Biden Pressured on Cuba, Fourth Circuit 2A Firearms Victory, Dominic Pezzola Bail Motion

Cuban people are speaking out demanding action from the Biden administration to assist them in their protests both home and abroad. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals finds in favor of the Second Amendment for people under Age 21. Dominic Pezzola, a January 6th Capitol Hill Defendant, filed a new motion for bond seeking to get out of horrible DC jail conditions.​

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

🔵 Tension continues to rise in Cuba, as protestors take to the streets in the United States to call for action from the Biden Administration.​
🔵 Cuban Communist part issues an “Order of Combat” commanding communist loyalists to fight in the street.​
🔵 Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel called for supporters to hit the streets.​
🔵 Meanwhile in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary tells Cuban political refugees not to come to the United States.​
🔵 White House Press Secretary Jenn Psaki refuses to call the protests a response to communism and instead refers to mismanagement.​
🔵 Cuban protestors block traffic in Florida calling on Biden to act.​
🔵 Miami Mayor Suarez calls on military intervention while Marco Rubio warns of Russian assets landing on Cuban shores.​
🔵 The Assembly of the Cuban resistant published a 5-point plan on Sunday for resolving the conflict.​
🔵 Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rules in favor of Second Amendment rights for 18- to 20-year-old.​
🔵 Judge Richardson, a President Donald Trump appointee, held that a longstanding ban on the sales of handheld firearms to people under 21 is unconstitutional.​
🔵 Who is Judge Julius N. Richardson and where is the Fourth Circuit?​
🔵 Review of the opinion in Hirschfeld & Marshall vs. ATF and the U.S. Government.​
🔵 Dominic Pezzola is a defendant charged with January 6th crimes who is still being held in custody.​
🔵 Review of the various federal criminal charges in Dominic Pezzola aka Spaz’s case.​
🔵 Pezzola’s new counsel filed a motion seeking bond, and we review the court docket.​
🔵 Review of Defendant Pezzola’s Motion for Bail filed in the D.C. Federal Circuit Court.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​

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​

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I, over the course of many years, I've represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow. But sometimes I have a little bit of difficulty doing so of themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We are going to be revisiting the Cuba revolution. Something's happening down there. We talked a little bit about this on Monday when I showed you some of the photographs from my trip down to Cuba, and now it's looking like there are calls for actual military intervention from elected officials here in the United States. And so this thing is sort of escalated quickly. Didn't it from Monday where it was just some, some protest and maybe a little bit of a breadth of freedom happening down there. Now today we've actually have calls of a military intervention now. So this could actually be going somewhere profound or not. So we're going to take a look at what's going on in Cuba. We've got the Cuban leader. His name is Miguel Diaz canal. He actually put out there an order of combat sounds like something from the game of Thrones, but he said that, uh, if you're a communist, you got to get out there and fight for communism. So that's taking place down in Cuba. We've got the white house press secretary who is coming out here saying that this thing was all about mismanagement. Really didn't have anything to do with communism per se. We've got the Homeland security secretary guy by the name of[inaudible] is telling the Cuban refugees, the political refugees seeking asylum. Don't come sounds a lot like Kamala Harris when she went down to Guatemala and wagged her finger in their, their faces. So, uh, at least we've got some consistency. We have Miami mayor Suarez now even hinting at an airstrike or something like that. So we've got that clip and a lot of activity going on at a Cuba. So we're going to spend some time there. Then we're going to transition. We're going to come back domestically and go over to the fourth circuit because there was a ruling out today saying that people under the age of 21 have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. Very interesting opinion, who knows what's going to happen. It was only a two to one, a opinion. So it might go back to the full panel. We don't know. We also don't know what the Supreme court is going to do with this a pretty compelling ruling. If you are somebody who's a second amendment advocate, somebody who supports that concept of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms, uh, like I do. So we're going to go through that because the judge did something kind of fun. He actually went through a bunch of the different states, uh, pre constitution before the constitution was ratified. And he went through and he said, New York, this is what our policies are for people under the age of 21, as it relates to firearms. And so he's doing this little compare and contrast saying, well, you know, here, we're asking ourselves the question in 2021 second amendment rights, where do they stand? Let's go look back and see what the founders did for their 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds. And so it's a pretty interesting case. We can learn a couple things from that. And then lastly, we're going to finish off the show with segment on a guy named Dominic Pesce Zola. And I keep wanting to say a pestle, Pez, ALO, and all sorts of different names. So I'm probably going to butcher his last name, but his name officially is Dominic Penn, Zola, P E Z O L a. And he's a defendant that is being charged with crimes, of course, stemming from January six, from the Capitol hill riots, still in custody, like many others and still sort of being treated poorly. According to his attorneys, emitted emotion, a couple of days ago, that is asking for bail. I'll ask asking for bond. And they are describing some of the horrid conditions in the DC jails. And they did something also interesting in this motion, a good lawyering where they're going through and they're saying, Hey, why are these Capitol hill defendants still in custody? When Derek Shovan who murdered somebody was out on bond. When Kyle Rittenhouse who murdered or, you know, homicide killed people, he's out on bond. We have other officers who have shot and killed people. They're out on release and other people with similar crimes, they're all roaming free. So why not these Capitol hill defendants? And they do a nice little compare and contrast over there. So some good legal stuff that we got to get into today. If you have questions or comments, or you want to lob a criticism my direction, please feel free to do that head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com. We've got a live chat taking place right now. And so I want to show you what's going on with that. Let's give some shout outs in the chat over at locals. We've got Joe snow's here. We've got want to know, let's say hello to who else is here. John Delara is in the house, thunder seven and several others. And before I move forward, I want to remind you that because YouTube demonetized us locals is where we're building our sort of separate community. And there is a link to a form that looks like this. It's the watching the Watchers show questions or comments form. It's a private forum. There's a link over there. So if you have a question, go fill that form out and I will do my very best to answer it as we go through the show today. And once again, thank you for all of your support. Let's get into the news of the date, a lot of activity taking place in Cuba. If you've been with the show this week, you remember that we talked about this on Monday. I took you around a photographic journey of my trip down to Cuba, and we had a great time down there learning about the people and learning about the culture. And my takeaway from that trip was that there are a lot of capitalists down there, right? I showed you the experience with the car repair center. We went to various restaurants where these, uh, these, these Cuban people would actually sort of have to kind of, you know, bootleg a restaurant so that you'd have to kind of sneak in the back and they would serve you without the government really knowing because that's kind of capitalist. And so there's all these different little cultural lessons that I learned when I went down there. So I've been paying close attention to this, and we know that there were some protests that have sort of been percolating over the last few days. And we talked about this on Monday when the protest first broke, Joe Biden came out with the statement, said something like, well, you know, we support free people and democracy all around the world, whatever kind of thinking that this thing might just kind of go by the wayside. Well, that didn't happen. We fast forward to today, a couple days later, and now the byte administration is getting a lot of grief. A lot of people are saying, Hey, we need more than that. We need more than a statement from UK. This is a, an actual revolution that's taking place. If you know anything about the history between the United States and Cuba, we have a little bit of baggage going on in this relationship where we had the Cuban missile crisis. This has sort of been a steak that has been planted in the Western hemisphere that is sort of lingering communism. That's a Relic from the old cold war. Remember when the Russians or the Soviet union back then was shipping over missiles to Cuba and sort of building this JFK was in office. And the whole thing could have been the end of mankind as we know it. So it is a very important geographical location, a lot of history there. And now, in my opinion, it's one of the most important things that that could be happening geopolitically related to America, right? It's 90 miles south of Florida. So you can get on a, you know, hop on a raft and sort sh sail across the ocean to get to the United States. It's a very close neighbor and we should be paying attention to it. The reason why a lot more people are sort of, you know, raising their eyebrows about this thing is because they're starting to say that the situation is so bad that there needs to be military intervention. The United States needs to take some action and go down there and help the capitalist help the, the people wanting democracy in this totalitarian communist regime, right? If the military is going to be doing anything out there, if America is, you know, supposed to be this, this, uh, entity that spreads freedom and democracy throughout the world, you can't really find a worst place in Cuba to go, right? I mean, it really is kind of the best option. It's right around the corner and it's filled with a communist tyrannical government. So now we're what we're seeing is people from Cuba are responding and they're saying we need some stronger actions. So in fact, Breitbart did some very good reporting on this. Nobody else is talking about this. I went over to the New York times. I went over to CNN today. I had screenshots, but I'm not going to play those. There they're blurbs on their website about it on cnn.com. It's like at the bottom, it's not even barely above the fold. Nobody's talking about it. So Breitbart, they did some good stuff on this. A series of tepid and inaccurate statements from president Joe and his administration are meeting growing calls this week for the American government to act, to prevent further loss of life. So we know we talked about this protest took place in the streets, suggest as many as 60 cities and towns rose up demanding an end to communism. And so we're going to see this back and forth, right? Characterizing this thing. Are they mad about vaccines? Are they mad about climate change? Are they mad about, uh, healthcare, which I thought was perfect because Michael Moore told us so, or are they mad about something else? Like communism, if you are a communist sympathizer, of course the first thing you're going to say, oh, it's not communism at all. Communism is perfect. And this has to be about other things like medical supplies and things like that. So you're going to see this dichotomy, this back and forth, the tension between the two sides going on as this, uh, revolution or whatever we're calling it continues. The protests were a common culmination of nearly two decades of organized dissident action started back in spring, 2003, last major violent crackdown, protesters, chanted, freedom, and other anticommunist slogans, making clear their demands to end the 62 year old Castro regime. And then we had the communist party here, the Cuban communist party. They responded now, they're not going to take this lying down. They issued an order of combat. Literally here, you can see underlying an order of combat. And what does that do? It commands all communists loyalists to take to the streets and violently assault, the peaceful protesters. It's also a shutdown for the internet for as much of this week, making international reporting on the matter, extremely difficult, a little information the Cubans have managed to get out of the island indicates that the protests have continued daily since Sunday, despite widespread reports of police, gang, beatings, assassinations, and deadly door to door rates. So, I mean, it's like an actual war zone down there, right? You have the communist party who said this, that there is a LA Orden date combat day.[inaudible] right now, my Spanish is butchered very, very white Scottsdale Spanish version of that. But what if you translate this? What you'll see is it says the order of combat is given the revolutionaries take to the streets. This is what the Cuban leader, Miguel Diaz canal said to the Cuban people. He gave an address on Sunday called for a civil war on the island, right? A civil war on the island in his speech. He called on communists to take to the streets from now on and in the coming days, a ruler called for a civil war on the island on Sunday. And so, you know, a lot of this stuff is slowly trickling out. A lot of our media is just isn't covering it. I went to the Washington post, tiny blurb, CNN, tiny blurb, New York times. I don't even think it was above the fold. So nobody wants to talk. Even Fox news was really sort of, uh, you know, lacking on it. I went over there and check them out and they had a little bit of a, to be fair there. Their link was above the fold at least, but most people are talking about Corona virus and the Delta variant and, uh, you know, vaccination rates and all of that. I mean, if you, if you want to know what they want you to be doing and thinking and reading, just go to those three websites, just go to CNN, Fox news, a Washington post ad in the New York times, if you want four of them. And you can just see if they're all in alignment, if they're all talking about the same thing. Well, that, that means, you know, that you're getting terrible infection, right? Cause they're all in alignment. And so nobody's doing any actually reporting. They're all just copying and pasting each other's articles. So we have to unfortunately, you know, go around the world to other parts like medio.com, where they're actually talking about what's happening there. So we know it's basically a war zone down there. And when I first started to think about this in terms of political, uh, you know, posturing, I was remembering some of the other stories that we've talked about relating to immigration relating to the border, relating to the sort of, you know, surge of people coming across the Southern border and the Biden administration and Camila Harris in tech, attempting to go and solve this problem right by and said, Hey, you're very good miss Kamala. So you can go down there and solve this. You're very smart here. This is your problem. Enjoy this debacle that we're going to slide across the table to you. And so she didn't want to do anything with that. So she says, no, we're going to address the root causes. She's go down to Guatemala then over to Mexico. And doesn't really address any of the root causes at all. Just kind of a blames climate change and other routes pauses. Okay. So that was all going on. And you know, a lot of people now we're going to be seeing some interesting conversations here as they relate to immigration. So some people might've been saying, well, you know, any of the Southern border problems, we have this surge of people coming across the border and we need to clamp down on immigration and immigration is bad. And we don't want, you know, this sort of a surge of people coming across the border. But then a lot of those same people are saying, yeah, but we have to help the Cubans and you're going hot. Well, that's weird. So if you're saying that sort of one country there they're individuals can not come into the United States, but another country there, people can Cuba can, huh. Well, what's going on here? Do you like, you know, one, uh, demographic better than the other one ethnicity better than the other. What's the, what's the problem here. Uh, and so you've got, uh, an easy ability to start to sort of draw out some contradictions, especially from people on the right side of the aisle. And so I start to think, well, how do you reconcile those differences? How do you sort of, you know, mesh those things together? And I actually don't think that they're inconsistent at all really. I mean, I think that there's a, there's a, there's a group of people who have not really been opposed to immigration in general, been sort of opposing to the mechanisms by which it's being implemented in some of the policies that have been created in order to cause the surge of people rushing across the Southern border, but it has nothing to do with the people, right? People aren't upset about the actual people. In fact, I've been very kind of consistent here that I think that what they are doing by changing these policies in the sake of humanitarian saving is actually causing a humanitarian crisis. So they're there. They're very good intentions are great, but they're causing some serious consequences. And so that is a problem. But so then how do you sort of, you know, connect all of these things together. And I think there's always been a lot of room for legal immigration and there's always been sort of an acceptance of the merit by the American people for political refugees, right? It's it's for people who are fleeing communism or fleeing totalitarianism, America has always sort of embraced the idea that, that we're welcome for that right. Countries sort of burst out of that bunch of founding fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers all came across the Atlantic and said, we're, we're refugees. We're political refugees. What's happening in our home state is garbage. And so we want to go form a new world. And so that has always, I think, sort of been ingrained in the, the aura of, of America, right? We've got, uh, you know, the statute of Liberty and people on, uh, you know, coming across the island, looking up to lady Liberty. And it's, it's a, it's a powerful thing here. So if we're talking about the Cubans and they are fleeing a communist totalitarian dictatorship, you kind of might think that those would be the ideal people that you would want to accept into the country, right? It's people that appreciate freedom, appreciate Liberty. And they want to be a part of the American. Uh, I ideal, not just because they want a better life, but because they're literally escaping execution theoretically. And so we've got a lot of, you know, a lot of issues to dissect there, but it is unimportant question for the current administration to be grappling with, right? What happens if you're a Cuban person, you're a capitalist, you're somebody who doesn't like the Castro regime. In other words, you're an ally of America. What do we do with you? If you want to come to the country, to the United States, what do we do? Do we, do we intervene? Do we allow you to come in? Do we expedite your transition out of the country? Do we send resources over there? Support? What do we do well by an administration, they are going to tell us what they intend to do. So here is the Homeland security secretary. His name is may orcas. Oh, hang on one second. I've got to change something over here. All right. Let's see if that plays,

Speaker 2: 16:54

Allow me to be clear. If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States. The time is never right to attempt migration by sea, to those who risked their lives doing. So this risk is not worth taking again. I repeat, do not risk your life attempting to enter the United States illegally. You will not come to the United States. Okay.

Speaker 1: 17:24

So that's a, another little bit of a, an administration change. Isn't it just like I was saying, well, some of the conservatives might have a little bit of a contradiction diction to reconcile their maybe saying we don't want immigration from certain countries, but it may be okay from other countries, uh, that might administration has a little bit of a contradiction there too, right? Because we heard for a long time, at least until very recently that everybody's welcome here. And that anybody who doesn't say that, that you're in America is a racist and a bigot. And somebody who is a xenophobic monster, who needs to be eliminated from office may orcas and, and many people in the byte administration. That was their characterization of Trump and all of the hard line immigration policies. So during the campaign, and very recently up until we started to recognize that they have lost total control of the Southern border, did their language start to change a little bit? And now it's, this don't come right now. It's Camila Harris going down to Guatemala, wagging her finger in their face to saying don't come, but their policies don't match. So the contradiction here of course, is that Camila Harris will go down to one group of, uh, let's say, south Southern American countries. And she'll tell them certain things, but the policies at the border don't actually reflect any of that. So she says, don't come. But meanwhile, the wait and Mexico program that Donald Trump has implemented is still gone with the wind and they're still allowed to sort of immigrate into the country. We've got massive surges, uh, border patrol saying it's basically a catastrophic failure across the board. And we see numbers that are so, so much greater than anything we've seen historically that it is in fact, a pretty big crisis. So they are not changing their policies to stop that version of immigration they're there they are okay with that continuing to happen. Otherwise they would change the policies. One would presume, but there are not willing to allow unbridled just unfettered immigration from Cuba. Why is that? Huh? That's very, very strange. Why is it okay from some countries and not other countries, right. Both sides are going to have to be asking themselves that question today. And I would be like, I would be curious to know what the answers are. Uh, we have Jen Saki of course, over at the white house. Uh, you know, it's, it's a, it's a difficult balancing act that you have to do when you're sort of sympathetic to socialism big governments, you know, communism, uh, in, from a philosophical perspective, right? The idea of central planning, the idea that the government should have more control from a fundamental level. Right? Well, I think what, what the democratic party and the Republican party to quite frankly, right. I'm tired of hearing this idea that, that the Republicans or, or the conservative party are small government that died a long time ago. In fact, in my entire life, I've been hearing that my entire life and I have never one time seen a government act shrink under a conservative, never not once. Right. And I was a boy when Reagan was in office, but, um, I don't think that happened there either. Right? I think the government has kind of always been getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And so now we're talking about sort of, uh, you know, big government and big government light, but we're both trending towards the direction of more government control, more government, uh, ability to decide what you do with your life, where you go, who you, who you talk to, you know, based on a lot of the social controls that have been implemented and, and trickling down over the last 18 months or so. So we're, we're seeing the situation now where it's very difficult for an administration that has some political alignment with a foreign government blaming something that they have in common, which of course is communism. I'm not, I'm not calling the byte administration communist, right? They're not there yet, but maybe they'll get there soon. Here is Jen Saki who is answering a sort of a poorly worded question. I'm not sure who this reporter is, but he's trying to ask her, he's trying to say, Hey, can you call this a protest against communism essentially? Can you just come out and say it one time? Can anybody let's listen was reiterating

Speaker 2: 21:17

Is that this is not the time to travel irregularly. It's dangerous. People can lose their lives as they have in the past. Okay. As the administration tries to figure out the root causes of migration to the country, don't we know that the reason people want to leave Cuba is because they don't like communism. And so as you're trying to figure out like what the processes are for these people who want to leave Cuba, well, I'm not sure what your question is. Why are people leaving Cuba? Or what is the process for them getting here? I can explain either of them, but you tell me. Yeah. Do you think that people are leaving Cuba? Because they don't like communism? I think we've been pretty clear that we think people are leaving Cuba or not leaving Cuba or protesting in the streets all as well, because they are opposed to the oppression, to the mismanagement of the government in the country. And we certainly support their rights to protest. We support their efforts to speak out against their treatment in Cuba was Raider.

Speaker 1: 22:18

All right. So, you know, communism, mismanagement, they kind of are one side, both sides, two sides of the same coin, right? I mean, isn't it, the idea of communism is that you have a central Alliance, you have a central organization that can sort of, you know, move from each according to their ability to each, according to their needs and kind of be this centralized exchange of all the resources in society. So that things are more galitary and you don't have guys like Bezos going up into space. Apparently that's how they're going to solve the problem. So, uh, it necessarily involves mismanagement because that's not possible to do right. Have they, they try to do this to, to micromanage everything and everybody's lives never works. So that's the white house. That's going to be their framing on this for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we've got a lot of Cuban people who are not happy about this. And in fact, they were so upset that they closed down one of the expressways in Miami and they blamed Biden for a lack of support, right? So the Cuban American protestors, they shut it down. Hundreds of Cuban, American protestors blocked the major expressway in Miami on Tuesday, diff demanding that Biden do more. We need Biden support. One man said, so we are trying to fight to finish with the communist right there. It is heavy rains did not stop the many who turned police away when they reached the highway, the crowds chanted S O S Cuba anti-government protest broke out a hundred demonstrators have been detained down there in Cuba. Here's a quick highlight of some of the people who were down there in Miami talking about what's going on.

Speaker 3: 23:49

Bottom support the support from the breast you're plan to fight. And you should listen to the people here, elected officials that are Cubans and know what's best for the people in Cuba. So just scare us out and let's try to come together to see what we can do.

Speaker 1: 24:12

So hear us out, right? They're down there, they're protesting. And they're saying, listen to the local politicians. They're saying things like Liberta, they're saying things like, uh, we want to end the communism, right? This is, this is a, this is a political shift. It's not micromanage mismanagement. It's, it's something bigger happening. And this has been in the making for 60 years for like six decades. And, uh, yeah, you'd expect a little bit more activity. I would, I would think on this, uh, unless it's politically not useful for your party. So we just heard from the young lady saying, Hey, let's listen to the local politicians. The people who were down here, come on by and listen to us here is mayor Swarez over from Miami. And I've seen this guy before. Actually this guy was, uh, was very involved in the last Bitcoin conference. And so Miami is doing very interesting things with crypto and with, you know, decentralization, which is the big reason I'm interested in crypto is because it is sort of censorship resistant. It is decentralized. There's really no one, uh, organization that can control a lot of it. And people would debate that point. But I like where it's trending mayor Suarez of Miami ho hosted the Bitcoin conference and said, listen, we're going to be pushing all sorts of reforms to bring some of the crypto minds to Miami. And it might be the sort of the, you know, the, he called it something great. Um, something like, you know, he doesn't want, he, he, he wants Miami to be the new crypto valley sort of referencing Silicon valley. Right? So a lot of interesting things happening there. And, uh, let's listen in and see what he has to say. Very, very interesting interview here with, uh, Fox.

Speaker 4: 25:44

No, I don't think the embargo is cool at all. And I think that the Cuban people aren't asking for a lifting of the embargo, they're going out on the streets every single day, talking about the failure of the communist regime to provide for its people. And I don't understand why that's so difficult for people to understand it has failed for six decades and what shouldn't be being contemplated right now is a coalition, a potential military action in Cuba, similar to what has happened in both administrations, in both Republican and Democrat administrations and Republican with Bush and Panama, they deposed Noriega, and that country had peaceful democracy for decades. And you had interventions by, by democratic presidents, uh, you know, taking out of some of it. A lot of in Pakistan, it's a sovereign country where they took out a, uh, a terrorist. I probably saved thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives and president Clinton and Kosovo intervening in a humanitarian issue, uh, with airstrikes. So there've been many, many opportunities in the history of airstrikes in Cuba. What I'm suggesting is that that option is one that has to be explored and cannot be just simply discarded as, as an option that is not on the table. Um, and then there's a variety of ways a military can do it, but that's, uh, that's something that needs to be discussed and needs to be looked at as a potential option in addition to a variety of other options, uh, that can be discussed. So

Speaker 1: 27:02

Your first thought, right, of course, anytime you hear military intervention, at least mine was another one. Like we're going to be, what are we going to go down there for, you know, another 40 years, like we were just trying to finish up a couple of the last ones we were involved in. Can we maybe not start another, uh, international conflict, but at the same time, he makes some pretty good points. Doesn't he? Right? The Democrats do this, the Republicans do that. If they are part of what America does. Like if that, if that's what as a country we decide we want to do is go around and sort of, you know, prop up democracy around the world. You're going to debate that that's a whole separate point, but his point is, is valid, right? A lot of people say, oh, no, we're not going to go down there and help the Cubans at all. And he goes, what, why would the, why the hell not? What are you nuts? We went over to the middle east and help them. We went into, uh, into Pakistan and we got Joe Biden under another administration. So don't tell me that we don't do, you know, military intervention for, for certain interests. We do it all the time and why shouldn't the Cuban people get the benefit of that. And I think that's a very good point, right? If there's going to be a situation where there is a country that is communist, that's going to be on the verge of a democratic country that has a lot of amazing people down there that's right across the pond from us. And that has a lot of opportunity economically for their people, for the American people, for the Western hemisphere, for the world. Why wouldn't we go and do that, right? Why, why is it only that we go into countries where they don't want us, for example, you know, why do we go plop down in Iraq, where we have to fight the entire country and the entire region for, for 40 years, for 20 years, right? For whatever long, however long it takes, uh, or Afghanistan or any of these other places. It sounds like the Cuban people are demonstrating. They want the Cuban regime. Uh, the Castro regime thrown out of there and Americas is capable and willing to do that. So, you know, why, why wouldn't you have that conversation if America has already decided that we're going to be this nation building, uh, police force of the world, well, why are, why are the Cubans excluded from that? It's not quite fair, is it? And, and maybe, you know, if we're going to be, you know, fighting for, for the middle east, or we're going to be, you know, dumping all of this money to, uh, you know, all of our allies around the world, why can't we, why can't we step in here? It doesn't make, doesn't make that much sense, I think is what the mayor is saying. Right. And I think it's a valid point. Now, this momentum is not just with mayor Suarez. It's not just with, uh, you know, conservative, uh, Republicans. Here's a state Senator from, uh, Pennsylvania. In fact, his name is Brian stack. And he's out there saying, yeah, we got to do something to help these poor people here. He is

Speaker 3: 29:41

Asked for about military intervention. Can you talk about that? Yes. I believe, I believe the United States should have been eight years ago. Just like we've liberated other countries. We should liberate Cuba, make that country free for the Cuban people. Stop all the politics all around, talking about it, talking about it. It's X action, liberate the country and give the country back to the Cuban people and stop this abuse upon a funerals,

Speaker 1: 30:04

Right? So that's a Democrat and there are some consequences of inaction as Marco Rubio is going to tell us about. So he calls for Biden to plan on the Russians. Arriving does a thousand special forces are coming. He said on Wednesday that he better prepare a plan for taking action in Cuba. He raised the prospect of Russian military intervention, which as we know, Joe Biden warn Putin. So maybe, maybe this will, um, maybe this will get him and go get them in gear. He says, Rubio said, these guys talk about diplomacy's back. America's back Rubio said in an interview, he said, great. Do me a favor convene to the United States security council convene the organization of American states and use your diplomatic heft. The fact that America is back go to all these countries and say, okay, guys, we have a massacre about to happen 90 miles from our shores. We want the international community condemn it, isolate it, and be prepared to take action. And so what he's saying is that, you know, if you read the rest of the article, there is going to be a power vacuum there, right? You're going to have two different sides. Very interesting things are happening there. That, uh, what article was it? Oh, I think the Breitbart article that I'm going to, we're going to finish up with next has, has, has a lot of, a lot of good details about what's happening there, but they have basically they're dividing the island into different precincts and the communist party's reporting, which precincts they control and what, what party controls or what precincts they don't control. And so you're seeing know division, state place that might ultimately result in a civil war. And if one side let's say the side of communism decides that or starts losing the battle. Well, you're going to see some reinforcements come in, right? And this could be a small proxy war, very much analogous to what we went through back in the 1960s. I think it was with the Cuban missile crisis when JFK was in office. So it is a big deal. And it's not something that people can just paper over because even though, you know, America may not want to deal with it. The Russians may say, this is a great, this is a great foothold. They're calling for help. The Americans are asleep at the wheel. We have dementia Joe in the white house, you know, gone with the wind. So we're just going to slide on in there and take full advantage. That's what Rubio's warning about. And there's a final paragraph I wanted to share from the Breitbart article. Before we get into the chat over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com says, what, what such an intervention would look like if the U S got involved is up too much speculation, and a lot of debate. There's an organization called the assembly of the Cuban resistance. It's a coalition of dissident organizations. They published a five point plan to liberate Cuba. Let's see what's in it. Number one, the termination of the regime is non-negotiable. Castro's got to go. All those involved in the peaceful civic protest must stay out in the streets and maintain their commitment to a free Cuba. All national police and armed forces must support the citizens and uphold their duty to their country and not the communist regime. International intervention led by the United States in order to prevent a bloodbath. They're calling for help. The immediate cessation of all tourism to Cuba until the dictatorship has been dismantled. So speaking to Breitbart news, because they're actually reporting on this, they got a statement from Orlando Gutierrez. Boero not, he's the director of the assembly. He listed military intervention, and one of the factors in a greater plan for the U S government to properly aid Cuba, Cuban activists, he noted much push for a decisive and international intervention led by the U S to protect the Cuban people and isolate an end, the communist regime. So, uh, so what's the U S going to do well, probably nothing. So let's take a look@someofthequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Let's see what's going on in the chat. We've got a lot of activity going on, pinky twos in the house. Good to see you. Ryan's here. And we've got wants to know and others let's see what's coming in from the question. So we have the first one here is from Gina wide awake saying, oh, we all know that the byte administration are low key commies, but I'm still disgusted by my Dorcas, which is a great announcement to the Cuban people saying not to come by. See how are they supposed to get out of there? It's not like they can walk to Florida or fly a plane. Well, that's the point really is he doesn't want them to come. Right? Uh don't come. So, so I think that's the point, right? No, no planes, no boats, no walking, nothing. You're, you're stuck there. Let's see. Who's next. We've got thunder. Seven Jose said, Rob Obama took Cuba off the list of terrorist state countries and Trump put them back. Now, Jim Acosta, the most dishonest of the fake news celebrities is begging a Biden to do something. Wow. His dad fled Cuba. And now he cares about people leaving under communist rule. Hope this wakes him up, that the Biden Marxist regime is heading down the same terrorist state path. Hypocrisy by name is Democrat. Wow. That's interesting about Jim Acosta. It's, it's kind of wild when people can't see that I was listening to this really fascinating interview the other day. Uh, last night, actually, Jordan Peterson was talking to this physicist, uh, and the guy was like beyond brilliant. I can't remember his name. One of his most recent, uh, interviews about two hours. And the guy was like a PhD physicist from MIT. Went to Harvard, went to all of these things. And he's talking about how the universe is all random. Everything's 100% random. And he goes in and he makes very good arguments. Wow. This happened. And life is this thing. And you know, we all think that life is very, uh, profound, but it's kind of not because if you put it on a timescale of, of 13.8 billion years, you're going to have a lot more of those that come and go and you're, you'll never even know about it. Right. And all of these things. And he kept talking about the, the sort of the amazing of the coincidence over and over. I it's, it's incredible. This happened, like it's amazing. And it's amazing. It's amazing. And the whole time I'm thinking, hello? Hello, my friend. That's exactly what the intelligent designers say. Right? It's it's so it's so incredible that it had to sort of come from something. And so, you know, people will take the same issue. He's he's looking at all this randomness and saying, oh, this is just a pure accident. Other people will look at the same series of randomness and say, well, this is it. It's it's so coincidentally, it's almost beautifully designed. And so you'll see the same thing, right? You've got Jim Acosta who is basically a communist, largely who is now upset about communism and communist rule, right? He's working for CNN. He wants massive government oversight of everything. He wants the government to tell you what to do, where to go, who you can hang out with, how long to stay indoors and outdoors and what to put in your body. And so now he's going, well, this is a problem. We have to help the Cuban people. Not recognizing that he's the person in the kitchen. Who's turning the heat up on the frog and the boiling water. Good comment there. Thunder seven. Let's see who else we've got go. Navy says amazing how the Biden regime welcomes everyone except the Cubans. Because of course the Cubans voted for president Trump. There it is. So I was waiting to see if there would be a, uh, uh, an explanation for the differential there. Right. You know, why, why does one segment of south American countries, uh, get to come in or central American countries get to come into the United States, but not the other one? Huh? And it's interesting because I mentioned previously that there are a lot of capitalists in Cuba. So maybe that's the reason. All right. What else we've got wants to know, says, oh, what happened to Bernie saying Cuba was a great example of healthcare kind of quiet lately. Yeah. That's a good point. We've got next up. We have Watson. Oh, says I watched Fox early in the morning. The main people talking about Cuba and elections a lot, the right in Africa are bad and the border crossing. So, so Fox is talking about it. Sharon is here, says, why would the current us regime oppose the Cuban communist regime? After all the current us regime is communist or at the very least very communist friendly. Right. Which is the point is, is they're not going to do anything that would make it easier for people to, uh, to sort of escape the regime. Would they? We have, Sharon also says their policy towards the Cubans, trying to enter illegally has nothing to do with the border crisis. They will not support an anticommunist uprising. Yeah. That's a good, right, because it's, I think they would be more in alignment with freedom and, and more freedom oriented ideals. And that doesn't necessarily help, uh, help their party. Rob, great coverage of the Cuba situation coming from thunder seven says by the way, Cubans vote Republican. So that's why the dads don't want them here. Uh, that's terrible. So, uh, if you're a publican, we actually prefer, you just die in Cuba. So good luck out there. Maybe if you voted left, we, we, we did invite you over. Joe Snow says, Rob, it's now being referred to as the unit party, they are neither dims or the Republic cants anymore. They're all part of the same team. I agree with that. I've been saying this for a long time. The Republicans go in there and they just ransack the treasury. Then they can do it for a few years and they just, oh, we're done. Now. We're full. You can go Democrats. Because if we keep eating, they're going to be mad at us. So it's your turn. Now the Democrats go and they clear it out. And then they, they don't want to get in trouble with the American people. So the up, all right, we're done. It's your turn. Now the Republicans come back in all a bunch of, uh, just awful, awful politicians. Okay. Next we've got Sharon says off topic, but I'm having a problem with your form. I can't see the whole text. Just a few words. So I have to type the question on a sticky note and copy and paste it. Okay. So I know why that is Sharon. I can answer that is because I actually shrunk the form box to make it smaller because people were sending like paragraphs. So I can actually increase that size a little bit. And I'll go ahead and do that after the show. Apologies for that. So that is a problem. I don't want you to have to copy and paste. That's a pain in the a and we're not going to, we're not going to allow that here, Sharon, not going to let that happen. I have lab OCA, uh, his level of OCM, Lev OCA. I saw OCA sign up very recently. Welcome to the, to the community there says isn't my orcas Cuban. I'm pretty sure his family fled Cuba, Florida. Strange. He's telling Cubans to stay home. It's interesting. Why, why is this a theme? Right? Didn't didn't uh, Barack Obama do that with his brother. He's like good luck Malique, right? No, that was his daughter. Who's what's his name? He's hilarious. He's on Twitter. Uh, and yeah. And then AOC did that with her abuela. And so no, my orcas is doing that with his grandma or something. All right. So I don't know. I don't know why that is. Jeremy Trita is in the house at Rob the recommendation. Yeah. We made yesterday referring to when being faced with difficult situations. You said you always chose to take the difficult path because there is usually a reward or opportunity to grow. Oh wow. I was facing a decision on whether to attend a difficult training next month. And your words of encouragement spoke to me. I pulled the trigger, committed to the paid training before I could back out of it. And I finally went to the gym today. That's from Jeremy[inaudible] Jeremy. That makes me so happy, man. I'm like smiling so big inside right now. And you can see it on my face. It really makes me happy that that you're doing that. It's just, it's such a cool thing. You know, training is so important. It has been, I tell people this all the time, it's the secret weapon. I tell them, I say, Hey, this, this is our secret weapon training, coaching. A lot of learning continual education, just because you're 30 something years old doesn't mean you're done learning anything. And you gotta, you know, I read it the same way you did in, in, in college or high school, you got to learn. Paid training is very good as long there's you go and you, you sort of get some good stuff out of it. The gym is super Jeremy. I'm super happy for you, man. Thank you for sharing that, you know, this is what it's comments like, these, that, that really make me just energized to, to, to, to do this, to do this work because, ah, man, all right, I'm gonna get emotional. I'm gonna stop talking about it. I've had people who've, who've done things like that to me. Right? They've said something to me. And it has been so profound has changed my entire life, my entire, my entire worldview. And if I can pay that forward in a tiny, small, little way, it's worth it's worth it all. So I'm, I'm super proud of you, man. I mean that from the bottom of my heart, congratulations, have an awesome trip. Stay in the gym. Good stuff. All right. Let's let's continue on. We've got wide awake here is saying, oh, look at Saki. His face when he said the root cause is communism. I know they don't like it. They don't want to talk about that word. It's a, it's a bad word. Sharon says I'm absolutely shocked that Jenny didn't blame climate change for the Cuban uprising. Right? I think that's common stick tos forever says, wow, why don't we see in Miami fires? Looting? Is this a peaceful protest? Yeah, it's true. Yeah. Right. They're not even torching any Wendy's or used car lots. So I guess that's peaceful. We have Sharon says we've had a communist takeover. This country, it's surprising this regime doesn't send military to help the Cuban communist government suppressed the insurrectionists. It's true. Right? They should. They should. Um, well that's a complicated question there, right? Because yeah, I guess it's right. They probably should throw them in, in uh, isolation with Jacob translate. You're right. You're right. That's a good point. Medical Edward is here, says when are you running for POTUS? Please run. I'm like, uh, I don't, I don't think I've got the stomach for politics. You know, I really wanted to do that. At some point I sort of had that on my list, like, oh, run for office when I'm 50, you know, and go change things. I just don't know. I don't know that I've got the stomach for it. All right. Let's see what else is going on? We've got, oh, says Rob, what do you think happened in the bay of pigs? Does it have any influence on the current issues in Cuba? Uh, yeah. I would say that's 60 years of complicated foreign policy and you know, sanctions, embargoes, uh, intelligence, operations, back and forth. I think we had some diplomats down there that were getting electromagnetic shocked recently. I mean, there's, there's been an ongoing battle with Cuba for a long time. And I think that is what is prompting people to say now is the time, right? There's an opening here. There's a, the, the linemen are blocking. There's a hole. Let's just run the ball through and score a touchdown. Let's see. Who's next. We've got soul Viking says do not come to the U S if you were coming from Cuba, because most likely you won't be a new Democrat. So we don't want you. All right. Good point. We've got, uh, Brian Hakkas here says, why are the audits being delayed? Evidence is this to make up evidence to hide evidence until the narrative is managed or to discredit the audit after the fact, uh, good to see you, Brian, you know, I don't know why the audit is being delayed or why their results are being delayed. I do know that there are some conversations that are taking place about some vote counts, right? So Karen fan from Arizona, our Senate majority leader here, I think came out and said that the audit totals don't match the reported totals from air Copa county could be a big deal, or it could be not right. What if the total is like, well, we have 1.3 million votes. And over here we counted 1.3 million and two votes, not, not consequential, but what if it's 1.1 million versus a 1.3 million? That's a big deal, right? And so before you ever reveal that stuff, you gotta be Bulletproof on that. Checking, checking, checking, rechecking, multiple independent checks and so on. But I don't really know I'm working on a bigger project on all of that. And that's going to be a lot of fun. We've got Sharon says the U S government is not asleep at the wheel. They're supporting the commies. I guess that's a good point. Right? Sometimes I will attribute malfeasance to just incompetence. And that's not always accurate. I agree with that. We have a, the last villain says it's not about bombing Cuba. It's about leverage Trump wielded, American power in a way that made you pay attention. Democrats want to say words like diplomatic solution so they can blame others. Plus Democrats don't want to trash the new order they are working to make America into. Yeah. So when you have a government that, that exerts a lot of control, that sort of an attractive way of operating a country. And so they're not going to undermine one of those structures. Lastly, we've got three girly says, could the Cuban people just walk over to Guantanamo bay and say, I want asylum. They would be on U S territory. That's a good question. I don't think so. Right. That's a very highly secure area. I think there are landmines around that place. So probably not a good idea to walk over there, but your point is well taken. Nonetheless, I think that if there was a welcoming by the administration, they would probably be overwhelmed right at down there. Uh, if they, if they knew, you know, if they knew where they could step foot essentially on us soil, right? So maybe that's why they are being so forceful and vocal about dissuading them from ever trying to come to the United States. It's just to sort of, uh, prevent a surge, which is kind of a good idea. They probably should have tried that at the U S Southern border before they started changing a bunch of policies. Uh, but they're getting better at it. So. All right. Great questions. All of those, once again, came over from watching the watchers.locals.com, where we have a live chat and a lot of fun happening right now. That one Florida man is here in the chat. Jeremy Madrid is in the house. We got Ryan is in the house and others. And so go and check that out and watching the watchers.locals.com. And we appreciate all of your support there. All right. So let's carry on into the next segment. We've got a second amendment stuff to talk about. The fourth circuit court of appeals came out with an opinion, finding that people under the age of 21 are constitutionally allowed to possess handguns, big, big decision that came out. Now, we don't know how long this is going to stay. This was a two to one ruling out of the fourth circuit court of appeals. And what that means is that this actually could go to the full panel in the court of appeals. And so may be a short-lived, uh, verdicts or not, right. This could stand. And of course the government is very likely to appeal this. We're probably going to see this work its way up to the Supreme court. Then we're going to have to ask ourselves, what is the Supreme court going to do with this? And so the issue of course, is surrounding the fact that people under the age of 21 are federally not allowed to have handguns. So we're going to go through this opinion, very interesting opinion. And we're going to learn a little bit more about the fourth circuit, and we're going to look back historically and see what judge Richardson, the person who wrote the opinion, what he does here, because it's very interesting. He takes us back historically back to the 1,617 hundreds and looks at gun ownership in the hands of people who were under age back during that time, before the constitution was ratified. And if we look at the history of the country, then maybe we can say, well, that's what the founders were doing back then. That's what they meant when they wrote the second amendment. So maybe that's how we should apply it today. So let's take a look at what's going on. We're going to get a headline from roll call says the appeals court finds aged based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional. The judge says that they will not relegate the second amendment or 18 to 20 year olds to a second class status. Wow. Federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that, uh, the federal ban is unconstitutional. Congress in the 1960s, did not demonstrate a good enough reason for the law, right? This is a federal law it's been around for a long time. The judge said, sorry, it's, it's terrible. Two to one ruling, a three judge panel for the fourth circuit, which is in Richmond, Virginia found that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is no different from other constitutional rights that start at age 18. So the government must have a justification to restrict that right Richardson. I clipped out a Donald Trump appointee joined the majority opinion by another judge, Steven AIG, a presidential, uh, George W. Bush appointee. So we got two Republican appointed judges who are finding this opinion. Now let's take a look at the opinion before we learn a little bit more about the fourth circuit. I want to show you this. So it's Tanner Hirshfield and Natalia Marshall. These are the two plaintiffs they were suing or filing a complaint, uh, seeking injunction against the, uh, ATF bureau of alcohol firearms, tobacco explosives, Marvin Richardson, acting director of ATF, as well as mayor Garland, the current us attorney. So they're all also a naming. So Brady the Giffords law center, Gabby Gabby Giffords of course was shut down here in Tucson, Arizona. And so they filed a Amicus brief, which is a friend of the court sort of a brief. So we've got these two individuals, Tanner Hershfield and Natalia Marshall, let's see what's going on with them. They filed a suit and uh, here is where the fourth circuit is. So we kind of poke around the country. They're coming from this jurisdiction over here, which includes South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. And then of course, Maryland. Right? So we got five states here in the fourth circuit. Here is judge Richardson who wrote the opinion board in 1976. He's a judge for the fourth circuit nominated by Trump. 2018. Went to Vanderbilt, went to university of Chicago. Law school was a clerk for the seventh circuit, was a clerk for Ryan Quist, really at the Supreme court of the U S private practice for about three years in DC and a lot of other different, uh, positions, DEA taskforce, organized crime, drug enforcement, task force, national security and antiterrorism advisory council and so on. So that's the guy who wrote this. This is Richardson, right? And we're going to, we're going to go through this some good stuff here. Uh, let's read a little bit. It says, when do constitutional rights vest, when do you get them? How old are you at 18 or 22 or 21, 16 or 25? Why not? 13 or 33 in the law align must sometimes be drawn, but there must be a reason why constitutional rights can not be enjoyed until a certain age. Our nation's most cherish rights vest no later than 18. And the second amendment, right, is no different plaintiffs. Want an injunction. They want a declaratory judgment. They want to say that the federal laws that prevent gun dealers from selling hand guns to 18, 19 or 20 year olds, that that violates the second amendment. They're saying that law unconstitutional. So we got to find a couple of things. Number one, do 18 year olds have rights in the first place the court says, yes. We first find that they do. They have second amendment rights. They enjoy almost every other constitutional rights that we have at the founding. Why not weapons? He says at the time of the founding, they serve in the militia and they furnished their own weapons. Then we also have to look at the precedent, whether the government has met its burden to infringe upon that, right, to justify the infringement. They've got to come up with some different, uh, justification for it. So we're going to go through that. We hold that the challenge, federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the second amendment, despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence. While we're not going to relegate the second amendment for 18 to 20 year olds to a second class status. Wow. So, uh, interesting, interesting. Take on this. Let's see where else this goes. Who are the plaintiffs who's suing in the first place? Why are they upset? Well, prospective handgun buyers. So the two people that we mentioned, they sued ATF. They want an injunction. They want a declaratory judgment. The saying that what you're doing by not selling us these guns it's violating the second amendment 19 year old is Natalia Marshall. She had a good reason to seek protection. Why she had been forced to obtain a protective order against an abusive ex-boyfriend who sends the order was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm and controlled substances. He was released on bail, never came to the court, issued a warrant for his arrest, uh, along with the threat from her boyfriend. She's a horse trainer, equestrian trainer often in remote, rural areas in interacts with unfamiliar people. She grew up training with guns, believes that a handguns ease of carrying and training makes it the most effective tool for her protection. But because Marshall was 18, when she tried to buy a gun, couldn't do it. She preferred using a licensed dealer because they tend to have a wider supply, a good reputation and a guarantee, but they would not sell it to her. She's now 19 remains unable to buy a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. The other plaintiff is Tanner Hershfield. He tried to buy one, but with the Knight, he was only 20, but he sends turned 21 no longer affected by these laws. So those are now moot. Marshall, whoever is not yet 21. So this appeal may proceed. So what happened if she would have turned 21? Well, go buy a handgun. You no longer have a claim because you, that doesn't apply to you anymore. So there's nothing to complain about. So that would have been moot, but because she's not there yet, the other young man is this can carry forward. So this was a very big opinion. I wanted to show you. I think I missed that 141 pages. Okay. So look at the top of the first document, 141 pages up here. We are not going to go through all 141 of them, but I did clip out some interesting tidbits from my skimming of the opinion today. And a couple of things I want to point out. I mentioned that he takes us back a little bit through the founding era, the history of the country. And I want to show you what's happening here. He talks about the founding era militia laws. He says the historical evidence from the founding shows that the 18 and 20 year olds are protected by the second amendment. He said the militia laws during the founding provide powerful historical evidence. We can just look at the laws they had near the time of the ratification, the federal government, and every state required 18 year old men to be a part of the militia and to bring their own arms, right. That was in the DC versus Heller case. The, this evidence is the founding. Public's understanding that the militia and the second amendment encompassed eighteen-year-olds obvious, right? Right there, just from the founding laws, these founding era militia laws, aluminate broader rights that are enshrined in the second amendment. The civic purpose of preserving our nation security sits at the second Amendment's core, being a part of the militia, having a firearm and being prepared for action were vital to protecting the new Republic. Right? So talking about this from a national security perspective, almost that this was, this was critical and we gave it to 18 year olds. And so the, the response always to that is of course, while we don't, we don't really need that anymore. We've got police, we've got, uh, you know, uh, military. So you little, uh, American and people, you, you, second amendment lunatics like me, you don't need your guns because the police are going to handle that for you there, buddy, as is the military. And so you don't need those anymore. Now he goes through that argument sort of dismantles that, right? And we're going to see some of that, uh, here, uh, militia laws. So show at the time of the founding that 18 year olds have a second amendment, right? Men trained arms from their infancy and animated by the love of Liberty will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest. So he quotes, this says every militia law near the time required 18 year olds to be a part of it. He also says that the militia clause is to better organize the militia for federal emergencies, select a malicious should be set at age 18, according to one of, uh, another document that was published back during the time of the founding. So let me show you this. So this is the appendix here, and I want to show you that these are the pre ratification militia laws. And so he goes through this and you'll notice us different citations. So in Connecticut, back in 1786, there was a law called acts and laws of the state of Connecticut in America. And they passed an act called an act for forming, regulating, and conducting the military force of this state. And guess what the age was for Connecticut 18, I'm sorry, 16 years old in Connecticut, pre ratification prior to the founding of the country, prior to the ratification of the constitution, they're looking back and saying, okay, well they wrote the constitution and the second amendment in order to fix the problems at the time, what were some of the problems at the time? Well, we needed a, you know, an active militia and things like that. And in Connecticut while their age was 16 Delaware, 18 Georgia, 16, Maryland, 16, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York, all 16, right here. We have here in New York and act to regulate the militia 1786. We have another one in New Jersey, 1781, another one from New Hampshire, another 1786. And so the list goes on and on North Carolina, another 16 Rhode Island, another 16, South Carolina, Vermont, both 16 Virginia. It's what, 16 and 1775. And they bumped it up to 18, 10 years later in 1786. Okay. And so pretty obvious that firearm possession was applicable to young people. And so the court is analogizing from there, right? So it's, it's a interesting little journey back through some of the rules of the time. And we wrap up, it says the justice department will almost certainly appeal the decision, which comes during an incendiary national debate over gun control laws prompted by everyday shootings, as well as the series of mass shootings. Over the years at concert schools of public spaces, which we've been hearing a lot about, right? Remember this, we've been talking about attorney general, Merrick Garland coming out and talking all about gun violence, gun violence, gun violence, gun violence here. This is now Supreme court with the newly expanded 63 to conservative majority has teed up a major case about state concealed carry laws. And the term starts in October. We're going to see how far the judges go. Meanwhile, Congress stands at a partisan deadlock over numerous gun control proposals back mostly by Democrats. And he's issued executive orders, taking other actions to combat what he calls an epidemic of gun violence. Lot of epidemics out there, these days pandemics the whole thing. All right. So that's, what's happening. Let's take a look over@thewatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, live chat and questions coming in. We've got Joe Snow, Ryan, that one, Florida, man, Sarah Smothers is here in the house. Let's see Ryan's there as well. Okay. Let's go over to the questions. See what we've got. Just a couple came in on this topic. We have, uh, oh, Sergeant Bob is here. Sergeant Bob's in the house. Sergeant Bob, uh, Sergeant Bob here with miss lucky. Hey Sergeant all my retired cop friends support. The second amendment cops you see in uniform supporting gun control are most, always politically appointed chiefs of police who can fired if they refuse. Yeah. So that's interesting, right? Sort of you, you go along in order to preserve your job, right. And people do that all the time. That's just my, I'm just doing my job, man. I know, sorry. I got a wife and kids at home screaming at me. She just texted me pick up the milk on the way home. I, her, whatever, you know, you're getting arrested. I don't have time to talk about it. And you know, they, they deal with a lot of the same stresses that the rest of us do, you know, but the second amendment stuff, it's good to know that there are many officers out there like you Sergeant Bob who, uh, support that. Cause I think, you know, it serves, it serves, it serves the police as much as everybody else. Like we all want that. Right? We all want self protection. We all want to be able to defend ourselves in our families. And uh, I appreciate your comment on that. And I know I owe you an email Sergeant Bob, you're on my list. You are, you're on my list. You're you're there. You're at the top of it. Uh, Sergeant Bob has a book that we're going to be, uh, uh, telling you about shortly, uh, when, when we get there. Thank you so much for being here. Sergeant Bob got Lev OCA. Again says, Rob, thanks for a shout out. Glad to join the community. Always happy for a win on the second amendment issue. Also the handle is pronounced Lee WIOA, Z a as in the famous chemist, love Wasi CA love Waze. So I'm going to try to get that. I love that love was yay. I've told the story here. I think on the show, when I was in law school, we had a substitute professor come in and she was going through attendance and she was reading the attendance. She got to my name and she said, um, Mr. Uh, uh, Gruelle yang grueling, grueling, grueling, grueling. And I wasn't paying attention. I no idea who the hell she was talking about. And nobody else in the class did either. And everybody's sort of looking at each other, going who the hell is? Who's who's gruel yang. He's looking around. And then somebody is like, I, I think that might be you. And I was like griller. And she goes, oh yeah, ruler. And so it was kind of a running, uh, little, little gag that my name was was French. Now it's row bear grill. Yay. Which is very, very fancy, like Lavoie ZBA. So I liked that. I think that's, that's pretty fun. If I ever moved to France and subject myself to their mandatory vaccines, then maybe I'll maybe I'll, I'll switch that up. Uh, good to see you love[inaudible]. I'm so grateful that you're here and I love the name. I'm going to have fun with that. We've got ghost gunner here says the more wins we get in circuit courts, they get appealed the better there's several in the ninth as well. Let them appeal. Let's go to us. They are very pro second amendment. I want an NFA and GCA to get in front of them. Strike them all down. Yeah. Right. If, if, uh, six, three conservative courts are going to be good for anything, hopefully it's something meaningful. Good to see ghost gunner. We'll see if it gets there. Thunder seven is here. It says, Rob, the Dems have been trying to take the guns away from the people. Isn't the second amendment of civil, right? That cannot be infringed upon. It is a, it is a civil, right. It is a fundamental, right. It is a, you know, a constitutional amendment. That means it is about as guaranteed as you can get in this country. That doesn't mean that it is, it is, is beyond any regulation or beyond any sort of infringement. Right? The, the courts have said, all sorts of infringements are appropriate. For example, right? If you're a convicted felon, you don't get that anymore. Sorry, you forfeited that right by, you know, doing what they considered to be a breach of society's rules. And so there are different things that the courts have held to be valid infringements. But I think that they have gone way too far in many states, looking at you, California, we have three girlies is here, says viewpoints. Our founding fathers did not like the idea of a standing army. They wanted us to have a militia mainly because of the tyrannical verbiage that was spewing out of Joe Biden's mouth lately Biden even said that the American people would struggle with fighting against F fifteens and nuclear weapons. I think Swalwell said that two final point, if an 18 year old can fight in our army, why can't they buy their own firearm? It's a great question. And it's because of political hypocrisy and nonsense is really what it comes. I totally agree with you. Uh, uh, candidly, I think that should be extended to alcohol too. Right? And I don't even drink alcohol anymore, but, uh, but yes, right. If you're going to be somebody who's going to go put your life on the line, you can't have a beer after that. I mean, what are you talking about? Right. So I think that a lot of what we have going on in this country is sort of, you know, remnants of older arrows and we're in a, we're due up for some rethinking about a lot of things, but not the second amendment. That's pretty, that's pretty robust that shouldn't be going anywhere. Chris is here. Chris says at 18, I had completed the Marine Corps bootcamp school of infantry security force training. A typical day of duty for me had me arm with an M 16 82, 9 millimeter Beretta, and a 12 gauge shotgun. It has never made sense that you can volunteer to serve at 17 in the U S but could not personally purchase one of the weapons systems. I was highly trained and proficient in using for three years after I enlisted. I think this is a change that was a long time coming. And thank you, Chris, for sharing that with us, for your service and for all of your, um, experience there, right? Th that's that's such a great way to summarize it.[inaudible] nine millimeter Beretta, shotgun, and you are a trained user of those firearms. But if you wanted to go back at your home state and go buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer salary, you're not qualified wild wild times. Great question. Thank you for that, Chris. And thank you to all of you who are supporting us over there@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com much, much appreciated. All right. So got one segment left and let's see what's going on here. Oh yeah. I forgot it about this one. This is going to be a good one. We've got that. January six inmates have been in custody for months, six months and going, and we are going to be spending some time today talking about another defendant who just filed a motion to try to get out of custody. His name is Don Dominick pet Zola. And because he's been in custody for almost seven months now you might be thinking that he is somebody, you know, who's sort of committed a very heinous crime. We're going to talk about that. Let's go in and get some background. Before we go into the motion that his attorneys filed. He hired a new attorney and this attorney filed a very substantive motion saying that the treatment that he is receiving in DC jails is horrendous. It's unconstitutional. It's violating some of his attorney client rights and it is warranting his release immediately. So we're going to go through that motion, but we got to learn about who this individual is before we can dissect the actual court document. So just the news gives us some background here. It says January six, inmates endure quote, human rights violations on a daily basis. According to a new bail motion that was recently submitted, the motion says that the DC jail effectively bans attorney client privilege for January six, defendants claim they're lawyers. Now, when lawyers start to make those claims, and these are reputable lawyers, and they've got a lot of practice in criminal law and other areas, those are, those are pretty big claims, right? You know, attorneys, at least at least myself and at least attorneys here, right? We don't typically make allegations like that unless there's some evidence to back that up. A lot of what you see sort of in the Hollywood TV shows and the movies and, you know, people coming out and sort of making these allegations of, uh, you know, abuse. It, it, it it's, it can be common in criminal law, but attorneys will typically make those claims with evidence, right? It's not, it's not like you see on the news where people just come out there and they sputter off a bunch of stuff, or you can maybe even, you know, categorize this show is that Rob just comes out here and runs his mouth all day. Right? Uh, that, that might be fair. But the point is, when attorneys are doing this informal motions, there's typically some evidence behind it. It's not just a bunch of sort of, uh, you know, bloviation and uh, angry words. There's typically something more. So when an attorney comes out and says, Hey, you know, I can't even really do my job because of the attorney client privilege problems. That's a big deal. And we've talked a lot about this. Remember we talked about Glenn Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and all of the problems that Glen Maxwell's going through it, we've been talking about her attorney, uh, miss, uh, can't remember her name, but a lot of these issues are involving attorney, client privilege relationships between the attorney and the defendant. And we've seen in Glen Maxwell's case that they have made, it made a lot of accommodations. They let laptops in, they let her have a lot of phone calls and any time there's a problem. It turns into this big ordeal. It's kind of something similar is happening here. So this author who wrote this article says that if the late Jeffrey Epstein's alleged partner can be granted a laptop for 13 hours a day, why not the January 6th defendants, right? If Golin Maxwell is being accommodated in her case, why not everyone else? We have a 43 year old veteran now incarcerated into DC jail for 150 days. He's been effectively shut out of his own defense in violation of constitutional guarantees, not just for the defendants, but also for their counsel. We're going to go through this here. Not only is Passolo unable to adequately view the voluminous text, audio, and video. That is all being held by the prosecution, but he's also housed a short drive from the Capitol. His right to a attorney client privilege is functionally meaningless because he's, I guess, being housed where he's being housed. So who is this guy? You may remember him. He was seeing here with Jacob. Chandley another Capitol hill defendant. We've talked a lot about this is from inside. Uh, obviously, you know, that that day it looks like they're having a conversation here between this officer and this guy, but this guy is not who we're talking about. We're talking about Passolo right here, Dominic Pizzaiola you can see here a closer photograph of him and another angle, right? Of course, this is Jacob.[inaudible] the Q Anon shaman. He is also still in custody. He has tried to get out of custody. Three times, been denied three times. My understanding is for Dominic Pizzaiola. This is his first attempt. And we're going to take a look at what's happening here. So, uh, there he is right part of that crew. This is the original press release from Merrick Garland and the us attorney's office. Back on January 15th, very excited about themselves. It says that a New York state man was taken into custody. What was he charged with unlawful entry destruction of property, obstruction of an official proceeding. His name is Dominic payola. He's also known as spazz, right? SBAC or spasm, Rochester, New York, charged with all these different charges. We're going to take a look at those affidavit said that he broke a window at the Capitol, uh, with a us Capitol police shield. Also an individual yelled go, go, go. Before entering the building affidavit says that there was a video that he can be saying, uh, doing a victory smoke in the Capitol boys. This is effing. Awesome. I knew we could take this mother effer over if we just tried hard enough. Right? So they've got all of that in there. He included that. They say he was with the proud boys, right? So officially with the proud boys. At some point after it ended, the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint says that he bragged about breaking the windows, stated that he would have killed anyone. They got their hands on, including speaker and vice-president Pence. The affidavit also alleges that, uh, members of the group would return to Washington and kill every single MFR they could. Right? So that's problematic language. And so a lot of people will say, well, they clearly that's probably should just give him the death penalty for those words. Right? A lot of people will say that now a criminal complaint is a formal accusation of criminal conduct. The case is being prosecuted by the us attorney's office and the FBI, blah, blah, blah. So a lot of that going on and people say a lot of things all the time. People say things all the time and they don't get charged with crimes for them. You've probably said a lot of things, you know, if you do that again, I'm going to do this. Might've been a threat. Might've been a, some locker room talk, right? Could have been a lot of problematic things that came out of your mouth, but you don't get charged with crime for most of the, those things, because that's sort of of a pre-crime isn't it. We charge people based on their actions. In most cases, there are threatening and intimidating rules and all sorts of stuff like that. But if you're going to just say his promise to come back or his threat to kill, you know, certain people that were not direct that were not contemporaneous, that that would, that had no real-time possibility of being carried out. There are frameworks for saying what is a true threat and what is not a true threat that that all exists in the law. So what you're seeing Merrick Garland do is come out and he's trying to use this bad language saying all these scary things. He use a lot of scary words out there, and that justifies keeping him in custody for six months. It does not. Those are not crimes unless they were actual true threats. So there's a whole nother legal analysis for that, which they're not doing here because we can see these are the charges, civil disorder, temporary residents, conspiracy to defraud the United States. We've got civil disorder, another maritime, burglary, assaulting, resisting government, property contracts, temporary residence of the president, right? Entering or remaining in an unrestricted buildings, all trespass and disorderly conduct and criminal damage charges, but a big fat stack of them over here for him. Now he has some co-defendants in the case. So those are sort of scattered around. Let me show you what's going on here. This is the court docket, and we'll notice that on July 9th, that there was a first motion to modify bail. It was filed here to release from custody, by his attorney for Dominic Pizzaiola first motion to place him on conditional release, pending trial, first motion to place him in high-intensity supervision program. First motion to modify the release conditions and a bunch of other attachments. Right now, the government filed a motion to request an extension of time. They are very, very busy because we know that they don't know how to prosecute cases apparently. And so they need more time to file a memorandum in opposition to the motion, which is no problem. I think that's reasonable. So the judge granted that yesterday said, yep, this motion is pretty big and pretty hefty. So we're going to grant you some more time to go and respond to that government. So this is the motion itself. You see, this was filed out of the us district court for the district of Columbia, 57 pages. Another big Whopper here. Again, we're not going to read through the entirety of the document S of America vs Dominic Pez, Zola, defendant Padilla the motion for bail, and they want conditional release pending trial. So he's being represented by this new attorney now Martin tank, tank clef, and he actually filed, did I get this? Yes I did. So on July, July 9th, this is when he entered his appearance, right? So he's pretty new met calf appearing for Dominic Portola, Metcalf as Stephen. And so this is from the same organization here, Metcalf PC. So what that typically means is that the law firm entered an appearance and then they have another attorney sort of working the case up. So you can see that here, Metcalf, PC, the attorney working the case is Martin T tan cleft. So what's in here. Let's take a look at the preamble and we have Dostoevsky. If you listen to Jordan Peterson, you'll note that the, he references him often once stated a society should be judged, not by how it treats its outstanding citizens, but by how it treats its criminal. Yup. Agree with that. The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the Dawn of life, the children, those who are in the Twilight of life, the elderly, those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped, right? You got think about that. Weakest people, the people that everybody wants to just throw out the people that they say they're beyond any sort of redemption, they are just human debris. We don't care about them. Like we see historically often what happens where certain demographics, certain populations, certain ideologies, everybody just says worst and we don't care what happens to them. And that's a problem. That's why people have to stand and fight for them. Because if that continues to happen, then there's no counterbalance to a tyrannical government. They're just going to continue to say, oh, those due process violations. Those are just minor because those were for that group that nobody cares about. It's just the January 6th defendants. So who cares if they're still in custody, who cares about their due process rights? Those people almost wrecked America. They almost took over the whole country. So we don't care about them. Wrong answer. I do care about them. I don't care what they did. I don't care what anybody did. Due process is a bigger principle. The presumption of innocence is a bigger principle than any crime. And I'll take that to the end of the earth. Denny Scot quoted Gandhi saying the measure of a civilization. How is how it treats its weakest members. The greatest of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member. If there was any justice in our society, it is to grant bail to a defendant, especially since 1988, while under indictment for double murder. This one, this person was, was released on a million dollar bail after several months of freedom, right? So he's going to go through and give us some examples of some other people who have been released. Let's take a look at the introduction. He says, Dominic, isn't charged with murder. Other people who have been charged with more serious crimes are often granted bail. So now they're moving for bail for two reasons. Number one, the treatment in DC has violated his human rights and his assistance. The effective assistance of counsel has been totally violated. He can not adequately review the discovery, which has all of the files in his case. And number three, the presumption against bail for pretrial detainees. Those are the three reasons why he should be released. He said, this event on January six did not occur in a vacuum. He says the government is unable to prove that pozole up here after referred to as Dom Dom or Mr. Paul Zola is a flight risk. They haven't been able to prove that instead the case boils down to dangerousness, whether he is actually dangerous and whether the government can prove, can demonstrate that he should be detained because there's nothing else that they can do to secure the safety of society. Right? Typically say, this is a bail, keeping somebody in custody when they're not convicted of anything, they haven't pled guilty of anything. We still have the assumption of innocence in this country. So the concept is you let them out of custody, unless it's basically impossible to do that. Unless you, you, you sort of know that person's going to flee. They're a flight risk. Or unless that person is a danger to society or themselves, then that's a dangerous person. We can't let them out. But everything else, man, we, we, we really want to let people out because of the presumption of innocence and the government has to prove that the default is not. We keep you in custody. The default is we keep you out there saying the government has not met that burden. He says, Dom has lived in his home for 20 years when he was apprehended. He was in his own home. All right. So he was there on the six, went home. Now he was there. Wasn't trying to flee it. Wasn't trying to run anywhere. They actually went to his house and picked him up. They didn't go, uh, you know, pulling out of somebody's basement, deep and hiding. So we go through some of the arguments 0.1, the constitutional right to assistance in one's defense and supplement if necessary. So he says, every defendant has at minimum, a right to counsel. It's also including confidential communications done by person in by mail or by phone. In this case, Pizzaiola has a right to communicate that has been severely infringed. So we've got a couple of typos here. You know, I hate to point these out, but the right to assistant in one's defense, which should be assistance and a severally infringed, this should be counsel has been severely infringed, I think. All right. However, the pretrial conditions of the DC jail. And I know I do that. I know I shouldn't cause I have a lot of typos, but I just do it. However, the pre-trial conditions of the DC jail have created an environment where these defendants, especially Pola are unable to assist in their own defense and thus not insured effective assistance of counsel. Let's have some examples. So we've got one here, another one of their clients, Edward, Jacob Lang and observant Jew is now labeled as a false prophet because he prayed for other inmates, DC guards. So apparently are abusing this guy. There's a smaller group of inmates that have it bad in DC. They're awaiting trial for the January six crimes they've been placed in quote, restrictive housing, which is a maximum security designation regarding the restrictive housing. One reporter noted how solitary confinement as a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging. And this comes from Warren, guess who that is? Elizabeth Warren told political a month later. So she says the Massachusetts Democrat fears that the defendants are being singled out to punish them or to break them so that they will cooperate from Elizabeth Warren Durbin was surprised. Another Democrat to learn about the restrictive housing says it should be a rare exception with a clear justification. The Illinois Democrat told the news outlet. It should be used with very limited circumstances, but, but staff for Durbin who chairs the Senate judiciary committee and Warren, a member of the Senate, democratic leadership did not respond to queries for an update on their efforts to get better treatment for the January six defendants, because they're not going to do that. It's not their issue. They don't care, but it is nice that they agree at least philosophically that it is problematic. It would be nice if they stood up and said something about this to their own party, which is in charge of the justice department and the white house might be good, but they're not going to say anything because that is not politically expedient for them. We have the plight of nearby inmates has received surprisingly little attention on Capitol hill for the better part of a year. Since the DC department of corrections issued a medical stay in place. It's impossible. This attorney says to him, free flowing conversations with defendant Pola attorney, client meetings are in open cages where there is no confidentiality. Everyone can hear the conversations, including prison guards, undersigned counsel experienced this when they visited with Dom at the DC jail. So he actually went down there, right? And sat with him and said, a judge, I'm sitting here. These stinking guards can hear everything we're talking about. There's no confidential at all. I was there giant problem, right? And good for this attorney for calling it out. I man, contact visits where a defendant meets with his lawyer in person at the jail required the defendant then to quarantine for 14 days, this was told to unders assigned counsel when visiting essentially the attorney client privilege is non-existent. He says depriving Dom of his fundamental right to counsel, considering the conditions that he's housed in the manner in which the legal visits are conducted. There is a strong likelihood that the government is intruding on the attorney client privilege. Yeah. All right. Let's see what point. Number two. So says, he says the defendant needs access to a laptop. Every defendant has a right to review the discovery materials in their own case. And the U S government has said that this is part of the largest criminal investigation of prosecution in history. We've heard them say that they're all over the place. You know, hyperventilating about how hard this is. Oh, we're so overworked. We're so overburdened, there was like 500 different cases that we got to work on. What, because the city of Scottsdale does about 600 every month. Like this, no problem all day long, not an issue. So if they're going to be spending$6.1 million to create this database so that defense attorneys can see everything and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they're going to be opening up different branches of Capitol hill police in different parts of the country, California and Florida, to start coming to a local nail your you soon enough. Then that means that there's a lot of evidence out there, right? So, uh, a sly defense attorney might say, well, judge, I mean, you know, they you've heard from them how much evidence there is. We need access to all of that. And so we need just like Colin Maxwell has 13 days, 13 hours a day of laptops. And we need all of these other things in order to review all the material because we have to prepare our defense. Bobby stern Haim is the name of, uh, Golin Maxwell's attorney. Excellent maneuvering over there. Okay, good, good work from her. Uh, this attorney is doing a great job. Also says defendant Pensacola is entitled to review every document, every video, every audio, and anything else that FBI DOJ us attorney's office or any other agency you're generating video or audio materials has, right? No such review, uh, such a review must not be dictated on whether his attorneys can visit him. No such burden should be placed on counsel or corrections, especially considering the financial and time consuming burden. It would place if they were required to visit with them at the jail and review each and every day. So if you've got all that evidence there, government, well, you better give us, uh, some, some, uh, some concessions is the word there because we need, we need a laptop and we need all sorts of additional accommodations in order to go through all of your evidence, which is really just, I think, a, a red herring, right? How much evidence do you need to prove those charges? It's a trespass case. It's a damaged case. So I understand the need to maybe bundle all of that evidence up so that you can go and investigate the unidentified people. But for the people who have been charged, they should have the evidence they don't need. They don't. I need to, you know, keep continuing this stuff for end of time, while they keep in custody, ridiculous 0.3 DC jail is committing human rights violations on a daily basis. The jail allows prisoners to leave their cells from anywhere from an hour, a day to a few hours a day. So you get a couple of days out of custody. No religious services are allowed. Dozens of prisoners have to share the same fingernail and toenail cutter without it being disinfected between each use. So these people are just, um, they're actually being treated like subhumans exercise, especially outdoor access is limited or non-existent under the restrictive housing conditions. Exercise is limited, whereas others in the jail have more ability to exercise. So it sounds like maybe unequal protection for some of the defendants who've been charged with capital six Capitol hill, January six crimes. Whereas some other defendants are not access to personal hygiene, such as showers is nearly non-existent according to our client and defense lawyers and relatives I've spoken with those housed in the general population are able to take a shower whenever they want. Huh. Interesting. Why is that? The same can be said for those seeking a haircut, every person we've spoken to a stated that they have been denied a haircut since their imprisonment commenced at the DCG. Well, every person that they've spoken to, we saw Jacob's chancellor. He had a buzz that day. So, so I think he's okay, but they're saying that everybody else, no, no haircuts, those in general population versus restrictive housing have more chances to wash. They're closing those in general population, have the ability to either visit the law library or gain more materials than those being housed in restrictive housing, right? So they're just getting abused. The detainees before a single moment of their trial has begun suffer the same harsh treatment as convicted criminals in the DC prison pandemic justified conditions recently condemned by elected officials of both parties. The treatment is so bad that they found advocates in unlikely allies. We already talked about Warren and Durbin talking to Politico. The issues of confinement are so widespread that politicians are conducting ongoing investigations into this matter. Undersigned undesigned counsel has spoken to members on the hill worse though, is that when the press covers these issues, prisoners such as Dom are retaliated within 48 hours of a newspaper article or television report. Erin, can you believe that? So if there's complaints that go out there sounds like this attorney is alleging that the guards actually conduct retribution. They retaliate within 48 hours to the defendants. So, uh, punishing people for things that I guess other people in the news are saying who have not been convicted of anything. Nice. All right. So, uh, just like we sort of went through with some of the gun laws. Now we have a compare and contrast with some of the other people who have been released with bail or with bond. So this attorney we've, we've, we've, we've talked about this here. I love this. I absolutely love this doing a, a compare and contrast. We've talked about this in the version of, uh, you know, buying a house or buying a car and sort of comparing and contrasting the differences between the two. Why is that house worth$500,000? Well, it's got a pool, it's got this, it's got that. It's got all these features and benefits and you say, yeah, but it's the square footage is this house. And this house is only half the price. Well it's because it doesn't have a pool, doesn't have any of those nice features. Right. And we, we sort of, you know, kind of do something, something similar in law, right? We're comparing and contrasting elements of a case. And so you'll say, well, this person has no criminal record. They live in, you know, in the state, they've got a mother and a daughter. And so they're not a flight risk and they've never missed a court date. So w we don't have to worry about warrants or anything like that. And so you go through the list and you just sort of, okay, all of these things are the same in my case. And so we're asking the court to find in conformity with other prior precedent, what else is going on out there? Judge, look at all these other examples. So why don't you do something that everybody else is doing? It's one way to argue that you can also distinguish things that way, right? So you can say that these are not similar. You can say that person is being held in custody because X, Y, and Z were really bad. I know it's the same charge, but those are really bad things to that person that our client didn't do any of that at all. So we're going to distinguish our case from their case. And so this attorney Bravo, I think this is, this is brilliant. Same point I've made here. You've heard me make this point, uh, here saying, why are the Capitol hill defendants in jail, in custody? When many other people who've committed more serious crimes are out. This, this attorney, brilliant does. This says that, uh, Elias Aaron Perez Diaz was charged with multiple sex crimes in Wisconsin in 2021, multiple sex crimes. Okay. With like an actual victim, right? Somebody was raped or assaulted here. Uh, the, the congressional building was assaulted, but nobody was charged with a sex crime. In this case, this person currently being held at the detention center and on a$1 million bond. So as soon as they could post that, they'll get out of custody, raping children in Burleigh county,$1 million bond for Dominic and chancellor, zero bond, no bond. We got Trump Trump's own CFO. Weisselberg he's been released on bail. Okay. So if you're going to be a hysterical Cyrus, Vance, or Latisha James over there, no, Trump's out Trump's guys out. Okay. Alison Mack, right? The Nexium sex trafficking crime. She had a$5 million bail. So she got out of custody. They were branding, uh, you know, women on their thighs and things. We have Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli, right? Those two people that was the mail fraud, the federal courts, uh, you know, emission scandal. They got out of bond, 1 million, each Ryan Lowin,$1 million bail. And that was assault with the intent to murder assault, with the attempt to do bodily harm with two firearms, 2021, he got a hundred thousand dollars bail with firearms and assault with intent to murder. None of that happened with the Capitol hill people. We have Jonathan Rodriguez Zamora shooting into an inhabited dwelling, carrying a concealed weapon, driving a person while discharging a firearm for a vehicle, a drive by shooting three counts of attempted murder in California. Guess what? That guy's out on bail,$3 million bail. He's out. May he may he may or may not be out. I don't know if he posted that or not, but he can get out. You just got to come up with the money. We have 11 individuals charged with eight counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, no firearms for Dominic, not even in the charges, unlawful possession of ammunition, use of body armor and commission of a crime, all out 11 individuals, a hundred grand each all out. Let's see what else. Adam Christian Johnson, three counts of entering or remaining in a restricted building without lawful authority. Okay. So that sounds very similar to what we've got with the Capitol hill riders. How about theft of government property? Yet? We have the guy who stole the podium, almost seize control of the country. We also had the guy who was committing disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Oh, maybe this was a Capitol hill case, 2021. This guy got a$25,000 bail. So why is Dominick still in custody, Derek? Shovan they wrap up second degree murder, third degree murder. Second degree manslaughter actually convicted in court. Before that happened. He was out on a$1 million and we all saw that video. Did anybody in the Capitol do anything quite like that? No. So then why are they still custody? Sergeant Daniel Perry charged with murder assault, deadly conduct for killing an air force veteran Garrett foster. You remember we talked about that case happened in Texas. We covered that 300,000 bucks. He's out LaDonna bog murder over two month old baby D released on no cost of bail. So they just said, you're out murder of her two month old, baby. You're just gone. Yeah, no, no problem. You promised to come back to court. That's it. There you go. All right. No cost bail. So why then are the capital hill defendants being held in custody still six months later with all sorts of due process violations, equal protection violations across the board because they're political prisoners. It's pretty obvious. All right, let's see how this attorney wrapped up the request. Wherefore for the foregoing reasons. We want a full hearing. If this request is denied, we want third party custody option. So what you're going to see him do is he kind of works his way down. The list of requests. He says, first and foremost, we want them out of custody. If you can't do that, how about third-party custody? If you can't do that? How about, uh, uh, let's a cell phone in jail, right? So let's walk through this. He says first and foremost, we want him out on personal recognizance. So just let them out. If you don't do that, let's put them on third party custody with pretrial services. What we can do electronic monitoring. We can do work-release. We can do curfew. We can also put other reasonable conditions on it. He's going to be on intensive supervision. We're going to check in with him, with a, somebody checking on him from the pretrial services agency, all that stuff. Pretty reasonable to me. See if the judge works with him on any of those factors. And he said, listen, if all of those forms are denied, how about this? How about we give him his cell in DC and a laptop so that we can go through the evidence of the case. If he gets out, he can just come to our office. But if you, if you don't let them out, then we need something because there's a due process problem here. All the written discovery provided by the government, all audio and video discovery discovery provided by the government. The ability to email and receive emails from his attorneys, the ability to generate notes, documents, and other relevant materials to aid in his own defense and a guarantee that no one shall access the laptop in an effort to gain access to the attorney, client privilege materials dated July 9th, signed off on here by Martin Tankleff Esquire from Stephen, a Metcalf and met Katherine Metcalf over in New York. Good stuff. I liked that motion. You know, I know I, um, can, can kind of, uh, be annoying on the type of thing, but solid. I like it. I like where it's and I think this is good stuff. I like to see. I'd like to see what the judge has to say about that because the judge kind of now has to thread the needle. When you frame it out that beautifully, you say, look, all these different people here. So judge, based on what I just showed you, what's your justification for why he's still in custody. Hmm. Let's see what the judge says. And we've already seen some of the judges come out and rule on this. Their response is always the same. It's yeah, but this is a special case. Why? Because it's the Capitol building. So what, well, it's the Capitol building. We know, but they were counting votes again, back there by like eight o'clock that night, the whole thing was over in two hours, four hours or something like that. Yeah. But it's the capital and that's the heart of democracy and I'm very offended about it. So that's why they have to remain in custody. And you say, judge, what about due process? What about the presumption of innocence? Well, but it's the Capitol building, so, all right. Uh, so now we've got some, some new lawyers on the case. They're going to be working it through the system. Hopefully it goes somewhere because this stuff is just reprehensible. It's not, not right at all. All right. Let's see what is coming in over from the questions we've got some live chat happening over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. This is a, it's a juicy, small, small yang conversation happening. I think he had court today. Juicy small. Yay is back in the house. So we've got a lot of activity over there. We're going to check in with some of the questions. Let's see. We've got a, uh, first question is coming in from Sharon Quinn. He says the current regime can't afford to release their political prisoners or allow them to have their civil rights. They have to keep the narrative that January 6th was essentially treason. They can't be afraid of them talking because if sta big media, big tech would never give them a platform to speak. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's a useful tool for them to continue to use. And so if they get these cases resolved quickly, well then they can't, you know, continue. Can you prosecute the January six defendants? There's no, they have no interest in resolving these soon wants to know, says standing next to shaman, obviously guilty by association in the picture. It looks like they're talking to the police. Don't see fighting going on. Yeah. It looks like they're having a nice, you know, powwow there. Thunder seven says, Hey Rob, didn't the Antifa thug, John Sullivan get released. And he was caught, uh, high-fiving the CNN reporter celebrating that they got into the Capitol. He broke the window and screamed that we should burn the MFR down. Why isn't there a class action lawsuit for these mega political prisoners for cruel and inhumane treatment? Amnesty would recognize them as political prisoners. I do remember that. So John Sullivan, in fact, I think he got paid like 70 grand for some of his footage by CNN and some of the other big media companies. And so there were a lot of questions about that. Who is this guy? Where'd he come from? Was he sort of in on it? What's the deal there because I think he was a part of BLM and then like ex-communicated from them. And, and so, you know, you don't know people like that, you know, they could be the professional agitators to some degree. So who knows if that's true or not, but, uh, but yes, I think that there, there are some pretty, uh, pretty problematic things happening with the Capitol hill defendants. There's no question about that class action is of course not the appropriate mechanism there, but certainly I would like to see a more robust advocacy from the defense bar. Right? I mean, I, I, we, we, we talk about these cases here, but I, you know, I really don't hear much other people shouting from the rooftops about this being a problem, at least from, you know, from the legal sphere, everybody's mostly quiet about this. There's a handful of defense attorneys who, you know, were screaming from the rooftops about this, but everybody else is just kind of, well, it's the Capitol hill defendants. Nobody wants, nobody cares about them. A good question there, thunder seven. We'll see where it goes. Let's see what else we've got thunder set. Uh, Nope. I already did that one. We've got, oh, Sox says, Rob, can you explain what the penal code is? So yeah, pretty simply. It's just the criminal code. So penal code sort of means the criminal statutes. It's sort of, um, you know, what happened? How do we penalize you? Same kind of root word there if you break the law. And so we call it the penal system, we call it the, you know, statutory penal code is the, is the statute, uh, the, the, the laws. And you have the penal system, which is what punishes, the people who break the laws. So it's all just criminal law is the way to explain that sharing quit. And he says the treatment of these political prisoners is an outrage. I never thought I would agree with Warren on anything, but in this instance, she's right, like a broken clock, right. Twice a day, this is the way political prisoners were treated under Stalin and other evil totalitarian, dictators, hardly a surprise since they're working out of Stalin's playbook. Good to hear from you, Sharon. Yeah. I was surprised too. I was like Elizabeth Warren Durbin. Hey, but when you're right, you're right. We got Jeremy here says, you know, things are bad when even the left starts showing humidity. You, do you think the ones being denied their rights can seek relief by appealing to the Supreme court, assuming they get convicted. Um, so it's not you know, it's not an easy, just throw up to the Supreme court. So they would have to go through the formal appellate process in order to get there. And I doubt that we're going to, if I had to guess, I doubt that we see any, anything of consequence come out of the Supreme court on any of these cases. In other words, I don't think that the Supreme court is going to tell us, you know, that the government did something wrong in this prosecution. The government's going to be able to justify their behavior on the basis that this was an unprecedented thing and the courts are just going to let them skate through all of this. I really don't know that there's going to be much reform that happens. Remember, this is all taking place in DC. I think that most of that is basically unsalvageable at this, at this moment in time. But we'll see, Joe Snow is here, says wish I had access to a laptop when I was, uh, held at the 26th street cook county for months without bail for possessing weed. When I was 18 possessing weed, you monster Joe, how, how could you? Wow. That's like the crime of the century, obviously. So I'm surprised you're still with us here for that. You know, you probably should still be in custody over there for that violation. I'm obviously joking. Okay. It's insane that people are in prison or jail for weed. It's it's ridiculous. I actually on some good news there. I think I did see, uh, an article. What was that talking about? One of the Democrats is actually talking about, oh, it's, um, it's Senate, majority leader, Chuck Schumer. That's who it is. Chuck Schumer was talking about essentially decriminalizing marijuana. So, you know, rolling it back from a schedule, one drug on under federal law or whatever they have it classified as saying that they might actually modify that and decriminalize it, which would be a very, very nice thing. We'll see if that happens. We've got, want to know, says those comments from Warren and Durbin or just CYA. Everyone needs an attorney like Maxwell can afford most normal people. Don't get that best justice system. The money can buy. Yes. So Maxwell's attorneys are so good. It's it's like mind boggling. Very, very good. All right, Joe Snow says I too have been denied a haircut since this pandemic started. I have a disability can not wear a mask. No salon. Barbara is willing to defy the state of Illinois and allow anyone without a mask on their face, inside their establishment. Regardless of medical exemptions, my one longtime friend who did cut my hair without a mask in may. Wasn't a tragic motorcycle accident and died 11 days after cutting my hair. I'm not saying it was Hillary Clinton, but come on. Okay. So thank you, Joe. First of all, I'm sorry about your friend. That's terrible. That's tragic. Uh, absolutely. That's actually, that's absolutely terrible. And uh, and uh, not having a haircut is also bad, not as bad, but it is, it is bad. So, uh, hopefully you get that solved. We've got, let's see, who was here. We got three girlies is here. It says as a former state of Ohio CEO correctional officer, I can attest that SEG and protected custody are inhumane, right? So it's sort of a isolated confinement and it should never be used for anyone. Wow. Let alone people who have not been convicted of crimes, the conditions in that jail sound absolutely appalling, but none of the inmates in our state institution had access to a laptop in their cell. They were able to access a computer at the library. I know many had their dockets and files had a lot of legal notebooks to make notes on it. Had it had access to law books. What is the likelihood that, that this guy can get relief and, or bail? So, you know, I don't, I don't know, based on my faith in humanity, I would like to believe that it's likely that he gets bail, right? Because I'm not sure that he's had a compelling attempt at being released yet. And this is a pretty compelling attempt. We have seen other Capitol hill defendants get out of custody and we've seen others not get out of custody. And I would, I would like to think that he does get released, but I don't know. Right. We've seen some judges that just are very difficult out of the DC circuit. So, you know, I would have thought that a lot more people would have been out, but, uh, I I've been surprised by this candidly, uh, other forms of relief I would think would, would be more appropriate, right? A judge is going to have a very big problem if there is, you know, a lack of confidentiality or an attorney client privilege. And so I think the judge is going to want to fix that around the margins to say, okay, wait a minute. Right. It is happening in an open space. And during a hearing and attorney comes in and says, yeah, judge, I was literally sitting here in an open, you know, conference room and the guard was standing 20 feet away. Right. That's going to be a problem. And the judge is going to have to do something to correct that. So I guess my point here with some of this stuff is discretionary and the judge might have the ability to, you know, model it around the edges. But some of the other stuff is, is, uh, I guess a matter of political opinion for the judges. And so they have some tools in the toolbox that they can use to fix some of the due process violations, but they may not want to pull those tools out because they don't think that the non bondable issue is in fact a problem, right? They think that it's their discretion, that this person's a threat to society or a flight risk. And so they're just going to hold fast on that, but they can't also hold fast on that and then not make any accommodations on some of the procedural due process stuff, which, which has a likelihood of being problematic. Good question there. And thank you for your input. Three girlies. So a former CEO from the state of Ohio, no sag or protected custody, anybody really, this was sort of what you were summarizing for us there. Thank you for that. And our last one is here from Joe. Snow says if trespassing is treason, I can't wait to hear what, what, uh, an election problem might be considered. Huh? Can't use, uh, can't use those words there, Joe, but I, I get your point. Yeah. Well probably nothing, probably not much of anything, because they're just going to continue to paper over all of that and great questions. Let's check back in with the chat we got Joe's over there. Sharon's in the house. It's ed is here. Good to see you. It's ed. Let's see who else Sharon's there. Okay. So a lot of stuff happening@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and we appreciate all of your love and support over there. We've got a couple of new people who signed up if you're not over there, chatting away. When I welcome a couple of new people and, uh, Lavonne Lavasa is also on this list. They're going to be added tomorrow. For some reason, they're not here. Uh, curious E N G G is here. So curious, Ian Gigi, welcome to the community and signed up for the yearly. Appreciate that. Very much curious enj is here. So I don't know if that's engineered or what it is. We had boom, made a one-time support. Thank you, boom, for chime in and, uh, and supporting the show. And of course, uh, some, some people who just recently signed up George cloth, you Ramirez, we have Angela B 66, freedom lives one, Florida man. And of course, Texas flat roof roof. Man just signed up recently along with lava CA who who's signed up, which is one of the best names ever. Uh, and if you are not already a member@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, that might be a problem because you're going to miss out on our upcoming event, taking place on July 24th, 2021, seven to 8:00 PM on a zoom is our monthly locals meetup. And we want to invite you to come and be a part of that. So we can get to know each other and build that community that we keep talking about. It kind of insulates us from some of the other big platforms, all happening at our locals community, watching the watchers.locals.com. And of course, I really do appreciate all of your support and love and really means the world to me. All right. And my friends and that is it for us for the day. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. It's going to be 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain time, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody else have a tremendous evening. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.