Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Supreme Court on Abortion, COVID Crimes & Australian Home Quarantines, Douglas Jensen Back to Jail

September 02, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Supreme Court on Abortion, COVID Crimes & Australian Home Quarantines, Douglas Jensen Back to Jail
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Supreme Court on Abortion, COVID Crimes & Australian Home Quarantines, Douglas Jensen Back to Jail
Sep 02, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

The Supreme Court issues an explosive new 5-4 decision that allows a Texas abortion ban to proceed and we review the Court Opinion. More COVID criminal charges in Hawaii and Australia launches home quarantine app with face recognition and location monitoring check-ins. January 6th Defendant Douglas Jensen is going back to jail after being caught listening to an online symposium.​

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

🔵 Democrats fuming after the Supreme Court issues a 5-4 ruling in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson.​
🔵 AOC and Cori Bush demand an end to the filibuster and the packing of the Court.​
🔵 Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, Thomas and Kavanaugh: Review of the Majority opinion.​
🔵 Roberts, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor all file dissenting opinions for various reasons.​
🔵 Jen Psaki and Joe Biden respond to the ruling and detail the White House’s efforts to fight back.​
🔵 Law enforcement agencies step up covid criminal charges in Hawaii and elsewhere around the world.​
🔵 Chloe Mrozak was arrested for trying to enter Hawaii with a vaccine card proving she took the “Maderna” shot.​
🔵 Meanwhile, Australians launch a home quarantine app that requires you to check in with the government using face recognition and geolocation.​
🔵 Students in Denver Colorado walk out in protest to mandatory masking.​
🔵 Douglas Jensen, often called the “poster boy” for the Capitol Riot, is sent back to jail.​
🔵 Judge Timothy J. Kelly found that Jensen violated the conditions of his release by accessing the internet.​
🔵 Jensen was listening to an internet cyber symposium regarding the 2020 Presidential Election.​
🔵 U.S. Attorney Hava Arin Levenson Mirell argues that listening to the cyber symposium confirms Jensen is a danger to the community.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

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

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​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 TBD! – Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Abortion #RightToLife #RightToChoose #AOC

Show Notes Transcript

The Supreme Court issues an explosive new 5-4 decision that allows a Texas abortion ban to proceed and we review the Court Opinion. More COVID criminal charges in Hawaii and Australia launches home quarantine app with face recognition and location monitoring check-ins. January 6th Defendant Douglas Jensen is going back to jail after being caught listening to an online symposium.​

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

🔵 Democrats fuming after the Supreme Court issues a 5-4 ruling in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson.​
🔵 AOC and Cori Bush demand an end to the filibuster and the packing of the Court.​
🔵 Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, Thomas and Kavanaugh: Review of the Majority opinion.​
🔵 Roberts, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor all file dissenting opinions for various reasons.​
🔵 Jen Psaki and Joe Biden respond to the ruling and detail the White House’s efforts to fight back.​
🔵 Law enforcement agencies step up covid criminal charges in Hawaii and elsewhere around the world.​
🔵 Chloe Mrozak was arrested for trying to enter Hawaii with a vaccine card proving she took the “Maderna” shot.​
🔵 Meanwhile, Australians launch a home quarantine app that requires you to check in with the government using face recognition and geolocation.​
🔵 Students in Denver Colorado walk out in protest to mandatory masking.​
🔵 Douglas Jensen, often called the “poster boy” for the Capitol Riot, is sent back to jail.​
🔵 Judge Timothy J. Kelly found that Jensen violated the conditions of his release by accessing the internet.​
🔵 Jensen was listening to an internet cyber symposium regarding the 2020 Presidential Election.​
🔵 U.S. Attorney Hava Arin Levenson Mirell argues that listening to the cyber symposium confirms Jensen is a danger to the community.​
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

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

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​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 TBD! – Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Abortion #RightToLife #RightToChoose #AOC

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive . My name is Robert crueler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice,

Speaker 2:

We have seen a lot of problems

Speaker 1:

With our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got 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

Speaker 2:

And me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of diff

Speaker 1:

Difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to start off by talking about abortion. If you were here with us on the show yesterday, we did get into that. The Supreme court was a little quiet yesterday on a new Texas anti-abortion bill that is now in full effect, but we got a new order from them in a , an opinion from the Supreme court, very close five to four decision. And because it involves abortion, which is a very, very sacred issue for many people in this country. It is a little bit nuclear out there. The Democrats are very upset about the conservative Supreme court and what they have done. So we're going to go through this. We're going to see what the reaction is from some of people on the far left. We're going to see what the white house has to say about that in Jen Saki , she came out and answered a couple of questions about the ruling. And we're also going to take a look at the opinion itself because it's actually an interesting split here. We have a majority opinion and we have a three or four different descents, four different descents. All of the dissenting judges wrote their own descent . So we have several different disagreements. They're very unhappy about it. And so this is going to be something that is going to be at the forefront of, I think the political spectrum for a long time, because , uh , it , it is going to be very convenient for the byte administration to now pivot off of Afghanistan and just wage a new domestic war against the Supreme court. So we'll talk about that a lot in the first segment, then we're going to change gears and talk about some COVID crimes. I've been spending a lot of time talking about COVID crimes. We've been seeing criminalization of all sorts of COVID flubs , the errors and things like that. Different conduct is being criminalized now. And so we're going to check in with Hawaii. Again, they've been at the forefront of this, and then we're going to go across the world over to Australia. You probably been seeing a lot of insanity coming out of that country. We're going to share with you this new application, they have that they're going to implement for home quarantines. And it's not just a little app just says, oh, we want here. Here's some instructions on a home warranty . No, this

Speaker 2:

Thing pings. You requires

Speaker 1:

You to respond, takes a face scan of you checks your geo location to make sure you're in your home. And you got to respond within 15 minutes. Otherwise the government sends somebody to your house to make sure that you're there and you're not in violation of their quarantine orders. So we'll show you what that app looks like. It's lunacy. And then in our last segment, we're going to check back in on a January six case, the case of Douglas Jensen. This was a , uh , one of the more aggressive capital hill defendants who was released from custody while he's going back into prison or to jail because of , uh , listening to something over the internet. So we're going to share with you what that is very troubling. Of course, that's he was listening to a , uh , unapproved, informational internet symposium. So we'll see what that looks like. And we've got a lot to get into and more, if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over and watching the watchers.locals.com. We've got a lot of people chatting away over there. We've got look, two G we have rattus C we've got Todd trout, Paula MK , 80 fives in the house, along with tweaks and several others over on YouTube. We've got Danette. We have Steve driver. We have Sarah Brown Martins in the house. We've got sweet and sour pork. Also all chatting away over there. If you want to be a part of the show on locals, there's a form looks just like this. You can use it to ask questions and we're going to do everything that we can to get through all of the questions on the show. Also, I see over on locals , Jeremy, hello, Jeremy ducks in the house. Good to see you guys as well. And so let without, oh no , we've got one more slide. If you're looking for clips of the show, this is where they're at now, Robert griller Esq clips. And so if you can't ever stay around for the full show, make sure you subscribe to the clips channel. So you can just go and find out that , oh, I missed the second segment. What was that? Oh, I missed the third segment. Just go get that. And so that's pretty , uh, pretty, pretty nice. And if you don't ever need those, then don't have to do a thing. But if you do, we'd appreciate your support over there. Okay? So without any further ado, let's get into the news of the day. Shall we? The Supreme court just came out and issued a very close five to four opinion on abortion. Naturally, the people who are in favor of pro-life causes are very happy about this opinion and the people who are in favor of pro choice or pro abortion. They are in favor. They're very upset about this, very angry about this. And so we're going to take a look at this in depth. We're going to start off by making sure we understand how this broke down, very close. This is the makeup of the court. And as you can see here in green, we have the five judges who voted to basically take no action on allowing an underlying abortion law to go into effect. This is the abortion law that we talked about yesterday on the show. It's SB eight out of Texas, and it essentially creates a private cause of action for

Speaker 2:

Individuals

Speaker 1:

To file lawsuit against doctors who were performing abortions on a fetus that has a heartbeat. If they perform that it creates a cause of action. So that private citizens essentially can bring some sort of mechanisms to penalize people who are, who are doing these procedures that Texas doesn't want done. So that was something that was set to go into effect a women's rights organization and abortion clinic filed a lawsuit. They wanted to stop this yesterday, the Supreme court people were waiting for a final order from the court to stop this from going into effect. All of these abortion clinics in Texas were saying, well, the law goes into effect tomorrow. We need you Supreme court to come out and stop this thing. And they didn't. And so they were protesting and outside holding vigils and things, and the Supreme court never issued the order. And so the law went right into effect. We got the memo, we got the opinion from the court, the explanation about sort of why this was not acted upon. And so we're going to go through that, but let's take a quick look at the breakdown. Of course, in green, we have the very, very tried and true conservatives. We have judge Thomas of course, right here, very senior judge, judge Alito over here, always very conservative. We have Gorsuch new edition . Thank you, Donald Trump, very conservative regularly Kavanaugh , the most re uh, the , the second to most recent edition . And then of course, judge Amy Coney Barrett that replaced judge Ginsburg, which is really what flipped the balance here. Now, George Bush appointed this judge here. This is judge Roberts, and you know , many people would have liked him to have been a conservative judge. But as you can see, he's sort of in alignment with the other liberal judges here, which is typically the case that happens , uh , uh , pretty frequently. And so many people were thinking, well, this would be a six to three opinion. You'd see Robert's here in green. He's not he's joining in with the liberals is , is kind of typically the case, but it's very close and you can see here, what would happen if this issue came up and this position were changed? What if Amy Coney Barrett was still Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that would be a left vote. And this decision would go the other way. This is why many Democrats, many left wingers out there are very upset about this. And so they're calling for change. They're calling to demand some changes here, AOC and other left wing Democrats renew the push to pack the Supreme court. After the Texas abortion ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions, after a heartbeat can be detected. And so we have AOC is out there now saying Republicans promised to overturn Roe vs . Wade. And they have, which is a little bit of a oversimplification here. That's not exactly what happened in this case, but , uh, we understand her point, right? She's being very hyperbolic Democrats. She says in consequence can either abolish the filibuster, expand the court, or do nothing as millions of people's bodies, rights and lives are sacrificed for the far right minority rural. This shouldn't be a difficult decision. So you can see where she's going with this, a couple options, one number one first and foremost, abolish the filibuster and then number two, expand the court. And you have to do it in that sequence because they don't have enough votes right now to do it unilaterally, right? They, even though they have control of the Senate because Kamala Harris is still the tie-breaking vote. It's 50 50 breakdown. Kamala Harris could go in there and be the 51st vote, but they need a more than that in order to pass something that would reshape the judiciary. And so what they're saying is, well, we need, we need to break the filibuster because that's our only impediment to just unilaterally expanding the size of the court. So they break the filibuster. Then they can just go in there with a simple majority, vote, anything 51 and up, they can just kind of do anything that they want at that point. And they will be at 51 because they have the tie breaker with Kamala Harris. So we know what AOC wants to do. And she sort of makes up that far left wing. And we know that there's always tension between her and, you know , extort and ancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, and some of , sort of the older school, more mainstream Democrats, Cory Bush, we spent a lot of time talking about her. She also tells us that in the span of one week, the Supreme court forced 11 million households to face eviction. And then effectively overturned Roe vs . Wade in the middle of the night. This is what far right? Extremism looks like. We need to expand the court is what she said . So, so she's upset. You know, you got to hand it to Cory Bush. She was out there, you know, outside of the , uh , Capitol hill building, you know, with her Oreo cookies for a long time, really fighting for the eviction thing, thinking that she was , uh , doing something by camping out there, like a homeless person by evicting herself , Nancy Pelosi evicted her out of Congress. And she was

Speaker 3:

Homeless on the ,

Speaker 1:

On the Capitol building. So she's upset about that. So now she wants to expand. It could because the eviction thing didn't work out for the Supreme court came out and said, oh , sorry, can't do that. So she's upset. She's over to not having a good time there. Uh , Cory Bush. So let's take a look at the opinion itself so that we can get a breakdown on how this all came out. We already heard about the five judges who were in the majority. We're going to listen to their opinion, read through it briefly. You can see it's not long. This is it. This is the big , uh, opinion that they're sort of melting down over, out there. And let's see what it says. It says whole women's health versus Jackson. This is a judge. It says the application for injuncted

Speaker 3:

Relief is denied.

Speaker 1:

So what happened here? Whole women's health. They came up, they said, judge, we need action on this immediately. And so they filed this emergency motion for injunctive relief. Didn't happen. And they say, why? Well, look, if you want to win on a case like that, you have to carry the burden. You have to make a quote strong showing that you're likely to succeed on the merits and here,

Speaker 3:

Well, probably not going to happen.

Speaker 1:

They say the applicants now before us, they have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law

Speaker 3:

At issue. Their application

Speaker 1:

Also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden, but oh , but they say, okay, but haven't for example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoy individuals, not the laws. It's unclear. They say whether the defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law. The state currently has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority

Speaker 3:

To enforce the law, nor is it clear

Speaker 1:

Under any existing precedent that the court can issue

Speaker 3:

An injunction against state courts

Speaker 1:

Asking the judge to decide a lawsuit under Texas law. Okay. So there's a lot going on here, but basically what they're saying is that

Speaker 3:

That in Texas, this

Speaker 1:

Law is , is in effect. They , there are problems with the th there are serious questions. They say about the constitutionality of the Texas law. Yes, it's new. It introduces some new, interesting questions. We have some procedural questions that are coming up,

Speaker 3:

But currently the people who were bringing the challenge to a ,

Speaker 1:

A law that is rightfully and dutifully passed by the legislature and the governor, they have not met their burden for the first burden is that they haven't shown whether or not they're even going to enforce the law in the first place. So this is sort of hearkening back to some of the member that we will look, we covered a ton of

Speaker 3:

Election litigation

Speaker 1:

Lawsuits on this channel where somebody would file a lawsuit. And they'd say, well, we're concerned about election fraud. And the courts would come back out and they would say, well, the election hasn't happened yet. So what are you concerned

Speaker 3:

About? There's, there's nothing to

Speaker 1:

Even talk about here. So this case is not ripe because there's been no actual injury come back when there's been an actual injury. And so they threw the election case out. And then conversely, after there was an alleged injury and the lawsuit was filed after the election, they say, look, there was a bunch of fraud there. And they say, well, you're the wrong person to Sue. You don't have standing. So they would just kind of kick it out on those , uh , those initial preliminary issues on whether to even get into court. And so here, they're saying, listen, it's unclear. You're suing Austin, Reed , Jackson, judge, and all these people from Texas. It's unclear whether they're going to enforce this

Speaker 3:

At all. So there's not even

Speaker 1:

Any harm that's happened yet. So you're trying to stop something claiming that there's going to be some irreparable injury that happens to you. And there has been no irreparable injury that's happened to you. So the standard has not been met. They say finally, the sole private citizen respondent before us. So the person who's responded here, the only person who's responded says he has no present intention to

Speaker 3:

The law. Okay? So the law exists, but at the time

Speaker 1:

Who responded is not going to even enforce it. He says, so in light of such issues, we cannot say that the applicants have met their burden on an injunction. And remember the standard is over here, strong showing. It's likely to succeed on the merits and irreparable injury. If there's not

Speaker 3:

Stay , this is the standard that, that it , what you're going to be injured. Unless something, somebody steps

Speaker 1:

Finally, the sole private citizen we talked about in reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve the definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in particular, the order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas' law and in no way limits or other procedurally properly challenges, Texas law, including in Texas state courts. Okay. So there are two things there. One talking about the constitutionality of Texas law. That's not what the Supreme court is even talking about. They're just saying that in order for you to succeed on the merits of seeking an injunction, you have not met the standard yet because you haven't shown that you're going to be injured, irreparably injured. In fact, the evidence that we have before us shows that they're not going to enforce the law. So there aren't going to be any direct injuries to you, plaintiff, and you don't have the ability to bring a claim , a case in that,

Speaker 3:

On that basis. And

Speaker 1:

They're also saying that if you want to challenge this, happy to do it in Texas state courts, lot of other things can happen on a lower level. The Supreme court is not the appropriate forum to just go in there and challenge

Speaker 3:

Any state laws, take it into state courts. And this is

Speaker 1:

More or less consistent with the Supreme court and some of their election litigation they've done . They've done a lot of this with other election cases. They've said, well, if Pennsylvania wants to move the dates around, if they're judges they're in the state of Pennsylvania, if they just want to pick up the election date, put it back on November 9th, move it to November 5th, move it to January 37th. What do we care? It's their state. They're in charge of governing their own election rules. And if they want to , you know , bend some of the constitutional provisions that we think are important in federal elections, the states are free to do that. Same thing as similar thing is happening here, kind of deferring to the states, Hey, don't look, don't come and complain to us at the Supreme court because you're unhappy with what the state did go into your state courts, file an injunction there, wait till there's a reparable injury and then make your make your claim. And they're the ones who can decide what to do about the injunction at a lower level, but the Supreme court's not going to do it. So it's an interesting opinion. I think

Speaker 3:

It is a strong

Speaker 1:

Hint from the Supreme court that , that this is something that they are a lot more open to being less. Let's say they are , they are less willing to be accommodating to any state attempts to regulate abortion, which is obviously not good news for the Democrats. So very short opinion. That's it? That's what , that's the whole thing. That's what they're upset about. Let's take a quick look at some of the dissenting opinions. So we've got here, judge Roberts, who supposed to be a conservative, technically he is often considered on the right side of the court is writing his own descent , disagrees with the other five judges. And he is being joined by Kagan is joining his descent and Briar is joining his descent . So let's see what it says. This scheme is not only unusual. It's unprecedented. He's saying that the Texas law is unprecedented legislature employ , imposed a prohibition on abortions after

Speaker 2:

Six weeks delegated a lot of that enforcement to the population and the desired consequences seem like it's going to insulate the state from any responsibility. All true. The state defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they did not enforce them in the first place I would grant. He says a preliminary relief to preserve the status quo before the law went into effect so that the courts can consider this more at length defendants argue that the existing doctrines preclude. Okay, so we'll skip over some of that. We are at this point, asked to resolve these novel questions. In the first instance, these questions are very difficult. I would accordingly preclude enforcement of SB eight to allow the district court and the court of appeals, the opportunity to consider the case, although the court. Okay. So you see what you see the distinction here, although the court denies the applicant's request for emergency relief today, the court's order is emphatic making it clear that it can not be understood as, as sustaining the constitutionality of the law. But although this court does not addressed the constitutionality of the law, it can, of course promptly do so when it is time. So he would want it to go through full briefing, oral arguments and consideration. So he, so it's a little bit, he's disagreeing with the outcome of the opinion. He's saying, look, if I had my way, if I was, if I was the person writing the opinion here, I wouldn't have made a decision at all. Essentially I would have just said, okay, we're going to just put a SB eight on hold for the foreseeable future. And we're going to allow these cases to work their way up the Supreme court, which is consistent really with what the majority was saying. The majority said, this is not the appropriate forum for this. Don't bring it into our court, take it down to the lower level state courts, the district court, the court of appeals, then work its way up into our courtroom. And John Roberts is saying the same thing, essentially that, yeah, it's not the appropriate forum, but the difference between the two opinions is just John Roberts would have just kept the status quo would have said, well, SBA is so different. It's so new. It's so novel that we're not going to allow that to go into effect because it's changing things too much. A lot of complicated issues needs a full brief. And so he would maintain the status quo. Whereas the other judges are just saying , uh, well, it's Texas, it's their state. They pass the law. They have duly elected legislatures, a governor who signed it into law that people vote that's democracy in action, right there. They pass the law. What are we waiting for? Why should the people who pass that law be denied? The ability to have their will executed it into the force of governance. See the split there. All right , let's see who else wrote opinions. We have Briar over here. Briar , you can see down here, he is being joined by Sotomayor and by Kagan. So Kagan is joining in, I think on everybody's she likes to get in on the descent . Doesn't she let's take a look, judge Bryer with whom Sotomayor and Kagan dissent . All right. So this one says the procedural posture leads a majority to deny the applicant says I would grant the request to give them provisional relief says Texas law delegates the enforcement to other people, but a woman he says has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion. What does he rely on all the cases that the court decided Roe vs . Wade and planned parenthood that created that constitutional, right? Right. So he's relying on the court precedent and a state cannot delegate any of that. That comes from planned parenthood. So in other words, the state sort of, because it's a constitutional rights that the state can't delegate that out. It says, indeed, we have made clear that quote , since the state cannot regulate or prescribe a burse abortion during the first stage, the state can not delegate authority also during the same period. So he's saying that in a different case that the court has found that, oh , it looks, listen, the state can't regulate abortion specifically, but the state during that first trimester, but, or that first stage of the pregnancy, but they also can't delegate that out. Right? This is sort of that private party exception that I rant about all the time on the show. When we talk about the government saying you have free speech, it's protected by the first amendment, unless you're talking on Facebook or Twitter, which control the digital public square, then you don't have free speech anymore. Then it's just private companies. They can do whatever they want. And so what the, the conclusion or the analysis there is, that's a private business exception because the government is sort of, you know , delegating its responsibility to protect free speech. It's not extending that into certain areas. No , we're not going to limit the free speech. That's somebody else who's going to do that. And so here, it's something kind of similar, but maybe a little bit reverse here. What we're talking about is that the court is saying the Texas government is saying, we're not enforcing these regulations. They're not even regulations. We're not in , we're not doing anything on abortion really is what their response is. We're not doing anything. All we did was create a private cause of action so that somebody else can Sue the government is not involved in it at all. And it's kind of like that private business exception that the government says about Facebook. Oh, well, we're not regulating free speech. Facebook is, it's a private company. We're not banning abortion. We just created a cause of action that allows other people to file claims. If they're unhappy with , with what's going on there. And so the government is withdrawing itself. But here , what judge Brier is saying is, no, you can't do that. You're delegating out your responsibility to protect abortion. What are you nuts? It's a constitutional right. They have every right to have an abortion and you're the government. And you're supposed to protect civil liberties and fundamental rights just like abortion. And so you can't government delegate that out and say, it's not my responsibility anymore. If somebody else wants to create a private cause of action, somebody else wants to file a lawsuit. That's their business. That's just a private person filing a private lawsuit in the court of law, not our problem. And , uh , judge Briar says, oh, you can't do that because the government has a strong responsibility to protect those fundamental rights. Be curious what he has to say about free speech and Facebook. He says the very bringing into effect of the Texas law may threaten the , the applicants with imminent and serious harm. Okay. Remember that was one of the other standards. The court said, you haven't even shown us. You've been harmed yet. There's no harm here. You said that you've been harmed, but what have you, what have you, are you being sued? Is anybody suing? You know , because the law is not in no effect and the people who might enforce the law, they're not even suing you. So what is the irreparable imminent harm that's coming? Doesn't exist. According to the majority, Briar says, Nope, it's here. Just the fact that it went into law in the first place. Yeah. It's imminent . It's serious harm. One clinic applicant's website, for example, says we're unable to provide abortion anymore. And applicants who all they have all submitted affidavit, affidavits , unable to run the financial risks of waiting for another private person, all sorts of different harm. We've permitted those whom a law threatens with constitutional harm to bring pre enforcement challenges. Thinking something there might be similar says, I recognize that Texas law delegates the state's power to prevent abortions, not to one person like a district attorney or a few persons like a group of private citizens, but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical difference. That delegation still threatens a constitutional rights. And any time that a constitutional right is threatened the needs to be some sort of a remedy for that. He says, as the chief justice rights , the court should not permit the law to go into effect. He dissents, there may not be any new procedural bottles that can adequately hold. What is in essence, very old and very important legal wine . The ability of the judiciary to protect an individual from the invasion of a constitutional rights, an invasion that threatens immediate and serious injury. So he's saying that the court has a duty to get in there and stop this from harming them. And that just the fact that the law went into effect, we talked about it, we heard it. We heard it from whole women's health yesterday on the show they posted on Twitter that their abortion clinic was full to the brim. People were just popping out the front door, waiting for their abortions before 11, before midnight struck. And the law went into effect. So yeah, maybe there is some actual harm happening there. Lot of abortions can't be completed or some people might say, lot of babies

Speaker 3:

Are going to be saved. So

Speaker 2:

You can see how this could split both ways. That was from Brier . Let's see who else wrote a dissent . We also have Sotomayer over here. She wrote a descent , not super long. I think actually this is the longer one we'll go through it quickly. She's very upset. The court's order is stunning presented with an application to enjoy a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising, their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny. A majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Oh , she is not happy about this judge Sotomayor angry last night, the court silently acquiesced in a state's enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedence today, the court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because a procedural complexities in the state's own invention because the court's failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and in Flint, significant harm on the applicants on women seeking abortions in Texas. I did

Speaker 3:

Whew . Judge. Sotomayor's not happy about this. Not happy with Texas. Let's see

Speaker 2:

What else she says in may they pass the law. We talked about this. It's an a near categorical , uh, limit on the abortions, says the act is clearly unconstitutional under exists

Speaker 3:

Precedent, which she's

Speaker 2:

I think kind of jumping the gun on that. Right. All right. So this is an intro. Well , let's get through this before we comment on it. Oh Lord. Texas legislature was well aware of this binding precedent that came out of planned parenthood and they actually try to circumvent it. They took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens. The act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit. We already talked about that legislature fashioned this scheme because the federal constitutional challenges to state laws are ordinarily brought against state officers who were in charge of forcing the law. But they're not doing that here.

Speaker 3:

Taken together.

Speaker 2:

This act is a breathtaking act of defiance of the constants .

Speaker 3:

Oh , she's angry.

Speaker 2:

The act took effect at midnight. Last night, they asked for ask for an emergency relief today. The court finally tells the nation says so to my, or it declined to act ,

Speaker 3:

Act the structure of the state scheme. The court says

Speaker 2:

Raises complex and novel antecedent procedural questions. We read that in the majority, she says, this is untenable. It can not be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizens. What are they talking about? They do this all the time at a minimum. This court should have stayed the implementation of the act to allow lower courts to evaluate the issues.

Speaker 3:

So look so she's contradicting

Speaker 2:

Herself at minimum, the court should have stayed. The imp stayed the implementation of the act because it needs to go through normal analysis. But in an earlier, she

Speaker 1:

Says it's clearly unconstitutional, right? So she's already made up her mind. She doesn't need to see it. It's clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents, but then also says, yeah, I mean, it kind of is agreeing with John Roberts here, says it right there. Instead the court has rewarded the state's effort to delay judicial review. The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations. I dissent, oh, she's not happy about that. You know, they normally will say, I respectfully dissent. Let's see here. Did Briar say that? No, he didn't say it either. He's also unhappy about this. Let's see. Did , uh , did Kagan Kagan , respectfully dissented ? Here's a Kagan. So Kagan is here and Kagan is also being joined by Briar and Sotomayor . So the three liberals joining up here, she's dissenting , very short descent to paragraph says without full briefing or argument, after less than 24 hours, this court greenlit , the operation of tat of Texas is patently unconstitutional law. So we know how she's going to vote for the court. Thus rewards. The scheme today's ruling shows just how far the shadow docket goes. So unhappy with the shadow docket and look down here. She says, I respectfully dissent. So a little nicer tone. The court's majority is emblematic of too much of this court shadow docket decision-making, which becomes yeah. So, oh , for different kinds of takes here from the four different dissenters. And uh , let's see what the white house has to say about it because they're going to respond to this. Now we've got a lot of super chats. We'll get to those as well as local. We've got two clips from Jen Saki and then we're jumping right into the questions. Let's take a look at what Jen had to say. Here is a, a question from a reporter. Hey, Jen, big ruling just came out of the Supreme court. What do you have to say about that white house concerned about, you know, one of your primary issues getting dunked on by the Supreme court?

Speaker 4:

What's the level of concern at the white house that the decision on Texas specifically will lead to a similar raft of laws across the country. And what is the recourse for the white house at a federal level to help prevent this?

Speaker 5:

The step that can be taken is for the co is the codification of Roe something the president and the vice-president have called for and would require Congress to act on. Uh , I will note that certainly we've seen, this is not the first threat to RO we've seen in a state across the country. It's an extreme threat. And again, I would just note, this is offering up to $10,000 to individuals who report someone who is going to get an abortion. I mean, that is what we're talking about here. So, and beyond that, as I've already outlined , uh, so yes, of course it's a great concern. Uh, and, and of course it's of great concern because this is not the first time that there have been efforts , uh, by , uh, some in the country to prevent a woman from having the right to choose.

Speaker 1:

All right . So she's, she's pretty intense right there. Did you see is an extreme, extreme threat? And so look, if there's any victory out of the Supreme court. Yes. A lot of the conservatives, a lot of the pro-life people very happy about this, you know, who else is doing cartwheels down, the house halls ,

Speaker 2:

Joe Biden and Jen Saki . They couldn't have been happier that a ruling like this came out because you know, what's not in the news today, all over the place, Afghanistan, because they they're changing their focus to a different type of massacre. So now they're talking about abortion nonstop . Jen Sakhi comes out here, very angry, very animated. This is an extreme threat we've been under, we're under attack here. And so we're in basically a second war zone. We're getting our bearings straight about how we're going to deal with these right-wingers on the court. And so , uh , that was one statement. She had another response to another reporter here.

Speaker 6:

So some of the activists today noted that the statement you put out put out on behalf of the president did not offer any specific agenda of what's next, or again , specifically how the administration plans to push back against the Texas law. So I just wanted to give you a chance if there are any specifics or internal planning to share that now.

Speaker 5:

Well, as the president committed on the campaign trail and remains committed to now , uh, codifying Roe V. Wade as the law of the land is something that Congress can do. He will continue to push them to do. And that is a specific course of action , uh, that can be taken to help protect from these types of lawsuits.

Speaker 2:

Gotcha . All right. So , uh, codifying the law. Oh man. I forgot to clip . Also, there was one additional slide that I don't have queued up because my PowerPoint died. I forgot about that. But you heard from Jen, what I was trying to decipher is what is the, what is the takeaway here? You heard what her solution was, the idea being that she is going to go and where is this? All right. I'm looking for Joe Biden's statement. He responded to what the white house is going to be doing. Let's pull this up here, Jen. Psaki we just heard, she was telling us specifically, con Congress is going to get involved. We can get a congressional bill to push back against this and a codified Roe vs . Wade to just say well, which is really the right approach for abortion in the first place, right? It's to go through the legislature and be enacted one way or the other preferably through the states. But if Congress wants to do it right, they have the ability to do that. So, but that would be more appropriate than the Supreme court, nine unelected judges just creating a right out of thin air, oh, abortion. You have a, you have an , a right to get an abortion. Now what, where , where, what , what, where is that of the constitution? Where'd that come from? Oh, it's just from this a penumbra of other rights, like our right to privacy and all of these other mystical wild things that are nowhere to be found in the constitution. The Supreme court just created it and that's separate. And apart from your opinion on abortion, you can be very pro-abortion or very pro-life. It doesn't matter. The fundamental issue is do we want the Supreme court legislating from the bench by just creating new rights and then re and then leaning back on them. So if Congress wants to pass a law, that's a , that's a legitimate way to do, right? You might disagree with it, but it's a much more legitimate way to do it. Then the Supreme court doing it. So Jen Psaki , then that was her solution. Well , what are you going to do about this? A lot of women are very concerned about this. They want abortion on demand. They can't get it anymore. And so now what are you going to do? And she said, we're going to codify it. How are you going to do that? Because you only have 50 senators. So that would presume that you're going to have to crack the filibuster open in order to ,

Speaker 3:

To codify something like that. Or

Speaker 2:

You got to smash the filibuster and pack the Supreme court. So the one thing we did not hear from Jen Saki that we heard from AOC and Cory Bush at the start of this segment was court packing AOC, Cory Bush. They were very clear. They were out at the gates, boom, ready to go pack the court, pack the court. Both of them, not Jen Saki though. Why didn't we hear that? Not even floating that around, like we heard, even during the election, remember they were going to form a committee and all of that stuff. The polling might be pretty bad on that, which is why they're not head over heels with packing the court. Jen Saki said, Nope, we're going to turn it right back over to Congress. So we looked at Joe Biden, Joe Biden is out there and he's issuing a very stern , uh , a tweet here. Somebody wrote this for him, says the Supreme court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on constitutional rights under Roe vs. Wade complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in the most private health decisions. The law does not even allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says rather than use it, Supreme authority to ensure justice could be fairly sought. The highest court of our land will allow millions in Texas in need of critical reproductive care, which I don't know what I think he means abortions to suffer while court sit through procedural complexities, the defense by John Roberts, Sotomayor Bryer and Kagan all demonstrate the era of the court's action. So what is his solution? What's Joe Biden going to do about this? I am launching a whole of government effort to respond to this decision, looking specifically to HHS and DOJ, to see what steps the federal government can do to insulate those in Texas, from this law, and to ensure access to safe and legal abortions as protected by.

Speaker 3:

Wow. Okay .

Speaker 2:

So this is exactly on point with everything else we've seen out of this administration. If there is a problem with the judiciary, if there's a problem with any branch of government, they don't like they use the executive power to go in and start cracking heads. We saw this with the CDC. They didn't like states evicting people in the middle of a pandemic for whatever justification they've got for that. CDC came out through a series of executive orders, just mandated, no more evictions extended that multiple times, the executive branch acting extra judicially on property rights in the United States in violation of states. The state said we are going to evict people from our properties, get out government feds came in and you can't do that. Okay. So then the state said, well, all right, well, we want to control our schools because those are local. Our kids are local , uh, Joe Biden, CDC department of education. Those are all many thousands of miles away from most educational centers in this country. And they want to manage their schools themselves. So they pass anti universal masking prohibitions. They say, you're not allowed to mandate universal masks. And what does Joe Biden do? He says, oh, we don't like that. The states are managing their own affairs. So if they're going to penalize

Speaker 7:

The schools, the local schools

Speaker 2:

Going to happen, the feds are gonna come in through the department of education. Through Dr. Cardona are going to use the power of the civil rights department to go in and investigate anybody who is making it difficult for the schools to comply with the CDC guidelines. The federal government is coming into your backyard and telling you, you don't get to manage your own schools. We do and work. If you defund the schools that are not complying with how you want them to be governed because they're in your backyard, that's okay. If you defund them, we're going to pay for them. And if you do anything to jeopardize any of those people who are a part of these organizations, well, we're just going to investigate you for civil rights violations. That's from the federal government property rights. We have educational rights. DOJ is now going to be looking at abortion and medical centers and anybody who wants to comply with a law enacted by the states , going to launch a whole of government response, using health and human services and the DOJ to go after the states. Yet again, the federal government jumping right into your bedroom with you everywhere you turn. It's disgusting. Let's see what you have to say about this [email protected] Let me make sure I got these questions queued up. We do have major in the house, starting us off, says, can I start calling women , uh , baby killers. Now that a majority of them want to have abortions? I mean, they called me a baby killer when I was in the army, even though I never killed any babies. That's for major. Yeah. These , uh, these comments are always spicy. Thank you major. Let's see, we got dead. Now. Five says only joking. Please don't yell at me. The thing about abortion is it kills babies, which I liked , but the downside is it also gives women a choice.

Speaker 7:

That's just terrible. Oh good .

Speaker 2:

That's so bad. I had to rethink that one. Glad read it though.

Speaker 1:

Todd trout says chief justice Roberts is Catholic. So am I, he should be ex-communicated for his stance on abortion,

Speaker 3:

Joe. Biden's Catholic too. Isn't he? And he's just, he's like, yeah know ,

Speaker 1:

Just throw them right out the window for all he cares. John Haugen says the court was quote consistent for once. They let the state speed just like they did with the recent election challenges. I'm okay with this stance, states rights need to be bolstered. Individual rights need to be reinforced as well. Right? I mean, look, it's it's. I agree with you. It is consistent. I believe I made that point and it's a good point.

Speaker 3:

It's it's this the same people who were ,

Speaker 1:

Who were doing cartwheels when the Supreme court rejected the Texas attorney general lawsuit joined by 16 other attorney generals, challenging the election. Remember when that happened, the Supreme court said that states do whatever the hell you want. We don't care.

Speaker 3:

Fine. If you want to run crooked corrupt elections. That's your prerogative. Same thing essentially is happening here. Yeah, look, yeah. Pass the law, run it however you want.

Speaker 1:

Let's see, we got Paula MK says, I doubt the filibuster will get abolished. Joe Manson, Christian cinema, only dams who understand the magnitude of doing that. Yeah. And it would also basically probably be the end of their careers, right? Because then they would be the tie breaking vote. And if they vote the wrong way, any time, it's it puts them in the spotlight. They don't want that. They want to just fall into the, into the madness of the rest of it. With the rest of them. They haven't forgotten how the Dems abolished the filibuster for SCOTUS appointees. It came back to bite them. When Trump got in office, apparently they're the only ones who see that the pendulum will swing the other way. See, I listened to you Rob me . I talk a lot about the pendulum. That's a good one. Thank you, Paula. Plus, isn't SCOTUS supposed to be nonpolitical. Why are they automatically assuming that packing the court will result in them getting their way? I guess I need to stop trying to make sense out of anything. Even remotely related

Speaker 3:

To our government. Well, it's Paul.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Paul, the Supreme court is supposed to be kind of apolitical. It's not in practice, right? It sometimes can be like you get a John Roberts on there that many people think is going to be this full-throated conservative and he's not. And so people are surprised from time to time by how the justices fall out. But largely, you know, they go through such a vetting process that you kind of know what you're going to get for a lot of them. There are those aberrations in Supreme court history where you get a Kennedy or you get a Roberts. And it's sort of hard to keep track of them a little bit. But , uh , by and large, the Democrats know if they toss on three other judges, they're going to be back in the majority. Let's see. We have a couple of other ones here from thunder seven. Any decision

Speaker 3:

What happened here?

Speaker 1:

My Chrome just crashed. Why does it do that? So I believe I'm still recording. I got to open up a couple of different screams. Uh , I think I'm still streaming. Let me reopen some of this stuff. I apologize for that. Sometimes Chrome just

Speaker 3:

Crashes on him . I don't really know why that is. All right . So

Speaker 1:

My questions are going to be off a little bit. And the is back here says, I agree with the point that the dams are conveniently using here. It shows their hypocrisy that the whole reason that the government even exists is to protect the rights of the people with the powers we grant them. But I don't agree. There was no such thing as a right to abortion. The word abortion is not anywhere in the constitution. It clearly states, whatever is not in the constitution is up to each state . Funny how their whole perspective flips when it's about the VAX or social media. It's about, whatever's mostly, you know , convenient for, I think for everybody , uh, and they , their political perspectives shift as are needed. We have another one from ghost gunner says, how likely is it that the Democrats remove the filibuster? How bad will it hurt them? After the 2022 election didn't they get screwed. Last time they did that. I seem to remember something about Mitch McConnell telling them that they would regret it and then jammed a couple SCOTUS judges through part of me hopes they don't remove it. The other part of me hopes they regretted after 2022. Well , the case coming up in the fall about Missouri have implications on overturning low , uh, Roe vs . Wade, possibly on the grounds of SCOTUS doing their job of the legislature. Sorry for the long post. No problem. I think you're talking, I think it's a Mississippi case, but yes. So what probably is going to happen is some of these things will be consolidated if there is another claim. And so remember what the Supreme court said here, right? Look, if you want to bring this up, this Texas law issue, you've got to go through the regular procedure, just take it up into the, into the state court work its way up to the Supreme court. By the time that happens, it will probably be in alignment with about the same time they're going to hear the Mississippi case. And so they'll hear them both together. And if there is a new decision, if there's a new constitutional framework for analyzing productive reproductive issues cases, then we'll see it at that time. And , uh , it , it would reconcile, resolve both of those cases is how it often happens. We have soul Viking says, so the emotion of the day for the administration, including Saki is quote , angry and animated so transparent, but not in the way that we like it. Yeah. It's like

Speaker 3:

They get a memo that goes out,

Speaker 1:

Give Joe two shots of the amphetamines. And so he's amped up a little bit. And then we got the speech that we got celebrating the victory in Afghanistan. We have another one from super iron . Bob says, I believe this is a private and personal decision when I can get scheduled to medications for add , without having my state involved . And when I don't need to discuss getting a medical exemption from my doctor for the jab, because

Speaker 3:

May kill me if I take it private and personal decisions. I think that is a good thing.

Speaker 1:

Remember about most of this, we have hand of nonsense . Somebody please kick the interns off from the POTUS Twitter. No way Joe wasn't in bed. It's almost strange. These crazy status wants to abort future

Speaker 3:

Tax payers. Yeah. Well, yeah, it's weird, right? That is a , that is an interesting point. Yeah.

Speaker 1:

Alex Jones says, I told

Speaker 3:

You this would happen. That's from Alex Jones.

Speaker 1:

That's a terrible Alex Jones impression. I won't do that again. No doubt says if I understand the law correctly, the Texas law gives dads the right to Sue. If their child is aborted without their consent, other closely interested parties might also have that right. Also big win for dads that would gladly assume custody. Yeah. You see those, those , uh , videos of fathers pleading with women not to go get abortions and things news. Now I oming says not sure if someone should be ex-communicated from their religion for not forcing their beliefs on government rules, their ruling should be based on their interpretation of the constitution. Not on their feelings. That's a good point. I think for, for the judges , uh , in the crowd, but maybe not the politicians, right? The politicians sort of , uh, are supposed to be representative of the people. And if they have religious proclivities and they claim to be of a religious organization, I think it makes sense to hold them to that. Dr . Pinch off , uh , the black woman that cured cancer was chopped up and flushed into a sink trap today. Official said maybe next time, I don't even know what that means. Okay. Want to know, says Rob, if everyone does not have a VAX card, can they fix the hurricane problem? Sure . It should. The unvaccinated people just be starved to death and die of thirst. Bernie . Oh, that's on the wrong segment. Wants to know we have another one. The curious one says Florida may be voting on its own heartbeat bill in 2022. How might this ruling affect that many? Thanks. So like I said, I think it's, I think a lot of these are going to be consolidated. So I don't recall when the , uh, the other Mississippi case is scheduled for, but my understanding is we're expecting a ruling on that case in 2022. And so, so, so for example, if we get a ruling that says that what , what Texas did was constitutional than every single state in the country is going to be implementing that same framework. If it comes back down, if that's unconstitutional in Texas, also going to be unconstitutional in Florida. So it will because it's the Supreme court, it will trickle down to every jurisdiction across the country. Now, if Florida, you know , also passes it, somebody else files a lawsuit. And so say for example, that now, because this happened 30 different states around the country, want to take Texas law also and do it well , there's gonna be a bunch of lawsuits and all of those will be consolidated. And when that big issue is addressed about whether a state can outsource some of the abortion enforcement mechanisms to private parties, then that will sort of standardize things across the country. Once the Supreme court speaks, we have another one sweet potato says, feels like we were all scrambling to try to play by the laws and the constitution. And they changed the rules whenever convenient. You could apply that to abortion, mass mandates, vaccine mandates, anything that doesn't go their way. How do you even battle if you fight? Well, look, I think I understand your point. I think that I think that it's important to make sure that you're sort of adhering to first principles, right? It's the idea that you , you pick some very important concepts and you stick to those things in your own life. If the government is flailing around, around you doing whatever the government's going to do, let them do the government thing, right?

Speaker 3:

If it doesn't ultimately impact most of us, hopefully, ideally. And so

Speaker 1:

Having a good life and recognizing that our lives are not the government, we are not the government. They want us to think that we don't even really need the government, but they want you to make, they want you to think that every single thing that happens in the world is connected to Joe Biden or to Donald Trump. And it just isn't. We have realtor. Patty says, you need to switch to apple and get away from Chrome. Oh ,

Speaker 3:

Well, we're going to talk about an app and the app

Speaker 1:

Or in our next segment, but that will never happen. Ever. It's ed says people should have a right to end a life if they desire the life to be ended. But I don't have the right to decide not to wait, but by to not have the right to decide, not to inject myself with a COVID shot. I know it's not the same thing. Ending a life is so much worse than not injecting myself with something that's from it's ad . Sorry. I butchered that. It says

Speaker 3:

Basically saying, wait a minute. So you should have a ,

Speaker 1:

The right to choose to kill another creature, but I can't have the right to choose whether to put a jab in my body. One is way worse than the other.

Speaker 3:

Depends who you ask that answer might flip. Just scary.

Speaker 1:

Three says , uh, if it weren't for the double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all. Also, where is the Chuck released the whirlwind Schumer. He should be screaming on camera right now. That's right. You remember that clip from Chuck, Chuck, you Schumer. Remember him as Russ used to say, Chuck, you Schumer would be always out there. There's going to be a whirlwind coming. Kavanaugh almost sounded like he was inciting an insurrection, but there was no inquisition on that case. Only on Trump news. Now Wyoming says politically Democrats feel any abortion laws too much, any at all, even though you have the twist your brain to see how it is unconstitutional. However, gun freedoms, which is specifically called out in the bill of rights, they feel limits are okay. And in fact, want to remove,

Speaker 3:

Move them from us. That's a great,

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it's really hard to find consistency and really anything that they do. Let's see , we have three girlies in the house. My oldest girlie was raped when she was nine. Didn't want her to have to carry a child. I allowed her to have the plan B pill in the hospital during her having to go through the rape kit. These ignorant and inhumane people use rape and incest as the reason why someone should have an abortion that is such a straw man argument, any person who goes through rape and incest could and should have a plan B option, should they go to the hospital? Get checked out well before the six week deadline, perhaps women will start, start reporting the rapes that occur so that they can get the plan B at the hospital. I, for 1:00 AM tired of people using rape and incest as the reason why women should kill their children. Most abortions are done by people who are using it as a means of consequence of their own choosing, not from rape and incest. It's about time that states determined for the people in their states. What the abortion laws are. The federal government needs to get out of. It states have control of vital statistics. They cover murder and death.

Speaker 3:

Abortion should be decided on a state level. That's right .

Speaker 1:

Three girls , three girls right there. Thank you for that three girlies . And , uh , thanks for sharing that. You know, that's a powerful story. I hope your daughter is doing well. Sure. She is. She has a tremendous mother. I can tell that about you and , uh , I hope your family is recovering well from that. I also agree with you that, that they use the, the outline

Speaker 3:

Ears to really push some immoral arguments.

Speaker 1:

They're doing it now with down syndrome people, right? My, my brother has down syndrome, Joey, and he is one year younger than I am. We've grown up our whole lives together. And many people on Twitter are saying, well, you can't even detect down syndrome until 10 weeks. And so if you are in Texas, you're not even going to know that you should abort your down syndrome child until 9, 10, 11, 12 weeks. And so, as soon as you know, obviously, because they're such just worthless people that you just would immediately run down to the abortion clinic and just vacuum them right

Speaker 3:

Out of their rights, wrong. He's the most

Speaker 1:

Amazing person on the planet. He's incredibly beneficial to my life and the world. And so I agree that when people use these outlier situations for their own purposes, it's disingenuous, it's dishonest. I don't appreciate it. Thanks for sharing your story there . Three girlies , really good comment. And why renal MD says tactically, wasn't this something to implement after 20 22, 20 22 is the election for which abortion stands in the balance, Republicans or poised to take the house it's on them to screw it up. Yeah. I agree with you, doc. I think that this is a big, a big win actually in many ways for the Democrats, because this is going to rally them around a new cause and they desperately need that. And the abortion lobby is very volatile, very, very aggressive. And so they're going to have a new, a new cry , a rallying cry, the Supreme court abortions all going to be abortion for the foreseeable future because it is a such a big issue. Lots of questions on this. Let's see red pilled convict says I went to prison for my addiction when I should have been locked up for being an accessory to the murder of my first child. Wow. That's from best from red pilled convict. That's a , that's a comment. We have news. Now Wyoming says , speaking of your bro, didn't you promise he would join you this week? You know, I, yeah, I did,

Speaker 2:

But we missed each other. I was not in the office when he was in the office, but he , he, he heard

Speaker 3:

Me on the show talking about

Speaker 2:

It and he came in the next day. Hey, when am I coming on the show? And I was obviously not recording at that time. So we're , we're going to make that happen. No question about it. He's an absolute riot. You're going to love him. He had , I want to know, says very busy, sorry. Bernie kids have not went through the shop. Do not have any mechanical knowledge at all. Want to know what are you doing? You got to keep them in order of antique is prime says, let me play devil's advocate. Not just because I enjoy doing it so much, but we can apply a similar argument. People's bodies are different. There are cases where women don't even know they're pregnant either because of their physiology or the fact that they're just stupid. So that's just the question. How does this percentage compared to the percentage of people that can't get vaccines that's from VNT cause prime.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. Yeah. They

Speaker 2:

Don't even know they're pregnant. Yeah. I don't know how that happens. It's a good, it's a good question to mole over there . VMT cast . Let's see, we got a couple more realtor. Patty says, tell everyone that is watching to hit the like button. Then more people will get to your channel. YouTube has given me some really weird metrics over there. I hope that we're still broadcasting over there. Let's see. Uh , my, my, my charts all look strange. Uh , SCOTUS on abortion says I can't believe the Dems are using special needs as a reason to investigate the states for mask mandates, then turn around and admit they'd abort them if they could. Oh, there it is. That they'd abort them if they could. That came from SCOTUS abortion .

Speaker 3:

Yeah. That's a great point.

Speaker 2:

All right. And those are, those were great questions from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's see what came in over from YouTube. Lots of super chats. I really do appreciate that. Zulu is first up and Zulu said that your quotes. So I asked Zulu about something earlier today , uh , in the chat before the show started , uh, he said something, he said, your quote, your, your quote

Speaker 3:

Ma meaning mine, quote, is it legal?

Speaker 2:

And do they have the votes and quote was in regard to appointing justices? It was the sum total of your requirements for ethical action even after probing

Speaker 3:

Two appointing justices.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. Okay. So I don't really recall what I was talking about there, but, but I, I think, I think maybe what I was talking about was that if the Democrats have the votes to pack the court, that they can do it and they should do it because that's what you would do if you had the votes, right. A political party should be out to win obviously. And so if they

Speaker 3:

Are not winning and they have the votes to pack the court and they do it

Speaker 2:

Lawfully and legally, I think maybe that's what I was talking about. I don't know if that's, if that, wasn't it. Thank you for updating me Zulu and thank you for the support. It's good to see here. We have

Speaker 1:

Eddie Oliver says, if you want lacks abortion laws, why don't you move to a state that has them get out of Texas? Uh , the beauty of us is each state has sovereignty. That is the era that is eroded over time. And I think it will ultimately lead to the balkanization of America. Uh, I, I don't disagree with you on that. Eddie . I think that you're going to see a lot more divisions across the country. As the entire nation becomes weaponized, politically, everything is weaponized. Now medic the medical system is entirely weaponized. The educational system is being weaponized. We have

Speaker 3:

The idea that you have to comply with government papers in order to leave your house, right? The

Speaker 1:

Economy is now weaponized . You can't go buy a stinking

Speaker 3:

Cocktail at your bar in New York,

Speaker 1:

Unless you are comporting with what he wants you to do. Mayor bill de Blasio, your ex , your , your economic ability. The ability to interface economically is now weaponized. So how can the country

Speaker 3:

Not go into balkanization?

Speaker 1:

Eddie Oliver says also, which amendment specifically protects the abortion. The protects abortion was at the first, the 14th and the 19th of any of them. So are you asking that seriously? If I recall, I think planned parenthood is sort of based on the idea that there's this penumbra of rights, sort of this umbrella of rights that you gleaned from all of the other rights, and you sort of create this right to privacy. And so they

Speaker 3:

Leaned on that in order to justify

Speaker 1:

Abortion in the original Roe vs . Wade case that's from Eddie . We have Jessica Korah says abortion is not even mentioned in the constitution was illegal for 200 years. How do you graduate high school without taking a civics class, Jessica? They don't like the constitution. They don't like the current laws. They don't care about history or civics. It's all racist. Here's a bunch of white guys who wrote all that stuff. Hello? They are the most racist people on the planet. So it's all created out of original sin. There were slaves back then and the whole country is garbage because of that. So everything has to be changed, obviously. That's why, you know, AOC wants to pack the court. Marty Lon says greetings from Mesa. What's up Marty, which if you're right around the corner from us, you're right down the street says happy to see these butchers seed for a change. RO invented a quote, right through fraud and hides from scrutiny in starry decisis. You're exactly right about that, Marty. It was, they just, they just made it up out of nowhere, which is really my ultimate problem with RO we have Eddie says the whole reason Merrick Garland was not confirmed was exactly because the Dem sack , the filibuster on judicial confirmations, all that will happen is Republicans will pack the court

Speaker 3:

The other way. Right. And it was ,

Speaker 1:

It looks so bad to Joe . I think that's why Jen Psaki and the white house are not pushing that right now, but we'll see, right. This is a new thing. You might see AOC, Cory Bush, that whole wing of the party go into psycho over, you know, overdrive and the white house acquiesce and just, yeah. Okay. Maybe we'll start to float this idea around. They're going to need some really good red meat to invigorate their base. These new polls are coming out from Joe Biden on Afghanistan. He's like a 43% and falling wait until more of those stories continue to come out. They're going to need something to change. The narrative. Abortion is as good as anything because people get hot about it. We have, that was from Eddie. Thank you, Eddie. Eddie. Another one says the earlier message was saying, what if the doctor that cured cancer was aborted and yeah, you need a Mac. Uh, gosh, that's the worst. You know, apple, you know, they're scanning your photos and they're sending them over to the FBI on a regular basis. Now it's not good. All right, Curtis Bartel says, this is like walking dead CDC episode, crazy days. Hang in there. Peeps . Thanks for the great reporting RNR. Thank you, Curtis Bartel . It's good to see you back here. I haven't seen your name in a while. Thanks for the support. Uh , and those were great questions. We got three more over from locals. Before we jump into the next segment, we says, Obama lick . It says my take on this. If you don't like abortion, leave Texas go somewhere else. Where abortion is acceptable. Leave Texas alone by so by lick it . And Eddie Oliver should , uh, should definitely start , uh , get the hell out of Texas club. The antique, his prime says just to throw some humor in. I have a friend who wants to abort her kids. They're 17 and 19. Can we apply this idea to all the politicians asking for a friend? That's a good one of the abortion jokes. Oh gosh, what are we? What have we done? All right. Let's see. We got a couple more wants to know, says Rob, very simple. Bernie kids. One more says, Sergeant Bob, Oregon recently passed a law that high school graduation does not require English or mathematical basic skills. Diplomas are even more worthless.

Speaker 8:

Yeah .

Speaker 1:

It's not looking good. Folks not looking good at all. All right. Thank you. Those are great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com and many more from many of those super chats over from, from, let me read this before we move on. Don't clip right here. It's a three girl. He says, I thank you for asking about my girlie . This year is the six years anniversary. She was so brave through it all. She was able to testify against him. He pled guilty in prison for the rest of his life. She deals with PTSD, but she's doing really well this far out again. Abortion is not the solution to people who are raped. That also the comment about the black doctor that cured cancer was commenting about the baby. That was aborted . Okay. I think I missed that whole thread, but thank you for the, the, the comment three girls . And I'm glad that I'm glad she's doing well six years. I'm glad she's doing okay. Another one just came in from Beth Cottington says evening, everyone. I have a request for you, Rob. My birthday is tomorrow. I'd like you to sing a happy birthday song for me. I figure it's worth the 20. Well, Beth let's save that for tomorrow. Shall we? We'll I'll I'll even make a slide for it. How about that? Let's see. We've got , uh , uh, any, any others from

Speaker 3:

Watching

Speaker 1:

One more from watching the watchers.locals.com from monster one says I had some comments that must have gotten a race . Sorry about that. Yeah. My Chrome crashed. The Dems would be like, oh no, we don't have control the one institution. Like they don't have the media, the social media education, the house, the Senate, the white house. Yes. And he says screw apple and their spy devices right on monster one. Good way to end the segment. Yeah. Sorry. When I reopened it, I had to jump into question . So if I missed your question, I apologize. Blame the FBI. They're hacking my system over here. All right . So great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all of your support. All right. So we've got to move into our next segment on the day

Speaker 3:

And what

Speaker 1:

Are we talk ? Oh, COVID yeah. COVID COVID crimes. Let me get

Speaker 3:

Right into this COVID crimes.

Speaker 1:

Been following these for some time in America and around the world today, we're going to talk about Hawaii and Illinois woman landed in Hawaii. Didn't have the appropriate vaccine card got arrested still in custody, or it wasn't custody $2,000 bonds. So we're going to see a lot more of that happening around the world, but it's not just in the United States. We're going to change gears also and take a look at what Australia is doing because they have a new quarantine program that requires you to install an app on your phone, that scans your face, reports it back over to the government. Make sure that you're in a specific geo location and pings you randomly. And if you don't respond within 15 minutes, guess what? They send a government hall monitor to your house to make sure that you're still in your

Speaker 3:

Under quarantine. So you're scanning your face, the whole thing.

Speaker 1:

So we've got a lot to talk about. Let's see what's going on in Hawaii. First, we have an Illinois woman who was arrested. What happened? Suburban Chicago woman was going to Hawaii, entered the state with a fake COVID-19 vaccine card. Well, the problem here, pretty obvious

Speaker 3:

It's Moderna

Speaker 1:

Is the name of the vaccine. M O D E R N a. But her vaccine card spelled it my Dharna . Oh , no, pretty easy. Mistake. M a D E R N a. So shows up. Oh, Hey man , are you vaccinated? Yeah , I'm backstage.

Speaker 3:

I got my dirt up . Oh, you mean Moderna? No, my dhurna one second. Ma'am John, can you bring the SWAT team out here? We have a

Speaker 1:

Fake vaccine card. So that's exactly what happened. CLO Memorial Razek 24 was arrested August 28th at international airport faces a misdemeanor charge of falsified vaccination

Speaker 3:

Documents. The arrest

Speaker 1:

Was first reported by Hawaii. Investigators believe that she submitted the false card to avoid the state's 10 day mandatory quarantine that was put place after Hawaii's dictator. Governor issued an emergency proclamation. Her card indicated that she was vaccinated in Delaware by the national guard. So obviously this is like egregious, absolutely reprehensible person trying to go to Hawaii and investigators though, folks don't you worry about it. They're on top of it, they contacted the Delawares immunization program from Hawaii. They said, oh, SWAT team was inaction. They learned that the state did not use its national guard to administer the vaccine shots. According to court records, that's terrible. The state also said there was no record of vaccination under Moravec's name and date of birth. Wow. This is just horrendous. Uh , Moravec's travel records indicated she traveled to Hawaii to visit friends and relatives. According to court records listed herself as staying at a holiday Inn, but an assistant general manager told the investigators they didn't have any reservations under her name. These investigators, the travel records listed her departure. As August 28th. Investigators arrested her at the airport on her departure date. She told them that she paid for her vaccination card and her doctor's office arrested $2,000 bail according to court records. So this woman shows up lands in Hawaii. August 23rd gives the my dare note card, not the Mo dhurna card, catastrophic events in Hawaii. They go, oh gosh , uh , bring the SWAT team, call the governor, get the president on the line. We have a fake vaccine card. So they go and investigate literally everything. And they called the national guard in Delaware. Uh , do you have a Masaryk over there? We have an emergency here in Hawaii. I need you to get to the bottom of this quickly. We don't know where this woman is. She might have a fake vaccine card. She might be carrying COVID around our state. So Delaware drops. Everything. National guard gets on the line. They pick up the red phone. Oh . And they just hustle through it. So then the investigators go back and now they're trying to find out where she is in Hawaii, where she where's this woman. So code red helicopters, guys parading down off of a zip lines. Now trying to find out where she is. Oh, it's a holiday Inn express. Oh. So they go and they find her find her departure date, August 28th flight back home. She goes to the airport, had a nice time in Hawaii. What a beautiful state. And they just arrest her at the airport. Uh ma'am there's no such thing as my dhurna only Mo Derna . So she gets arrested at $2,000 bail , uh, you know , uh , not leaving Hawaii so fast there, buddy. You committed the crime of the century. So that's really nice. Now it's insane. But this is obviously a thing. Now we have different governments around the world. Quarantining people. This woman was , uh , in violation of their quarantine protocols, said she was vaccinated. Apparently wasn't end of the world a nightmare in Hawaii, but it's not just in the United States. Let's take a look at what the other parts of the world are doing here. We're going to poke our heads over to Australia. You may have seen some of this previously on the show. We've talked about it. We've talked about Australia having , uh , helicopters flying around beaches. We talked about the pictures of the police officers on horseback roaming, around beaches with their masks on 25 feet away from anybody with their masks on, in forcing , uh, masking and social distancing requirements on the beach outdoors in the middle of Australia. So a lot of lunacy going on there, but now in case you were concerned that maybe it wasn't as bad as it could be. It's going there. They have a new quarantine trial app now. So at home quarantine, it's like an official program. We're going to take a look at the app. But first the headline says, how will the program work ? This was written over by a new ABC news over in Australia, by Sarah Garcia , Rory McLaren , how's this going to work? Well , it started in August for people coming back from new south Wales and Victoria, premier. Steven Marshall said he hopes that this is going to be expanded to international travels in subsequent weeks, making it a national first, those in Homebase quarantine will need to download an app, which we're going to take a look at who wrote the app, the south Australian government to prove that they are staying home while required people wanting to return to south Australia and home quarantine are going to have to apply. They will have to prove that they have a place to isolate during their quarantine period. And they must be fully vaccinated. Those who are approved are going to have to download the south Australian government home quarantine app, which uses geolocation and facial recognition software to track those people in quarantine, the app will contact people at random, asking them to provide proof of their location within 15 minutes. Now I am a criminal defense lawyer. As you know, there are apps like this and in systems like this for criminals, it's called home detention. And it is exactly like this. In fact, some of those systems require you to install a landline that is hardwired into your house so that they know you're there. They call got to pick up. There's also home monitoring for drugs. So they have machines that are alcohol monitors. It pings you. You gotta be home. You got to go test. You got to blow into a device. You're not drunk. Great. You're not violating the terms of your conditions. You can continue to serve your time at home. Exactly like this. Exactly.

Speaker 2:

You get a ping, you got to respond. Can't leave your home. Something goes wrong. They send somebody over there. Let's take a look at this , uh, this, this gross politician, Stephen Marshall , ah , disgusting says south Australians should be proud of running a national pilot program for home-based quarantine over from ABC news. Look at this guy. Yeah. He looks like somebody who would install one of these programs. Now he says, we don't tell them. That's what this guy says. Marshall says, we don't tell them how often or when on a random basis, they have to reply. Within 15 minutes could come at any time. You have no idea. If a person cannot successfully verify their location or identity, when requested, well , the government's going to notify the police who were then going to conduct an in-person check on the person in quarantine. People have to stay for 14 days. Premier said that people were also to be put in daily observations, which could trigger a visit from essay health. The government would not be storing any of the information. We just use it to verify that people are where they said they were going to be during the home based quarantine. So we have an application. Now the government is actually checking on. You went and took a look at this app on the Google play store, better than the apple garbage store, home quarantine essay for south Australia. Now you're going to notice that there are no reviews over here, huh? Where'd those go? Let's pay attention to that. But it says, here are our features for this app, random live face check-in request to show a real person checking in at their registered location schedule of required symptoms, checks and COVID-19 tests. So you got to report your, your bodily temperature to the government daily symptom, check reminder and submission schedule , test reminders for COVID links to guidelines and support resources, and then how to get out of our disgusting hole quarantine exit process. When it's time, let's take a look at how it works. We have a symptom check. Do this is the app. Manage your home quarantine requirements in one place. That's great. It's like a, how to incarcerate yourself app. Very nice symptom check due by May 4th, got to give them that easily. Send your symptom checks. Oh, Mr. Government bureaucrat. I have a fever. I have a cough. I have a runny nose. Thank you. Please help me. Uh , we have another one. Here's your home quarantine schedule. This is when you're allowed to leave. This is when you're allowed to not leave. You have a doctor's check. Who's going to just, you know, probe your body. And you're just gonna follow our schedule because we're the government. We get to tell you what to do. Also. Now it's time for a live face. Check-in you have 15 minutes to respond to this request. This check-in uses facial recognition and location verification

Speaker 1:

To confirm that you are a real person checking in right now at your registered location. Hold your phone in front of your face and wait for the flashing colors.

Speaker 3:

Proof of

Speaker 1:

Identity and proof of current location notifications about what you need to know. Your home quarantine has started. You're in jail. Don't leave. And if you need help though, like if you get some mental health questions about why you're incarcerated , uh , give us a call or go to our website. Actually. No , they didn't even send you there. They send you to a Headspace website, which I think is the meditation app. So that's great.

Speaker 3:

Uh, I

Speaker 1:

Don't know. Maybe I don't know what it is. I can't download the app because they won't, they won't let me do it. We also have here. Uh , congratulations. You've now completed your government mandated quarantine locked down . You're now free to leave your own property and engage in a free society. Welcome. So the app is not doing all that well, updated August 25th, 50 installs 50 plus maybe that's going up. I don't know, offered by the south government of south Australia.

Speaker 3:

Version

Speaker 1:

1.001. Now here's, here's what I wanted to point out. I took a look at this from the Google

Speaker 3:

Play store and

Speaker 1:

No reviews over here. No reviews down here. Where did those

Speaker 3:

Go? If you're familiar

Speaker 1:

With this, do you know that those are regularly there? For example, here's the CDC, same page, right?

Speaker 3:

Same portal reviews over here, reviews down here. Surprisingly, it's a pretty good app apparently, but I would never do that .

Speaker 1:

It , but , uh , nothing over here. So maybe Google is unhappy with some of those reviews. I don't know. The question is how the hell did we get here? Marshall said it took two home-based quarantine ideas in the last month or two to , to put this brain trust together. In November west Australian firm , gen vies was selected. They got 1.1 million to develop the app.

Speaker 3:

They use facial rec

Speaker 1:

Ignition and GPS tracking technology to check in on people in isolation.

Speaker 3:

Government already

Speaker 1:

Provides services. They began working on this early, the development proposal

Speaker 3:

With that company.

Speaker 1:

Let's see the south Australian app was developed by state government. Pretty sure he says much to Marshall says, I'm pretty sure the technology we have

Speaker 3:

Developed

Speaker 1:

Within our government will become the national standard and will be rolled out across the country. That's for Mr. Marshall. So we have talked a lot about these types of , uh , surveillance mechanisms we talked about earlier in this week, the world health organization releasing some of the new COVID , uh , vaccine passport guidelines so that the other different countries will know how to navigate around

Speaker 3:

The world

Speaker 1:

And install their own little vaccine passport

Speaker 3:

Mechanisms.

Speaker 1:

Now Australia has it on an app version count . Can't even leave your house, check in with your face. Do what

Speaker 3:

The government says. Nice.

Speaker 1:

Now, is anybody doing anything about this? Are the Republicans doing anything? Are they standing up? Are they , uh , sort of saying enough of this garbage already? Or are they out there as big as vaccine salesmen as anybody else? Which is basically what I hear. So people are tired of it. Starting with the students, students in Denver, Colorado, they are out protesting today. They're saying we are not wearing any masks in school anymore. Enough is enough and no masks in class. They had a big turnout. This is what one high school looked like.

Speaker 9:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Good for the kids. Yeah, don't put them on. Don't go to school. You're not learning anything in there. Anyways. It's all garbage. Let's take a [email protected] All right. We have a couple here. Let's see. Get to the right segment. Kareem says, I hear so many people say that the vaccine passport sets a precedent that will allow the government to add more things into the passport. Just because we allow COVID passes doesn't mean we're no longer capable of refusing. Anything else. Also, some people say this pandemic sets a precedent for what to do in future pandemics, right? Because SARS and H one N one were used by the government as precedent for how to deal with COVID-19. No, they just threw those two precedents right? In the garbage. Yeah. That's from Kareem . I think we're sort of in unprecedented territory, right? With all of this stuff. I hear a lot of the, the, the precedent arguments. Well , we get , you get vaccines in kids for polio and chickenpox and all of these things. Yeah. That's I get that, but this is a little bit different, right? This is sort of a , a lot of variables there, but I understand your point, Kareem . Thank you for sharing that we have. Y renal says, so with the antigen test, these long-term quarantines are scientifically unnecessary. They're cheaper, more effective, better to test someone daily for five days in quarantine for 10 to 14, if there is no antigen in the nose, you're not effective . Sounds Nadar. No, that was N Y that was N Y right? And yeah. And Y renal MD in the house and why renal MD you're you're talking about medicine and science and things like they don't care about that. This has nothing to do with any about anything about saving lives or stopping COVID has nothing to do with that. But you're a doctor you're trying to, to actually live in that world. It's not about that. We have [inaudible] first. They took their guns. They did. Australia gave up the guns. Oh, we don't need these anymore. Then the government came out and locked. Rudy Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani is here. I can't say that, Rudy. Sorry. That's a , that's not YouTube friendly. Sergeant Bob says out Australia, outlawed all firearms. See what follows the Dems would love this model. As you say, it goes on and on. Having said all that, if she is so stupid, she presents phony documents. I have little sympathy, kind of like Mickey , the mope, running a bunch of $100 bills on the copier and trying to pass them. Yeah. I'm not endorsing criminality. I do think what the government is doing is way overkill though. But Sergeant Bob you're you're right, right. It's it's it , it is illegal. Fake vaccine cards are illegal. Nobody should encourage that or do that. But for the reason I poked fun at that story is because the investigators were going yeah .

Speaker 3:

Haywire to investigate everything all over,

Speaker 1:

Over COVID. She was already in your country. She's leaving . She already spread it around all over the place. What are you still freaked out about? Okay. Ghoulag man says the people in Australia are building COVID gulags and want to send dissenters into them. The NSW Gestapo states, they're not against free speech. They are full of it. Unhappy with the gulags in Australia. I don't blame you for that. If he antique his prime says, let this be a lesson to all young students. If you don't study hard, you'll never effectively forge a vaccine card. That's right. Learn your vaccine, spelling cards. Make sure you have them. COVID

Speaker 3:

Moderna AstraZeneca , whatever Pfizer. Okay.

Speaker 1:

I know how to spell those things. Very important students. Thank you, VNT . Cause we have another one from [inaudible] it says Hawaii couldn't they just check her temp and cut her loose for not being here .

Speaker 3:

Contagious. No, they're they're quarantining there .

Speaker 1:

So Viking says, I think that miss ma Derna brings up something important. We have been wondering how organized or detailed vaccine databases are. It sounds like big brother has way better capability with the vaccines. And we would suspect, oh , I forgot to make that point soul Viking . His point is that they, they tracked her down pretty quickly and they did right . They called national guard. Hey, do you have a, a CLO in your database? Oh, let me find her CLO date of birth. Uh , locate . No, we have nothing there. We have very, very clear records about tracking everybody who

Speaker 3:

Got it. Don't have

Speaker 1:

Her though. So they kind of showed their hand a little bit. Didn't they soul we'd have, I think, want to know is the smartest poster you have says , uh , Rob, do you think mask or un-vaccinated should be against the law?

Speaker 3:

Uh it's uh it's uh ,

Speaker 1:

I don't know what that means, but should unveil being unvaccinated be against the law? No, I do not think that should being unmasked be against the law. No, I do not think that we have super ironed . Bob says, why are the cards so easy to manipulate? They're designed to remind you about when to get a shot, not to validate that you got one we're abusing the system that was never intended to operate that way. The governments and public health officials are abusing every bit of credibility that institutions have. It's shocking how spendy they are with this trust. Exactly. Right. Super ironed , Bob, and even the world health organization confirmed that. I'm sure you caught the show. I think yesterday talking about that, right? They said, listen, if you're going to use vaccine cards and VAX passes

Speaker 3:

As a way to stop the virus

Speaker 1:

And you're going to only make it about that, those are pretty ineffective because people have this false sense of security. They think that, oh, I'm vaccined everybody else vaccined in here. And so it's all going to be fine. So people will go into these establishments thinking they're in this safe bubble and it's not the case at all because there's a lot of questions about the efficacy of the vaccines, how it impacts the ability to transmit the virus and the list goes on and on and on. So it , it actually creates a false sense of security to some degree.

Speaker 3:

And

Speaker 1:

If you're going to use that, it's ineffective, but that's also not the purpose of it. Right? It's for continuity of care. It's to make sure that, you know, when you got them. So if you want your booster, you can go get it. It's to make sure you know, what type and what date and what bat batch . It was a part of in case there's a problem with it, right? It's for those types of things, it's not supposed to be like an ID card that will get you into a super secret club called the economy of New York city. It's not supposed to be that way

Speaker 3:

Or Hawaii. All right .

Speaker 1:

Now homing says, quit talking about what Australia is doing. Democrat. Watch your show for ideas. Ah , dang it. Sorry about that, everybody. Okay. Seriously. I wish I could say I'm glad to be here instead. However, over the last 18 months we have seen real cops and others enforced tyranny instead of fighting against it. I no longer believe if the day came where we had to fight against the power, we would have the cops or most military on our side. They liked their paycheck too much.

Speaker 3:

Well, I

Speaker 1:

Don't . Yeah , you're right about that news now. I don't know how it would shake out. I do know we have some very, very good Popo in this community who

Speaker 3:

Are people that I would want

Speaker 1:

On my side. No question about it. And I'm grateful for that. You know who you are. The antique is prime says stuff like Australia is why I've gone away from carrying a fondel slab. I mean, cell phone fundal , slap not heard that one. VNT cast . Sergeant Bob says, living in BC on return from USA. I had to do 14 quarantine days. Last year, government called me a few times to check. I knew they could GPS my phone. I dealt with it . It wasn't too bad.

Speaker 3:

In my opinion, that was enough. Intrusion would not want more. Yeah. Sergeant Bob is from the BC back into the United States. I know Canada has been a very,

Speaker 1:

Very strict about a lot of that. We have another, yeah, that was from Sergeant Bob. Thank you. We have another one. And BC is not really Canada, right? Is it ? I don't know how that works. I'm not gas as, yeah. That 15 minute check on the phone. I guarantee that they see a lot of hairy balls. I wonder what the fine is for that. I'm a real person. Take a look. That's just great major says they forced me to do this. I'd force them to waste the manpower, checking on me every time that app went off. Good luck with me answering the door. I'm in quarantine,

Speaker 3:

Arrest me.

Speaker 1:

I think, I think Australia would do it. Thunder seven says there have been nine deaths attributed to the COVID virus. Since June in Australia have gone full blown Gestapo. They deployed the military to keep people in their homes. They've shot dogs to avoid people leaving their homes. Yet the VAX rate is only 24%. The entire country is so tyrannical. The government had not succeeded in frightening people to get jabbed. I really, really admire the citizens for paying no attention to the Nazi. That's amazing. That's so I don't, you know, I don't know how the people of Australia are responding to any of this. I just see the news

Speaker 3:

And I see some of the

Speaker 1:

Protests and I see that the police are going hog-wild against their own citizens. Right? The police in , in ,

Speaker 3:

In that country are

Speaker 1:

Absolutely not on the side of the people. They are absolutely on the side of the , um ,

Speaker 3:

Little, little

Speaker 1:

Dictators, as far as I've seen right now, there may be some good cops who are just not willing to do that. I hope so. We have another one from ghost gunner says the modern Matt Dharna story is kind of hilarious because she is that stupid. I guess there are penalties for being dumb, still against the whole vaccine passport though. Australia, if it were a real, sounds like a hellish place to live, but they are wishing they weren't disarmed right about now this whole thing is completely overblown. Even in the at-risk category. The let's say the world is getting really bad, really fast. I'm vaccinated had some personal choices to make. However, I'm completely on your side. The vaccine and mass make mass mandates locked . It's completely ridiculous. Overreaches under any circumstances, let alone for this virus. The liberals seem to think it's the plague. For some reason, I don't get it. Well, I think ghost gunner it's because it is a mechanism by which they can reshape the entire nation, the entire system,

Speaker 3:

And they're doing it. So it's more about a political

Speaker 1:

Tool than it is about saving lives. And I think that's been the case for two years now. Uh, if I can be candid about that , uh , and I've been pretty consistent. We sat , Greg Murat says, Rob I'm in Melbourne,

Speaker 3:

Australia. Awesome. Glad you are .

Speaker 1:

Or here, the situation is pretty grim here. Do you have any internships for three months? This is the only reason they will. Let me leave my five kilometer radius. I'm sure we could set something up. Yeah. We have also have a 9:00 PM to 5:00 AM curfew on top. They recently arrested a person who was protesting alone in public sighted .

Speaker 3:

Public safety risks are a lot more

Speaker 1:

Or suicides happening now due to lock downs than ever before. That is just horrendous. Greg . Yeah . We have a, we have an open , uh, internship for all Australians who need to flee

Speaker 3:

Tyranny. Yeah. Send me an email. We're just starting that. Oh yeah.

Speaker 1:

And suicides, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence.

Speaker 3:

It's going to wreck people for the first year .

Speaker 1:

Well future and uh , they don't even know what they're doing. Gulag says the data is totally not going to be collected. Totally not going to be used to spy on you. Totally not going to get hacked. The answer to the app is not going to get tested because if you do, you'll get sent to the Gulag. That's from the ghoulag man. Oh yeah. Bumble lick . It says, I thought COVID-19 is attacking the responsibility system, not the cerebral system. How come Australia seems to having brain malfunction with all these restrictions or their government is like ours leaders are so power hungry. They'll do everything in anything to use fear and deceitful ways to be in control of its citizens. And we're seeing, we're seeing that all over the world. Fear is a very, very powerful motivator lot. You can do the communist party of China says LOL, they're shocked. They're like, wow, that's a, that's a great idea. Why didn't we think of that? Amazing. We have another one from sweet potato says, I think they should do a remake of that movie, the fugitive, but a modern version about someone accused of being non VAX . But they're actually fullbacks with booster shots. Even a horror movie. Yeah. That's kind of what that , that scene in Hawaii was like they had Tommy Lee Jones, they had CLO like Harrison Ford fleeing around the COVID card Nazis where their little hall monitor pass . And they're sad . I'm the hall monitor here. You have to listen to me. Ridiculous. Uh, we have with regard to the Aussie app, do you trust them to only geo locate you at checkup times or monitor your every minute of your life? I'm sure the app is tracking a lot more than just the check-ins trader. Joe says let's just get over this chip up and shut up. That's from trader Joe's. Thank you, trader Joe's. Let's see what else we've got. The auntie kiss says, so are people who live in apartment buildings where the air gets cycled through the whole building , supposed to stay in the building the entire time, making sure that the particulates get circulated through the ventilation system. How well is the filtration system on the HVAC in these tall buildings? Are these people just going to be sitting there infecting the entire building before they go to the quarantine camps? Yeah, we have understood Robert and okay. Hawaii government is over the top. That's from Sergeant Bob. Good to see you. Sergeant we've got realtor. Patty says on YouTube, you have a COVID-19 button. Get the latest inspection from the CDC on your page. Always trust the CDC, Rochelle Wilensky , Anthony Fowchee. They're so smart. And they care about you and your family and your grandma. So just do what they say. Thank you, YouTube for helping us connect with our , our very intelligent leaders monster. One says, I disagree with the assessment that this woman was wrong. When the government is clearly doing unconstitutional stuff, we have an obligation to disobeyed. Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to dunk on that woman too hard, right? Obviously, you know, not, not, not a great, great move, but you can understand getting frustrated with these Looney tunes. RO Butte day says from Australia, the liberal party implemented the gun ban and lockdowns. They just think that they are rhinos. The labor party are building COVID gulags in the states and think that they are Democrats. Both parties are working hand in hand to oppress people and prepare to send dissenters to the gulags. Let's see what else we've got. Thank you. [inaudible] lot here, president Jay Z says I have some vaccine cards for sale just for your audience. I get you a great deal. I love watching your show all the way from China. And that was president Z in the house. I was, I was wondering, when are we going to get a variant gene ? We have very immune. Now we have very Lambda . When are we gonna get a variant gene news? Now I says, last year I was contacted by a contact tracer. They said who they were. I told them to F off and hung up. They called back, said I was required to talk to them or I'd go to jail. I told him F off and hung up again. Their supervisor called me back, threatened me again. Then they never called again. Good for you. Yeah. Good for you news. Now, Wyoming. They don't , you don't talk to anybody. Once I've talked to him , this is America. You have the right to remain silent. You don't have to talk to a person and use that right.

Speaker 3:

Generously

Speaker 1:

Doggies. Next to restaurant in Kabul.

Speaker 3:

Oh, oh, we

Speaker 1:

Have the doggies from these cobble small rescue animal rescue says, wow, I'm a doggy and being fed good food by Taliban. Some doggy are missing doggy . Some doggy friends missing, going to restaurant for dinner. Hope they're having a nice meal. Rough, rough. Oh, well that's good. They sound like they're doing well over there. Thank you doggie for giving us an update about how the Taliban are treating you. It's good news because we know Joe Biden didn't care about you and the U S military just week . It's our policy. Sorry. Rochelle . Wilansky from the CDC said we can't bring dogs back. Even if it's in the middle of an Afghanistan withdrawal war zone. Sorry, but they're doing okay. Because as we heard from the Taliban spokesman yesterday, they rounded them up. They're being fed and very well cared for. So that's good news. Sergeant Bob says British Columbia, for sure. Canada, lots of Western Canadians do not identify with Eastern Canada. Even if some are put on Barca and mittens. As soon as you cross from Washington state to BC, miss lucky made me say this. Good. Thank you, miss lucky for , uh, you know , for keeping things on , on, on track. It's very appropriate. Glad that you , uh, you're here assisting. We have news. Now Wyoming says, why do they have to check the computer system to see if she got the shot? All they had to do was check her for the chip. That's for news now. Uh , that's good. We have another one. VNT KIS says this whole thing we've seen over the past year makes me think of the, I believe Stanford experiment. It's the one where they simulated as prison, where some students were inmates. Others were officers. I think it's pruned to compare how people have been reacting over the past year to this experiment and analyze the aspects of the perception of authority and justifications and all these restrictive actions by average people. Yeah, it was the Stanford experiment. There was another one. I get them all interchange. There was another one. That one was the one was

Speaker 3:

The prisons.

Speaker 1:

The other one was the shock one. And I think I get those two confused, but I think you're right. The Stanford was the prison one. And uh, yeah, I think that large portions of our population around the world are in the middle of a gigantic

Speaker 3:

Mass ,

Speaker 1:

Uh, delusion, if I can be so bold, seriously, I really do think that that some people are just so unplugged from reality that they're creating their own worlds of a Corona hellhole . And it's not connected to reality. I think there's a good basis for that. Right? There are mass delusions. All the time happens all over the place. You have the mass delusions and the whiskey , uh, Salem witch trials. And you've had all this stuff in the history of the world. Do we think that people are immune from that? No, it's the same mass delusions. It's it's not as much not saying that COVID is fake or anything like that, but what, how people are reacting here? I don't know how else to describe it. Other than a mass delusion and human beings do it all the time. All right. We have another one that was from VNT . Cus few more here. It says monster one. I already had COVID and yet they somehow want to come to show me a compelling argument. Why I need the vaccine. The more they push, the more I will refuse that's for monster one. And I think there's a lot there in that sentiment. No Kim says you are buying into the propaganda that if you use the scientific term vaccine, current EUA drugs, even say that they don't prevent only reduce the symptoms that's from. [inaudible] always careful with those because of course we can't talk about any medical misinformation here. We have the screw ghoulag says not installing the app. If they send the Gestapo to my home for not installing the app, then verbally abused a Gestapo and request a lawyer, always consider requesting a lawyer. It's good stuff. Let's see. We have [inaudible] says the new variant of COVID can't move through people. It's got too much mew. Don't worry. The physicist will get it. Definitely not mean. Uh , we have the last villain says she got to enjoy Hawaii already. She wins. The winter is coming better. Ask better to ask for forgiveness after the fact who knows what the next is. What is next with the cult? Yeah , she got to Hawaii. She had a nice trip. We have Sergeant Bob says Stanford, you and Nazi party results. Very similar. Uh , those are good comments over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you everybody. For those tremendous questions. I appreciate all of your support. All right. We've got one more segment on the show and let's wrap it up. Shall we? We have, oh yeah, January six, the January six cases continue on. And one, January six , defendant gentleman by the name of Douglas Janssen is now going back to jail. He was released very shortly in a brief period of time. And when he was being checked on by his pretrial services officer, that officer found something they didn't like told the government about it. The government submitted a motion, said, judge Jensen is doing something he's not supposed to be doing. He needs to go back into custody. The judge had a hearing scheduled, heard the arguments and agreed to Doug. Jensen's going to go back to jail, but let's take a look and see what's going on here. What was he doing? That was so egregious and so heinous. Well, he was on the internet. Big problem. He is considered to be the Q Anon poster boy for the Capitol riot, going back to jail because he was not staying off the internet judges orders , uh , required him to do so. But as lawyer said that, wow , he's kind of addicted to this Q Anon cult. According to the Washington post, he was at the forefront of the mob. Deep inside the Capitol said Kelly citing Jensen's own statements.

Speaker 2:

Kelly said it was a close call when he released Jensen back in July. At the time he said that he was recognizing that maybe he was in fact deceived by a pack of lies. So this judge previously had released him July 13th and it was a very persuasive plea from Jensen. Let me out of custody. I was duped by a pack of lies. This was the guy you remember this scene probably saw this image, a bat bandied around, but he was pretty aggressive with this officer as he was coming around the corner, sort of, you know, pushing him back on his heels. And so he was considered to be one of the more well as he says, right? Poster boy of the , this whole movement. Now the order that came out from the court is looking like this. Let's take a quick look at what happened for the reasons that came out on the record , uh, held today . September 2nd, based on the consideration of everybody we are finding with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated his conditions of release. How did he do it? He accessed the internet, an online video platform through the use of a cell phone. Oh my gosh. And number two, he accessed the internet specifically a video of a cyber symposium. Oh, remember which one of those that might've been relating to the 2020 presidential election for those reasons, court finds, he's unlikely to abide by his release conditions and he's going to be remanded to custody. Immediately signed off by Timothy J. Kelly, us district court judge out of the DC district.

Speaker 3:

Wow. He

Speaker 2:

Was on an online video platform

Speaker 3:

And he streamed a cyber symposium.

Speaker 2:

Yeah . I mean, that's almost like death penalty level, but let's see what the judge has to say about this. This is the docket. We noticed that after that happened back in mid August, that on eight 19, the government, the USA submitted a motion to revoke the pretrial release. The judge released him. Government wants to revoke it. Defense responded, they scheduled the hearing. And then we got an order that we just read. And so the question is, is what , what is the government so mad about? So one , if he was on the internet, what's the problem here? Well, let's see what the government had to say about it. Very upset, angry government, us attorney submitted this motion, said the government's motion to revoke the defendant's pretrial release. Let's listen in a mere 30 days after his release from DC jail, Douglas Jensen was found alone in his garage using a wifi connected iPhone. Oh, he's streaming news from rumble. Rumble. We're on rumble right now.

Speaker 3:

Let's take a look. Anybody watching over there? Oh no. It's actually not connecting for some reason. Oh, that's great. So I guess we're not on rumble . Nevermind.

Speaker 2:

When confronted about his obvious violation of his release conditions. Defendant told the pretrial services officer with one excuse after the another first, he said, no, it's not. My phone belongs to my daughter. Jensen's dot daughter. However told pretrial services. She got a new phone three

Speaker 3:

Weeks ago. Good thing.

Speaker 2:

They investigated that. Then Jensen

Speaker 3:

Claimed that his wife, the same India ,

Speaker 2:

Visual who swore under oath to notify the court immediately. If Jensen violates his conditions, facilitated the violation by leaving the news on for him when she left work for the morning,

Speaker 3:

Oh, this is like, this family is like, can you look?

Speaker 2:

I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I've seen a lot of gruesome cases,

Speaker 3:

Really horrendous things in my day. This is

Speaker 2:

The worst I've ever seen. Uh, finally Jensen claimed not to know the password to the

Speaker 3:

IPhone, but he entered the password later for the preacher

Speaker 2:

Browse services officer. What a, what a person.

Speaker 3:

Wow. He was on rumble. Conservatives are on rumble, scary stuff.

Speaker 2:

So , uh, Jensen eventually admitted to his pretrial services officer that , uh , in the previous week he spent two days watching Mike Lindell's cyber symposium .

Speaker 3:

Oh , that's 20 to life right there. 20 to life. No even conversation about it. You know who Mike Lindell is? He's the MyPillow guy. He's basically like Adolf Hitler and Mousay dung and Putin combined into one.

Speaker 2:

He almost took over America. By the way, you know the guy who was running out of the Capitol building with a podium that was Mike Lynn Dells

Speaker 3:

Cousin,

Speaker 2:

He was going to take the podium back to my pillow headquarters

Speaker 3:

And take control of the country.

Speaker 2:

And this guy was watching his cyber symposium for two days on rumble. Alright . Jensen's conditions of release are on ambiguous, says this prosecutor prosecutor says he is prohibited from accessing the internet directly or indirectly he's prohibited from accessing or utilizing internet capable devices, including a cell phone. Very mad. He is prohibited from learning the password to any family members, internet capable devices. And yet despite swearing under oath to comply with all these conditions, Jensen wasted

Speaker 3:

No time in violating the court's orders. Okay. So that's fine. Very good.

Speaker 2:

I said about this, my goodness in his bond, Monique motion Jensen claimed that he had come full circle. He felt deceived by the Q Anon conspiracy theories. He recognized that it was a pack of lies, but his swift violation confirms what the government and the courts suspected all along that Jensen's alleged. This vowel of Q Anon was just an act. His alleged epiphany inside DC jail was just self serving advocacy. And at the end of the day, he's not going to abandon the misguided theories and beliefs that led him to menacingly chase us Capitol police officer up a staircase. Wow, this guy is it's, we're getting into death penalty territory. I said it was 20 to life, but this prosecutor's right. I mean, I've never seen anything quite so, so bad Jensen's claims of reforms can not be credited nor can he be trusted to abide by this court's orders already. The subject of the highest degree of supervision, which means there's no additional conditions of release that are going to secure his compliance to allow Jensen to remain on pretrial would be to repose the trust in an undeserving individual already proving himself unwilling to modify much less rethink his behavior. After January six , he remains a danger to the community and he can not be trusted by this court to abide by any conditions of release, which is, which is true. Anybody who listens to Mike Lindell or, or uses rumble a dangerous to the community. I mean, I mean, I'm flabbergasted folks. I don't even know if I can finish this segment. Let's see what else this prosecutor had to say. I'm outraged. I know you are too Jensen. According to this, us attorney is unlikely to abide by any condition. He managed to violate one of the most difficult to enforce conditions in the most agregious way imaginable. He had a cell phone that was streaming a symposium. A couple of times, he has proven that not even six months in jail are going to deter him for returning to the conspiracy theories that led him to commit an assault. Contrary to what Jensen claimed at his bond hearing. He is still very much bought into Q and on's quote , pack of lies. Indeed, the court doesn't even need to look any further than his virtual attendance at a symposium dedicated to challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 electoral election Jensen is going to continue to let his loyalties to certain conspiracy theories prevail over his obligations to this court and his family. Q Anon folks, not even once, right? It'll take you over and it will turn you into somebody who listens to rumble and Mike Lindell. Wow. Jensen's violation says this us attorney named Hava RN, Levenson Morel four names Jensen's violation is doubly concerning because it exposes Ms. Jensen as an unsuitable and untrustworthy custodian. Wow. Going after his wife indeed by the defendant's own account, Ms . Jensen left the iPhone on the defendant when she went to work on August 13th, facilitated this violation for that . So , I mean, obviously , uh , FBI needs to charge this woman. Also Jensen arrest her 20 to life. If not the death penalty, she enabled this. She's an accessory to the fact she's a con a co-conspirator. This is collusion. Thus, even if the court were inclined to keep the defendant on pretrial release, there are no suitable third-party custodians because obviously Ms . Jensen is just a repro rate . Jensen was given an extraordinary second chance when released from pretrial , he squandered that chance by swiftly violating this court's order to return to the same pattern of conduct, led him to commit the assault in January. He does not appreciate the gravity of the situation he is in and does not respect this court's authority for these reasons, the government respectfully requests , this court revoke Jensen's pretrial release signed by Hava, RN, Levenson , Morel, us department of justice. That's a U S attorney. You see all these prosecutors, right? It's ridiculous. Everything is the end of the world. The guy was listening to a stupid , uh , streaming broadcast, whatever that was goes on. Rumble, going back to jail for that. That's the U S government inaction folks. That's what actually happens in criminal law. Let's take a [email protected] Do you think that this whole family should probably be executed for their H horrendous crimes here? Let's see what you have to say about this. We've got tos forever. That was on the last segment. Let's see what we've got over here. We have a former Leo big, nice long comment. Let's see what we've got here. It says, I was just thinking about the J six Lynch mob came up with an idea. What if the Republicans in Congress drafted an exact copy that the thug sent to those communication companies, which have no more legal standing than a request to renew your extended warranty with some changes. Okay. So I think we're talking about the January 6th select committee. They sent a letter over and former Elio is telling us that maybe the Republicans could do something similar. The Republicans request these companies safeguard and protect information that possibly be used in a further investigation or criminal prosecution. So the Republicans would respond back. It says, this will not be a request to produce records, but only request to safeguard the information. This letter should include. All of the Capitol hurts me to call those clowns, police, police, communications, DC, mayor, national guard, calm Sergeant at arms to comms , and anybody else that Republicans can think of, including all images from any communications involved with J six , with the J six, that these companies retain , let the Democrats chew on that because they started the witch hunt . It might be time to stick it right back up. Their collective rear ends. I feel better already. That's from former Leo . It's a good comment. Former Leo, I liked that, you know , that would require the Republicans to have a spine and want to do anything meaningful

Speaker 3:

With their political power. They don't. So not sure

Speaker 1:

We're going to see anything there, but it's not a bad idea. I like it. We have a few more Sergeant Bob says, careful us old geezers may be charged with reading a newspaper. Yes, I still do. Do not tell that's from Sergeant Bob. You know, the newspaper is there's something about that, right? Something about the physical stuff. Sometimes I'll buy hard copies of books and then get the Kindle version and then get the audible version. I'm like, why do I do that?

Speaker 3:

Because I like

Speaker 1:

The physical copy. Right? And I just like how it feels. I don't, I like that. We have a 5 0 3 unlimited says I watched the entire attempted false flag event. I was honestly impressed with how orderly they stayed in between the velvet ropes while moving forward. Thanks to the very accommodating interior security Godspeed to those protestors . That's from 5 0 3 unlimited. Thank you for that. There's a lot of open questions about January six . [inaudible] says, I still don't understand. When was the last insurrection that succeeded without the use of guns? How many insurrectionists were disarmed? Yeah, it's kind of amazing. There was a seizure of America underway and nobody got shot except one of the Trumpers. They didn't use any guns to seize the country. That's a weird VNT . KIS says I saw a video, someone put up where a person was talking to a cop. The cop said that the guy would get cuffed taken in fingerprints

Speaker 3:

And released . If you put on a mega hat, it looks like,

Speaker 1:

But I'm not sure if it is. I also don't know where it was filmed. I'm just pointing it out because it wouldn't surprise me if it were genuine after what's come out , uh , out of the Citadel.

Speaker 3:

I mean, DC,

Speaker 1:

I have not seen that. I would like to watch that if that is a thing, but that sounds ridiculous. We have another one here from news now says, forgive me for my ignorance about criminal mammary matters. I normally only cover civil rights, but I thought the bond and all that was supposed to be considered quote for public safety. How does someone watching a video risk, public safety? Also, it is weird how they got access to his garage without another adult allowing the officer into it. Yeah, that's a good question. You know, I don't know how that might have happened. He might've been outside in the garage, working in the garage or lifting weights or something out there. Right. Some doing something outside and had the phone listening to rumble.

Speaker 3:

Um, and , uh ,

Speaker 1:

Pre-trial services guy just comes by to do a check list here. So what are you listening to

Speaker 3:

Rumble? That's on the internet brother. You're going

Speaker 1:

Back to jail. So he reports him. And ,

Speaker 3:

Um , that's all that

Speaker 1:

That went into it, but you're right. Yeah. It is about public safety. And they're saying that because he's listening to these things, that's going to cause him to be a danger to the public. So that's the precedent that this judge is setting. That's nice. I'm not gas as this Jensen guy . Guy's guilty of the most heinous crime of all not thinking the way he was ordered to that is a huge problem in this country. Now you got to do whatever they say. Otherwise, you get demonetized, you get thrown out of platforms or you get locked up in prison. We have to under seven says, I know the prosecution of the mega political prisoners is a total repudiation of justice, but serious legal question for you to answer. Can they prevent him from his first amendment?

Speaker 3:

Uh, so yes. To

Speaker 1:

Some degree. Yeah. Yes. And if he was watching Jen Saki giving a press conference, would that have been allowed? Isn't this obviously a civil rights issue or am I completely off base here? So part of his release conditions are

Speaker 3:

Set by the courts under the

Speaker 1:

Suspicion that he's committed a crime. So the court can constitutionally create some restrictions on a person's Liberty, because there are some due process, procedural checkpoints in place to that point, right? They've got to indict you. A judge looks at the affidavit, drafts an arrest warrant. They filed a complaint, you know, that goes through a grand jury or however, however his case came to be. But the point is there are some checks and balances there so that the judge can limit a person. As long as the judge meets the standards and finds that they're a danger to themselves or to the community or to a specific individual, for whatever reason.

Speaker 3:

So in this case, I don't agree with it, right. I think it's insane that listening to something might be, you know, like , like , like that would be something that would cause a judge

Speaker 1:

To think that a person will continue to be a danger to the community. It seems way overbroad to me, but you know , it's, it's, I'm not a judge. And the judge has the full authority, the full right to make that decision. And they did. And the judge might not , not, not even care about it. I mean, to be fair to the judge, right? The judge may not care a rip about what he was listening to. Just the fact that he was on the internet, right? The judge's order says, don't get on the internet. He could have been ordering a pizza. And then , and the guy said, how'd you get that pizza? I did it on doors

Speaker 3:

Dash . Well, that's the internet. And , uh,

Speaker 1:

That might be all it is for the judge, right? The judge just says, no, I said, don't go there. You did that. So you're going back to the , into custody. It often can be as simple as that without making it a political thing. But again, these are the DC judges and that would be outside of the ordinary because most of the DC judges have been highly partisan and very political news now says, but now that the guy's back behind bars, does he have a great , uh , greater leeway to press the speedy trial? Even if the government is not

Speaker 3:

Ready? Yes.

Speaker 1:

To some degree. But we know that the, that the courts have not really been , been caring about that because the government comes in and says, we need more time. The courts say, okay, you're the government. You get what ,

Speaker 3:

Whatever you need. So he can, he can invoke the speedy trial rules applied. Regardless. Typically, when a person is out of custody, they are more

Speaker 1:

Okay with waiving time. So giving the government more time, they say, okay, that's fine. I'm out of custody. What does it matter? It gives us more time to prepare our case. We can also start our negotiations. We can see how some of the other cases will we'll flush out. So oftentimes

Speaker 3:

The defense is okay. Allowing waivers of time from the speeding

Speaker 1:

Trial calculations where it's okay. It's no problem. We'll waive that take more time if you need it. Not a problem. It's a little bit different. If a person is in custody, right? Because they're sitting around saying, well, I don't want to just sit here and wait until the end of the earth. I want to get out of here. So give me a good plea deal and let me take it so I can get out of custody or let's move this thing forward. Right? And so some people want to race to trial and sometimes that's it . That is a good strategy as well. A couple more questions snuck them , says what? No Hulu or Netflix or prime inhumane. Yeah. It's, it's cruel and unusual punishment. Isn't it? We have Ashley Babbits says, at least they didn't shoot him in his garage claiming that their lives were in danger. That is a good point. No doubt says it's my instinct that any running animal must be chased for the joy of it. Douglas chases, the cops Taliban chase the Americans. Interesting. And that's a kind of a poetic comment there. Michael and Del says, I don't know this man. I don't know him. He wasn't in my symposium. I don't know anything about this guy, Michael and Dell Sergeant Bob says in all seriousness, all of this has caused me to critically think about various prosecutions. This has caused me to make a big shift in my thinking as a retired Popo, not to excuse criminals, but to look at what justice looks like. Thanks for your contributions. That's from Sergeant Bob, former Popo. Very good Popo, retired. Very good Popo . Thank you, Sergeant Bob. And I appreciate that. I am truly grateful that you're here. Former Elio's here. We have other people from law enforcement , uh, and, and other areas of the law that watch. And I , I gotta be honest. I learned a lot from you and I really appreciate your perspectives. And the first time I saw you show up at it was either our first meetup or it was the law enforcement interaction training. And I, and you're like, oh, a former police officer . I was like, oh great. But it turned out. It was a beautiful, we can work together, right? We can be, we can be people who are Americans first, all trying to build a better society, doing our jobs respectably with integrity with honor. It's great. Tell us society should be we're on the same side. We want people to improve their lives and live full wholesome lives and do good in the world. Love it. Thank you. Sergeant super iron says watching a stream is different than a , from a , from a skitzo posting online. I hope something like this turns into a discussion about how the digital space has taken over the public square or some courts recognizing that has happened. And then maybe how these restrictions may have been minor in the nineties. They're now close to the moral equivalent of solitary confinement with no access to libraries or to TV. I agree with that conversation. I think, look, especially in the era of COVID, you've got people that are essentially being locked down. People are working from home indefinitely. Now people, you know, even even many big companies are saying, oh, we're not coming back into the office. It's a permanent shift home. So you really don't have the public square anymore. Oftentimes mandated by your own government. So you have to go online. You have to be digital. And , uh , that is the public square monster. One says his wife is a co-conspirator conspiracy theory tour. Yeah. That's for monster one. Yeah. Can you believe that your wife and daughter out you F me says unbelievable, Rob, this is just the start. They will be coming for us next.

Speaker 3:

That's all right. Let's see.

Speaker 1:

We got monster. One says they sound like the sounds like standard prosecution talk. I violated probation before the prosecution wrote a violation. Like I was John Wayne Gacy PS . When he signed these pretrial , he most likely waived his rights. Us allowing entry into his home. Yeah, yeah. That and that too. Right? When you are so like, for example, right? If you're on probation, you give up a ton of your rights. Your probation officer gets access to certain things and that's just how it is. You agree to those terms. So that's another good point. I forgot to mention Douglas Jensen says, your honor, I was told there would be a MyPillow discount at the end of the symposium and I haven't been sleeping well and I needed some great pillows. That's what I was there for just

Speaker 3:

The promo codes. I don't even believe

Speaker 1:

In Mike Lindell. We have to under seven says, thanks, Rob , for answering the legal question. So it wouldn't have mattered what he was listening to. It's the fact that the judge ordered him to not listen to the internet. I appreciate your knowledge and your great humor in these matters. Thank you, thunder seven. Yeah. It could have been that right. The judge didn't tell us anything and it's federal court. So it's not streamed on the internet or anything. But his order said, look, I said, don't get on the internet. You got on the internet. It's pretty easy for me to make a decision on that should not come, says the whole manipulation by politicians using fear is confession through projection because they would use violence to overthrow the gun

Speaker 3:

They would. And I think in many instances, they , they, they,

Speaker 1:

They would be okay with that. Jeffrey Epstein says, how could they not allow him to watch cuties on Netflix with his daughter quality family time? Is that, is that still on Netflix? I made a video about that a long time ago. We have a former Leo says, is everybody copying a pleat ? Or are there any jury trials? I don't know. Most of them have been pleased. I have not seen anything scheduled for a jury trial anytime soon for the January six cases. I do know that Jacob chancellor is scheduled to take a plea deal tomorrow, saw an alert on that. So we'll see what the plea deal looks like. See if we get some orders on that, that we can talk about tomorrow, but Jacob chancellor is pleading out. Many of them are playing out. Most of the ones I've seen have all pled out. I don't think any trials have been officially scheduled that I know of, but I'm sure there are. We have N Y renal MD says most courts have gone to online submissions and court records. Isn't this judge's order. Inadvertently precluding him from preparing for trial and a defense. You could make that argument, right? You could, you could take the Golin map .

Speaker 3:

Well , uh , arguments and say that

Speaker 1:

Basically that he's being denied access to certain discovery. That's what she's saying. She said , I'm in custody. I have , uh , 2.3 million pages of documents that I need to review. And in custody, I don't have the ability to do that. I can't be properly prepared for my trial. So you know , that that, that argument can be made in any defense case, whether that's going to get them out of custody, however, is a whole different conversation, right? The court would , would want to inquire and make sure the jail is accommodating his attorney, his defense team, so that he is not being , uh , adversely impacted there. But is the judge going to just say that you should be out of custody because you need to prepare your trial? That's not a good excuse because that is something that every single defendant would say, wants to know, says, Rob, I'm sorry, but you need to read every question that is posted. Even if it's the same as 10 others, Rob, you're doing your best, but try better. Sorry, wants now . Um , um , he says, he's just kidding by the way, folks. He's just kidding. And , um , I, sometimes I, sometimes I, I just skip questions. Chrome quack crashed today and I had to reopen it and I picked up wherever we left off and it didn't pick up where we left off. So I had to skip ahead, but I'll do better. Want to know I'll do better. That's it for the questions folks. I just checked. We had some super chats come in. Beth Cottington says looking forward to it. Rob. Also I have a down syndrome cousin. I couldn't imagine my life without her. She's the light. Yeah. Downs look down syndrome. People are amazing. If you don't know anybody with downs, you should go find a local community and just go volunteer there. It will have an impact on you. And I mean that genuinely , uh , Beth , uh , we got auto didactic in Vermont autodidact from Vermont to super chats, no questions, but just some nice support there from autodidact in Vermont. Thank you for that. And let's see, we have one more question over from watching the watchers.locals.com before we get outta here , it says the judge is living from the time of hackers when limiting access. I mean, to not get on the internet for something like that is, is kind of interesting, right? Most of the time that's for crimes involving the internet, like transmitting certain images for making threats over the internet. Things like that is when those precautions are typically imposed, but this is listening to Mike Lindell, but in Washington, DC, that is a catastrophic problem. Probably death penalty eligible , uh , hick says Rob you, and some lawyer on YouTube should form a super lawyer group. That's from hick person, which is a beautiful name so that my friend , um , look, I, I love the YouTube lawyers. They're amazing, great community, my friends. That's it for the questions. That's all we've got on the show today. So we're going to leave it there. I want to thank all of you for your tremendous support over on Lou to Beth YouTube, Beth Cottington , Curtis Bartel , lots from Eddie Oliver today, Marty Lund . We have Jessica Cora chime in with some great super chats. And of course, Zulu started the day off. Thank you. All of you for continuing to support the show over on watching the Watchers dot locals . A lot of people still chatting away over there. We've got cool guy, 18,000 in the house. We've got sweet. Potato three. Girlies is there. We have Rassie and many others are just chatting away. And I want to thank everybody for all of the questions that came [email protected] If you want to join in on the fond , join in on the chat you can do. So. I want to welcome a newbie who came. We got miss tree of life who signed up and joined us over there. We have the west pole who signed up, sir. Caixa lots in the house. Theresa Simone, Dave to Avalon acres, Timbo four 11 and Don M last week we had monster one JS S row grim nightmare, chai WebDev action, man, doc thunder bone and Ms . Danny, if you want to join up it's five bucks a month or 50 bucks a year, you get two months [email protected] We have our next monthly meetup in September, probably I'm traveling a lot in September, so I'm still trying to figure out my schedule, but

Speaker 3:

We'll do one. We'll do one in September. We'll squeeze it in somewhere.

Speaker 1:

They are a ton of fun, and we want you to be a part of that over there at our community. Once [email protected] that my friends is it for me for the day. I want to thank you so much for being here, joining us on the live stream. We're going to do it again tomorrow. So I hope you join us then as well, 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. So you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye .