New reports of U.S. troops being stationed in Taiwan sparks outrage in Beijing, China – is this a new cold war? Federal Judge halts the new Texas abortion law (SB8) prompting an immediate appeal by the State. Derek Chauvin is denied a public lawyer to continue with his appeal and we review recent filing in his case.
And more! Including:
🔵 Wall Street Journal breaks news that U.S. troops have been deployed in Taiwan for at least a year.
🔵 What is behind the China-Taiwan confrontation? We review the long history.
🔵 China fires back at the United, with Chinese media calling for air strikes on U.S. forces.
🔵 CIA Director William Burns announces the creation of the China Mission Center which will focus on an Increasingly adversarial Chinese government.
🔵 Attack submarine USS Connecticut damaged in an underwater collision in the South China Sea.
🔵 Federal Judges halts Texas abortion law after Justice Department sues over enforcement.
🔵 Federal District Court Judge Robert L. Pitman issued a 113-page ruling that uses sharp language to criticize Texas bill SB8.
🔵 Pictures of signs used by abortion protestors in Texas and elsewhere.
🔵 Review of the 113-page ruling, which Texas immediately appealed.
🔵 Derek Chauvin filed his notice of appeal but is being denied a public appellate lawyer.
🔵 Chauvin details a number of appealable issues but notified the court he does not have funds or incomes to retain counsel.
🔵 Minnesota Supreme Court and lower court Judge Cahill both denied Chauvin help from a lawyer.
🔵 Derek Chauvin’s police union, the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, refuses to pay for further legal aid.
🔵 Review of Chauvin’s appellate documents, including the notice of appeal, statement of the case and request for the appointment of a public appellate lawyer.
🔵 Live chat after each segment at watchingthewatchers.locals.com!
NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS:
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler
🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246
🕵️♀️ 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!
📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.
🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/
Connect with us:
🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv
🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!
☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq
#WatchingtheWatchers #China #Taiwan #Chyna #CCP #PLA #W
Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hopes of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got some news to get into. We're going to be talking about what's going on with China and Taiwan. I know this is a legal show when we're talking about watching the Watchers, but this is a very interesting situation here developing between China and Taiwan and the us . And we need to talk a little bit about it because it might be the precipice of a, another international debacle that is sort of primed for catastrophe. So we're going to take a look at this. I am going to walk us through a little bit of the history of what's been going on with the China Taiwan division. And there is some interesting history there that goes back to about like 256 , uh , AED , lot of history there, but there's also some pretty interesting sort of military components to this whole conversation. And we're going to walk through this about the first island chain and about why Taiwan is so geographically important to the region. And it's, it's pretty interesting stuff. So we'll spend some time on that. The CIA is creating an entirely new mission center. It's literally called the China mission center. CIA director, William Burns came out today, announced this, and then very interestingly unattached submarine from the U S fleet had some sort of an underwater collision, some sort of accident over there in the south China sea today. Very interesting, very convenient. And we're going to take a look at that story. It is at the U S S Connecticut. It's sort of being hauled back to Guam right now after something happened. And we don't really know what it is, but we're going to talk about that story because apparently several us troops have been over in Taiwan sort of training the Taiwanese army , uh , for some period of time in China, not happy about that. So we're going to dig into that story in our next segment, we're going to talk about a federal district court judge by the name of Robert Pittman, who put a halt to the Texas is SB eight abortion law. And we've talked a lot about this case. We know that the feds were suing Texas, as soon as SBA went into effect, which was the fetal heartbeat bill. Then the feds came in and started to Sue Texas. And there was a decision today saying, yep , the feds do in fact have standing to Sue, Texas. And so we're going to break down what happened there. We've talked a lot about standing on this channel and we're also going to take a look at sort of the second part of the judge's order, which was granting a preliminary injunction. So this means that the Texas abortion law is going to be halted or suspended or paused. And so we're going to dig into that opinion and see what we can tease out of there. Then in our last segment, we've got to revisit Derek Shovan, Derek Shovan. We spent a lot of time on this channel talking about him. We knew that there was going to be an appeal and he sort of in the thick of it with that right now, of course he lost his trial was convicted on all counts and he's set to be serving a 22 and a half year sentence. We knew that there was a lot of appealable issues. We covered that trial at length here. And so he sort of put together a list of those appealable issues and is trying to appeal his conviction. Cause there's all sorts of problems that happen with this trial. We've talked about it , uh, the entirety of the trial, and now he doesn't have a lawyer. He has no attorney to represent him throughout the appellate process. And the Minnesota Supreme court came out and said, yeah, we're not going to give you one. Judge. Cahill said, no, you don't get one. Minnesota said you don't get one. And the Supreme court said you don't get one. And so Derek Shovan is kind of without a lawyer. So what happens when police officers need funding when they need support? Well , ordinarily they'd go to their police union. He tried to do that. And the union said, we're out of money. We don't have a, sorry, we're not going to be in your corner anymore. You, we paid for your underlying case, but now you're on your own. And so Derek Shovan is sort of a man without a lawyer in the thick of it, in his appeal. And so we'll break that down in the last segment on the show. If you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected] There's a form over here. It looks just like this. And if you're a member over at locals, you've got access to it. And you can certainly go on over there and submit a question as we're going throughout the segments. It does help if you keep the questions in order. So I can just kind of fly through them. Don't have to skip and jump around. So if you get your questions in there, we will certainly take those. We've also got , uh , some, some super chats that come in over on YouTube, those pop up on the screen. They look like this. If you're not a supporter at locals, you can certainly support the show that way. And over on rumble, they're chatting away over there as well. I've got user 1, 1, 2, 1 , we've got Raven craft over there. And so we're sort of a , got a bunch of different screens out there, communicating with everybody on a number of different platforms on locals. We've got VNT kiss primes over there. Look to G Jeremy [inaudible] and let's see who else is in the house. We've got three girlies over there. Sassy PO Taito so sweet. Potato sweet potato is now sassy . PO Taito a little bit of drama going on in the locals chat . And so we had to make a sweet potato, had to make a name change, but they're all over there , chatting away. And now over on YouTube shout outs to Zulus in the house. So [inaudible] I need this. We've got Tim Grandville. We've got Lynn , Joe , we've got Danette . We've got Christine. That house is full. We've got a lot of people all chatting away. We're excited that you're here and looking forward to your participation patient in the show. If you're looking for the clips of the show, those are on the clips channel. Don't forget to head on over there to Robert ruler , Esq clips and subscribe. That's going to help us get to a thousand subscribers. And so we can activate some features over there. Do appreciate it. All right . So without any further ado, let's get into the news of the date, Joe Biden. Of course, some people call him Beijing Biden. Well , he's in a little bit of a hot water, literally it with China. And we're talking about the south China sea and the east China sea, where it got a lot of activity going on in this part of the world. That is the junction between China and Taiwan. And so we're going to break down this story because us troops we're learning have been deployed in Taiwan for the last year. The wall street journal was telling this, saying that the small presence of American had been secretly training forces in Taiwan. And this Mark's concern over China's year-long military, military buildup. And so we're going to go into this story a little bit, but I want to start off by sort of getting our bearings straight. What are we talking about? Where in the world are we, you can see here, here's a map we're going to get to this slide, but you can see this is China or China as Donald Trump calls it. And you see Taiwan is right here, the island here. And so we're talking about this, this area of the world we've got , uh , Thailand is over here up , uh, up towards the north of the screen. We've got South Korea, we've got North Korea, we've got Japan over here. We've down here in the bottom. We have the Philippines and you see Taiwan is sort of this juncture. We're going to talk a lot more about this, but just to get our bearings straight. This is the part of the world that we're talking about. Now, the news, the reason why it's so sort of interesting is because there's a conflict there. U S special operations unit and a contingent of the Marines. They've been secretly operating in Taiwan to train military forces. And this is over the news. You've probably seen a lot of headlines about this, that the Chinese are flying, you know, air , air, jet fighters over the Taiwan island. And so it's causing a lot of concern for many people in the world about two dozen members of the U S special operations and support. Troops are conducting training for small units on Taiwan grounds. American forces have been there for at least a year. And so sort of, you know , asking reversing the timeline. When did they go over? There? Was it September, October, 2020, that would be back during the Trump administration. The us special operations deployment is a sign of concern with the Pentagon over Taiwan's tactical abilities in light of Beijing's year-long buildup . And this is something that China has been really pushing for. They want reunification. They say that Taiwan is not in fact, a separate country. It is China. It's sort of , uh , east China to them. And if you're Taiwan, you say, well, no, I mean, we're just sort of, China is west Taiwan, you know, cause it's, it's a long-standing feud. So what is going on here? We can , we can see here that it says what's behind the China Taiwan divide. This comes over from the BBC. So we'll go back. The first known settlers in Taiwan in this island were Austronesian tribal people thought to have come from mother and modern day Southern China island first appeared in Chinese records around 82, 39. And then it was a Dutch colony from 1624 to 1661. And then again, it was administered by China's Qing Qing dynasty from 1683 to 1895, right? So China had a lot of control over it up until about the 19 hundreds. Then we see that there was a lot of activity going on right around those 19 hundreds from the 17th century on, we saw a lot of migration happening here. Uh , the haka Chinese largely from Guangdong went over there , big demographic shifts, but then in 1895, Japan won the first CNO Japanese war and the king government had to see to Taiwan, to Japan. So then China takes Taiwan, gives it over to Japan. Then after world war II, Japan sort of relinquished control from Taiwan and then gave it back over to China. So the Republic of China, one of the victors of the war began ruling Taiwan after world war II with the consent of allies, the U S and the UK. But then in the next couple of years of civil war broke out in China because communist Moussa , Don came in and he started to sort of , uh , extricate certain people. He banished a bunch of people. And so this guy, Chiang Kai Shek was once the leader in China, he fled with his supporters over to Taiwan and you can see sort of the back and forth it's Taiwan sort of was a part of China. Then it went over to Japan and it went back to China. Then there was a civil war then Taiwan sort of, kind of, you know, extra Cates itself from China. And then they start to become more democratic. They start to democratize to some degree and interface with other Western democracies throughout the world. And then in the year 2000. So we have a lot of history that goes on, obviously after the, the, the , uh , sort of exchange after world war II, we fast forward to 2000 and then there was a Taiwan , uh, leader named Chen Shui by in he's the president. And he was backing independence. So he got elected. The Taiwanese people actually elected this guy and he's backing independence a year after he was reelected, trying to pass the so-called anti succession law stating that China's right to use non peaceful means against Taiwan if it tried to secede . So China says in 2004, if you leave, we're going to use military force to bring you back into the fold. And , um , Taiwan just says, well, we're going to keep doing what we're doing eight years later. Then in 2016, we fast forward. We have Taiwan's current president. Her name is signed in when she was elected. She leads the DPP, which is the democratic progressive party. It leans toward an eventual, official independence from China. And this is in 2016. And so now we're fast forward to the modern era in 2016, after Donald Trump won the election, Ms . Sy spoke with him on the phone, oh, this was a break of U S policy that was set back in 1979 when formal relations were cut. So Donald Trump gets on the phone with Taiwan and says the spec , despite the lack of formal ties us has pledged to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons and said that any attack by China would cause grave concern. Now, China, doesn't like the idea of an independent Taiwan. We're going to explain why very, very shortly here, in addition to all of this, right, there's a lot of cultural history here. There's a lot of, you know , uh , I would suspect national pride that exists there. And so there it's there it's , but it's more than that. So throughout 2018, after Donald Trump made that phone call, China stepped up pressure on international companies. And it's now forcing them to list Taiwan as part of China on their websites. And I've actually seen this. You can go around to different websites and it says different cities in Taiwan are actually a part of China. And then if they don't comply, they don't update their websites. Then they're blocked from doing business in China indefinitely in 2020, then Ms . PSI won again, by that time, Hong Kong had basically been taken over. China was trying to sort of, you know , sort of trying to roll out what they were doing with Hong Kong. This year, president Joe Biden administration said, it's its commitment to Taiwan is rock solid. But in the first few days of Biden's presidency, Taiwan reported a large incursion by Chinese warplanes over two days, then again on April 12th, Taiwanese government said China flew the largest number of military jets into its air defense zone for a year. And so China is essentially poking the bear, right? It's just, it's exercising, dominion and control over this entire island chain. And there's a good reason for that. Let's take a look at this geographically. So sort of from , uh, ever play the game of risk where you have the entire globe and you move around your little pieces, you roll your dice and you see what country can take over the other countries. Well, we're going to back up and just look at this geographically, there's another website or actually Forbes put this together. And you can see that if you sort of zoom out, you'll notice that what the military leaders are talking about in terms of their strategic operations, is that you've got China here, which many people consider to be sort of the United States, largest adversary out there. And you see that it's pretty well contained on all sides. You've got Russia to the north , uh , you know , separated by Mongolia over here. You've got all these stand countries whose Pakistan , Catholic, Stan , Afghanistan, Pakistan Turkmenistan it . So it's sort of landlocked over here. Then we've got India, which is a giant country with a lot of resources and , and strength. They're surrounded by Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and then to the south, we've got Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. And so really kind of the only thing that is left open for China, the only area that doesn't leave them landlocked is out here through the ocean. And you've got the south China sea and you can see here and the east China sea over here, huge bodies of water. And you saw, you see this line here, this, this sort of pink line that has been detailed for us. It says, it's the first island chain. And we're going to take a look at that, but this is sort of the boundary that the military sees as we'll say in snaring or in circling China, locking them from expanding out, beyond the south China sea to east China sea into the rest of the Pacific. And so if you take a look at this sort of strategically, you see the Taiwan is right here, it's sort of this buffer zone in between a clean shot of ocean that looks like here, that would lead you up to Japan and down south, you've got you run right into the Philippines, but south of Taiwan, then you've got sort of another area of open ocean before you hit Indonesia, Malaysia, and then down in Australia. And so you see here, why this is sort of a, whoops, what did I just do here? Okay. So over here now, when we, when we sort of zoom in, we can see Taiwan is now here. And China is this landmass over here. And so Taiwan is here. Uh , Japan is up to the north of the screen and you see there's this island chain. You've got Yami, Miyako Okinawa. We have , uh , mommy , uh , Tokara assuming Dido and Taiwan is obviously much bigger than the others. And so we didn't see this in this image on the prior sort of , uh , delineation of the island chains. But here you can see that right, that island chain is right here. And so these islands are forming the barrier literally to sort of buttress against China's expansion into that area. The reason why this is important is because Beijing has a Navy now that is bigger than the United States. According to Forbes has signaled. It is not intended to be contained will one day be the dominant Pacific power. Washington has made the prevention of the outcome, the overriding objective and its national defense strategy. Each military service is planning to use the first island chain as a place of leverage for countering China's expansion. This is not a partisan impulse. That's unique to Trump. President Obama started the shift of us forces from Europe to the Persian Gulf, to the Pacific respected analysts , Byron Callan of capital alpha partners in September, September 20th, wrote Taiwan or made a keen point of contention between the U S regardless of who wins in 2020 Taiwan centrality of the Pacific power calculus arises from several factors. First, the biggest island archipelago between Japan and Southeast Asia Okinawa was the next biggest only seven miles wide on average, although it hosts half the U S military forces stationed on Japanese soil, its base could easily be disabled by China at the onset of a war Taiwan with 30 times, the land area has more space for concealment and maneuver. So it's sort of beyond just the cultural heritage, right? It's beyond the national importance that the Taiwan brings to China, sort of the idea of a unified country, right? It's a big, it's a big cultural reason. It's a big nationalistic reason to keep these things together. It's also pretty dang important. Militarily, just geographically speaking, because that's sort of the anchor for that first island chain that is currently being occupied by Japan and us to stop the Chinese expansion into the greater Pacific. The other reason why Taiwan is a very important is because it's a first-class economic power in its own right companies like the Taiwan semiconductor lead the world in advanced technology. Taiwan is much closer to mainland China than other islands as being claimed by Chinese nationalist since 1949. But it's also important to consider this if China gains control of the island, its ability to operate east of the first island chain would be assured it's Navy would effectively have broken out into the Pacific. The ability of us forces and their allies to control other nearby islands would be severely impaired. So if Taiwan fell to Beijing, the strategic balance of the Western Pacific would be irreparably changed. Other nations in the region would see it as the end of us , military dominance in the region. He said, that would be correct. There would be no going back. So high stakes in this part of the world, and this is not the part of the world, like the middle east, where it's sort of a , been a free for all as long as I've been alive, right? Uh , sort of , uh , a circling of power. We got the Taliban, ISIS and ISIS K , we got Al Qaeda and it was , you know, it's one group after the other. This has been a standing feud and the parties in this feud are very, very keenly interested in making sure that they succeed, that they win, right. It's sort of like all the eggs are in this basket when it comes to the Asian Pacific theater and international security there , China, of course we know is one of the U S uh , sort of most feared adversaries out there. And they're not happy about the fact that U S has troops or commandos as they're calling them in Taiwan, they fired back. They said that they're unhappy about this. As soon as they found out about us troops, being in Taiwan leaders in China, immediately expressed outrage on Thursday. They're saying that us station forces are helping to are helping in Taiwan to bolster Taiwan's defenses wall street journal. First reported this. We talked about this previously, a move. China said if they did this would violate contentious agreements between Washington and Beijing that have maintained a fragile security theater. There's this guy, his name is Xu Jean . He's the editor of China's English global times. He's considered a mouthpiece for the Chinese communist party. He wrote a tweet. Let's take a look at these. This is him. His name is who zing zing. He's the editor in chief of the global times. And you can see Twitter has him labeled as China's state affiliated media, and actually follow a lot of people on , uh , from China on Twitter because they post very interesting things. And what he said was this. So China said that , uh , back on October six , the wall street journal reported said that China's people's liberation army would be able to launch a full , full blown attack on Taiwan with minimal costs by 2025. This was according to somebody in Taiwan. So this guy, China state affiliated media said the PL PLA, which is the people's liberation army already has the ability now to liberate Taiwan at one stroke. Why wait until 2025 that the mainland hasn't taken action is a Goodwill of Beijing to treasure the cross straits peace . I worry that the Goodwill could be abused by Taiwan and the war is triggered suddenly , suddenly, oh man, it's ominous ominous statement there from who? Who, who? Yes. Now he has another post. He says here , uh, the wall street journal was once again, reporting us troops have been in Taiwan for at least a year, secretly training its military. And now he says, huh, why just two dozen members? Why secretly the U S should send 240 service men publicly in us , military uniform and make public where they are stationed. See whether the PLA people's liberation army will launch a targeted airstrike to eliminate those us invaders. Oh, little media mouthpiece over there , rife , ripping off on the U S troops were going to air , strike him over if they're in Taiwan. So those are kind of fighting words. Now what you can say here is this is just somebody who works for the global times, right? He's not, he's not a part of the Chinese communist party and you go, well, do you know anything about the Chinese communist party? Because really nobody says anything without approval from the Chinese communist party. If this guy was out here talking against the Chinese communist party, he wouldn't be around much longer. So sort of ipso facto sort of, you know , uh , by, by connection, you can say, this is all sort of being , uh , approved to some degree by the powers that be over in China. And that's really why the U S is responding. I think that they are recognizing that this is a very serious situation, which is exactly why the CIA came out and created a new mission center focused directly, exclusively on China and technology. And it's very interesting because I recall that we used to have a leader in America that really did care about China made it kind of the centerpiece of their campaign and their he's not around anymore, but that's okay. Current CIA director, William Burns announced a series of organizational changes and tended to hone the agency's focus on key security challenges, including the launch of two new mission centers. One focused on China, another one on transnational and technological threats. The mission center is going to quote further strengthen our collective work on the most important geopolitical threat we face in the 21st century, an increasingly adversary adversarial Chinese government. They're going to focus on foreign technological development like, oh, alongside issues like climate change and global health. The CIA said, oh God, they are just the dumbest people. All right. So , uh, okay, good adversarial, Chinese government also climate change and global health. So that's great. So we can just see where this is going. It's all right. So we'll see if they get anything done. Now, a bipartisan report issued last year came out from the house intelligence committee said that China's technological advances in particular threatened to erode the U S advantage. That's why they have to realign their resources. Current and former intelligence officials acknowledged that new technologies have profoundly complicated the work of American spy agencies. Why? Because they have entire surveillance systems built out there. They have nearly ubiquitous surveillance. They have increasingly sophisticated facial recognition, biometric tracking tools, advances fueled by artificial intelligence and machine learning challengers like Russia and China. They've aggressively use these technologies to undermine operations worldwide. They identify and they track intelligence officers and their assets. Last month. CIA deputy director said at the annual intelligence and national security Alliance summit, the agency was already grappling with obstacles posed by ubiquitous surveillance. And so , uh, the military, the CIA they're going to be working on this alongside with climate change and global health. Don't know if they're going to figure out what happened with [inaudible] or with the , uh, the current Corona virus , or if they're going to be helping China deal with their pollution problem. But that's good news. CIS , on top of this, meanwhile, on a tax summary in the U S S Connecticut got into a collision right over there in the south China sea today. Isn't that interesting? So it sounds like what happened here was China got wind of this story being published and , uh, was unhappy about it. Oh, there's troops in Taiwan training our , our Taiwan ease counterparts. We've got a problem with that. Lo and behold, there's an underwater collision. Nobody knows what happened here, but it happens in the south China sea could be just a big coincidence. You know, they could have hit a whale or something like that. You know, sometimes whales get , you know , pop out in front of you in the ocean and you got no accidents happen. So there was an attack where a submarine suffers an underwater collision. This is the USS Connecticut SSN 22. And let's see, there was a, this was back in July. It says almost a dozen sailors have been injured after a us nuclear attack. Summary hit an unknown underwater object in the south China sea. It was a whale . It was probably a whale, you know, an Orca, something like that. The Seawolf class submarine, the USS Connecticut suffered an underwater collision operating in international waters on October 2nd, which, oh, it happened a couple of days ago returning to port with the us seventh fleet, see Wolf class attack submarine struck an object while submerge in international waters. There's no life-threatening injuries. The extent of the damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. Us Navy is not requested assistance. Incident is going to need to be investigated. 11 sailors were hurt. The attack boat is now headed back to Guam. Hmm. Yeah. All right . So there's a lot of stuff going on over there in the south China sea. And , uh, we'll see where this goes. Are we on? Is this the new cold war? Is this the good news is I really trust the military. They're in charge. They know what they're doing. They're going to figure it out this time, Afghanistan, you know, look, everybody is a little bit sloppy at your first at bat. You got to take a few swings. You ain't got to warm up a little bit before you get your international diplomacy in order. So we'll see where Joe Biden and the current administration take this. I'm not optimistic. Let's see what you have to say about it [email protected] Let's see if we have any questions on this one. There it is. Monster one says , uh, no need to apologize for talking about China. We all know they are the Watchers pulling the strings. Yeah, it is. Uh , it is very interesting to see how all of the different components of United States governance , uh, not just the governance. I mean the celebrities and big business, how everybody just buckles to China, whatever they want, whatever they demand. It happens. Monster one says so under Obama and Biden, Russia, annex , Crimea, and now under Biden and China, it's trying to take over Taiwan. If I'm not mistaken, there was about four years in between where none of those countries tried this crap. I wonder what is most significant about those four years? It's hard to say. Yeah, I really can't. I can't put my finger on it, but yeah, there was a lot less , uh, children playing around, breaking things in the China store. Wasn't there back over the last four years, things have kind of gone awry pili . Wally says China is kind of correct in warding . The U S the U S is not here to police the world. They do not. They are not the world leaders that they believe they are. Every country has its own interest that it likes to get into. Did China approve of the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war as America's needs to look after themselves and ignore matters in the world that doesn't concern them. I feel the same about the UK in the matters like this to Rob. I don't, I don't disagree with you on that, right. I'm, I'm sort of , uh, in agreement with you in many ways, right? America, I think is, is way over extended at this point. Not real sure what they're doing. The antique is prime says, let's see here now , it's hard to make sense of all this posturing. Realistically, there are times where I think China and some other country I won't name right now have more control over the U S and the American people. Since you mentioned board games, I would say a more relevant board game to the times we're living in is called Imperial or the new version, Imperial 2030. Also, we've got 600 people watching on YouTube and only a hundred likes click that like button people that's from the antic is prime. I didn't say it, but I approve that message. We have another one. Thank you. [inaudible] for that board game recommendation, I've never heard of that. One. Thunder seven says China, Joe Beijing Biden , a trader Joe Benedict , bitey , whatever you want to call the old fool . He has allowed China to recover the military hardware. The Wolk general Milly left behind, along with us citizens as signaled to China, they have free reign to do whatever they want. China would never be acting this aggressively with Trump on pay on power. They know better. Yeah. It's sort of feels like a free for all jump in . Jeff is here, says, do we need military dominance in the region? Or can we get to a detente as it were? The admin is behind the eight ball without any adequate gray matter to devote to the negotiation, but maybe the next administration. So like , uh , uh , uh , rather than the U S as a unipolar entity there , the U S being the sole hegemonic power that has control of the region with military power, projection, and so forth, we would say, well, we don't necessarily need the U S but you'd build up Japan. You'd build up Australia, you'd build up India. And they would all sort of , uh , in conjunction with one another, create a coalition that keeps China in check. A lot of this happened back during the sort of the lead up into the cold war. Sorry, the world war one is if I , if my history rings correctly, monster one says, I might have to change my opinion. Now, now that I know the Taiwan government is called the Democrat progressive party, wouldn't want to get confused in supporting the Democrats or progressives. It's dangerous here. Yeah. It's dangerous. You know, but it's funny. It's like China has a bunch of those , uh, those , those same names, like people's liberation, army. You're like, what are you liberating? Like who pretty, pretty tight rain over there. We have another one from the dark says, sorry, if this is too long, you can skip it. No, we're going to do it . It says as with all things involving our government, these days, I find myself questioning this whole thing with China, like is trying to picking fights with us. Are we actually being the aggressors here, getting in their waters when we shouldn't be not being rational with foreign policy? Like we have been with Russia in the middle Eastern nations. I just do not trust our intelligence agencies and our military leaders or anyone in our federal government. For that matter. After watching the show, the Duran and the show, the gaggle, both on locals and YouTube, they do a lot of geopolitics and break down a lot of stuff. You would never hear in the U S and they have really changed my outlook on our foreign policy. I'd recommend everyone go check out both their YouTube and their locals. And so that was the gaggle and the Duran two shows. Yeah. Look, it's , it's hard. It's hard to know. Right. And we've talked a lot about this here, that our informational supply chains are so stinking broken. We were told for 20 years that everything was fine in Afghanistan, and we were going to leave and it was all going to be perfect. And that didn't really work out so well, did it. So, yeah, I agree with you in the dark, right? The information is really, really bad and who , and who knows, who knows what is true? We have another one says, Hey, Rob, no question here. A great show as usual. Am I wrong? Sincere , thanks. Am I wrong? But doesn't Taiwan control almost all production of semiconductors in the world. I vaguely , vaguely remember that as a recent president worldwide , China might take over the island and the technology possibly freezing the U S out of the modern world. I have heard that too. Yeah. And there was just a little blurb in that, in the prior slide, which said that it was a major semiconductor , uh , producer, basically all the chips in a huge number of the chips that go into your cell phones and your computers are all made in Taiwan. And so they've got the infrastructure, the capability to do that. If that falls into Chinese hands, the U S you know , would not be particularly happy about that. Let's go, Brandon says the U S have the ability to sink the Chinese Navy and destroy any invasion, but sleepy Joe's in office. Remember Afghanistan, this is just a grift to make more money. Let's go, Brandon. That is from, let's go, Brandon, next up, we've got this . Another one from let's go, Brandon. He says, what was the effect of electing brain-dead Biden on world stability? The whole world knows that he's not competent to be the president of the PTA Mustang. Jeff says, I doubt Joe Biden knows where China is. He probably did at one point. Now I'm not so sure news. Now I oming says we better be careful with our Chinese provato. If they call in our debt we're toast. Well, the good news is, is they're no longer in control of really any Bitcoin over there, which is, which is a very good news. So, you know, not financial advice, but there are alternatives. We have monster. One says, everyone knows whales are the deer of the ocean. It's true. Those dumb bastards will jump right in front of you. I wonder if the submarine had its horn blaring. It's true. You know, it's probably late at night. The guy was just the guy driving. The submarine was just exhausted. Were you there? Oh, it's a beluga crash . The submarine right into the beluga whales. Just the worst. Not any good hope that whale made it hope those soldiers are okay. Sleepy. Joe says, start learning how to speak Mandarin from when they completely take over the country. I can't go back on my word with them, or I'll have to return the millions they gave hunter Mandarin. Yeah. Better bone up on it. D rod says Biden is not independent from China due to his family dealings. China knows if they yell, jump Biden will say how high there's not much. There's not much leverage that we see in existence right now. We have Greg Morat over from Australia, which is sort of in this zone that we're talking about says it's baffling. How South Korea would support China to take over Taiwan. I guess all those [inaudible] . So AAU , K U S lives that were lost during the Korean war does not matter. Those are big markets there . Greg in China, it was like 1.3 billion people. There's a lot of goods to sell those people. And so they'll do anything they can. I mean, think about it really. It's like you have the United States market. What are we? 375 million about maybe 60% of those people. 70% of those people are purchasers. Make me make me purchasing decisions and you know, make actual big investments and things like that. So you, now you take those same numbers and you go, well, you know, we kind of have saturated the market here. There's a giant market. That's like four times the size of ours in China. Wow. That's that's a lot. And so now suddenly people will bend their rules. They'll manipulate their morality. They'll take a look at the history and they'll say, well, yeah, but they've changed. They're much better now. They're the new gentler Taliban. They're our international partners now. Oh yeah. No. I mean, they're still hanging people off the streets and stuff and yes, they have not included any women in any of their governance, but we're going to continue to work with them because what choice do we have? That's how this is working now. Let's see what else. If the Antica says a visual reference for the game, let's see what this one looks like. It's over on Amazon, pull this puppy up real fast. Okay. So it looks like this Imperial 20, 30. All right. Never heard of that game, but it looks, sounds like it's a good one. All right. We have another one coming in from John Delores says, I don't feel like the United States is the number one power in the world anymore. China is everyone caters to them. China is not afraid of the U S I feel the U S is afraid of China. We need Trump back by an exudes weakness. And China knows it. China literally was wagging their fingers. I think literally it felt literally it may not have been literal, but they were certainly hypothetically symbolically waving their fingers in the face of Anthony Blinken. He said, we're upset about the Wiggers . And they said, oh yeah, well, you racist. Sob is in your country. You've got, you've got people burning down Wendy's and used car lots. So how about you? Don't talk to us about racism until you get your racism and check . And Anthony Blake is like, oh , nobody's ever talked to me like that before. Nobody talks to me like that at Oxford. So we have another one from monster. One says, yeah, we probably shouldn't have intervened in Germany with the little mustache man. Either. We have a vested interest in keeping China from growing, you know, and look, this is where this is where you really start to have to think through your stance on governance and governments in general. And I, and I do write a lot of the time. My, my initial instinct is, you know, the U S government, the feds they're really should stay out of our lives. I should really leave us the hell alone. All of these issues that we talk about regularly on the show, mandates and masks and all sorts of criminal statutes and all of the stuff that's happening domestically. It's like, what do the feds do? Except screw that up. We don't need them to make decisions about where kids go to school and what they do every day . Those are decisions that are best left locally. And if states want to deal with them differently, they can do that. We have little laboratories of democracy that exists for a reason. Don't like what's happening in one particular state, get up and move. But there are certain issues that the individual states can't deal with. And there is actual power by binding them together and then enlisting one unified government to go and do something about it. Write about something else in the world. And when you're talking about global powers versus one another, that's really where I start to see some legitimacy for the national government, for the nation state, virtually everything else is they're basically useless for. We can figure out our own education. We can protect our own local environments. We can manage our money appropriately. We don't need you to bubble wrap us everywhere you go, but we do need some help and support when we're dealing with a very strong adversarial foreign power like China, or if you're going to delegate the responsibilities of protecting the border to the national government, well, they should be doing that right, because they have removed that ability from the states. And so there are some issues where the feds, yeah. You know , you may want them to actually do something about this and be a strong moral country. If you want to view things in those terms. And right, there are, there are dictatorial, evil regimes that exist around the world. And so if you are sort of, you know , sort of staying quiet and allowing those things to fester and foster up at some point that that might actually become a threat to your nation state and to your local way of life. And that's where the U S government on whole and the military, I think does have legitimacy. Now, again, the question is, are we using that responsibly? Are we promising that, that we're, we're doing good in the world for 20 years in Afghanistan? And it sounds like the whole thing was a grift and a fraud. And so, you know, I think it's, I think it's important that you can sort of balance two ends of this conversation. It's not the military is all bad and evil in America is an international , uh, you know , aggressor that shouldn't be policing the world. Yeah . That's one perspective on the other hand, right? You have, you know, the world is a tricky place and the world does need strong leadership to some degree in the face of, you know , communism or dictator , a dictatorial nation states that are growing up and becoming problematic for freedom and Liberty and morality around the world. And so I think you can balance the two out. And if you are going to say that the U S has some sort of responsibility to promote democracy, to promote freedom, to stop communism. Then I also think it's very fair to analyze the, the, the work product. If the U S government is going to be embarking on those tasks, they should be held accountable. There should be some metrics and measurement to make sure that they're putting their money where their mouth is. And they are in fact making progress. We have another one from former. Leo says, does anybody remember CDOT? Which is the Asia NATO. I don't remember that. Former Leo , C E T O. I don't remember that, but that may be , uh , just , uh , just a me . We have another one from no-name says, why do they bother with the special CIA task force? Just to have general Milley reach out to his good friend of five years general. What's his face in China? I'm sure the friend will tell his bro all about the impending Taiwan invasion plans. That's a great point, right? Forgot about Millie over there. Hey, Hey. Hey buddy, what are you doing? Oh, Trump. No, he's not going to attack you if he is. We're going to tell you when. So just brace yourself. Cause I'll send you a text before we send everything over. Jeremy [inaudible] here says Rob, one of the special forces jobs is to train foreign militaries. When it is said that they are secretly training foreign troops, it's kind of misleading if I was secretly doing something, but then someone else wrote a story about it. I guess it's not a secret anymore. That's from Jeremy MITRE . Tim's pretty good point. It's not a secret. If everybody knows about it, the last villain says China already bought Taiwan from hunter. He's already in negotiation to get rid of the tariffs. That's from the last fill and monster one says, I got a great idea. Let's make our own effing chips. Yeah . I think a nice decoupling from China is probably a good idea. Chairman of the board says there is nothing to worry about everyone just relax. But he said it in Mandarin. That's interesting. Yeah. John Cena. Yeah. Yeah. I've seen a lot of those , uh, those videos from him and John Dolores says Trump was the only president stand up to China. Abracadabra. We get a virus from China that causes them to lose the election and give me a break. China is not a friend of the U S at all. And that was, we got one more question over from locals. It says former Leo says with the byte administration, chop stop Chinese illegal immigration to California. And he said, and then he sent me this link. This is the ah , Wikipedia. They always want money says that the south Asia treaty organization was a collective defense in Southeast Asia. No, it says , uh , primarily created the block further communist gains in Southeast Asia. Interesting CDOT was dissolved in June, 1977. After many members lost interest and withdrew. Well, sounds like may need to bring something like that back that's from former Leo . Thanks for sharing that. And then our last one is from Thai . Livin says the south EO more and more on CDOT says that the Southeast Oregon organization was an international organization for collective defense region serve with Southeast Asia formation, September 8th, 1954, headquartered in Bangkok, Thailand. That is from Thai living . Thank you for that. Thai living. A lot of good stuff on there. A lot of good information. I appreciate everybody sharing that. We're going to keep an eye on it. See if anything more develops. That's all that we've got on that segment. All right. And so shout outs over on rumble. A lot of people chatting over there more than usual. We've got mama rocks. We've got Raven craft and let's see if somebody else earlier. Oh yeah. User 21, 11 21 over on rumble. Over on YouTube. Zulus or Zulus here, liens here. We have just Kyle's cool guy. 18,000 Chris banks , Lauren S and then on locals, of course, we've got sassy PO Taito Joey. Bandolero joined us. Good to see you, Joey. All right. And so let's jump into our next segment. Shall we see what we've got? Oh, that's right, Texas. We're talking about Texas. A federal judge. Just put a pause, a halt, granted, a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of SBA. This is the Texas abortion law. The same law that we talked about that was sort of measuring a fetal heartbeat. If you can hear it, you can't get an abortion. And if you do get an abortion, what the law does is it creates a private cause of action. It says that anybody who knows about that can go and Sue the doctor and Sue, basically everybody who is involved in this abortion, it creates a private cause of action. It's not the government doing anything. It's just saying, Hey, you know , if you're a , let's say a father and your ex goes in and gets an abortion. And you know about that. And she does that at eight weeks, nine weeks after the fetus has a heartbeat, you can open a claim against her. And so obviously this was a new dynamic in limiting abortion by, by creating a private cause of action that allows people to strongly disincentivize the completion of the abortion. So once this law went into effect, a bunch of abortion clinics in Texas, they all shut down. They filed challenges to the Supreme court. Supreme court came back down and said, no. I mean, basically, look, this is not the right time for us to weigh in on this issue. We've got another Supreme court case on abortion coming up in December. That's an a Mississippi case I believe, but this one was not really ready yet for the court to weigh in on it. So once the Supreme court came down and said, we're not going to stop this thing. It went into effect. The Biden, DOJ, the justice department said, we're not happy about this. They filed a lawsuit. They went and sued specifically the state of Texas. And once that lawsuit came in, the feds came and we talked about this here on this channel. But the feds came up with a bunch of reasons as to why this was sort of harming the federal government and a federal judge today agreed with the federal government saying that what's happening here is a breach of constitutional law and saying that the SBA can not go into effect. So let's break this down. We have a headline from New York times telling us that a federal judge does pause a strict Texas law that bans most enforcement published October 6th by Sabrina and Katie Benner says a federal judge on Wednesday. Granted the justice department's request to halt enforcement of the Texas law that bans nearly all abortions. It's 113 page ruling. And a lot of it is very technical stuff. We are going to synthesize it down into the two most pertinent questions, but the guy's name is Robert L. Pittman. He's a judge from the federal district court in Austin sided with the Biden administration. They sued to stop this law from going into effect. Judge Pittman use sharp language to criticize the law said that this was drafted to make it difficult, to challenge the law in court and saying that anybody who aids in a bet , somebody getting an abortion is now on the hook. So the judge was in fact, pretty angry saying, well , you know, these legislators, the people who passed all of this, the people who can cocked it SBA in the first place they were doing so nefariously, they were doing. So to sort of maneuver this out of the courts, they were trying to come up with a scheme that would make it almost impossible for the federal government or the federal courts or the courts in general, to stop this law from going into effect. That's why they organized it the way they did. They didn't say that it's illegal to perform an abortion there. They just said, if you do, now, you can be sued for doing that. And it's not even the us government or the state government. It's not Texas. That's doing the suing about the abortion. It's somebody who's not even connected to the government at all. So if you're challenging this now, and you're saying the government is taking away my rights, you're saying not, not really. They're just creating a cause of action. Somebody else can Sue you. And so what they're trying to do, the statute, the drafters, they're trying to remove the government actor out of the whole equation because once the government actors in the equation, now it's the government that's taking somebody's rights away. And so if you remove the government, you say, no, the government's not doing anything. All they did was create a cause of action. A private person is not taking away your right to an abortion. You're free to get an abortion. All you want. You just have to be now on the hook for that civil claim, which is now allowed in Texas. So the judge was unhappy about that. So that whole thing is just, it's manipulating the rules. You're twisting these rules in a way that allows you to technically prohibit abortions from happening. So once this judge came out and said that the SBA law can not go into effect, attorney general, Merrick, Garland, very happy about this. He came out immediately with the statement. And tonight this was last night, issued the statement on the decision to issue the preliminary injunction that he says that on September 9th, the justice department filed a lawsuit to prevent Texas from enforcing the law. This is the preliminary injunction part, part of that. And he said, quote, today's ruling that enjoins the Texas law is a victory for women in Texas. And for the rule of law, it is the foremost responsibility of the DOJ to defend the constitution will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who seek to undermine them attorney general Merrick Garland. And so before we dive into the actual opinion, I did clip, it was 113 pages. I did clip maybe six or seven slides. We'll go through it. And there is some good stuff that we can glean out of there to see what, where this judge is laying on this. But before we do, you know, I was trying to make the thumbnail for the show today. And so I was looking for abortion pictures to clip for the thumbnail. And so when I was going through Texas abortion pictures, I saw some pretty interesting protests taking place. And I want to share a couple of those with you now let's do it. So one of these images you'll see here , uh , it has a lot of women who are , uh , and men there's , uh , uh, or, or, you know, non, non specified gendered people. I don't know how to say any of that, but we can see them protesting. It's a very interesting signs that I have not seen before. We can see this woman here. Doesn't look like she's all that old, but since I can't see , I can't believe I'm still protesting and has this , uh, this, you know , uh , silhouette of the, of the state of Texas here. We have another one over here, which might be familiar to people from the tea party era. This is a don't tread on me sign, which is in the shape of a uterus, which is just a really interesting, these are the snakes that you see from the don't tread on me signs that were back during the tea party days. And they are , uh , snaking themselves into a uterus, which is just, just outstanding. And we have some other pictures we have , uh , very clever, very clever, very witty and smart. And we have another one here. You know, abortion is healthcare. That's pretty obvious, but here we have girls just wanna have fun. The mental human rights girls just wanna have fun the mental human rights. So, I mean, you know, it's, it's, it's a riff on the song. You know, girls just wanna have fun. Girls just want to have fundamental rights. Okay. So that's, that's fun. And we have another one here , uh , more uterus stuff. We have not your incubator over here, an intersectional feminist, whatever the hell that is. Uh , she says, I'm not your incubator, which I guess I get . Yeah. So I go , okay. So that's a , I think that's a pro choice sign. We see a, another abortion healthcare and bodily autonomy as a human rights. Okay . And this looks like this is a nurse , uh, individual wonder what they have to say about the COVID vacs . Don't know about that. We have another uterus , uh, image, a lot of uterus images, and we have another tea party that says don't tread on my uterus. Also with snakes is in the shape of a uterus. And this one here says, if my uterus shot bullets, it'd be less regulated and you're going, what are you talking about? Have you ever tried to buy a gun? You got to fill out a form. You got to , you know, you got to do it, but if you want to get a CCW permit in , in many states, you need something like that. Right . Gotta take a four-hour course and all that. Uh, I'm not sure. I'm not sure . You know, you can't bring a gun to school. She can bring her uterus to a school. She can bring her uterus into a core building. Right. I can't bring a gun to , into a core building. So I don't really know what the hell she's talking about, but , uh, it , it's a pretty interesting sign . Uh, another one that's just great abortion saves lives, which is just a lot of fun because depending on how you classify that fetus, right. That's not sticking around. Right. That's that life is not being saved. So , uh, okay. So that's, that's that one. And then we have a , I think this is our last one here on the abortion signs. We've got another one says we are not ovary acting. Oh my gosh, we are not ovary acting right. Talking about her ovaries, which is funny. And then over here you can see this lady or a non-gendered, you know, whatever person says against abortion, don't get one. Yeah. It's like changing the channel. It's very simple. You know, I say that often on the show, if you don't like the show that's okay. Drop a comment. Give us a thumbs down and find another show. It's very easy. It's like changing the channel here though. It's like, oh, you don't want an abortion. Just don't get one. Never mind what's happening in the abortion clinic, around the corner from your neighborhood. But it's just changed the channel. It's not your business, which I can kind of get behind that argument to some degree, you know, just leave us, leave us alone. But we're talking about apples and oranges, I think to some degree anyways. So those were abortion signs. Now let's get into the opinion before we do, is this opinion going to change anything in Texas? Let's see, New York times tells us it's not clear yet. What affect his decision to pause? The enforcement will provide, will do to women in Texas. Are they going to now go be able to get abortions? Who knows the laws ? Novel legal approach extends to what happens if temporarily suspended clinics can still be sued retroactively. So the SBA bill plan for this, they say, listen, if this bill gets suspended, guess what? If you perform abortions in those, in that interim, in that period where time has been spent , where it is suspended. Once this comes back into play, guess what? We're going to be able to Sue you retroactively. That means penalties can be imposed when the suspension is lifted. If they're caught giving abortions, Texas right to life says, SBA says that if an injunction is dismissed, you're still accountable for the abortions you did while you were protected by that injunction, they wrote it into the law. So even though judge Pittman ruled in favor of the clinics Wednesday night, you know, the abortion clinics may not jump back into back into it. All right ? So let's take a look at the actual order that comes out from the court. We see here, the United States government versus the state of Texas. This is the actual order filed in the Western district of Texas ten six twenty one page one of 113 before the courts are United States motions for emergency emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. Also have a motion to dismiss. We have unopposed motions to leave, to file briefs to the Supreme court, friends of the court, all sorts of different motions here. All this is pretty, pretty technical. The reason that this is 113 pages long is because it is a lot of technical detail. If you boil it down, there are really two main things that we're talking about that I want to talk about here today. Number one is going to be the preliminary , the , the basis for filing the lawsuit in the first place. Okay, here we were talking about this, that this is the U S government suing the state of Texas. We talked a lot about the different states suing all of the other different states and other claims by states and by the federal government. Back during the elections, we talked a lot about standing and in particular, can you even bring a lawsuit in the first place? So that's our threshold issue. The first question is can the department of justice Sue, Texas over this statute in the first place? It's a bit , it's a big question. If they don't have standing, if they can't bring the lawsuit well then asking for an injunction, asking for a dismissal, all of those other remedies are no longer applicable. So here, what we can see is the court is going to necessarily find yes, they have standing, right? Because the court granted the injunction. So that's the first question. Do they have standing? We're going to see the court says, yes. The second question is, okay, if they can file a lawsuit, then what is the appropriate remedy? What should we grant them? And in this case, it was in fact, the injunction, it's a preliminary injunction, which says that this is not supposed to go into effect any further. So we're going to talk about those two issues. We'll go through it relatively quickly, but let's take a look at what's happening here. The introduction we can see here, this is where some of the judges language comes out. So we'll spend a quick minute on it. It says a person's right under the constitution to choose, to obtain an abortion. Prior to fetal viability is well established, right? This comes from the row cases. This comes from the Casey versus planned parenthood cases. And so what this judge is saying is that fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by state action would be flagrantly constitutional. The state did it anyways, calling it unprecedented, calling it transparent. He says, it's a scheme that's designed to do that. He said here, Texas created a private cause of action. So individuals with no personal interest in or connection to the abortion would be incentivized to Sue , to interfere with the right to an abortion rather than subjecting this law to judicial review under the constitution, the state deliberately circumvented the traditional process, the law with the intent to preclude federal courts from reviewing any of this. And they did, right. That's all I think, accurate , uh , persons , but the question is, is it constitutional or not a person's right under the constitution to choose, to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. He says, again is well established . I think, I think he just copied and pasted this whole sentence. And that's a copy and paste right there. Yeah. I think it is. And he says with full knowledge that depriving its citizens of this right by to rates , um , that I, that I copy and paste the whole thing rather than challenging the, I might've just copy and paste the whole thing, I guess I did. All right . So that's my bad . Okay. I don't know what I'm doing. All right . He says here, that's the introduction. And here he's talking about standing. Okay. So here is, we were where we see the standing argument. Does the courts find that the us government has the right to Sue Texas and he delineates a couple of the different arguments here. He says the U S government, the U S suing Texas says it. Yes we do. We have a profound sovereign interests . We have to vindicate our citizens constitutional rights. And that happens in federal court. It says that they've got a strong interest in protecting the supremacy of the constitution. But the state here Texas says, yeah, that a sovereign interest says that it has a sovereign interest in ensuring that the states do not violate the constitution. That alone cannot support standing. The state says that sovereign interests are not limited to those in a case called snap Supreme court found that there's a, there was a water rights case where there was an equitable share of the interstates river water that was being sort of divvied up, sliced up and divided between the states as another example, they say, they , they refer to these other cases like Nevada versus bank of America saying that what the government is using to analogize, this is not, it is for large sale scale violations of constitutional rights . Okay. So yeah. So what Texas is saying is that there , there are two different styles of interest there. And the basic , it's not the same thing that, that , uh , general applicability of the U S sovereignty is not enough to justify encroaching into states and interfering with state local laws. The court of course, is going to side with the government. They say in the absence of additional guidance from the Supreme court, the court finds that they support standing where the government's interest is preventing harms to the general where welfare and to the public at large. So remember, so let's, let's analogize this back to what we talked about back during the election. Then it was a lot of people suing and the courts were coming out and saying, you can't Sue, you have no interest here. This is just a general claim, right? You're just filing this on behalf of all people who voted in that state, you, you specifically haven't demonstrated that you were harmed. You specifically have not detailed a, a reason why you should be here in suing and here what the, what the DOJ is saying. And if you recall, we actually talked some about this, where , where the DOJ was saying this, yes, this doesn't impact us directly, but it does sort of through separate channels. And what they talked about was military bases , right? The abortion law is going to impact any us soldiers on Texas, military bases , also federal prisons. That's going to apply to people in federal prisons. And so they were sort of trying to attach their harm to that on that basis, which would give them standing. Now what they're saying and what the court is supporting here is that there is even standing. If it's just the feds wanting to come in and protect the general where welfare, or just protect the public at large. So if you're going to be somebody who let's say, assuming the state, if you're a private citizen suing the state, you got to have a real specific harm. But if you're the feds suing another state that you don't really need, that you need something that is just general welfare or even public at large, is going to give you enough standing to bring that claim forward. The United States interests here. The court says in vindicating its citizens constitutional rights fits within the broad interest in Debs preventing harms that affect the public broadly. So the court is going to is going to grant standing here and so staff so they can bring the lawsuit. Then the second question that we ask is whether or not they're going to succeed on the preliminary injunction now that we know that they can't bring a lawsuit, the next question is, well , what do we do about it? What's going to happen here? And the court goes through a , another analysis. They say, yeah, well, listen, if we analyze this altogether, the court they're finding a facts . The analysis of the party's submission, the court concludes that the U S government here is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. It's substantially likely that SBA violates the 14th amendment, whether as an unconstitutional pre viability abortion ban, or as an unconstitutional undue burden on pre viability abortion. Right? So those are going to be hearkening back to the Casey case. And back to the Roe case, it's also substantially likely that SBA unconstitutionally interferes with principles of preemption and inter-governmental immunity. And so , so this judge just put together a massive brief, right? And this is going to be immediately appealed up, but let's see what the final orders are. He says here that Texas must publish this preliminary injunctions on all public facing court websites. So it's visible and easy to understand that lawsuits that are based on SBA are not going to be accepted by Texas courts. So he's saying this specifically, right? You have to go state of Texas and post this everywhere. And you got to notify everybody that if they're thinking about filing a lawsuit under the basis of SBA, if they want to Sue somebody or a doctor who provided an abortion to some female or male now, then that is going to be a non-actionable lawsuit. It's not, it's not applicable anymore. It was two days ago, but now it's not. And so that needs to be, you know , notice has to be provided so that nobody files those lawsuits. It says here it is further ordered. State of Texas shall inform all state court judges and state court clerks of this injunction. So nobody's going to be processing these claims as they come through court recognizes it may not be in the best position to dictate the particulars. So if the state wants to do something else to achieve those goals, they're free to do that. Also finds that the U S emergency motion for the restraining order is granted. But the motion to dismiss is denied. So Texas wanted this whole case thrown out. That's going to be denied. We have motions to leave , uh , uh , Amie key briefs, which are sort of friends of the court briefs. So those are granted to different people. Us motion for protective order is denied. So the us government wanted to seal all this stuff, and that is being denied. Let's see, Texas objected to us declarations, and then Texas intervener's motion. It's a strike. Okay. So a lot of that is all there. Otherwise just sort of a technical details. Now, Texas is going to be appealing this obviously, and these are just kind of the steps that are necessary in order to get this case up into the Supreme court, which is where this will likely ultimately go. We saw this today. Texas is going to appeal the Texas judge temporary ban on restrictive abortion law. They're going to file an order late Wednesday, a state notified us district judge Robert Pittman, that it planned to file an appeal to his ruling, that temporarily bars, the state from enforcing SBA. So let's see what you have to say about this over from watching the watchers.locals.com. See if there's any questions on this one. We have a couple that are coming in, not gums is here, says with regard to the complaining about any abortion regulation here, the shortening of the abortion window is argued as being before most women know they're pregnant. If you don't have sex, you don't get pregnant. If you have sex in a responsible, you start monitoring with OTC tests, such as activity, or you take precautions and keep checking should give you an early warning instead of waiting to miss your cycle and possible morning sickness. If you can't be bothered with monitoring your own health with regard to your sexual activity, maybe you need to reign in your activities. Men should always wear a raincoat , their job, and you should monitor for pregnancy. Your job is monitoring yourself like peeing on a stick, actually more of a burden than an abortion. [inaudible] just go in without we have another one from Robert D is great comment. A lot of open questions there. Robert [inaudible] ice Wolf says , uh , abortion segment, even though I may have problems that may or may not make sense all the time. I have dyslexia, not always coherent, but I'm glad we were all here. Even people who have severe health and mental problems, because it is all who make the world go round past Roe versus Wade. We are all survivors. Sorry about the rant. I've hit the like button may all be blessed. That's from Robert Defore ice Wolf. And he was over on our watching the Watchers, monthly locals, Chet locals , community chat. Good to see you. Robert hope you're doing well, my friend, thanks for chiming in. Yeah. And sharing that, you know , he's glad he's here. So mine , we have another one from [inaudible] oopsy says, sorry. Should have been raining . Was correcting the grammar there. That's okay. Um, I'm terrible about that. Have you seen what I type in the, in the comments there's typos all over the place news. Now Wyoming says I am con uh, still confused about the legalities behind a civil suit for a medical procedure. What proof would be required before you are given discovery rights? I took a picture of this woman walking into planned parenthood. I want to Sue the doctor for , for performing an abortion. Is that enough? This is the part of the law that has most bothered me. It really does make someone's medical records on issue. So you can Sue a doctor. The patient is not allowed to be a defendant. So her records should never be allowed to be turned over to someone else. Yeah. And I think those are all very valid questions, right? This is a very messy law. There's no question about it. I mean, I think the law itself is problematic right from , and that's why it was written, right? This is not written to be like a, like a regular law. They drafted this, knowing that this was going to be a bomb thrown into the legal procedure, right. It was going to pass with flying colors. It's something that the courts have sort of divested from localities courts have made abortion a constitutional rights. You know, a lot of people disagree with Roe vs. Wade, obviously, and the state localities have decided, okay, well, we're just going to throw this bomb in there and we're going to see what happens and we're seeing it, right. Everybody is freaking out. Justice department is losing their minds over this thing. Federal courts are going , and we don't really know what to do with this thing. Supreme court is going to , he's going to have to really unravel this. This is a complicated, legal puzzle. The drafters of this thing made it a legal puzzle and they made it difficult to unravel. And so the court, that's why it took the court 113 pages to try to make their argument about standing. And then about the preliminary injunction, because it's, it's, it's sort of on the margins of acceptable law. Right. And so yes, all of this is going to get fleshed out in the first, just like, just like you hear about, you know, Casey, right. And you hear about RO , right? And you hear about all of these people, right? There's going to be somebody that is, is that their name is going to be on the back of this thing because they've been sued for getting an abortion if this continues to move forward. Right. And then we're going to see a lot of this all flush out in that particular case. And it's going to be very messy and it's going to capture a lot of attention and we'll see where it goes. Good to see you and use . Now let's go. Brandon says like the leftist care about bodily autonomy, excuse me. And that they are forcing vacs and other stuff into certain people left us , have no principle . They should be treated as such. And any protest is just self aggrandizement and vanity. Another one from speech unleashed says, is it normal for the federal government to Sue a state for a state being unconstitutional? I always thought such lawsuits had to come from individuals or groups, not the federal government. Well, according to this judge, the answer is yes, they can. Right . They can just go and they can write the feds can fed Sue, Sue states. And they Sue city governments. And they Sue stuff like that all the time, but they have to have standing for it. And if you actually read through the full opinion, speech on Lacey goes through a number of examples when the U S government does in fact Sue and why standing is applicable. And I think there are good arguments for it, but it doesn't negate from the underlying fact that they are taking away certain control from local governments. Now you might be able , you know, you might be somebody who's pro pro choice. And you'd say that it's a fundamental, constitutional rights because of Casey because of RO . And we'll see what this new Supreme court has to say about it. It's going to be juicy though. Look, two G says, I am personally pro-life, but , uh , being that we live in a country with freedom of religion, I accept that others don't share my view. I can't wrap my head around though is why our elected officials never attempted to give us an opt out of something. Some of us find so repulsive, it's one thing for others to have the freedom, to engage in their beliefs. But I don't feel like I should be funding their decision as it's against my religion. Is there any practical route to separate our tax dollars from the institution of abortion? I mean, other than, you know, communicating with your elected representatives about where your tax money goes, right? It's going to go wherever the federal government wants to send it. And they're not very responsive to much of that. We have another one from Nadab says I'm usually pro-choice because the less government the better, but since they don't want to stand up for me by saying, it's not a VAX mandate because you have a choice and not to get it, but that means losing your source of income. So screw them. It's not an abortion law. You can still get one. You will have to just pay a huge, fine and possibly do jail time. But Hey, at least you won't have to be responsible for your own decisions. Like an adult inserted emoji of a shoulder, shrugging girl, Darby sang to play at that game, give it right back to them. Schnuck him says, is Tinder promoting abortion by its very existence? You know, I don't know. I don't know about Tinder. Are they doing that? Can you, can you schedule your abortion after a date on Tinder? I have no idea. Perry masonary says, I didn't know that the constitution expressly granted the right to an abortion. The Supreme court decision that created this right, was the worst sense. Dred Scott. It was a very bad decision. I mean, objectively speaking, and I'm not talking about the result of the decision, but the way Roe vs Wade was crafted, they just kind of passed legislation in the court. And that's not the appropriate thing for the courts to do. Monster one says funny how Garland is so interested in protecting so-called rights that are nowhere in the constitution yet has no problem violating the rights that are actually actually constitutional like speech and gun rights. Yeah . It's sort of pick and choose over there. Monster. One says, how about if you don't want to get a child, get on a birth, get on birth control. Good suggestion from monster one. Nancy Pelosi's oh God. Oh , I can't. I can't. This is a family show. I can't read that one. Nancy Pelosi something. I can't it's this is a family show, but that was, that was yeah. Monster one says, Rob, of course they have standing there . Democrats, you only like standing, if it's Republicans in that case, you never have standing. I forgot. I forgot about that. Tie live and says, as a mother of three, I have mixed emotions on this topic. So did Texas create this originally as a question or disagreement of the viability timeframe? So disagreement of the viability timeframe. So I don't think that it was really either one of those. I think it was really a statute that was drafted in order to do, to get as close to the line of banning abortions as they possibly could. And they were doing it in a very clever way in a mechanism that nobody's ever really seen before that is causing the courts to rethink a lot of the underlying jurisprudence. Right? What does standing mean? Exactly. And we have to rethink this because typically standing means it has these certain elements that you have to do in your legal analysis. And so if you apply those same things to this case, you're like, well, cayenne , it's kind of not the government really doing it. All they did was create a cause of action. And so you can see where it can get a little bit squirrely , but I think that was why Texas did it in the first place. Right? It's a fundamental disagreement with the, the ability to continue to get abortions in Texas. Don't think they care about really the viability timeframe, right? Where the six weeks or 10 weeks or eight weeks, I think it's like , let's get as close as we can to, to that line where it's not going to be considered a total ban because you can still get it up to six weeks. But not after that. Right. It's, it's re it's really aggressive and, and the court called them out for that. And that's true. It's intended to be aggressive. We have another one from AOC says I have confirmed the baby is yours. Oh no, AOC. We need to talk about what you want to do about it. Well folks , uh , breaking news. Yeah. AOC and I not good. I don't even know what to say about that kind of vomited in my mouth a little bit. John, my uterus is vaccinated. How green is here, says it's confirmed. There's so much. I don't know about our legal system. Thanks for trying to explain it to me. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. If it was a little botched on the abortion stuff. Good to see you, John. John, my vaccine is, is my , my uterus is vaccinated. Soul . Whole Viking is here, says a while. Some of the protesters claim to have some pretty fierce uteruses in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia, some women actually have killed us. Some women have killer vaginas with very, very high accuracy with dark blowguns what's what's what kind of comment is that? Soul Viking amazing. Captain. Jim says, Rob, can you please explain how the federal government court can prevent a state from accepting civil cases? Isn't it, Texas residents duking it out amongst each other over Texas issues without the state government playing a role. Yeah. And so you're , you're tying this all back to, I mean, it's basically the supremacy clause, right? It's it's sort of the us constitution reign Supreme. It governs everything. If a state is dope. So think about it this way. There's a base layer of constitutional protections that the federal government is supposed to ensure exist across the entire country. Now states they can raise that up. They can provide more constitutional protections than the baseline constitution, but not less. And so what is happening here is Texas is saying, well, you know, our, our baseline is, is here on abortion. The feds are saying , uh , well, that's lower than the constitutional protections that are afforded under Roe vs . Wade. And so what the state government is saying these because the feds are saying, because this is a violation of our constitution. And because the us constitution is Supreme, we can step in and we can tell Texas to raise your standard back up so that it's not dipping below the constitutional limitations that exist. And if you read the full opinion, that's exactly what he's doing. Saying we have , uh , you know, the feds have an obligation to make sure that they're correcting any sort of deviations from the constitutional norms news. Now, Wyoming says to answer the question about the history of federal suing states, there's a lot of case history of the feds doing so for civil rights, normally not a civil case, but there have been some that's from news. Now. Thanks for chiming in on that, we have [inaudible] I have to point out something by a previous commentator with a question. How far is the idea of not wanting your tax dollars to fund abortion? Is someone else not wanting to get a treatment for not taking a jab, be aware , becoming what you hate. That's from VNT , kiss prime. Thank you for that vanity kiss and a few more on the abortion before we move into Shovan former Leo says, I thought that the height act prohibits taxpayer funded abortions. I don't know what that is. What does the height act? I've heard that name. Uh, yeah, this is , uh , using Hyde amendment. That's what this is for far too long. Us has penalize low-income people seeking abortion, Hyde amendment block , federal Medicaid funding for abortion services. Planned parenthood is unhappy about this. Probably it hurts Medicaid enrollees policy and consider these facts. Yeah. Isn't, isn't mansion upset about that or it's going to be in the it's going to be in something or other of the Hyde amendment. I don't know. Uh, we have patio sets . Hey Rob, I guess I'm confused on the whole constitutional rights argument for abortion. I know there's precedents for it, but doesn't that automatically make something constitutional. Can you explain? Yeah. So it's , it's actually a very , uh, it's a very convoluted, constitutional underpinning. If you read Roe vs . Wade, what they did is they concocted this sort of this three tier system. You have the first trimester, the second trimester and the third trimester, and they created this. It's basically like a statutory framework, right? I mean, think about it like a , like a DUI case. If you're, if you're driving under the influence with this amount, you get this penalty, you get over this amount and you get this penalty, get this amount over that penalty. And that's not found anywhere in, you know , in the, in the constitution that's created by the legislature. They came out and they pass that they created a structure, a scheme for what they want the law to look like. The Supreme court did that. They said first trimester, this is what's allowed second trimester. This is what's allowed third trimester. This is what's allowed. And it was a bunch of judges sort of writing a new, a new abortion bill. And that's not what the courts are for. That's all supposed to happen over at the legislative level. And so what they were doing is they sort of , uh , they attach all of this in the Roe case back to this, this penumbra, which is sort of an umbrella of rights. And they just kind of read through the constitution and they said, oh, well, they talk about privacy here. And they talk about being free from unreasonable searches and seizures over here. And they talk about this over here and this over here. And so if you sort of read it all together, you'll see that they talk a lot about privacy. And so we can extract privacy from that. And from privacy, we can then say, well, private privacies , a woman's got a right to her private body. And if she wants to make medical decisions, well , we can just tuck them in under that umbrella. And then they can create an entire legislative framework around that newfound , right? To an abortion that they've sort of connected back into the right to privacy. So it is very convoluted. And this is why people have a lot of problems with the case, regardless of your , uh , position on abortion. I think that even if you're pro-life, you can say, well, what's kind of a , I'm sorry, pro choice , because it's still kind of a questionable framework because you don't want judges creating laws. You want them telling us whether laws are constitutional or not. Right. We talk about the separation of powers in our government. All the time, the legislature writes the rules writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary says what the law is, that's it. They don't get to make them. And they did in row , which is what a lot of people have problems with. A couple of other questions on this three girlies is here says for , for the question about separating federal funding from abortion, it's called the Hyde amendment. It is the one thing Joe Manchin is holding out on the Hyde amendment, being put into the reconciliation bill, contact your representatives and senators to back the Hyde amendment. So that's good from three girlies on that one, another one from monster one says, congratulations on the, my little pony. You're about to have, oh gosh, that's the AOC child. Oh man. Poor kid. I'm not gas. SRE ladies. I don't want your haunted vagina. What is this show? So Viking says, don't worry. You can use duck. Duck, go to educate yourself on how deadly some blow dark guns can be in the hands of a trained woman, Google won't know or track you. All right. Well, that's, that's an interesting Google duck. Duck go and have to use duck. Duck. Go on that one. A couple of super chats came in. Let's see here. Uh, chairman of the board followed us over on Twitch. What's up chairman Josh. Oh my gosh is here. Says SB eight seems like one of those big things. I really hope the Texas legislature say, okay, we'll compromise. Give the right to Sue to the father of the child in the question. Equality, take that feminazis. Another super chat from John says, I meant SBA , not SB two . I picked you up. I picked, I was picking up what you were putting down there, Josh. And it is, it is a big, right? Is, is a big, it's a , they said, Hey, let's make this biggest medius meatball that we possibly can. And we're just going to cram it right down their throats. And they did. And the courts are going to have to unravel that very interesting times. Ryan shh says your body, your choice. Okay. My wallet, my choice. That's from Ryan. Who's in the house. Thank you for that, Ryan and we have Katrina dancer says medication. Abortion is allowed through seven weeks. Interesting. Seven weeks. That must is that in Texas. So Texas is actually limiting that interesting Eddie Oliver's here. It says hot . We saw that come in . There is a provision in the law that still holds clinics responsible. Even in the event of a judicial stay . That's Eddie Oliver who just joined us. He's from Texas and he doesn't want any Californians coming to his state. Don't you forget it. If you're thinking about going to Texas, don't Eddie Oliver doesn't want you there. And we got one more over from watching the watchers.locals.com news. Now says, we know the Supreme court creates more laws than Congress. Think about qualified immunity. Yeah. Or gay marriage. Right. They just sort of do they find a justification for it and they pass that as well. All right . So those are great questions all over from watching the watchers.locals.com and from YouTube. Thank you for all of your support. All right. We've got one more segment left on the show. It's been a long time since we've talked about this gentlemen , Derek Shovan, we all know he was convicted for the killing of George Floyd. And he's been trying to appeal his case or to narrowly you file an appeal with a lawyer. But Derek Shovan is having a difficult time finding a lawyer because his prior lawyer is no longer representing him on the appeal. He's having a problem, getting some funds to find somebody to conduct the appeal. And if you've been with this channel for some time, we spent a lot of time on the Derek Shovan trial. We talked a lot about all of the different possible appealable issues, not to mention all of the political sort of , uh , introduction, all of the , the, the messing around with the trial. In the middle of the trial, we had the president saying things. We had a different congressional representatives saying things. It was kind of like a clown show on many days. And so there were all sorts of issues that might be right for an appeal. Could this go up? Could judge Cahill be sanctioned for admitting certain evidence or for not admitting certain evidence or for not continuing the case or for not changing the venue, a whole slew slew of issues that might be pertinent, but Chauvin's going to have a hard time arguing them because nobody's going to pay for a lawyer for him. This is coming over from the star Tribune says here that a Supreme court out of Minnesota denies Chauvin's request for a public defender state Supreme court upholds judge Peter Cahill's ruling, as he prepares his appeal, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Shovan seen here failed to show that he lacks the means to pay for a private defense attorney. So they're saying basically he's got too much money. He's got too much funds. And so he doesn't get a free government lawyer, chief justice, Laurie Gil , Deya signed an order rejecting Chauvin's claim that he's too poor to pay for a lawyer and doesn't get any help in appealing his convictions. He serving 22 and a half years out in Oak park Heights. His request for an appellate public defender was included in that appeal. He claims his debts exceed his assets. He's been in jail for some time. Let's take a look at what else is going on here. He says , uh, according to Minnesota law, it says that a defendant is deemed to poor . If quote, the defendant through any combination of assets is unable to pay for private counsel. But she said that Shovan has to bear the burden of proving that says he has done that he's failed to do so. Don't know why that she came to that conclusion, but it means that he's not going to have a public appellate defender. He can reapply if his financial situation changes. Chauvin's original trial lawyer, Eric Nelson, who he spent a lot of time talking about was paid for by the Minnesota police and the peace officer's association. But the association won't cover the appeal. So they just dropped him like a bag of dirt. Nelson declined to comment on whether he would represent Shovan no defense lawyer was listed on Chauvin's initial, appellate filing. So he filed it without any attorney to help him out. That's kind of an interesting thing that happened here. So let's dig into this a little bit further. Here is the statement of the case of the appellant. So this is from Derek Shovan. You can see his name here. He is appealing this in the state of Minnesota, going over to the clerk of the appellate courts and the attorneys that we spend a lot of time talking about Matthew frag and Keith Ellison. They're all there. These are a couple of the issues that he's raising. And so I just wanted to spend a quick moment talking about these, the district court potentially. So these are, these are a number of the issues that, that could potentially be raised on an appeal in this case. Of course, there are a lot of these, and this is not the entire argument, okay? This is not, this is not the entire bait . So we're going to go through seven different items on this slide. That's not the full argument, it's just the issue. And remember when we talk about sort of expanding and doing legal analysis, we identify the issue. We determine what the rule is. We do some application of the facts to the rule, and then we come to a conclusion. And so each one of these could be just, you know, pages and pages and paragraphs and paragraphs of argument. But that's not what we're talking about. We're just identifying the issues. So here, what we can see, one, one issue is that they, the district court. So judge Cahill abused its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for a change of venue, right? Or a new trial. So not changing it out of its location, that might be appealable. How about another one? It denied Chauvin's motion for a continuance asking for an extension or for a new trial could have also Cahill could have abused his discretion when he, when it denied the motion to sequester the jury, right? That could have been another appealable issue. The state committed, prejudicial, prosecutorial misconduct, right? You can make good arguments for that district court prejudicially aired when it concluded the testimony of Morrie's hall. And when it said that it was not a violation of appellant's constitutional confrontation rights. Remember when, remember when Maurice hall came in and testified very, very, did he testify at all? I don't remember. I don't. I don't think he did. Yeah. He, I don't think he did testify. Hmm . Yeah, maybe, maybe that was an error that Cahill should have allowed to happen. How about the district court erred when it allowed the state to present cumulative evidence with respect to use of force. So that means that the state just brought in use of force expert after use of force expert after use of force expert, and just put them one up. You know , officer after officer, after officer, it was too cumulative, it was sort of making the same point, a number of different ways. And that becomes overly persuasive and overly prejudicial might be a reason to an appeal. We have another, that might be the district court abused its discretion when it ordered the state to lead witnesses on a direct examination, which is just not an appropriate thing to do with a witness on a direct exam. Now that might've been an underage person. And so when you're talking about leading a witness, you typically will do that in a cross examination. So you'd say officer , uh, isn't it true that you pulled my client over? Yes. And you then approached his vehicle. Correct. And at that moment you asked him to roll the window down, didn't you? Yes, I did. And when you did that, you said , uh, sir, can I see your driver's license? Yes, I did. And after that you asked him to step out of the car, right? Yes. Okay. That's a, that's a, those are leading questions. Cause I know what the answer is going to be. This is different than a direct exam. Where, where is your witness? And you just say , um, so Mr. Johnson , uh, why don't you tell me what happened on the night of January 5th? And they say , okay, well I was walking home and I had a , my dog and my purse and I was just walking down. And, you know, I was thinking about my, my cat at home and I had a lot of stuff on my mind. And then I was walking down the street and they tell the whole story in a narrative version where you're not leading them. And so in this case, right, there were, there were times when the prosecution was leading their own witnesses, which is not the appropriate thing to do. We have some other examples here, abuse of discretion by not making an official record of the sidebar conferences. So every time they went up there and talked to Cahill, maybe they didn't record that or document what was going on there. They're saying that the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow Shovan to exercise several cause strikes for clearly biased jurors during voice deer , during the jury questioning didn't allow them to just throw anybody off the jury. It says that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the state to amend the charge of third degree murder, when they strictly limited and undercut the admissibility of George Floyd's 2019 arrest, right? A lot of that didn't come into play. Maybe that was overly prejudicial. The district court abused its discretion when it gave jury instructions that misstated the law. So bad jury instructions denied appellant's motion for a Schwartz hearing. The district court denied the parent's post verdict motion for a new trial due to juror misconduct. And remember we had that, that one juror who I , Brandon Mitchell, I think if I remember his name correctly, remember he was actually going to George Floyd protests before the trial started and he was wearing shirts that said, get your knee off my neck. And he was actually doing podcasts and things like that. Speaking out on behalf of the death of George Floyd. And he just went onto the jury panel and didn't notify anybody about that. There was a questionnaire that asks, have you been to any protest at all recently have nuts go, okay, well , uh , you had, and so did that improperly bias , the jury panel should that have resulted in a new trial. That's what his appeal is arguing. Now this is the document submitted by show . Shovan saying I got no money. I need some help with this thing. This is a motion and affidavit from, for proceeding in forma pauperis , which is in the court of appeals. So that's, you know , in Arizona we call it in dingy , uh , being indigent, which is you don't have funds to continue to, to hire a lawyer. And so what he's asking for here saying I have valid reasons for filing an appeal. I'm wait , I'm asking that you waive my filing fees. Cause I can't afford it. It doesn't check any of these other boxes as my family size is one it's only him now, right? Why if I think divorced him gross annual income we can see over here is $0, which is 125% less of the poverty line by monthly income. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. I received zero in child support, zero in child support 0, 0, 0 . I am not married. So he has got no money. He's got nothing in cash, got nothing in checking, got nothing in homesteader real estate. He is presently $142,000 in debt, excluding loans. He says I'm currently incarcerated in Minnesota correctional facility, Oak park, hikes park Heights. I do not have sufficient source of income besides my nominal prison wages, which are being used to pay off fees from the above caption case. My only two assets are two retirement accounts. If I take funds from set accounts, I will be significantly penalized and the remainder will likely be taken to pay off debts. I also owe the IRS about 60 grand and the state about 37 grand signed off on here, September 20th, 2021 by Derek Shovan. And that is his booking number. So he, you know, so now the court is, this went to the court , uh , court said, well, sorry, I see all your accounting here, but we still don't believe you. We're not going to give you any public defender. Here's what the Supreme court of Minnesota had to say about it. They say Derek Shovan seeks relief under Minnesota rule. He wants a public defender appointed from the Minnesota appellate public defender's office. He wants an appeal from his conviction. He was represented in district court by retained counsel. After that conviction Chauvet applied for leave to get a public defender, which district court denied judge Cahill, then applied to O M a P D for a public defender stating his debts exceed his , uh , his limited assets. And the judge gives us the rule. This is the standard. A defendant is financially unable to obtain counsel. If defendant through any combination of assets would be unable to pay the reasonable cost charged by private counsel here, the defendant seeking the lawyer has the burden of establishing eligibility. Having reviewed Chauvin's requests. The information provided regarding his assets. We conclude he's not established that he's entitled to appointed representation at the time, based on all the files, records and proceedings here in it's are ordered, denying his request. The denial is without prejudice. So a future application might be accepted and that a court can appoint somebody at any time when he becomes financially unable to pay signed off on by Lori Gilday up. And that is the Supreme court judge saying that no lawyer for Chauvet , no appellate lawyer. And you saw the , the actual submission. So they're looking at it and they're saying, oh, he's got money somewhere. He's going to have to get access to it in order to go and find a lawyer. Now we also know that the police union has dropped him. Eric Nelson has dropped him. Uh , K hill says, no, judge Supreme court says no lawyer. Supreme court says no lawyer. And so what's he supposed to do? He's in prison. Doesn't have a lawyer and they're not going to appoint him one. So , uh, yeah, I mean, that's pretty much par for the course. He was somebody who became a scapegoat for all of America's ills. He was the single person responsible, I think for all of the white supremacy that's ever existed in America. And he got punished for it accordingly, even though there's all sorts of questions about what actually in my opinion would actually cause George Floyd's death, but he's going to take the brunt of the blame. And the courts are not even going to give him a chance to appeal unless he figures it out on his own. So just another travesty of justice in America, where you have somebody that's entitled to due process being denied. It. We'll see if he's able to come up with money or raise funds in order to secure a lawyer, but not good. Let's see what you have to say about this [email protected] . A couple of questions here are from [inaudible] says some smart principle , trustworthy hint lawyer should look into starting a go fund me for Shovan and uses smart lawyer smarts to find a reliable lawyer to hire for showing a control of the funds. No , I thought the IRS locked up as assets for investigation. They may have, right? I mean, per his affidavit, he says I don't have any funds. And so I would guess that that's the case. Cause he's under federal civil rights investigations. He's been in custody for a long period of time. It would be good if there was a smart lawyer out there who maybe jumped on to the case. I'm not in Minnesota, I'm not an appellate lawyer. I would, I would love to jump in on something like that, but I am not the right attorney for that. And so somebody, somebody else out there must be better suited, but I like what you're thinking about news now says it will be picked up by an attorney just for the publicity of it. More Maurice hall didn't testify at all. That's right. He, his attorney argued. He would plead the fifth when answering any questions, including that he was in the car. I strongly agree with the judge for not forcing them onto the stand. Just pleading the fifth in front of the jury looks bad. That's right. Yeah. I remember she came in and testified. I don't think he was in court. We did hear from him, but he did not testify because she kept him out of that. We have to under seven says I am furious at the police union dropping show. And when he needs a lawyer for an appeal, bylaws dead for white people, mega crowd and Christians, no lawyer will ever step up to act pro bono due to threats from the lunatic left violent mob Shovan will have to crack open his pension, which is his only security when he gets released one day and it's supposed to be sacrosanct. He is not even being treated like a human serial killers. Get better legal help. It is kind of a shame that I think that, you know, we were, we were on the show yesterday talking about police unions. I was sort of ripping on them and we have some law enforcement people who are, who are a part of the show on a regular basis. I'm like, well, the police unions are pretty good. And so you might say, yeah, right, they're good at protecting officers that need them not in this case, right. This guy absolutely needs a , an appellate lawyer. And you would imagine that the police union would not just say, oh, we're done. Yeah, that was expensive. That was a mess. Good luck to you. What does that do to other people who are part of that union? Do they trust them to have their back? If something like this happens can imagine they do news now says, quick question. I understand the state laws may vary, but do you have federal constitutional right to an appeal attorney if you can't pay for one? Uh, so I don't know the actual answer on that. I'm not an appellate lawyer, but I, I would guess. Yes. Right. It's part of the it's part of the process. We don't, we don't appeal much, much , uh, federally, right? We , we , we don't do much federal law in general, but I don't know how that would, that would , uh, delineate itself out , uh, in the federal court, you know, state appeals. It is a whole different can of worms and I'm not sure how it works in Minneapolis. Good question news . Now the dark says, I didn't realize the constitution said only poor people have the right to a lawyer. Weird. The Minnesota Supreme court also just found that one cop innocent who shot the white lady after she called the cops for help. And that cop seemed way more guilty in my view. That was from the dark . Yeah. I think that was on the oh well case was that we talked about it, but the name escapes me right now. Monster one says not related, but I just maxed out my five-year sentence originally had a two to two and a half year sentence, but ended up doing three because there was no right to parole in Pennsylvania, even though I did everything right, they still made me do an extra year. On my minimum was out two years, zero violations on parole. Parole easily walked it off. Pretty proud moment because in my younger days, there would have been zero chance of walking in two years. That's for monster one. Thanks for sharing that monster one. I'm glad that , uh, that it's worked out for you. I hope you're doing well. We have another one. No name says a guy on a skateboard through gray paint on the golden idol statue of Floyd FBR on the hunt for the criminal. But you top dollar, they find this jokester way before they find the perp who placed the pipe bombs over at the Capitol justice died. He says in 2020, no name on that. We have another one from D rod says what he did was bad, but doesn't he deserve a fair trial. This is very disappointing. Yes. It's exactly my point on this whole stinking thing. Right? You may may say that he's a murderer and an awful person and whatever, but he still deserves a fair trial and some due process and the right to exhaust the remedies that are available to him. And everybody's just done with them . Okay. The Antica says, it seems to me that show is guilty, but that doesn't mean that the process should be skirted after all I could be wrong. Yeah. And the jurors could have been to a lot of pressure in that trial. J he says Shovan was given a raw deal because it was so highly publicized and politicized. Not saying I agree with the verdict or not, but I don't agree with him being completely blacklisted as a result. I agree with you on that. And a few more snuck them says you don't need to have the state access. Just the guy you hired that was from snuck . Thank you. Snuck comes and let's see a couple more before we wrap up the last bill and says they want him completely ruined. It would be difficult to crowdsource money go fund . He would cancel any accounts to raise funds for him. I think that's a really good point. Yeah. He's he's, he's been just cast right into the bottom of the dumpster monster. One says no way of GoFundMe. You would allow for fundraising for him. You'd have to use gifts and go, or another site. That's right. Forgot about that. Dianne Feinstein's dirty diaper and Jerry Nadler's dirty diaper here. They say, congratulations on the baby. We had our baby a few , a few days ago. Do you have a good OB GYN. We're seeing Dr. Jill Biden. It's the , it's the Feinstein Nadler diaper baby. Both of these two diapers are converging and creating a Godzilla. That's going to recommend a great comment. That is another one. Let's see. Two more former Elio says GoFundMe is terrible. They won't allow a page. Go fund me. Wouldn't allow a Rittenhouse donation page. They would change. Gosh. All right . So that's a good comment from former Leo Maxine water says I was the one who got the guilty verdict for shelving . It's all me, all my intimidation. Yeah. She really did put a parachute in there to throw a lot of barbs . And those, my friends were all the questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . I want to thank you for being so interactive today. A lot of amazing questions. I'm glad we got through them all. I want to welcome some new people over to our locals community. We have sniper 2 7, 5 . We've got a sniper in the house who just signed up. Welcome Lau Patricia. We have Paulo Revere, H S DNP, Ty livings here Maxim 27 unbridled form. Aviatrix burnt to a crisp and let's be fair. We have our Taylor J movie Tai Lula G Maxim 92 angel baby, hell raiser, jumping Jeff and desert Daisy. If you want to join us [email protected] five bucks a month or 50 bucks for the year coming up. We on Saturday, November six, from seven, 8:00 PM. We have our monthly locals meetup via zoom. It's a ton of fun. We just had one last weekend. So make sure you mark your calendars on that Saturday, November six. And another reminder that this Sunday from October 10th, from 12 to 5:00 PM, we have our second annual Eric's house fundraiser. This is a resource for grieving parents, spouses, siblings, and friends. I'm going to be hosting this thing from 12 to five. We are going to live stream on all of the Eric's house.org, different channels. We're also going to live stream here on this channel. I'm going to add a little sponsor. You can turn the sponsor, ship things on. And so we're going to go ahead and do that. And so if you want to join us, go to Eric's house.org. If you want to support us, you can see my name is down here and I have zero supporters, but we're going to , we're going to change that coming up on Sunday, but you can see a lot of amazing people are part of this organization. We've got a big goal and we'd love your support. So if you're around on Sunday, just keep that in mind, 12 to 5:00 PM, Arizona time, I'm going to be doing a mega stream. We've got so many amazing people who are going to be sort of a part of the stream. We've got videos and we've got live interviews and we've got all sorts of stuff. So it's gonna be a ton of fun. Mark the calendar down October 10th , gonna , eh, we're talking about grieving parents, you know, and grieving spouses and siblings and loss and hardship, but there's a lot of healing and hope that comes out of it. And so come join us October 10th, 12 to 5:00 PM. And that my friends is it for me for the day we are going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, it's Friday, tomorrow. And we're going to see what the news has in store for us. I want to thank you for being a part of the show here today. I want to thank everybody over on locals and YouTube for all of the support. I'll see everybody right back here tomorrow. Same time, same place, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central and 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. So you right back here tomorrow, bye-bye .