lot of questions about really what happened there because as the, as the investigation really started to heat up Trump and his team was already gone in a way. So cache Patel now former Trump, uh, personnel is out and we're going to hear from him. And then we're going to sort of go back down memory lane and remember what mayor, mayor Maricel Bowzer did, the Washington DC mayor. She specifically said that they don't want any additional help, no more national guard coming in in that particular city in Washington DC. And so we're going to revisit that letter. And we're also going to take a look at some other people who have been in this conversation. People like the co-founder Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln project, who is now saying that the January 6th event was significantly worse than nine 11. So kind of insane. So we've got to a lot to get into there. We're also then going to transition to a different segment where we're going to be talking about a state judge, a city judge, I think a Franklin county judge guy by the name of Richard Frye. He's in the court of common pleas over in Ohio. And as he is sentencing people. So defendants have been charged with crimes. They're pleading guilty, or they've been found guilty. This judge then has to sentence them. Well, as part of his sentences, he's saying you sir have to go get the COVID-19 vaccine when people are saying, well, what's I just got convicted of a crime. What are you talking about? I have to go give this shot in my body. That doesn't really seem like that's part of the penalties that are in the statutes. And so many people have their eyebrows raised saying, well, this doesn't seem right to have a criminal judge mandating that certain defendants now go and get vaccinated. So kind of a big deal going on there. His name is Richard Frye, he's from Ohio. And so we're going to take a look at what is going on there, including visiting the Ohio judicial cannons and their codes of conduct to see if this judge is maybe violating some of them by bringing in external, uh, affairs into his courtroom, not okay. And so that's going to be a good segment. And then lastly, because it's Friday, we're going to have a little bit of fun in our third segment. And in particular I say fun, but it's not fun because I'm offended. We have a former federal prosecutor out there. She was on Tucker Carlson show last night. And she had some things to say about defense attorneys. She was a little bit gleeful that Michael Abinadi had been sentenced and he's going to prison for two and a half years, but she was also a little bit rude to defense lawyers. I happen to be one. And so I feel like I have to stand up for my brethren and push back against these. Let's call them, uh, well, we'll, we'll, we'll use their language when we get there, that's going to be a lot of fun. So stick around for that. And if you want to be a part of the show, have a little bit of a new thing we're going to be trying out today, want to tell you about this new forum that we have. So if you are over at our locals community, watching the watchers.locals.com, there's a live chat that's taking place right there. And in that form, I'm sorry in that chat right next to it, you're going to see a description and it's going to take you to a form. You can just click this form and the form will, of course, allow you to ask a question on the show. So here's what the form looks like. Just want to show you this really briefly. You can go here, you can click the watching the Watchers show form, and you can fill this out, the locals form the question and the comment and all of that stuff. And it's right on over there. Now, if you, you know, if you're a savvy person, if you're a YouTuber, you could easily find that form address and go in there and ask a question if you want it to be, uh, to be, uh, you know, participatory, you certainly could do that, but this is really for the locals community, just so we can sort of filter through some of the questions a little bit better. And so if you're over there, you can go ahead and fill out that form. And I'll take a look at the questions when we get there. So, uh, and on that point, uh, I know several of you have reached out to me and I sincerely appreciate the support offering to help with the show and clipping questions and all of that stuff. And it really means the world to me. I'm like, I'm actually humbled by it. And I'm still trying to figure out really, you know, all the moving pieces, obviously some changes here at the show, and we're sort of trying to figure this stuff out on the fly. I am trying to make it so that I sort of need less moving parts in order to run the show in case I want to, you know, go travel somewhere or do something like that, that I just have less sort of less moving pieces. So we're going to try the form. We're going to see how this works and we're going to keep experimenting until we find a format that works for us. So once again, over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, you can find the form and we'll just get your questions that way. All right. And so a couple people over there of course are in house. Let's see, we've got, wants to nose here, Sharon[inaudible] here. We've got miss lucky 21 is in the house. Three girly says love the new form. Awesome. And so, uh, Jeremy[inaudible] is here. Okay, great. So we're going to jump into the news of the day. So let's go ahead and get started. January six is still in the news. We're trying to figure out exactly what happened as, as you know, if you've been around this channel for some time we've been following it pretty closely. And we sort of seen all the ebbs and flows about the investigation that had been taking place. And really it's all kind of been boiling down to a finger-pointing exercise where every single federal agency is just kind of saying, Nope, it was that man. Nope. It was that man, the Sergeant at arms in the Senate says, no Sergeant arms over the house. And he says, no, it was over there at the Senate. And they say, no, it was the Metro PD. And they say, no, it's the Capitol hill PD. And then it was the FBI. And then the national guard wasn't there, it's mayor Muriel Bowzer, and the list goes on and on, which is typical bureaucratic incompetence. So it's nothing to be surprised about. But at the same time, we've kind of not heard much from the outgoing Trump administration, right? Because what happened on January 6th is they were counting the electoral votes for the next president. So we didn't know who that was going to be at the time Donald Trump was still in office. And, uh, w w w we, we knew who it was going to be at the time, given the results of the election, but you, you get my point, right. There was a, still a possibility that Mike Pence could have read something differently. I said that that was not going to happen, but it was still a possibility. And so Donald Trump was still effectively empower, right? It was his administration still up until Joe Biden transitioned in there. And then once Joe Biden was in there, now it sort of the Democrats ballgame, right? They seize control of the house of representatives sometime ago and the Senate and the white house. And so they sort of control all the different levers of power in office, absent the United States Supreme court. And so we've been all kind of, you know, trying to piece together what's happening here. A lot of people are saying that there's missing, uh, surveillance footage and body camera footage. We're going to talk about that. There's a story here we're going to get to. And so very recently, actually today, in fact, this came out from the epoch times, and there's a gentleman by the name of cache Patel, who is somebody who used to work for the Donald Trump administration. And he was sort of higher up there. He was the chief of staff under the acting United States, secretary of defense under Donald Trump. And so he came out and he gave us a little bit of an interview that was interesting yesterday. And so I want to break down what actually happened here, because once again, this is somebody from the inside, sort of from the inside of the Trump administration is now coming out and giving us some confirmation that, that th that the national guard in fact was offered, but then declined. We knew that they were declined, but not so much that they were offered. Okay. So this is the story over from the epoch times. Now what we have here, it says the Pentagon did offer the national guard troops two days before the January 6th event. Okay. So two days, and who is confirming this, the former chief of staff. Now, this guy, as I mentioned, he's over on Cassius corner, over at epic TV. And his name is Patel served as the chief of staff for acting us secretary of defense under Donald Trump. And he explained why the capital breach could have been prevented. He also served as a government official in the United States, national security council. Also the United States house of representatives said that he believes that the offer from the Trump administration was blocked for quote political reasons, right? And we've seen a lot of that. We saw that come out from the Sergeant at arms over there. I forget whether that was from the house or the Senate, but it did come out. And we knew that, you know, that that mayor Muriel Bowser, we're going to revisit her letter here in a minute where she's saying, we don't want your help at all. And so we've all been speculating about that here. Why not? Okay. You know, if we've got 18, 19 different intelligence agencies, all the alphabet soups out there that are supposed to be protecting America, January six is one of the most important dates in, in American political election cycles. It's when we count the votes, everybody from the country is in the congressional building because they got a count, the votes, right? It's all the Congress people going through this big symbolic thing that we do. And so you would imagine that it would be high alert that the FBI, CIA, everybody else would be a whole, my goodness. We're we got to brace for impact, especially given a lot of the hyperventilation that we heard in the days leading up to it, where they were telling us, oh, the oath keepers, oh, the three percenters, oh, the proud boys, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they couldn't even protect the most sacred building in the entire country. And you're going, okay, well, why is that right? Are they really that incompetent? Or is there somebody else out there that, that maybe it was, uh, you know, moving some levers around or are maneuvering some pieces around in order to make this kind of happen or to allow it to happen or to sort of, you know, facilitates or not put up fences or just not call the national guard. Because there may be some interests that are served by having this go forward. You can call that a conspiracy theory if you want, but you can take around and you can look around historically at some of the other things that the FBI has done. We've covered it here on the show where they framed other people, four guys, and sent them to prison for a long period of time, uh, back in the sixties, under a Hoover. I believe that was so, you know, there's a long history of that in this country. And it's not something that is beyond the pale, especially if you've got the entire establishment that is orienting towards one particular candidate and one particular ideology that exists in this country. Of course, I'm referencing Donald Trump. So it's easy to think if there's a mechanism and there's a motivation, there's a, there's a, there's a way to do this, that they would do it because what it would do would make sure that they could go and, and just sort of needle Donald Trump, make sure that he gets impeached again, which happened. Hopefully hoping that he doesn't earn the opportunity to run again, because if you're impeached, they can preclude you from seeking office. Again, that didn't happen. And so now what they're going to do is just sort of use this to hang over the heads of the, of an entire segment of this country until they can't use it anymore. They're just going to keep beating this thing into the drum on and on and on. So Kash Patel now is out. He gives us some information about what happened from the inside perspective over, let's take a look who is this guy, right? This is a big statement that he's making, who is this? He says that a Wikipedia of course is going to call him a Trump loyalist. Now we're going to read what the DOD has to say as well, but he's a lawyer. He's an American attorney. He's a former government official served as the chief of staff acting us secretary of defense, Arnold Tron under Donald Trump, worked at the United States, national security council, us house of representatives. And it was, uh, uh, previously a public defender with the federal government. Also a federal prosecutor working on national security cases, a legal liaison to the U S armed forces. He's also a Republican, right? Trump loyalist, according to Wikipedia a to Devin Nunez played a leading role in seeking to discredit investigations into Donald Trump and the Russian interference in 2016 election. So you can say, okay, he's a Trump or he's biased, whatever. He seems to me like somebody who's a, a pretty active person in, in American political life. Somebody who holds positions that typically have a, you know, a high regard, a lot of esteem, their representative, national security council, armed forces, legal liaison, and the list goes on and on. And so this is not somebody that many people would just go, oh, this guy's out of his mind, right? This is a conspiracy theorist. This is somebody who is just, you know, rambling off the cuff about any of this stuff. No, in fact, this is somebody that has a lot of credentials. He's been in the government for quite some time. Here is what the DOD has to say about him. Former chief of staff, again, uh, Christopher Miller was the acting secretary of defense during the time responsible for leading the mission of the department. He was also the deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counter terrorism at the national security council, right? Oversaw several of Donald Trump's top priorities, including things like eliminating ISIS and Al-Qaeda leadership, uh, safer patriation of numerous American hostages, 17 intelligence briefing communities that were provided in the president's daily briefing. And so he's like credentialed. He's somebody that I think people should listen to and take seriously, just given on, on that, on that some of that background there. All right. So here he is, he's over on Cassius corner and he's having this conversation and let's listen to it and see what he has to say about this on January 6th,

Speaker 2: 13:54

When it is now publicly been admitted by the FBI, that they had information that there could possibly be a situation like that at the United States Capitol. Why weren't the cabinet secretaries under president Trump briefed? Why didn't the FBI put a thousand uniformed agents around the U S Capitol? Where was the fence? Right? These are the lackings of Jew that led to January 6th. These are the mistakes intentional or otherwise that led to January 6th. And if you look at the video from January 6th and they still won't release all of it, an entire side of the Capitol, I believe it's the south side was totally unmanned, no police officers whatsoever. And that's where the crowd first came in through. And you have to ask yourself what happened on January 6th. Now, look, that was chief of staff of the department of defense. On the sixth. We had offered the Capitol police and mayor Bowzer of Washington, DC, thousands of national guardsmen and women two days before January 6th. And they turned us down. So it could have been prevented. So could it, could it have been just to not, not a lot of information sharing happening? I think it was not enough information sharing happening. And I think, but people now are starting to realize is that the protecting of the U Capitol on a day like January 6th is a law enforcement function. You cannot have the United States military descend and occupy the area around the United States Capitol. It's literally illegal, but they can assist their law enforcement partners through a request from the mayor or the governor or the Capitol police. And that's what should have happened. And that's what we told them they might want to consider, but they flat out rejected it for political reasons, I believe.

Speaker 1: 15:37

Wow. So pretty big claims there, right? And again, somebody credentialed somebody saying, look, you know, here's my perspective, my perspective on this, the Capitol building was halfway unprotected, literally the entire backside of it wide open police weren't even there. So anybody could have come around and just gone right in there. And we've seen sort of videos of that sort of clips. We know we played one here where that one officer came out and said, uh, you know, I, uh, I disagree with you, but I respect you or something like that. Right. And the guy just kind of walks in like they're opening doors and stuff. And so here, this guy comes out, highly credentialed somebody on the inside, somebody from the Trump administration. Now also confirming that, yeah, we offered them national guard support two days prior to this happening in the first place. And they rejected it. They flat out rejected it. But in addition to that, there's all sorts of other information that just seems to be missing, including some of these other surveillance videos that the prosecutors, us attorneys, that department of justice, FBI, whomever just have not released yet. And he's confirming that it's, it's, it's out there. Why is that right? Who was responsible for this there's 18, 19 17 different intelligence agencies with billions trillions of dollars that are responsible for ensuring the continuity of government. And they couldn't preclude a cup, a thousand people from coming in and, and sort of sieging the entire building. It absolutely embarrassing unless it was something that, you know, didn't, wasn't that big of a deal because it might've served somebody, his interest now his, his data that they actually did offer that, right. You people might be saying, well there, that that's uncorroborated. And I don't think so at this moment, because we've talked about this previously, here's the letter from mayor Muriel Bowser. We've played this before on the show. Uh, previously, when this happened here, she signed this document and she copied Congresswoman Elena Holmes, Norton. And you'll notice this was written on January 5th, K January 5th goes over to the honorable secretary of the army, the honorable us acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen member, him and the honorable Chris Miller acting secretary of defense at the time. And guess who was the assistant? The chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. This guy was right. That guy w uh, Patel Kash Patel was the chief of staff for this guy right here. So he says, uh, probably right on, on, uh, January 4th that we made the offer over to the Washington DC people, right? And, and they are responding now because if he says on January 4th, we sent it, they fire a letter back from mayor Muriel, Bowzer. The letter goes back and says, Hey, dear attorney general Rosen and acting secretary Miller, which is cash Patel's boss says, listen, as the law enforcement agency charged with protecting all of this stuff, we got it covered. The district of Columbia government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies. Yeah, we, yeah. We know that. And cache patella was saying, we know you didn't request it. That's why we offered it because it could be a problem, right? This is a very important day. We know you idiots didn't request it because for some stupid reason, you can't secure the, the Congress building, which is why we offered it to you on, on January 4th. And so Mariel Muriel Bowser then gets the letter and says, oh no, no, we've got it all under control. We don't want your, you know, racist Trumpers here, uh, commandeering our city. And so we're going to reject your offer respectfully. So she fires this letter back on January 5th, and you see where that's going, right? She says, we are mindful that in, in 2020 MPD, the Metro PD there in DC was expected to perform demanding tasks that we had unidentifiable personnel, and this caused confusion. And there's no way for the MPD and the federal law enforcement to decipher arm groups. And so she sort of detailing all of the policies and all of the reasons why they don't need help before she finishes off with this paragraph, she says, listen, to be clear, DC is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with the MPD. If such plans are underway, the protections of everybody is our utmost concern were well-trained here at the MPD. Uh, we don't need any of your other stuff. We can handle all first amendment rights within the district of Columbia. Thanks. But no, thanks is what she said declined. Your offer has been declined. So a kind of a bad decision, wasn't it? And so my question for, for some time had always been, well, he responding to, you know, what was this? And so now cash motel comes out, just confirms for us. Yeah. We, we, we actually made an offer and they declined that. And in addition to that, uh, half the capital building was just left open. Not only did we say you could use some additional troops, not only did they just say, no, we don't need them. We've got it covered. But then they left the door open to the barn and everything, you know, commandeered. So you go, how is that? Is that just that, that level of incompetence, or is there some sort of an incentive for some people to allow something bad to happen? I don't know. I mean, I don't, I don't know. Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist here who knows now as a result of this, right? When, when a crisis happens, when something happens badly, then everybody wants to spring into action and sort of sees the natural consequences that flow as a result of it. They want to get in on the grift as it were. So now, as we've mentioned, right, the capital hill police, they're going to be opening offices over in Florida and California, and they're going to be extending their jurisdiction to be invested any threat to any single congressperson that exists anywhere in the country. And if they just happen to also be in your city and your local law enforcement just happens to need some help guests who happens to be there while the Capitol hill police do. And even if their jurisdiction, it doesn't necessarily warrant them being in your city in the first place, because there's maybe nothing really going on there. They'll still be there because that's the federal government, they've got another$350 billion there that Joe Biden just sort of unleashed on America as a result of the COVID bill that went through. And now they're sort of, uh, uh, just law enforcement in Ning up the entire country. Everybody's just getting armed up and we've got Capitol hill officers coming around. We've got, uh, all sorts of surveillance, uh, categorizations, we've got domestic terrorism now is now a new buzzword. That's going to be a part of Nancy Pelosi's select committee on the Capitol. And so the list goes on and on, but now my friends, we have a dedicated database. So if you didn't already sort of have enough investigation going on on here now we've got 6.1 million bucks that are going to be used to create a private day database for capital riot prosecution. So the justice, the department, as of today, just agreed to pay 6.1 million to a technology contractor to create a massive database of videos, photographs, documents, and social media close related to the Capitol ride. As part of the process of turning irrelevant evidence over to defense attorneys for more than 500 people. Okay. And I, we, we've already pilloried this, this week 500 people is like a joke. My friends, because I just, I showed you earlier this week that the city of Scottsdale, which is right down here, it was one city in the state of Arizona has about 406 pro uh, of judges and about 10 to 12, eight to 12 prosecutors over there. And, uh, they processed 600 and something cases in two, I'm sorry, in June, in June over this. And if they've got a discovery system, okay, we, we represent a lot of people out of there. We get body cameras, we get all sorts of data from them on a regular basis. It's very easy. They don't need to go and create all of these new systems and 6 million here and over here. And, oh, we need continuances because they're drama Queens like the us attorney's offices over in Scottsdale, they're, they're sort of, you know, regular criminal lawyers, like most of us are. And they are able to just actually handle cases. Every time we have a golf tournament that comes down, right. And a lot of people get in trouble, or we have a Superbowl and, and sort of the whole country comes crashing into Scottsdale. Guess what happens? Their caseload doubles. And they don't go crying to the justice department for another 6 million bucks. They don't need to go create these massive databases with photographs and documents and all of these different things in order to prove a trespass case or in order to prove a disorderly conduct or a criminal damage case. Okay. It is a joke what these are, people are doing. It's, it's embarrassing, but you can see what's happening and nobody knows any better because everybody's just, you know, a regular sort of civilian, wow. 500 people facing. That's a lot of people, no, because Scottsdale just did 620 of them in June. They're going to do another 620 probably in July. And again, and again, and again, the U S attorneys, they only had one insurrection and so many different cities around, around this country are bigger and, and processing more cases than the city of Scottsdale is. And they're not buckling at the seams because of their bureaucratic and competence. So what we're seeing here is just sort of, you know, they're, they're, they're making this into something way bigger than it is 500 defendants is laughable, honestly. Okay. So to take on, as you can see the daunting task, right? Very, very daunting to do with 500 cases, the federal government has turned to Deloitte, a financial advisory services, affirm prosecutors called the litigation support vendor with extensive experience providing complex litigation technology services. And again, folks, these are not crimes of the century. Okay. To prove a trespass case, you basically got approved that somebody shouldn't have been in a physical location where they are. You go, you get a couple of photographs. Hey, John, is that you? Yeah. Are you in the Capitol building? Yeah, it is. Okay. Well, here's the deal. You can take this plea deal. We're going to give you diversion. We're going to dismiss the charges. As long as you don't do this again, put you on probation, pay a fine, go clean up some trash, go do some community service. Otherwise you can take your case to trial. We don't need 48,000 pictures of you because we got these two or three that are all pretty substantive. And we think we can make our case right here. And so you've got an option. Defendant, number one, yes or no. Do you want to take this plea deal or not? Right. If you're a prosecutor and you just go through 500 of them yes or no. Yes or no. Yes or no. And then there's some of them that are a little bit more serious, right? Where there are aggravated assault charges or there's, you know, some sort of a weapons charge. And you, you segment those out. How many of them 500 are there a hundred of them are awful. 500 of these really obscene, aggravated assault charges. I'm guessing not because I've covered several of them here where it's nothing like that at all. It's people who showed up the next day or got arrested the next morning for getting in fights with people outside their hotel rooms. We've covered the cases here on the channel. So what they're talking about here is just, it's just such a joke. I can't even explain it. Alright. Prosecutors are trying to organize thousands of hours of body-worn camera. Oh, like the Scottsdale police department does every single night in old town, Scottsdale closed circuit surveillance camera footage yet because there's like 50 bars out there with all sorts of camera footage, more than a million social media videos. Right. Okay. So, and, and phony and email accounts and responses and 6,000 grand jury subpoenas, according to a court filing on Tuesday. So extremely dramatic. They're going to need to go get every single photograph and every single evidence in order to prosecute a defendant. Why? Because that requires more work. It requires more money, requires more laws, more jurisdiction. It requires the Capitol hill police being thrown in your city. They don't need it to actually prosecute any of these defendants, but they're going to get it because they can get away with it because people like Politico and these articles say, wow, well, this is such a daunting task. We're so overwhelmed. And Merrick Garland. And the attorney general Lisa, the assistant deputy attorney general is they are out there day after day. We just had the six month anniversary, like a bad girlfriend screaming about this. We have to celebrate six months since January 6th and Merrick Garland was out with the Capitol hill PD and they were all just sort of patting themselves on the back. Good job everybody well done. Uh, is that it? Is it just going to be a cool 6.1 million let's let's see a government contracting database shows that Deloitte was awarded 6.1 million in order to provide automated litigation support services beginning on June one of this year, going over to the U S attorney's office in Washington, the order was placed under a broader contract issued last year to five companies for such services to the justice department. So the award to Deloitte could grow to nearly 26 million according to contract data reviewed by Politico. So it's just a down payment. The still incomplete database has sharply slowed down efforts by prosecutors and defense attorneys to hammer out plea deals for dozens, if not hundreds, uh, of alleged rioters. So again, very dramatic, very dramatic, right? Uh, yes. In Scottsdale, right? Every weekend there's there's dozens and dozens of people who were arrested every night. And so they're, you know, it's, it's sharply slowed that down and I don't really care about that. Right? You have a, a right to a speedy trial in this country and, and judges and, and the prosecutors, the us attorney's offices are saying, we are so overwhelmed because we have 500 defendants that we need continuances. And people like Jacob chancellor, you're just sitting in custody rotting away for six months, without anybody giving a about it because of this whole thing, being politicized, because Deloitte needs 26 million because the Biden administration and Merrick Garland, and all of the Democrats need to keep needling this into the end of the earth. Meanwhile, people are just sitting in custody, rotting away and, and, uh, the American taxpayers of course have to pay for all this, another 26 million go into Deloitte. So it's incomplete. Prosecutors have repeatedly emphasized the massive trove as evidence as it grows daily, as they recover phones, hard drive and other devices from newly arrested defendants, what do they need to prove? What do they need to prove? Are they going to be charging these like massive webs of conspiracies? If so then, okay. Then you do need to do all of that. Or are these trespass disorderly conduct cases? You don't need all of that stuff in order to incriminate somebody for that. So, all right. Let's see. Several defendants have sought quick resolution only to be told that they must wait until the database is established. So I, in my opinion, they are violating these defendant's due process rights. The judges should be say, Hey, prosecutors, listen, you have an obligation to disclose the evidence that you have. If you don't have the evidence right now, then, then you're going to be sanctioned for not disclosing it. Or we're going to allow these defendants to exercise their right to a speedy trial, have their day in court, because we don't want them having these charges hanging over their heads indefinitely while you people can't figure out your act, get it together over there. And so put up or shut up, right? Put the evidence up and let the defendants go. And if the government can't meet their burden and that's it, they can't be charged again. But for some reason that's not happening in these cases. And a lot of the judges are just saying, oh, sure, yeah, you need, you need more time, Mr. Prosecutor, us attorney's offices, these DC judges just say, yeah, no problem at all. Because this was in fact, the most heinous thing that's ever happened in American history. And we agree with you, us attorney that, that we need more time and you need to do your work and your due diligence, his right to a speedy trial, be damned any due process rights, all just go right out the window because of these two sides of the same coin, the prosecutors and the judges, all just being in favor of the demonization of one political ideology, it's reprehensible. It makes my blood boil. All right, let's carry on with this article. Now the broader department wide contract, that's going over to Deloitte. It's known as mega five. It's scheduled to run for up to six and a half years and involve up to$1.5 billion my friend in spending. So if you think that that$6 million database is going to stop right there, no it's currently being earmarked, but it's part of a much, much bigger bucket of 1.5 billion that now they're going to be using to create this massive database. And so I'm going to guess, you know, if you've ever been, if you've ever texted somebody or visited somebody's Facebook profile or hopped into their group for whatever organization that they're a part of, and you're just incidentally, even remotely connected to it, you're probably going to end up in that database. So I'll see you there. I'll see you right inside there. And, uh, we'll have a little bit of a powwow. I guess the justice department spokesperson did not respond to request for comments on the contract. A message seeking comment from Deloitte was also not returned. The database is being built for the us attorney's office. Just one of several being established in connection with the sprawling capital right investigation. Okay. One of several, my friends are going to be, they're going to be building these all over the place. The federal public defender's office is also considering hiring a contractor to help defense lawyers digest the massive trove of data. The FBI appears to be using various computer systems, including facial recognition technology to scan massive amounts of video, isolate images of individual suspects. Those pictures and videos are then released by the FBI on social media. As they continue to look for grandma every day on their Twitter profile under a Supreme court precedent, prosecutors are obligated to turn over to the defense, all relevant evidence that could be beneficial to defendants. Yeah, it's called exclude as sculptor, Tory evidence. And prosecutors have said that they interpret those obligations to mean that they must have access to all or nearly all the evidence which the justice department has said, has said, it's the largest criminal probe in us history, which is just, just outstanding. So, you know, all the, all the, uh, this, this is the worst thing that's ever happened. Of course. So they're going to continue to investigate this until the end of earth. And, and it's not, it's, it's my friends. I know it's bad, but I mean, it's really bad. What happened on January six, if you didn't know, it was way worse than nine 11. And so I didn't know that until I listened to a Lincoln project co-founder of this guy, Steve Schmidt. So he's sort of in alignment with a lot of the prosecutors over there, thinking that this is, is really, really heinous, and we really need to do something about it. So the daily caller got a clip from him saying that Steve Schmidt says January six was quote, profoundly more dangerous than the nine 11 attacks. And in the end, likely to kill a lot more Americans, including the casualties of the war as the lasted 20 years following it. So let's listen into Mr. Steve Schmidt here describing how bad this whole thing was. My friend,

Speaker 3: 32:59

Matthew doubt, or friend, you know, talked about this. He couldn't be more right. The one-six attack for the future of the country. So profoundly more dangerous event than the nine 11 attacks. And in the end, the one six attacks are likely to kill a lot more Americans that were killed on the nine 11 attacks, which will include the casualties of the wars that lasted 20 years following my friend, Matthew,

Speaker 1: 33:25

What the heck is that guy talking about? There were five, six people I think killed. And, uh, two of them were by suicide. Two of them were Trump supporters. One of them was Brian sickness, natural causes. Uh, and then something like that was worse than nine 11 and, and the wars and everything else that followed after nine 11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of the other conflicts that America's been a part of. So that's Steve Schmidt. That was the Lincoln project. My friends that was the organization, that many people were all lathering all, all over Twitter, back during the election. Those are, uh, really, uh, astute observers over there. So, okay. So what's going on. What's going on now with the select committee? So McCarthy now is now responding to the select committee, quick reminder of what happened here. So Nancy Pelosi has been wanting to form this committee to investigate January six and they tried to get the Republicans to get on board. Mitch McConnell didn't want to do it so that never ended up happening. They need some Republican support in order to pass a commission that didn't happen. So then Nancy Pelosi went back and said, fine. If you Republicans don't want to play ball on this thing, I'm just going to independently create my own select committee. And a select committee is much like a committee like the armed services committee or the house budgetary committee. Those are permanent committees that weigh in on budget issues are, or, uh, you know, military issues in this case, this is going to be a temporary committee only set up to just investigate January 6th. And so then it's going to evaporate later down the line. So Nancy Pelosi then implemented this thing, got Liz Cheney on board. And many people were wondering, well, what's the basis. What's the scope of this? You know, who's going to be investigating what, and now Kevin McCarthy, who was the house minority leader from the Republicans is responding. And so we're starting to get a little bit of a framework for how this whole thing is going to work, which is certainly going to be coming up soon. So let's see what's going on here. So McCarthy is expected now to appoint Republicans onto the committee. And, uh, the reason why this is news is of course, because it wasn't clear whether he would name anybody at all. And so that was from the original, uh, story here after playing coy on the subject house minority leader, Kevin McCarthy is in fact planning to appoint Republicans on to the committee, how speaker Pelosi Nat last week announced that they would be creating the select committee. McCarthy is going to get five appointments. He hadn't initially decided whether he would appoint anyone at all and reportedly privately threatened Republicans who would accept an appointment by Pelosi. And so Liz Cheney did that, but we know that Liz Cheney and Kevin McCarthy for a long time and, you know, have kind of been at odds anyways, let's see what else is here? A senior GOP aid familiar with the process said that there were ongoing efforts to decide which members to appoint with some likely being allies of Trump in an attempt to downplay the writing, some Republicans, et cetera, expect McCarthy to use the appointments, to undermine what they see will be polo. C's main aim, which is to political damage Trump, right? So it's going to be like a version of the impeachment party. Again, we were celebrating that here for some time and maybe we're going to have a committee party next time. So however McCarthy is also getting pressure from some of the party to appoint more moderate Republicans. The timing of which is unclear. We have a representative from Florida Democrat. Her name is Stephanie Murphy. She said, is that the Republicans have an obligation to get all the facts. Okay. So what's going, we're going to start with having law enforcement officers testify to share their experiences that day. No. And she said, when asked whether Trump would be called to testify, so do you know what this is going to be? It's going to be a select committee where they just bring every officer one after another right in front of the American people, the American camera's and it's one big sob story after the other. I was so scared of Nancy Pelosi and is going to bring up AOC and remember her. I think she still has PTSD. She's probably still getting some psychiatric care, which is a good thing. Actually, I support that. So hopefully that goes somewhere and, and the, uh, uh, the FBI, meanwhile, they are hard at work digging into this thing. So we are, we all want answers. We've known that for some time. One of the biggest answers that we want to know is why one of these capitals, you know, when they go in and they can, are these Capitol hill rioters, these really terrorists. Sometimes they find some really, really serious things in their, in their, uh, apartments and houses and basements and bunkers and nuclear silos and things. Well, they found something, my friends that is a really scary, let's take a look at this. Oh my goodness. That is, that is a, a Lego architecture sure. Of the United States Capitol building and Lego act actually sells those at a Capitol hill. Rioter had one of those and it was built in, in his, in his house. And you know what? I don't know this for sure, but I even think that he was over the age of 12, which is, is a good thing. So it's safety. So he got, he was able to put that together. Yeah. The FBI has been ridiculed as they should for seizing a man's Lego set of the U S Capitol. Right. They're building a case piece by piece, said Steve Watson over at, uh, summit news, which is just so good. Uh, the FBI is building their cases, uh, piece by piece. Alright. The FBI sees the man's Lego set at the U S Capitol building after declaring him to be a leading rioter during the January six incident court records note that the federal prosecutors and I have accused a 27 year old Robert Morris of directing other rioters in one of the most intense and prolonged clashes with Capitol police around the building that day, former army ranger Moore's like many others arrested has been a languishing in prison. He faces nine counts of inciting violence. He's still in custody, which is just insane. The documents note that during his arrest law enforcement recovered, some clothing might be dangerous clothing, as well as other items that appear to match those. He carried with him on the sixth, including a don't tread on me flag, which is a terrorist flag, a neck Gator terrorist. Necator a military utility bag clearly for a terrorist and tourniquet and military fatigues. And you'll also note in quotes, law enforcement also recovered a fully constructed us Capitol Lego set. Uh, Steve Watson says the horror and he notes that the hill notes quote, it's unclear why Moore's had the Lego set. This one right here. Oh my goodness. And so if you go over to summit news, summit.news, you'll be able to chime in on that thread. There's some pretty good stuff over there. Somebody posted this, uh, in response, this is the Lego set called the Capitol hill invasion, which you can see Jacob chancellor here, uh, is being built with Legos. And we've got, uh, the entire crew that just broke their way into the Capitol building. Now, this one, I don't know about this age restriction. I don't, I'm not sure that six plus I think that probably should go up to 12 plus like the other one was, uh, down here, but you can see the whole crew over there. You can see even the police officers are not having a good time. This guy's having a good time. He's filming himself. And we got another Trump supporter with a gun, which is not accurate. I mean, there were, there were no guns. The only, the only shooting took place. There was a police officer. These guns are not accurate. There were no guns there, but all right. So that is, uh, that's, that's just outstanding. Um, good job FBI and good luck with your investigation. Okay. So let's take a look at some of the, uh, the questions that are coming in. We're going to take a look and see if this forms working. See, oh my goodness, we got 23 questions coming in hot. Whew. This is going to be a lot. All right. So let's see what we have in here. All right. So look at this. This is pretty interesting. Isn't it? We've got some data coming in on the questions. We've got cash Patel, 87% of the questions are about that. Let's see if we can run through some of these individual questions and see, uh, this one is coming from soul Viking. So I'll look at this. So maybe we'll be able to, to, to format it like this and see if this can work a little bit. All right. So he says, Hey, Rob, do you think that we will learn anything new about the unindicted? Co-conspirators that allegedly exists? Have you seen anything new related to these people? And I have not their soul Viking. Um, so right now I think it's, it's just sort of speculative, right? Wondering where is the dog that isn't barking? Right. It's sort of, you are used to hearing a dog barking are used to seeing a certain person in a certain position, especially in criminal cases. And so when you start to see a pattern of people that are being indicted and certain information is sort of hitting law enforcement from certain areas and people go, well, where'd that come from? Everybody's going hot. There's, there's something that's kind of missing. It's the dog that is embarking. And maybe that is an undercover informant, right? Maybe that's an undercover agent. And so I don't know specifically sort of what the stages here. I think you're probably going to see a ton of foyer requests and a lot of things kind of floating around out there, but I don't expect anything useful to come from the, the congressional investigation that is for short. Yeah. All right. Another question coming in from John Haugen says, where does one find an attorney to help fight a vaccine mandate at work or school? Gosh, that's a good question. What kind of attorney would that be? I would say that would be probably a unemployment lawyer really in your local, in your, in your state probably. And I don't even do anything remotely close to that, but I would say an employment lawyer would probably be where you want to start. We have a Wolfgang day. I was in the house. Got a long question here. Let's see if we can parse through this. One says, given that the Democrats want to pretend to be patriotic, how do we get a constitutional legislation to go after flag burners for the American Legion? As a veteran, I support this type of respectful flag burning listed here. And since free speech involves symbolic gestures, there was likely a time and place where one ought to burn the flag. I think personal injury, some of us kind of skim through this riotous, they left. I think personal injury is currently best standing law against flag burning flag burning will take proper action and sanctions in the latter. Two cases, government recognizes disrespectful adversary, delineation of the flag burning. It's a good, it's a good question. Given that the Democrats want to pretend to be patriotic. How do we get constitutional legislation to go after flag burners? Uh, so I think it is the, is the point of the question there Wolfgang so that the Democrats would no longer be able to pretend to be democratic, right? So that if you prohibited, if you, if you moved flag burning legislation forward, which you know, I'm not, I'm not sure that I, that I necessarily even support that, right. I'm a free speech person through and through, but I think your perspective here would be that if you outlawed that, then that would make it. So the Democrats, if you introduce legislation to promote that ban, then the Democrats would necessarily have to respond to that. And so I think that might pop the patriotic sort of bubble that you're implying. Not, not super sure yet though. Sharon Whitney's here says there is a lot of evidence that those who were able to stop any trouble on January 6th were told to stand down. It was a political to blame Trump to frame him and keep him from running again. It was an inside job and all this talk about that riot being an attempt to take over the government is a righteous stag fire. 2.0 yeah. You know, look, we, we, we also, I think some inappropriate things happen that day, but I have a lot of open questions about it and I don't think we've, we've, we've gotten to the bottom of it at all. We got Paula MK here says, uh, why is the Capitol police exempt from having to disclose the name of the officer involved, uh, death still no definitive information on the Ashley Babbitt killing everywhere else has to disclose that information within a week or so. How can that be changed? And why do I feel like we're in real life, hunger games, if you haven't read the book series, you should, I have not read them. And I haven't even seen the movies. Uh, I think I watched part of one of them and, uh, I didn't really get it, but I, I probably didn't invest what needed to be invested in that. So, uh, the Ashley Babbitt stuff, well, I think the, the lawful explanation of course is because they were the Capitol hill police. And so the Capitol hill police have all of these special exemptions carved out because they're the Capitol hill police just like our Congress. People at carve out all sorts of other exemptions, like related to stock transactions and, uh, healthcare and all sorts of stuff. They also exclude themselves from really any oversight. That's why the Capitol hill police can continue to maintain a total lack of transparency without any real consequence eat on test is here, says, what is the chance that we actually get the name of the person who made the call to open the gates and let the people walk in? Well, you have to presume that that was something that happened. Like there is one person that actually made that call. I'm not sure that's the case, but if you're looking for a single person, like if it's the, you know, department of defense director or somebody, you know, I, I, I, I would say probably zero, a Wolfgang is talking about the Nuremberg code. Good to see you Wolfgang. Uh, let's see what else we've got, wants to know says why wasn't he called during Trump's impeachment trial Pelosi and the mayor in charge get rid of both of them for incompetence. Why wasn't he called? Uh, so, so Trump's impeachment trial while I think that that was negotiated. I think that if they would have called Trump, uh, they were going to open the flood gate with, I think like 400 other witnesses or something like that. Remember that at the end there, during the impeachment proceedings, they were, they were throwing a lot of questions in there, uh, or a lot of, uh, possibilities in there. Jeremy Matrine is here, says, Rob, when looking at the events of one, six from a big picture in political filter, it is very clear that the opposition had plans in place to exploit the situation, to make the Trump campaign. And Trump supporters look as bad as possible. Unfortunately, there wasn't anyone that could have foreseen how the peaceful gathering was going to be exploited going forward. I hope the future campaigns learn from this event and plan for every potential risk and be ready to call an audible when things don't go as planned, which is something that I totally agree with you there on that, right? I mean, if you want to be critical of Trump for anything, it's sort of that he didn't see this coming right. That he did not see that if you, you allow, if you create an environment like this, you know, he can call it the deep state, call it whatever you want, that, that they would exploit this to their, to, to, to your advantage. Right. And we've, we sort of have seen that. I think previously Trump, Trump knows this is kind of the routine that any time that they can look, look, look at Kyle Rittenhouse or something like that. Right. We have a case, in my opinion, that is clearly self-defense, which turns into this whole white supremacy thing. It's like every time there's anything that is bad, the media is going to take it and use it to their advantage. And so if you create a situation where you can actually make the claim that Donald Trump not only caused a riot, but was, was the person literally responsible for it? I mean, he actually like, like when I say, cause actually caused it. Right. So it's, uh, it, it is, I think kind of a, feels like rookie mistake. If I can be candid about it. Uh, let's see, we've got thunder seven says it's good to hear from cash truth and facts. I guess the dams are going to remove his law license. Now, can they do that now, Rob, that he's exposing the capital riot planned by Pelosi Bowzer and the FBI informers to find a reason to impeach president Trump. So I don't know where he's licensed. I don't, I don't think that those claims would, would open him up to any problems with the state bar. Now, of course, you know, Giuliani is going through something with them at the moment. And, uh, I think the basis for that is a little bit different. The Giuliani thing was more about, I think, you know, him not being able to substantiate certain claims. We have, oh, sock in the house errands here. He says, Rob, with the lack of protection at the Capitol, do you think this could affect the outcome of those already in trouble with the lack of protection at the Capitol? Do you think this could affect the outcome of those already in trouble? So, oh, I see what you're saying. Yes. So, uh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if it is true that it was sort of open. I still think that they're technically in violation of the law. You're going, gonna, you're going to have a hard time. I think proving the, you know, I'm just a tourist defense in any type of, in any one of these cases. All right. And so we're going to, let's see, we're going to angel says I have no doubt that the decision not to bring in the national guard on one six was a hundred percent political. So why are the Dems fighting so hard to have the special commission? Why are the Republicans so against it, let's air this out once and for all and move on. Yeah. Right. But uh, still, I feel like we are living in a bizarro world as the answer seems so obvious. Yeah. Right. And I agree with you there, angel. I think that it's a good, it's a good point that the, that the question really becomes is the committee, is the commission going to get to the bottom of anything? You know, is this actually going to resolve anything for us or is it all just going to be a political show where they just bring in one person after the other? So just come, you know, come on in and just tell us officer about how scary it was. Okay. Got you. Next one. And the next one and the next one, just to make it all, you know, very, very, uh, showy for the American people. All right. So great questions. I think that actually worked out fairly well. We're going to move on. Apologies if I didn't get to your questions, but we got to get onto the next segment before we do quick reminder that I, a criminal defense attorney over here at the RNR law group, we do criminal defense law in the state of Arizona, anybody facing criminal charges, we would love the opportunity to help 4 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4 is our number and our, our law easy.com where our mission here is to provide safety, clarity, and hope for good people facing criminal charges. We can help with things like DUIs, drug offenses, misdemeanor violations. The list goes on. We're very passionate about what we do. We love to help our clients get great results and get things back on track. Put all of this behind them. We'd love the opportunity to speak with you available for a free case evaluation. And, and if you don't need legal services, that's good news. We also offer some law enforcement interaction training in the event that you are going to be around police or out and about at a, at a sporting game or at a bar at a restaurant, might be good to know how to deal with the police. This is available now at gumroad.com/robert griller. A it helps support the show. Anytime you go on over here, you can also follow me if you're not interested in any of these courses would certainly appreciate a followup because I have some other things in the works that I want to unveil shortly. And so once again, thank you to all of you who are supporting us over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Okay. So our next segment of the show, we're going to be talking pretty bad. Judge on Ohio. Judge is now ordering, mandating that defendants get the COVID-19 vaccine. That's right, as they are being sentenced saying, if you do not get it, he will be more serious. And so obviously this is a problem, right? A judge is in a high position of power. And when you start to sort of mandate demand that a defendant, somebody who's working their way through the court system, you have to do something you're in a litter power dynamic, where the judge has all the time control. And so when a judge comes in and says, Hey, Mr. Guler, either you do this, or I'm going to take your probation, which we agreed upon being one year, we're going to make that five years. And you say, wow, well, I don't want to be on probation for five years, but I also don't want to get that vaccine. So what do I do? And some people might say, well, that's just a vaccine and you're a conspiracy theorist and whatever here, here's a quick point on that. Number one, this judge is not a medical, okay. At all. So he has no business at all, telling a defense and whether or not they should or are obligated to go or get it or not totally outside the purview and totally inappro grit should never happen. But it's also a very, very big power differential. The judge has the authority to sort of really make this person's life miserable. And so you might just say, well, if he doesn't want to get the shot, then maybe he's just going to have to serve those five years on probation. That's five years of reporting to a probation officer, five years of monthly probation department payments. You've got to be compliant with all the programs you get pulled over. And officer says, you're on probation. I don't like what you just said to me right there. I'm going to charge you with another crime. Now you get charged with another crime plus a probation violation. And so the original case to becomes problematic as well. So it's like walking around with just on eggshells was something just laying on your back. You're carrying this weight around for the rest of your life. So for four, five years or whatever this judge decides to impose. So what this judge is doing is reprehensible. And I want to cover it because it should be called out. Now, this is coming over from local 12 and it was written here by Lisa ran Tala from w S Y X. This was published some time ago, but it just remade my radar very recently. And remember, we've been talking about a lot of this. K the army is now mandating vaccines. The Navy we talked about is mandating them. We're starting to hear other companies are mandating them or hearing that certain schools and educational facilities are having these conversations. And we've also heard from former government officials saying that from the former ones that they are in support of vaccine mandates. We're also hearing from the current administration that, well, they're a little bit concerned that people are not taking these vaccines at the rate that they desire. So they're talking about sending people door to door. And actually, uh, I think Xavier Besera from the health and human services was out there yesterday. Talking about the government, having a right to know whether you took this or not, because they paid a lot of money for it, and they're the government and they get to know everything. And so, as I've said here, historically that when the government touches you inappropriately, it's of two people that do it, it's the IRS or law enforcement agencies. And here it's the justice department. It's the justice system, which is an extension of law enforcement that is now mandating to people that they'd go and inject something into their body. And this judge is not a doctor. And this judge, he should be banned from YouTube for, for this problem now. All right? Uh, the Ohio judge admits that he is doing this and he's making a condition of probation. Let's see what's happening. So Columbus, Ohio, a Franklin county judge admits to the news agency that he is mandating COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of probation in his courtroom, right? That's the headline first sentence. Now some offenders are speaking out to say, it's not right, no kidding. The whole atmosphere of the courtroom changed, said criminal offenders, Silvana Latham, who was sentenced for a gun and drug charge. Last week before the common pleas court judge Richard Frye, quote, everyone had a look on their face. I broke character and asked my attorney, can he do this? Right? So I don't know what the attorney, if the attorney knew that was coming or not, but if you're an attorney and a judge, do you know, does that, you're not expecting that you're going, excuse me, we're going to withdraw from that plea deal, your honor. That's not the terms. Thank you for not, you know, it makes me so mad. All right, anyways, this defendant is in court and this judge blindsides him. So he turns to his attorney, can he do this? And the attorney probably said, yeah, he can take the deal. Let's get out. And he says out of 20 sentencings, judge Frye conducted last week, three included their requirement to get the vaccination within 30 days and provide proof to the probation department. Okay. And my friends, this is something that does happen in criminal court where they say that you have to go do something and then report back. Typically it's like, Hey, you got to go install an interlock device on your car, or you need to go sign up for those alcohol classes and let us know about that. Or you need to go, uh, you know, pay this fine or get on a payment plan by a certain period of time. So that is all normal. This judge just said, well, you also have to go get a COVID shot. And you say, well, uh, what does that have to do with my gun charge? Nothing. What does that have to do with my drug charge? Also nothing. So what does it have to do with any penalty? Is this, is this something that's mandated by criminal statute in this particular state? No. So this judge has just imposing this on his own. It sounds like suicide. Dante doesn't even have to think about it at all. Just, uh, just imposes it. And the defense is apparently not doing much about it and the prosecution just, well, okay, judge, do whatever you want. It's your courtroom. He's done it three times. Now, here is Lisa ran Tala over here and she did a great report. She actually interviewed somebody who had to agree to do this. Let's take a listen in common

Speaker 4: 57:21

Police court. Richard Fry tells me he started using the COVID-19 vaccine as a term of probation in his corporate last week, but not for every one. He ordered it three times out of 20 different sentences hearings. I did talk to one of those three offenders today and he tells me, he feels very strongly about this and feels that this order violates his civil rights. One week to the day,

Speaker 5: 57:47

Uh, the case was about, um, a gun charge and some drugs.

Speaker 4: 57:51

Franklin county, criminal offender, Sylvan lake Anthem tells me he's stripped before common police court, judge Richard Frye to

Speaker 5: 57:59

Judge Frye's reputation, reputation. I know he's known for giving people max time, jail time, all that. I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to have five years probation. Jason

Speaker 4: 58:08

Thought his attorney struck a deal with prosecutors to three years probation. But during his sentencing hearing, I

Speaker 5: 58:14

Was stressed out right then. I didn't know what to do. I was kind of, I was very put, but very much so put her on the spot.

Speaker 4: 58:20

Latham said, the judge told him, he'd give him the five-year max, unless he got a COVID-19 vaccine with the shot late them set. His probation would be cut down considerably to just one year

Speaker 5: 58:34

And can at this point, like, I don't really like where this is

Speaker 4: 58:36

Going in. The moment Latham agreed. Now his terms of probation, state, he must get the shot in the next 30 days and provide proof to the probation department. He has your future in his hands. Do you feel that's an opener?

Speaker 5: 58:51

I feel like it is an overstep, especially when he asked me what I get it. And I said, I really don't want it.

Speaker 4: 58:56

I spoke with judge Frye by phone. He tells me of the three cases in which he ordered COVID-19 vaccinations. None of the offenders said they had a religious or medical objection. He said, this is him doing his part to inch, the community, closer to herd immunity.

Speaker 1: 59:13

Nobody asked the judge to do that. He's not in an elective, legislature, legislator. He's not an elected executive. He's a judge. He's supposed to impose the sentence that the parties agree upon. That's mandated under the law. Well, you know this judge, what does he want them to go get a vasectomy to do? Do you want people to just go, what else do you want? You want him to lose 40 pounds? Hey, Hey, Hey, you go lose 40 pounds over there. Report back when you've done that, stop eating so much. McDonald's tell me when your diet has changed. Bring me back. You know, all of these different things that this judge is just going to start mandating it to people. The whole thing is so disgusting. And this judge is like, well, I'm just doing my part for good old herd immunity out there. Man. Look, these people in this position, defendants in this position, you don't understand exactly what a power differential there is here. Okay? This person, you know, that, that man right there is literally in an instant, in an environment that he, he doesn't know what to do. The judge is, is actually physically sitting at a higher position, looking down a peep on people because that's how much power they've got. And just to sort of say, Hey, it's five years, or I can do reduce this down to one. If you go get the vaccine, most people are going to just say, oh, okay, fine. I have no idea what you're talking about. I guess I have to do this year. The judge, I don't know any better. And you're probably going to get a bunch of defense attorneys, you know, who knows what, what that defense attorney, what their perspective was, but they just said, okay. Yeah. I mean, if you want, you know, we agreed to three, three years probation. If you want one, the judge is going to get that to you. You give that to you. I'm looking at the plea deal. It says three months in there. Uh, if the judge imposes the, the five months and there's no discretion in the plea, well then he's not accepting the plea. You know, we have a, we have a right to withdraw from the plea, pull that back out again and say, Hey, you know, court of appeals, this is what the court is doing. This is totally reprehensible. And so you can go through that whole thing if you want, which is a big, you know, big, long process and you end up anchoring everybody. And it turns into this long fight or he just says, oh, I was getting three years. Well, uh, uh, I guess I'll take the one and I'll go get the shot. Right? Everybody does that. And, and meanwhile, these people, you know, a certain part of their autonomy is being stripped away from them because this judge is now exercising his leverage over their lives, their health and their futures. And I just think it is so unethical. It's a problem. Now my question was because I like to poke the bear a little bit on this thing is why, right? Why was there only three requirements for the vaccine? I'm curious, you know, is there, let's say a little discrimination going on here. Something like that might be curious to ask this white judge about why only three out of the 20 are getting vaccinated. Maybe we can use their own, you know, racism every time everybody screams everything's racist. Maybe we'll play that stupid game here and say, oh great article. I posted on Twitter. Any similarities between the three defendants that were ordered to be Vaxxed? Any similarities? Why those three out of the 20? Or is it, was it a racial thing? Was it a gender thing? Was it based on the crime? Was it based on their status, their immigration status? Was it based on their things like sexual orientation or did they have lawyers? Did they have a bunch of public defenders? Why did the judge give three out of the 20, the order to get the vaccines white? Right. And if this judge wants to, you know, wants to play this ridiculous game, well, we can ask those same questions too. Right? I think there's dumb questions, but we can ask. So, okay. Now let's go through here. And what else did I, was there something I wanted to say about this? Can't remember what that was. Let's see who judge Richard Fry is. That's what this guy is. He says, uh, he was elected to the Franklin county court of common pleas, November, 2004, reelected 2010, also in 2016 before taking the bench, he was in private practice for over 30 years. So he's a fellow at the American college of trial. Lawyers serves on a independence committee member of the American board of trial advocates, life member of the sixth circuit. Let's see chairs, the civil rules committee of Ohio Supreme court commission. Huh? So he's on a committee with the Supreme court, uh, let's see rules and practice chair of evidence rules, Ohio judicial civil law procedure committee for nine years. He was a member of an advisory committee, uh, Columbus. So this guy absolutely knows better, right? He's been around for a long time. He chaired the judges committee that oversaw the design of a new courthouse awards. He got another award distinguished jurist award. So he's been around forever and he knows better than this. He also, apparently livestreams here wasn't live when I took the screenshot earlier today. But, uh, he, his term expires on January 20, uh, January, 2023. So he'll be there for some period of time, which means he can do a lot more of these COVID mandates in his courtroom. Now, uh, as we heard previously, he told them that none of the people there, you know, they had religious or medical objection. So, uh, we, we heard from Latham saying that he's worried that the judge is gonna give him max time, right? Knows about his reputation. So maybe he's been in the courtroom before, which is another reason, right? Maybe this judge is only giving it to people with the priors, for example. And he says, well, you're in the, in the jails all the time. So I'm going to make sure you're, you're, uh, mandated that you get a vaccine because you're going to be in there with other inmates. And you're going to see a huge portion of this country that says, well, that makes sense. I guess we just have to give them their shots before we say a new to them. So that's going to be something that we have to continue to see from, uh, from certain people who are the pro pro pro pro you know, lunacy, vaxxers out there. Latham told the news that his attorney struck a deal for three years. But when they got in front of the judge, Nope, terms had changed. I have changed the terms pre I don't alter them any further. And they went from five years down to one year on condition that he receives. He says, I'm shaking. I don't like where this is going. I feel like it is an overstep. When they asked me, I really don't want to get it. So far, Latham has not received the vaccine. He plans to contact the HCLU, which he absolutely should for. I told the news that he does not yet know what he will do. If any of the offenders, uh, sorry. This is the judge. Judge Frye told the news that he does not yet know what he will do. If any of these offenders refuse the vaccine, the defendant said, that's like picking up trash. I know I'm in your courtroom and you have the absolute CESA over things, but I'm like, ah, that's my health. Yeah, no kidding. Neither the attorney general, nor the Franklin county prosecutor wanted to comment on the matter. Can you, do you understand that? Right? Nobody wants to talk about it. Why? Because this is so unethical. Let me show you how, how unethical this is in my opinion, right? I'm not an ethics, uh, uh, a judicial, uh, I'm not on the board of judicial ethics there in Ohio, unfortunately, but it would be something that I would find would be very problematic. Why? Because we can look at the rules. Here are the rules from the Ohio judicial code of conduct, the cannons of judicial conduct rule 2.4 says that external influences on judicial conduct, not good. A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. Okay. So if a bunch of people are screaming about vaccines, you don't get to be swayed by that. Be a judge, shall not permit family, social or political or other interests to influence the judges judicial conduct or their judgment right there. Okay. So what is that about? What is the vaccine about what kind of influences that, is it in the statutes in Ohio? I'm guessing not, I'm guessing that man with a gun and drug charge, didn't, didn't say in there, uh, you also get probation plus this list of vaccines that you have to go take, probably not in there. So this judge is just doing it on his own. And the rules say that this judge shall not permit social political or other interests to influence the judge's conduct or judgment. Well, too late for that violation of rule 2.4 B. All right. Let's see. See what else? A different rule violation rule 2.3. How about this bias? Prejudice and harassment sounds like maybe he's got a little bit of a bias doesn't he and the judge shall perform the duties of his office without bias. So it sounds like to me, he's sort of biased against people who don't want to get the vaccine. Doesn't it? Because if you get it, you get one year probation. If you don't get it, you get five years probation. This judge is not a doctor. He doesn't know. He doesn't have any experience with, with the administration of vaccine on a national scale. He gave it to three out of 20 people. I'm curious as to why that is, but my next question feels pretty biased. Doesn't it? Subsection B a judge shall not in the performance of their duties, by words, or conduct manifest bias or prejudice or engage in any other harassment or anything based on any of these statuses. So we've got race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation. And nobody can influence anybody on those bases. So what you've got now, right? While you don't, you don't really have in there something that says healthcare, but just should. And I think it falls within the political affiliation or disability or socioeconomic status or any other bases, right? Your health is very important. And this judge is saying that ma'am you just got to go follow doctor's orders, judges orders over here. Now I found this over from the ACLU. If you're not happy with that, judge, the ACLU can be good for things from time to time. If you go over to the ACLU, Ohio, they will tell you how to file a complaint against a judge in Ohio. So if you happen to live in Ohio and you don't like that, maybe you can go check that out, right? Uh, can't do it anonymously. I'm not encouraging you to go file a complaint. I'm just saying it is available, right? We're not gonna, I'm going to play the, the, uh, the pitchforks things officially. But if you are outraged as I am and you live in Ohio and you don't like that, judge, and maybe you have something to say about it, there's a good convenient website where you can do that. So might want to take a look over there. All right. Let's take a look@somemorequestionscominginoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And I'm going to see now if I can, uh, finagle these around. So we've got the judge on the COVID. Yes. Okay. So here we go. Let's see what we've got, uh, had that one already answered that one. Okay. So I apologize. Let's see what else we have. Okay. So I'm gonna get, you're better at this. This is day one. We're going to just figure this out. I'm scrolling through all the different questions. Look at all these questions coming in. So 34 questions, the one six narrative is a, is one question we have see the veil who says, so what are the chances that Deloitte has a lobbyist pushing the prosecutors? So that's an old, that's a, that's a different segment. Okay. So let's do that. Yes, I think is, is really what I want to do. I can't do that. Can I? So I'm trying to figure out how I can sort of swap on over to two different questions on different topics. So like right there, there we go. There is a vaccine question from Sharon. Courtney says, so it's an outrage for a judge to order you to take it vaccine. Why not? Before Obamacare, the government never had the power to make you buy something. Now they do. That's a great point, Sharon. Right? So what she's talking about is back during the Obama administration, when they passed Obamacare, it went up to the Supreme court. And one of the major arguments against Obamacare ever going into effect was that the federal government, at this point was making you buy something. You actually had to go out and affirmatively buy something. You don't have healthcare, you have to go buy it. And if you don't, there's going to be a penalty. It's that individual mandate, which was a big part of a lot of the controversy surrounding that. And rightfully so, and the Supreme court came out and said, well, yeah, we can, thank you, John Roberts can make you buy something on the basis that this is just a tax. The government has plenty of taxation authority. And so now what we can do is sort of carry that over into healthcare and you actually have to go out and affirmatively buy it. So what Sharon is just saying is, oh, well, that's okay. So that means that all we need to do is, uh, just, just sort of extend that right in criminal law. If the courts can say, you have to go buy healthcare, we can also just say, well, if you happen to be in custody, that's perfect. We're just gonna give you the jab there as well. We've got be brave here, says, uh, in my opinion, judges, ordering defendants to take experimental medical procedure is no different than employers mandating it. Employer is not a doctor, either. It can devastate your life or it's the same as a court order. There's a choice in both both situations or is there both, or a crime against humanity that is the hill that I will die on. That's over from it. Be brave yet. You know, it's a, it's an interesting argument. And I'm curious where all of the, you know, the, my body, my choice, people are on the vaccine stuff. They seem to be pretty quiet. Uh, let's see, here we have, uh, want to know, says I would bring in a pastor, that's a doctor. So that would sort of bring in a little bit of a religious component as well. We have, oh, sock says, Rob, why is the government? And the schools pushing so hard for the vaccine. We have had more serious illness. Like the flu with no mandates is part of the plan to force them. I don't, you know, I don't, I don't, I don't know that there's any real, the various, uh, activity that there's evidence for other than maybe, uh, uh, motive or something like that. Right. But there's a strong push. I think that they're just certification for, it would be that they are wanting to make sure that we don't have to lock down again and that we don't have another round of deaths, I would say, right. If you're, if you're going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt, all right. We also have three girlies is here, says Franklin county is where Columbus is located. I live in Ohio. How Franklin goes, the rest of Ohio goes. So I'm glad that you highlighted this story. This story is so unbelievably messed up. So what's the likelihood that this judge could be held responsible if he mandated this and the person died because of the vaccine. So I would, I would absolutely. Julie, you know, if you were in that position, let's say any position, right? If you're somebody who is ordered to take the vaccine and you went and got it, and you have any side effects at all, right. I think that you would be talking to a civil lawyer who is very well-versed in filing a notice of claim against the local government in Ohio. That would be, uh, not my legal advice, but it would be kind of a common sense suggestion if that happened, right? Because now you've got some pretty clear state action that is mandating. You go do something that, in my opinion is well outside of the purview of that judge has lawful authority. And that judge by doing so is acting grossly negligent, which would open up the government to massive amounts of liability. And you can basically tie, you know, any side effect of COVID of a vaccine, even if anything, right back to harm and damages. And I'm sure an attorney would have a field day with that. So, uh, I would say that that is exactly why the attorney General's office and the prosecutor's office are like, we don't, did you see what, what the article said? It didn't say that we have no comment or that they did not respond to a request for comment. It was, we don't want to comment on that story. Don't ask us about it again. We don't want to talk about it because they know this is a problem. And so this judge now is going to be, you already heard him backpedaling a little bit saying, uh, well, they don't have any objections to it. No medical objections, no objections. So if they did, then I wouldn't have ordered it. Yikes. Right? Because now we're talking about constitutional problems. So what would happen, I think is this judge, you know, if, if enough people complain, he'll probably get a slap on the wrist, right. He's been around for 30 years, been elected multiple times probably gets a sanction or something like that. Probably not. The system is pretty good about protecting itself. This judge is sort of on the right side of the woke issue here. This judge is doing things to help save America from the, the, the, the plague that is happening. And so, you know, he'll, he'll sort of get a slap on the wrist like everybody else does. Very good question. Good to see you three girlies, uh, a couple others coming in, we've got the sheriff Quinny says on the rules of judicial conduct on not being influenced by external forces police look at what happened to show that. Yeah, I know. I know, but you know, to be well, to be fair, I think that, uh, judge Cahill in the Shovan trial, I, you know, I, I honestly think he ran a pretty fair trial, I would say. Uh, I know that, um, that whole thing, let's see, we've got Jeremy MITRE to hear a couple more says, Rob, with all the recent examples of selective prosecution, generally speaking, is the law. Just a suggestion. There seems to be selective prosecution and varying punishment. So the law is a fickle beast. You know what the law is, it's very, uh, right. And we say this all the time that you can pick a law and make an argument either way and have a good argument either way on almost any case. So in law school, the answer that they give us, the answer they tell you is the correct answer to any legal question is it depends because you can just take an issue. You can say, you know, uh, was that search lawful or unlawful, and you could give somebody a set of facts and you could give them the same set of conduct and you could give the, the, the exam to a defense lawyer and he would write a million defenses. You could give it to a prosecutor, they'd write a million prosecutions and you'd probably give it to a regular person. And they would go, ah, man, there's a, there's a pretty great arguments, right. I don't really know. And you're all talking about the same set of facts. And so in my opinion, yes, you can easily weaponize the law there. No, there's no question about that. And it happens very regularly. We see it often that it is used to manage over certain political outcomes. Right? The criminal law is typically responsive to some bureaucrats policy goals. Yeah. And it's, it, it just kind of depends right. On what it is in an eighties and nineties, it was all drug crimes. Now it's all gun violence. And so it just, it just changes. We're going to see domestic terrorism come back into play and the list goes on and on. And so as different bureaucrats get up there in the department of justice, they just kind of changed their focus. Right? At one point it was marijuana. They were probably getting, you know, a bunch of, uh, pushback from the alcohol lobbyists to say, go criminalize marijuana. Marijuana is a gateway drug, right? All these campaigns. And so, you know, somebody's following them, follow the money wherever you want to follow it. But criminal law, IRS law regulate regulatory law is all sort of imposed largely I think, to maneuver, maneuver and manipulate society's actions more so than it is to sort of, you know, prevent crime and stop harm. Right. And why, why are cops right? Why, why have we been sending people to prison for marijuana violations for 30 years for safety in America? Have you ever seen somebody who smokes marijuana? All right. It's not about that. It's about control. It's about, about using the levers of power to enact social policies. And so when you get a different bureaucrat in there who wants to exercise a little bit more controlled domestically? Well, it's domestic terrorism. They don't like guns around anymore. Oh, it's gun violence. Right? Good question, Jeremy. All right. A couple more. We got two more coming in. We've got, oh, SOC says, could this be a sixth amendment issue for the, uh, yeah. I, you know, I, I don't know that you'd get a court to agree that a COVID vaccine is cruel and unusual punishment, but sort of the forcing of a mandatory shot in and of itself, I think would be right. And if you go, uh, I saw, I posted this on Twitter last night and somebody had a great comment. They said, well, this is kind of a violation of the Nuremberg code because of it. And if you look up the Nuremberg code, it actually says the first bullet point is about this being a, uh, you know, any sort of experimental treatment needs to be done with the voluntary consent of the person receiving the treatment. So in this case, the defendant, the question is, does he have voluntary consent? Is he having this conversation with the judge saying, oh yeah, this is totally voluntary. I I'm giving you my consent without any coercion without any duress. Does anybody believe that for a second? No. The judge is literally threatening him with a more severe penalty. If he doesn't do something, it is perfect coercion. It is absolutely duress. This judge is taking advantage of his position at the expense of some other people and their health and their wellbeing and their futures. It is so, so reprehensible. And we'll see if anything goes, goes forward with that. All right. Last one on this segment looks like it is a no, that was it for the last segment. And then we're going to switch on over to the final segment of the day. So those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Once again, thank you for all your support over there. And before we sign off quick reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney, and I don't mean to sign off on the show, sign off on this segment before we got one more segment. But before we get there, quick reminder, I'm a criminal defense lawyer over here at the RNR lager. We have an amazing team of people here. We love to help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases. And beyond that in their lives, we offer free case evaluations. You go to our website, you can click there to call or click here to schedule online. Can also just point your phone right down here at this QR code. And it will take you there or call us at(480) 787-0394 or visit us online at[inaudible] dot com. We really, really would appreciate your referrals and your support here. And we, uh, we love the work that we do. We get great results. And we look forward to speaking with you soon. If you don't need any legal representation, then that's all right. That's a good thing. May also want to take a look though at my informational offerings, I have some different products over here at gumroad.com/robert ruler, including the two and a half hour training called law enforcement interaction training. And it is the details of the 1, 2, 3 rule. The one rule that you need to know for dealing with police in any type of interaction, doesn't matter where you are. You just need one rule, and there are two different questions, which is the two parts that the police can't ask you that you have to answer. And if they ask you a question that is not one of those two, well, then we're going to give you three responses that you can use to protect yourself, to make sure that the police don't sort of extract from you what they're trying to extract. And so that's all available. It's two and a half hours, but you can get through it in an hour and a half. And there is just a cheat sheet. If you just want the rule, you can get that immediately without having to sit through anything. So check that out as well. And again, I appreciate all of your support. Okay? So our last segment of the day it's Friday, I know this, this one's, uh, this segment's going to be, uh, you know, it's going to be what it is, but it is Friday. And it's a little bit fun. A former federal prosecutor was out on Tucker Carlson show yesterday, slam dunking, very excited about the fact that Michael Abinadi is going to prison for two and a half years. And she had, you know, a lot of kind of glee watching Abinadi fall off of his roof, but she also had some very spicy comments that didn't really appreciate about all defense lawyers, criminal defense lawyers. This is a former federal prosecutor who is now sort of, you know, laughing, Ong along at the other side and myself being a criminal defense attorney. Don't think I can let that stand quite as it is. Let's take a look at who I'm talking about. Of course, this is Francy hockey's or Hakes H a K E S. And she's on Tucker's show yesterday talking about Michael Ave, naughty, as we know, he's going to prison for two and a half years for the Nike extortion deal. And then he's also going to California. His trial starts next week on July 13th. And so everybody wants to talk about this. Tucker Carlson had long time called, uh, Michael Abinadi, the creepy porn lawyer, and even did so right to his face. And so these two had a nice long running feud. So as soon as Michael Abinadi fell off the roof, then Tucker Carlson brings on somebody who just doesn't like defense attorneys all that much. And let's see what she has to say about this before we dig in a little bit further. Yeah.

Speaker 4: 1:22:42

You know, Tucker, he certainly had that defense attorney bluster that incredible arrogance that used to drive me so crazy across the courtroom when they were performing really for an audience of one their own client and never for the jury and never for the judge, he was really just like a normal criminal defense attorney to me. But today in court, he certainly didn't that arrogance as he was apparently sobbing with regret. And I just have to say, that's one of the things that used to drive me the most crazy as a prosecutor was watching the defendant next to me, cry and sob, because where was that emotion? Where was that regret when they were victimizing their victims? And here you had, he had an extortion steam scheme. I felt like, I feel sorry for the shoe company. But the point is that he's got an extortion scheme to extort a shoe company. He's paying the price. Now he's going to prison for less than the federal sentencing guidelines recommended by the way, which was nine years, but still I'm not at all surprised that he had such a rise and such a meteoric fall.

Speaker 1: 1:23:47

Can you believe that that woman, former federal prosecutor out there Francy heck hacks, hickeys, Francy, hacks out there calling all defense attorneys, typical defense attorneys saying that we're just full of bluster and incredible arrogance, which is true. I mean, when you're the best in the world, you've got to let everybody know about that when you're way better than prosecutors and you crush them all the time, you've got to tell them obviously, but I'm still offended that she would actually say that on national television and belittle all defense attorneys out there who do a good job out there representing American freedom and their clients in the court of law fighting for justice day in and day out. And this woman here is belittling us. I will not let that stand my friends. And as you know, we've been on this channel for some time, we've talked about a lot of prosecutors and quite frankly, we've talked about some defense attorneys as well. We just got finished analyzing Eric Nelson for some time. Did you see him with a lot of bluster or incredible arrogance? And I don't think so. I don't think so. But in fact, I do think that we've seen a lot more of those terms, a lot more of those characteristics from prosecutors, not so much of defense attorneys, and you may recall some of them, we're going to go through six of them that we've talked about here on this channel. And we're going to see if we can identify any bluster or any incredible arrogance from, uh, from some of these people. And of course, since we're going to go through six of them, I want to make sure that we keep these organized. And because we're talking about prosecutors and people, you know, district attorneys, people who are a part of law enforcement and prosecuting crimes, I want to use a format that they're familiar with and we're going to organize it. Well, just like a lineup, it's actually going to look just like this. So we've got a lineup here and what we're going to do is just go through all of the different prosecutors. And we're just going to pay close attention to those two characteristics, right. Bluster and incredible arrogance. And we're going to see if we can sort of just read it from their face because, you know, you can just see it on a person's face. And it's really easy to read, you know, some people call it like, you know, R B F right. Resting face. Right. And so things like that, and what she's talking about are a lot of these sort of, you know, superficial characteristics about arrogance and bluster. And, and, you know, we're not gonna play videos of all of these people, but you can just kind of see it from their face. So let's go back to the lineup. Let's go through all six of them. And then of course, I forgot to mention, I want to hear from you in the chat, uh, we're not gonna do a, uh, a poll or anything, but I just want to, we'll, we'll throw some numbers in here. Give me a number one through six, which one of these people has the most bluster and the most incredible arrogance. So this'll be a little bit fun, little Friday activity for us here. Let's take a look at number one, who is our first prosecutor here. She is, of course, it's Francy. Hacky is Hakes the same woman who we've already heard from. So we got us, she's kind of the, the, uh, the measuring stick, right? The baseline parameter. Let's see if we can analyze any bluster or arrogance here. And honestly, my friends, I kind of just see it. Right. You know, I just see it right in the face in general, uh, you see this sort of parts, uh, parted lips here. What that shows to me is sort of like just kind of a dripping disdain for defense attorneys and for defendants in general, just kind of like, I can't even like, like, like I just can't even believe we're here. Like, even, even with these people, like defendants and defense attorneys. So, I mean, to me that's a little bit bluster right there. I can kind of see it kind of the squinty eyes too. Right. It's it's one of these faces like we're I can't even doing here defendants criminals. No. So I would say I would give that like a level eight on bluster and probably a level eight on credible arrogance as well. Who else do we have next? Let's see who number two is, let's go over and we have, uh, Lisa Monaco. Oh, Lisa Monaco. Yeah. She's the assistant attorney general here in the U S government. Of course, the department of justice. She is Merrick Garland's number two. Let's do a quick analysis on the, uh, the bluster and the incredible arrogance look that she's got going on. And, you know, quite frankly, I don't think she's quite up there. Uh, as far yet, I would give her maybe a five on both scales. Uh, the bluster scale. I think it's hard to glean from this picture. She is sort of looking towards somebody this direction and a little bit of bluster, a little bit, a little bit of arrogance there, but honestly, Lisa Monaco is brand new, right? So that's why I'm going to go with fives. She's only been here for about six months and a lot of the, the sort of the leftovers are being given to her from Merrick Garland. And so she's got six months of duty under her belt. So I think that most prosecutors sort of in order to get the job, you gotta be at a level four or five or six, at least for, um, for, for most prosecutors, for most positions of bluster and arrogance. And she's not, she's not quite there yet. Right. She's she's, I would say at a five so she can get the job, but I would, I would venture to guess a year from now bluster and arrogance level go up after she's got some more time in there at the department of justice. All right. So who else do we have? So, you know, I'm actually okay with Lisa Monaco here, but who else do we have? We've got number three. Let's see who this one is. This is, uh, oh yes, this is Cyrus Vance. Yeah. Cyrus Vance. This is the guy Manhattan district attorney. And so you can see that the bluster and the arrogance scale, this goes a, it crosses genders, my friends because women and men, and we're going to see here across is, uh, you know, racial boundaries as well here in a second. But this is side Vance. This is a very, very arrogant and blustery, uh, district attorney. He is really the da in Manhattan and he is prosecuting Donald Trump. And so you can see here that we've got some, a level eight, definitely a level eight bluster and arrogance, for sure. Maybe a nine on the arrogance. You can see the arrogance just sort of percolating right out of here or the corner of the lips and the, the pursed lips there, as well as the up upward looking eyeballs, sort of looking up under your brow, right. When you do one of these things, kind of looking up like that, right. That's arrogance, that's condescension right there, folks. And you'll also notice that he's turning his head a little bit. So he's probably walking into a courtroom building right there. And somebody said to him, uh, excuse me, sir. And he goes, he looked, what did you say to me, peasant? Right. Lee's looking that way over there, kind of over his shoulder. How dare you ask me a question. So I would give that an eight or a nine solid on the condescension and the bluster scale, the arrogance, the incredible arrogance scale. So let's see, who else do we have here? Uh, we've got number three. So that was Cyrus Vance. That's the Manhattan Trump da. And of course they're prosecuting Weisselberg and, uh, and the Trump organization. And so they've been doing that for a long time. So he's, he's, he's pretty high up there. The, um, again, and remember, we're going to, we're going to want your opinion on this. Once we get through all six, I would like to hear from you, which one is maximum now. And don't, don't take my, my scale for it. All right. Who else do we have? Number four. Let's see. Who else is coming up? Uh, we've got number four is a, this is, oh, it's Latisha. James Latisha. James. Yeah. Also from New York. So these two are compatriots little compadres over there in New York. We have cite Vance who is prosecuting Trump and then Leticia James over there, of course is also prosecuting Trump. She's the New York attorney general Latisha James, uh, also was the person who never charged and decided not to prosecute the officers who murdered, in my opinion, Daniel prude, Daniel prude, who has had the one officer from Rochester, do the plank on the side of his neck and actually just sort of plank on him for about two minutes. And then he had everything in his head, neck, and everything collapsed. He died later at the hospital, Latisha, James decided not to charge them. So, uh, so those officers are gonna get scot-free also, didn't hear much about that 14 year old. I know. What was that? A nine year old, 14 year old, nine year old who got pepper sprayed also by the Rochester police, also the Leticia James category there. So, you know, I, you know, I would, I would give her a higher rating on the bluster and the arrogance scale, but you take a look at this face and you can just see that right there. Again, we don't have open lips here. Okay. See open lips for these three. What we've got down here are close, flips my friends and look at this furrowed brow, this forehead up there. Right? We got some scrunchies going on up there and we have a face going. Hmm. Did you just ask me for a reduced sentence? Hmm. Take a note of that. That's incredible arrogance friends that is bluster because remember prosecutors are supposed to be people who are doing justice, not just getting convictions and so that you can clearly see their right, uh, is, is absolute arrogance and bluster. Who else do we have? Number five. We've got kick it. There she is. It's Kim Gardner Kim Gardner of course, is over from Missouri. She prosecuted the McCloskey is who they took a plea deal. We've talked a lot about her as well. And so you can see in, in, in this portrait here, she's given the look of disbelief. She is somebody just challenged her to something and we've got some sort of, uh, extended, uh, openings in the eyeballs, sort of, you know, going, Hmm, oh, you're going to prison for the rest of your life. I can't believe you just asked me that. Well, I'm going to go back there to my office and I'm going to make a plea deal. And it's going from five years to 50 years. And, uh, how do you like that? Cause I'm the prosecutor I look at that face right there. See that one? Yeah. It's yeah, it's pretty. Yeah. It's pretty high up there. I don't know what number I'd give it, but I'll leave that to you pretty high. And then my friends, for those of you, who've been around the channel for some time. We may, I think I know which person's going to get this one. I'm wondering if maybe you know who this one is. Of course we've got one of the most, one of the most prosecutor prosecutors that we've had so far on this channel, of course, we're talking about number six is Tom binger of the written house case. So we have Thomas binger who is prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse. And look at that face right there. My friends that might be a level, a level 10 arrogance, a level 10, incredible arrogance. And that's just bluster right there. He is shot in that image because I think that the judge maybe told him to stop calling the other person a victim when that hasn't been decided yet. And so Mr. Binger has been a difficult prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case, certainly. And he sort of makes it a big, it's just big moral, moral fight for him. Whereas it should be about prosecuting crimes in the interest of justice. Of course, Rittenhouse his cases is very clearly self-defense. And so he shouldn't be prosecuted in the first place, but Tom is binger is out there and he is prosecuting them. So let's take a look, my friends, which one, we're going to take a look at the chat here in a second. Which one do you think is, uh, it wins the incredible arrogance and the bluster awards. Let's take a look and see if, uh, if there are any thoughts over there going to see if I can pull this chat up a little bit and see what's going on over there. We have a winner. Number five, we have somebody saying, uh, let's see, Kim Gardner is at a tie. Leticia wins. Farmer's daughter says Leticia wins in my book. She looks downright contemptuous. We have, uh, Kim gardener, so wants to know, says it's Kyle written houses, a prosecutor. The binger prosecutor wants to know says, yeah, number six, for sure. Farmer's daughter says, I still think number four is worse. That was Latisha James three girls. He says Cy Vance is quite up there, but Leticia only beats him by a half point. Uh, let's see. Want to know we've got number six, judge Clark judge, which is the COVID judge of course is also in there. And so, you know, it's actually a little bit more scattered than I would've thought. Uh, Jeremy says number five, the head tilt is, is the one that did it. So that was number five was Kim Gardner in here. And so it, you know, it's actually a little bit more scattered than I thought it would be. It's not as unanimous as I might've thought, but I thought for sure it was Thomas binger. So my friends that was it for the day. You know, anytime that somebody is going to start, uh, start some stuff with some defense attorneys, we have to respond, unfortunately. And, uh, and, and so we're going to do that. I think defense attorneys are doing good work out there. And so to my fellow defense attorneys out there keep fighting the good fight, my friends, and don't let these arrogant condescending prosecutors get away with this stuff, right. We're going to, we're going to continue to call them out. And, uh, and I want to thank all of you who played that little ridiculous game on our find a Friday afternoon and great comments and questions over from the chat. Let's see. What else, if there's any other questions before we wrap up on outta here, we've got a couple more coming in. Let's see. Uh, the Rood prosecutor says a be brave says that she was pretty unfair to defense attorneys. Yeah. So that was probably coming in from a, on one of them. I'm not sure which one you were talking about. There. We have, Brian hacks says I don't like any attorney in general, but does say you're all right though. Uh, why the change in the show organization also, would you be able to maybe record your ending and attach that to each segment instead of doing it three times, wishing you the best don't think attorney should be thrown out of the country and never let back in. That's from Brian, Brian. Good to see you, Brian. Uh, I'm not sure I could probably do a recording. Would it be better for me to do a recording rather than mutter my way through my little spiel, my little commercial, I could do a recording. You know, I could do it and probably make it way better. Uh, I guess I could do that. Yeah. Uh, let's see. Thunder seven says I agree with what the prosecutor said. Not all defense attorneys are arrogant, but Abinadi was so arrogant that he committed crimes and holier than now. Johnny Cochran is the number one bluster, but a great lawyer. May he rest in peace? You got, you have to be a blusterer. You have to be a little bit arrogant to be a good trial lawyer. I mean, there's some truth to that, you know, I like to poke fun at her, but she's not, she's not right. Not wrong. Right. Uh, let's see. No Abinadi fan from Sharon Quinn and he says, but disparaging defense lawyers, but Hey, she's a fed, right? So probably a Democrat. So yeah, you get what you can expect probably going to get indicted for this segment. So thank you for all of your support over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Cause I just angered six prosecutors. Oh, sock says, Rob, I can't believe the response from this person. And I agree with it to say, defense attorneys have an ego or are sure of themselves, or is something I do not want or need. And a lawyer. The mere thought that my defense lawyer could win my case just goes to show the times that we live in God from Osaka. Uh, that's great. Want to know, says Rob is surprised at prosecutors. Don't like defense attorneys that make them do their job correctly. That's what a defense attorney really. I'm sure some police don't like defense attorneys making them do their job correctly to part of the checks and balances of the system have the best judicial and medical system. You can buy just need a million bucks to get fair legal representation. Not that much, but I understand your points. We've got a couple of questions. Miss lucky is here, says Latisha James from New York is a clear winner of the illegitimate president grimace. Right? Ms. Lucky's exactly right. Leticia James is, is definitely up there because her she's very facially. Right. Remember when she said, we're going to, we're going to get rid of that illegitimate president and you, and she was just going hog-wild with that thing. It makes me laugh. I know, I know it's mean I'm not supposed to be mean on this show. My mom is going to not be mad at me about this show. Robbie, stop being so mean. All right, I'm going to stop mom. But I, you know, I, I can't, if they, if they talk garbage, then we have to, we have to respond. We have to all right. That one Florida man says, oh, I forgot about that guy. Eric Holder, from that one, Florida man. That's a good one to Obama's wing, man. He's certainly up there. And then our last one of the day comes from a sharing Quinny poll hard. One number three is bad, which was number three with sirens, Vance, number four vans. No doubt about it. But number four, all time high goes to IRA Reiner of the McMartin trial, which I'm not familiar with that prosecutor actually, Sharon Quinny, which is, uh, another great, uh, another great comment. So all of those questions, of course all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we really appreciate your support over there. And I am a one more time. I'm going to remind you that I am a criminal defense attorney over here are in our law group. Our phone number is(480) 787-0394. Online at our law, easy.com. And as you know, we are very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and beyond that in their lives. So we really love to help people with things like DUIs, drug offenses, domestic violence, any in any time, anytime you're in charge in trouble with the law or charged with a crime, we can help. We are quite experienced. We've got a great team of people here. We practice all over the state of Arizona. We offer free case evaluations and we would love the opportunity to work with us. So just give us a call. We'll get something scheduled and see what we can do to help. And if you don't need any help in a court of law, that's a good thing, but you may want to check out some of my informational offerings over at gumroad.com/robert ruler available now for your, uh, purchase. If you want to check it out, I would encourage you to check out my law enforcement interaction training, which tells you about the 1, 2, 3 rule for dealing with the police. And if you're a lawyer or a legal professional, you want to hang out with some other attorneys and talk about advocacy and business and, uh, YouTube and using sort of, you know, some media in order to grow your practice and have fun also while you're becoming a better advocate for your clients and actually moving the needle forward in your practice area, that's the place to do it. We're having a good time over there and we've got a call next week. So check all of that out. And I want to remind you before we get out of here, that if you are not already a over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, you can go on over there. There's a lot of good stuff. We have a free copy of my book over there, as well as the live chat is happening down there. The form where you can ask questions for the show is over there. And there's a lot of activity taking place. And we also have a monthly locals meetup. That's going to be happening via zoom, uh, at watching the watchers.locals.com on Saturday, July 24th, 2021 7:00 PM. It's a lot of fun. Last time we had about just, just under about 40 people over there. And we got to sort of meet with each other and, and, and, you know, see, put names to faces and it's a lot of fun. And so I'm thinking about sort of creating a directory for our community over at locals, where we can support each other's, you know, content platforms or, uh, even our businesses and things like that, you know, later down, down, down the road. And so that's what we're trying to do, build a community. And we appreciate your support@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and that my friends is it from me for the week. I want to thank you so much for being here and for accommodating me on some of the, uh, technological maneuverings that we are making adjustments on. I mentioned at the start of the show that many of you have reached out to me and I'm sincerely appreciative of it. I'm still sort of going through some emails and trying to figure out how I can integrate this thing. So I can remove some of the moving parts out a little bit practicing, and the show is being refined and modified. Yeah. You know, I, I appreciate all your, uh, support along the way. It really does mean a lot to me. So that's it for me, everybody do your best to unplug politics this week. Have a nice long restful weekend. Get outside. If you can, a little bit, I know I'm going to try to, because we've got a lot to get into next week and we're going to be back here, ready to rock and roll full steam ahead. So have a tremendous evening, have a tremendous week and I will see you right back here next week. Same time, same place 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast. And for that one Florida man out there, everybody. Yeah. Be well, have a great weekend. I'll see you right back here on Monday. Bye bye.