Ghislaine Maxwell: Joe Rogan on Sealed Evidence, Prince Andrew Dismissal, Expert Witness Preview

The Court may be taking a break from trial, but there is plenty of behind-the-scenes activity in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, including.

🔹 Joe Rogan discussed the Ghislaine Maxwell Epstein evidence with Blair White on his podcast.
🔹 Review of government exhibits 926 and 935-R, which show hard drives with evidence tape severed found in Epstein’s New York apartment.
🔹 Mike Cernovich and others in the media cry foul after Prosecutors rest their case, saying there is a massive cover-up afoot.
🔹 JudicialWatch obtains documents Secret Service documents showing Former President Bill Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell took a trip to India.
🔹 Laurene Powell Jobs, owner of the Atlantic, is seen in an interesting photograph with Ghislaine Maxwell.
🔹 The Atlantic “journalist” Kaitlyn Tiffany calls childhood trafficking a fake epidemic. 
🔹 Prosecutors do not agree to stipulated testimony from Jane’s lawyer Robert Glassman. 
🔹 Ghislaine Maxwell Defense Expert Preview – Testimony expected to start THURSDAY.
🔹 Review defense experts: Dr. Loftus and Park Deitz – how will their testimony impact the trial?
🔹 Recap of Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuits against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.
🔹 Prince Andrew’s lawyers file a motion to dismiss the assault and intentional infliction of emotion distress charge.
🔹 Don’t forget to join @goodlawgic and me on @vivafrei’s channel tomorrow 12/15 at 7 p.m. eastern!
🔹 Your comments and questions!

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: 
💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):
👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ
✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
📌 January 2022 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:
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler

🚨 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!

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

#WatchingtheWatchers #GhislaineMaxwell #MaxwellTrial #Epstein #EpsteinDidntKillHimself #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwellTrial

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert grr. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group. And today we're talking about Maxwell. Again, the court is on a little bit of a hiatus, but that doesn't mean that there is not a lot of activity that we can get into. And so we are going to do that. We're gonna start off with Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan, the podcaster. Yeah, the podcaster and the guy who does UFC that guy. He is now talking about this case as is everybody Glenn Maxwell of course, is sort of percolating through the public zeitgeist and a lot of people raising their eyebrows about the prosecution's performance in this case, a lot of people know that this is a big case. This is a big meatball, as we say, and we're wondering why the government isn't taking a big bite out of it. It seems sort of a little bit, uh, lacking in terms of a prosecution. And so Joe Rogan actually brought up a very interesting meme that is going around on the internet and on the Twitter verse, talking about these hard drive and this sealed evidence that maybe was, uh, given over to Epstein or the Maxwells back during the FBI investigations. So juicy stuff, we actually pulled the photos that Joe Rogan is talking about. We're gonna see if we can, uh, debunk it or at least understand what's going on with this entire ordeal or not. We're also gonna poke around the media and see what other people are saying about this. Mike Sevi is saying that this is a massive coverup. We've got Jack PAs. SOIC basically saying the same thing. There's tens of thousands of images and recordings and all sorts of evidence of really horrendous activity. And the government just seems like they're all gonna make it all about Maxwell and that's gonna be it. So we're gonna take a look around what's happening in the media and also take a look at that article from the Atlantic that we talked about earlier, I think it was this week, or maybe it's only Tuesday yesterday, or maybe it was late last week talking about Steve Jobs's wife, Lauren Powell jobs. She's basically the owner of this media organization called the Atlantic. And the Atlantic wrote a very interesting article about trafficking and David from, and a lot of interesting people are saying, it's not that big of a deal, which is kind of interesting. So we'll see what the media has to say about that. Then in our next segment, we're gonna do a, an expert witness preview. Of course the trial is on hiatus, but go Lynn Maxwell, her defense is set to start on Thursday. We're ironing out. A lot of the procedures still Maxwell's defense team has told everybody that they're gonna call something like 35 witnesses. And the prosecutors are saying that's more than we called. We didn't even call 35 people. So they're trying to iron out the procedure of these witnesses and how the whole trial is going to continue to unfold. And so we're gonna talk about that. We're gonna have a preview of the defense expert witnesses, including taking a look at two experts, Dr. LATI and Dr. Park deets. These are two people we're gonna come out here and talk about one of the main themes of the defense memory and how memory is just really terrible. So we'll take a look at that. And then in our last segment, we've got prince Andrew, remember prince Andrew and Virginia Guffy. Remember that very salacious photograph of prince Andrew grinning, ear to ear with this. What looked to be like an underage girl next to him with Glen Matt X? Well sort of smirking in the background. Remember that photograph? Well, there were a bunch of lawsuits that came out as a result of that photograph Virginia Guffy suing prince Andrew for two different violations, one battery for the physical contact. Number two, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prince Andrew has been pretty mum about this thing over in the UK for quite some time, but his defense attorneys just responded. They're asking the court for a motion to dismiss, and we're going to go and take a look at that quick announcement. If you, uh, don't stick around for the whole show tomorrow, we're gonna have a little bit of a change on the show. We're gonna do a one hour pre-show here. So from six to 7:00 PM Eastern time here tomorrow, we're gonna do just a mind map over a view. And it's very likely that the mind map is gonna be public as of tomorrow. So right now it's only for local supporters, but very likely I'll just make it public tomorrow. And we'll do sort of an open Q and a tomorrow from six to 7:00 PM. Then from seven to I think, nine Eastern we're, I'm going to go on Viva's channel with Joe Neman. Good logic. And we're gonna talk about Golin Maxwell for sidebar, with Viva and Barnes. And so make sure if you're not already subscribed, uh, that you're, you're aware of that because it's gonna be a short, short tomorrow, and that we're all just gonna pick up and we're gonna go over to his house and we're gonna have a conversation there. And so if you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. There's a form over that looks just like this. If you ask a question here, we will do our very best to get to those. We also have a clips channel. So on this show, what we're doing is clipping up the different segments and putting them on a different channel. So if you wanna share these clips, please feel free to do that over there. All right? And so we've got a lot, uh, to get to Maxwell. Trial is still moving forward, but we're not actually in trial today. So we're taking a look at a lot of the conversations surrounding the trial. And of course, taking a look at what's happening on the court. Docket motions are still flying all over the place, but as exhibits are coming out, as new photographs are being leaked out to the internet are being published after trial aisle, people from the internet like myself, like you are taking a look at'em, we're able to dive into the photographs and ask ourselves some questions. We did a lot of that. Here. We went through a lot of the exhibits from Epstein's Palm beach location from Zoro ranch over in New Mexico. We spent a lot of time talking about the New York mansion and all of those redacted photographs that were hanging on off of the walls. But there was one photograph that really raised a lot of eyebrows. And we talked about it here. We actually reviewed it. And now Joe Rogan has his eyeballs on it, talking about it with Blair white Blair white of course, a big online personality. And she went to visit with Joe Rogan and they were talking about the Golin Maxwell case. And a lot of people just sort of feel kind of Vicky about this whole thing. And like something is a little bit off as skew wrong when the us government has been investigating allegedly this case for the last two decades or so. And then they only have eight days of trial for their prosecution, whereas like a Dereks Chauvin trial, for example, 11 days for his prosecution, Derek Chauvin, one victim, one date of offense, one incident Maxwell's well, multiple victims, multiple incidents, multiple locations, islands, New Mexico, Florida, New York, the whole thing, very complicated case been per waiting for a long time, eight days though, less than Dereks Chauvin. So we all can just kind of feel like something is a little bit Amis here, including Joe Rogan. Here's what he said on his podcast. Talking about Maxwell,

Speaker 2: 6:48

Just ban the, um, how do you say it? I know just Maxwell the trial you say, is that how you say? I think it's yeah. Do you know how to say it, James? You think so? I've never heard her say it, but I think that's how you say. I like to say J lane, cuz it's funny. That's better. Let's go with that lane mag her, uh, the track, the tracker got heated. Yeah, but it got heated for what did you see? What it got heated for the last post? It was, they showed that a bunch of evidence that was introduced already had eye tags on it, which means the FBI had access to all of these CDs. All of these hard drives, all these things had reviewed them and then had allowed them to be brought back in for evidence. Supposedly see if you can find it because its it's posted up. A lot of people have reposted it under this straight. I say affect it. Cuz there's people are just gonna add nausea, justs. Well you're smarter than the

Speaker 3: 7:44

Feds. Congratulations in a way. But also that account had a huge following very quickly. I think it had like 400 K followers very quickly. 530,000.

Speaker 2: 7:51

Yeah. Yeah. And they just banned

Speaker 3: 7:52

It and that's, what's like, okay, so there's all this media attention for the written house thing. You can't draw the TV without seeing it, what it was a big deal. And it, it, you know, I think a lot of American issues were kind of going head to head over that trial. But like the Jola Maxwell thing I feel like is so much more to the public interest or it should be. Yeah, because it's like you have Hollywood and the elites and people collected connected to politics prey on young girls. And the fact that that's not a higher priority in people's attention span is really sad. I

Speaker 1: 8:25

Think. Yeah. Well there's a lot. I think that goes into that including, you know, sort of a, uh, a needling to some degree, you know, I mean the media goes in on the Kyle written house situation and needles that specifically, uh, white supremacist, black versus white, the whole thing, you can see where it goes from there. Not a lot of that though, going on here with the Maxwell stuff, we've got some Netflix documentaries and things and there has been a lot of attention on it. No doubt about it. But you know, as a, as a term of, as a sort of, uh, moral, pending urgent societal issue, the Galin Maxwell trial has not really felt like that to me. You know, when we're watching written house, when we're, you know, on Radas channel, when we're, uh, watching everybody talk about this, you know, you sort of get this, feel this energy throughout America, that this is about self defense, dang it, this is about the right to keep in bear arms. This is about self-preservation. This is about due process and the presumption of innocence and all of those things that was very important during the written house saga. And a lot of society was sort of invested in that, but with Golin Maxwell, you know, a lot of it is just sort of, uh, people don't want to talk about it. I mean, it is so horrendous. I mean, a lot of the things, the allegations here involving 14 year old girls being traffic around the world to some of the most powerful people on the planet. People like prince Andrew, people like bill Clinton, people like Jeffrey Epstein and many other of the Hollywood elite, and many other people who are in the phone book and a part of the, the flight logs everywhere you look it's horrendous, but nobody wants to talk about it because it involves some really, you know, this disgusting, thoughtful, uh, uh, awful things to think about. And it, I mean, it's, it's of critical importance. I mean, this is sort of, you know, real evil that you're talking about on the face of it. And if, if the us government, if the prosecutor's office is justified for anything, if they have a basis for existing at all, isn't it for that? I mean, isn't it, this stop sort of evil, isn't it for society to round up and say, we really need you to focus on the most egregious stuff ever stop prosecuting from people from marijuana violations, uh, you know, stop prosecuting innocent people like Kyle written house. How about you use all your resources and go after the actual evil people on the planet. We elevate that to a little bit of a higher priority, but it just hasn't felt like that maybe you disagree. Maybe the, the sort of the public zeitgeist has been, you know, more, more behind this, but I just haven't seen it really. It it's not that same level of urgency that we saw with Kyle written house. What Joe Rogan was also saying, though, he was talking about those CDs and these hard drives and these bits of evidence that were found at a part of Epstein's raid part of his mansion during the FBI raid that took place some time ago. And he was saying, you know, those, those CDs and those hard drives and things, there may be indications that the FBI already had. Those they were already sealed is what he said. These bits of evidence might have already gone through the government and ended up back in Epstein's place is what he was saying. Because when they took photographs, it looks like this evidence had already been processed and then back and returned back to Epstein is what he's saying. And we took a lot a look at a lot of these photographs. Remember this one, this was exhibit 9 26. And this is one of those photos that Joe was talking about saying, remember all those CDs. Well in this, we see CDs say, uh, the FBI agents or whoever was doing the raid, they just walked in, they opened up a drawer, they took a photograph. You can see there is a diploma we're gonna zoom in on that. But this doesn't really look processed to me. When you zoom in a little bit, you can see on this side, right? These are just CDs that are put in their little jewel cases and thrown in a drawer. Doesn't look like evidence has been processed over here. We can take a look at the diploma, same thing, kind of really hard to read what's on there. It looks like some, uh, some math, some fractions and limits. And who knows what that says, but that was, that was a part of this drawer. And so this doesn't really sort of feel like it rings the bell that Joe was talking about. Joe's talking about evidence that looks like it's already been produced here. We can see another shot, eight, 12. And, uh, this is Selena AV shoe, two AV photos, another Selena two, write more CDs, but then you get to this photograph. Now this is the photograph that Joe was really talking about. I think the idea that these are hard drives and these hard drives have evidence tape on them that looks like it's been cut. We zoom in a little bit and you can see that exactly. Doesn't it look exactly like that somebody took a yellow strip of evidence tape and sealed the box of the hard drive, right? And, and so if you've never bought a hard drive, it's just like any other piece of technology. You get, you open it up, it's sealed you open it. And there's gonna be a piece, you know, a device in there. And we talked about this hard drive and talked about, you know, it's kind of a weird thing that, that he would have all of these. Obviously he had a bunch of CDs, CDs, as we know, only hold so much data. And these look like they're kind of the big ones too. This is 4.7 gigabytes over here. So you can squeeze a lot of stuff on that from an AV shoe, whatever that is, but still not enough. So he needed more hard drives. He needed more stuff to store more data. And so we see evidence tape, evidence tape cut here, cut here. But we also see, looks like Xerox's, uh, photocopies of the actual hard drive. And so if you poke around on the internet, you can actually find that model. It looks like this. This is a Seagate P a T a dash 100 Barracuda 0.5 inch internal hard drive. We've got a 750 gigabyte model over there and we have a 320 gigabyte model over here. And you can see when you actually open it up, it's gonna show you a metal device. This is a hard drive. If you've never played around with computers or anything like that, that's what it looks like. But that's what the old style before they were solid state drives, when they were the spinning mechanical drives, that's what they look like. And so when you go back over to this photograph, it sort of looks like what they did was just was open up these boxes, pull out the physical drive, make a copy of the drive so that they could register the serial number and identify it, tape it to the outside, and then put the hard drive back in the box and then seal it back up would be sort of the way that you do this. Now, this is something that happens all the time in law. Okay. You have evidence that comes out from the outside world and you have to process it and document it and analyze it. So in a DUI case in Arizona, we have a two, two blood vial systems. So if you get pulled over for a DUI and, uh, they suspect that you're impaired, they're gonna pull you and they're gonna draw two vials of blood. And there's gonna be an evidence kit that the officer basically cuts open and unseals to make sure that it's all sterile and it's safe and nothing's been contaminated. And it's a legitimate piece of criminal, investigative evidence. You can't just, you know, he, can't just sort of Rumage around in his glove box and be like, oh, I got a couple blood vials here. Hmm. All right, well, gimme your arm there, John, and I'm gonna start ejecting blood, right? This is all it has to be sterile and legitimate and reliable beyond the, uh, uh, you know, any reasonable doubt. So this all has to be organized and sealed properly. So in a DUI case, they draw two of blood, they put it up, you know, they, they label it and they put it in a bag and they seal everything up. And then that gets stored into evidence. And then when it goes into evidence and it goes actually into the crime lab, then somebody from the crime lab is gonna actually take back out that same sealed piece of evidence, and they're gonna open it up. And there's a whole process by which they cut it and open it up and they take the first vial out and I move it over here, take a second vial out, open it pipe at it, put it, you know, and they do the whole analysis that way. Then they seal it back up. They seal that, that first vial, the one that they opened and that we would argue, they contaminated. That's why they give us a second vial. So we have our own test tube so that we can test it ourselves if we wanted to. But they say, okay, we're gonna to seal that back up. If they need to come back out and get more blood out of it, they can, if they need to do, you know, additional testing, they can, the defense would make a bunch of arguments, but it's not unusual to have this process whereby you're opening stuff up and then pulling stuff out and then examining it and then putting it back in and then sealing it back up. That's not unusual at all happens all the time. Okay. So you might be looking at that. So if Joe Rogan is saying, well, you know, all these things are, are sort of, it looks like that they have been previously messed around with, it could have just been part of the ordinary process. And so when we're doing our analysis, now you're saying, okay, we've got all these hard drives. Looks like they've all been opened and examined. It might have been done by the police here. The FBI rated this property, uh, where was this Rob? You know, that all makes sense. Okay. Got it. I'm following you sounds like maybe it, it, it has in fact been processed as we can see evidence tape and Xerox and copies and all that stuff. So the big question of course, is where was this photograph taken? Because if this photo that we see here, if this was taken at the evidence facility, well, then that would make sense. Wouldn't it. If this was taken back after it was impounded, if this is sitting on a shelf somewhere at the FBI location, well, then that makes perfect sense. Oh, okay. So those are all the hard drives that came out of Epstein's mansion. And we just, we processed them and we just put'em in a bin somewhere and we're just storing it as evidence. Right. If it were taken, if the photograph were taken at one of those locations, but it wasn't guess what, where was that photo taken at Epstein's residence? See, this is where it comes from. So it wasn't being stored at the FBI facility. No, it wasn't at all. In fact, those hard drives were being stored at Epstein's mansion under his bookshelf. So yeah, it kind of does look like that. There was EV evidence that was sealed and processed and there were Xerox copies and there was all sorts of bad stuff on there. Maybe it was in fact processed by law enforcement. And then it did in fact, end up back in Epstein's hands and he just threw it under his bookshelf run outta storage. So this was not a photograph taken at the FBI location. This was a photograph taken during the, and he has what certainly looks like a bunch of government evidence or processed evidence sitting around his property. And so a lot of people are obviously asking very pertinent questions about this. Does it feel like a cover up? Well, Mike Cernovich says it is says we learn nothing new during the Galin Maxwell trial Comey's daughter made sure the Epstein document seized will never be made public. He says, this is the most evil coverup in my lifetime. A lot of people are feeling that way. Now he posted that back on December 9th. That was some time ago, PAs SOIC is also pointing this out, says we now know the FBI uncovered 20,000 images from Epstein's mansion in man Manhattan. None of those are being entered into the Maxwell case. He says, this isn't an investigation. This is a coverup. And so a lot of people obviously have that same mindset when you have, uh, the entire justice department resting their case after eight trial days. Yeah. I mean, it sort of feels lacking doesn't it's so, uh, what else is out there that maybe was covered up? Well, judicial watch, they filed a freedom of information act request, and they were able to dig in a little bit further on the bill Clinton Maxwell connection. You can see this here, the United States sea service is providing an update over to judicial watch. And we've got this, that this came out from October, 2021 showing the connection between Clinton and Maxwell. Here, we can see in the document that a lot of this stuff is being redacted. That's what B six and B seven C all means it's redacted. It's all for per, uh, privacy and personal information and stuff. So it's telling you that somebody sent something to somebody. This is all secret service. This stuff says, thanks. Uh, John info helps. I'll have the preliminary sent to my office by this evening so we can get out tomorrow. We gotta manifest here from Osaka to LA. Hasn't been confirmed, but this shouldn't deviate too much. Who's on the flight list. We got two people F pods, Clinton. So former president of the United States, Clinton, we have B6 B seven C all sorts of additional redactions. Don't know who else is on the flight. And then we get Maxwells. So you've got those two peds at a pod right there, F pods, Clinton, and Maxwell. We have the rest of the crew. That's on the itinerary. We get an update from secret service says I just received an updated manifest for the trip to LA, got some additional names coming, sorry. Hopefully this doesn't create too many issues for you. Here's the passport list. We're going from India to Los Angeles, stopping in Japan for fuel president William J. Clinton. And then we scroll down. Golin Maxwell. Secret service says, yeah, no problem. We have four crew members, 12 staff I'll have food and drinks waiting for them. Yeah. I shouldn't change anything drastically. All you guys in Honolulu have made my job a lot less dis difficult. Thanks for your help. I know you guys have been run through the ringer. And so if I can just help make their trip a little easier, then we'll do that. I heard that when they flew from Oslo to Hong Kong fuel was nothing. They didn't eat the entire trip. Don't want that to happen again. So secret service and the flight crew was of course making this, you know, a nice flight for Golin and the four'em are president. We wanna make sure that they travel in comfort all around the world, as they're just hopping around from place to place doing good deeds, like two good people. Okay. We also see this as the last thing here. Two names again, FPOS Clinton and Maxwell. And so you see, you know, there's, there's a lot of connections here that are all slowly working their way out through FOYA requests, through internet sleuthing, the list goes on and on a lot of people are making another interesting connection saying that, uh, this photograph is curious. You can see we, uh, this actual photograph is, uh, you know, floating around the internet, but I have it censored for all of our eyeballs just to protect our eyeballs. Maxwell's a little bit exposed in that photograph. She's in a bathing shoot suit. She's not nude, but she's, you know, she's letting it hang out there. And she is hanging out with this woman who is this woman we're gonna learn in a minute. First question, of course, is who is taking this photograph kind of a weird, weird photo to be taking. She's got an iPad in her lap. He's looking at this photo. She's kind of, uh, you know, spread open in her bathing suit. And somebody's taking photographs kind of a weird, kind of a weird photo, but, uh, but we don't have to look at it. So we're just going to, uh, identify the connection here. The woman that she is sitting with is this woman, Lauren Powell jobs, Josh leach on Twitter was the person who I saw made this connection. First Lauren Powell jobs owns this company called the Atlantic. The Atlantic is a very popular online, you know, website where they write articles and Lauren Powell jobs, Steve Jobs's former, uh, wife, the organization that she runs, I posted, uh, an article that we'll get into in a minute. Let's make sure that she is who we think she is. Michael Calderone over at Politico says that Lauren Powell, jobs, solidifies control of the Atlantic Bradley relink duties. It's a magazine. Now it seeks the CEO from the outside to chart the exquisitely hard work of media strategy. And so a lot of people are, you know, getting a little bit critical of, of these millionaires and billionaires. These people who own these gigantic media companies, people like Jeff Bezos, who says, well, I just wanna buy the Washington post now so that I have a newspaper. And do you, do you think that that's a nice tool to have, if you're a billionaire and you want to control public opinion, of course it is. Which is why Lauren Powell jobs of course, wants to run the Atlantic. And right as we're in the middle of this trial with Maxwell, you saw out the photograph between Laurel Powell, jobs and Maxwell, the Atlantic post, this article from Caitlin, Tiffany calls it the great fake trafficking epidemic. Like the whole, thing's just a big fake. It's just a big faker. The whole thing's just fake news.<laugh> okay. So here's what this, uh, journalist said. Well, you know, stereotypical, kidnappings, you know what you picture when you hear the words they hover around a hundred trafficking also occurs in the United States. A hotline has been operated. It recorded direct contacts with 14,500 likely victims of trafficking of all ages, organization itself. Doesn't regard its figure for direct conf contacts is one that should be used with too much confidence. It's probably low. They said, but this is a wildly circulated number. Something like 800,000 children go missing, figure shows up on t-shirts. But the number doesn't really mean what people think it means comes from a study conducted in 1999. It's an estimate about runaway children, runaways a non-family of deducts that just aren't reported later in the report. The authors note that only a fraction of the 1% of children who were reported missing had not been recovered. So it's just, it it's just kinda like fake news. It doesn't even really matter. Justice department repeated the study in 2013 and found the reports of missing children had quote, significantly decreased. So the takeaway of course says that it's just, it's just kind of a big fake epidemic. You know, it's not even anything to really worry about. Don't worry about it. If you're paying attention to Maxwell, if you're somebody who's taking a look at all these weird connections between Maxwell president Clinton, between Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, all of Hollywood, the, the, the list goes on and on nothing in to see here. Don't worry about it. It's not even a big deal. It's all fake anyways. Not really. We have the one and only Viva. He, he is here. He posted this on Twitter. And as I mentioned at the start of the show, we're gonna be on his channel tomorrow, but he's about this. And he notices some other guy named David from who's a, I think, used to be a conservative or something is also saying this isn't a big deal. And so this narrative is now sort of taking off across the public airwaves as though this is a reasonable perspective to take when it involves children. And here is Viva spreading the

Speaker 4: 27:04

Good word. I don't know when it was disclosed that his name was in Jeffrey, Epstein's infamous black book, but it is, uh, the same week that David from the senior editor of the Atlantic tells us on Twitter, get over here that there is no trafficking problem. There is no child unlawful problem going on in the world. And if you think there is you believe in a conspiracy theory and you can never be convinced otherwise because you're incorrigible and, uh, stubborn from, at David, from blue check mark, the people who spread these rumors are impervious to fact and reason, but still here are the facts and reason. And from the originating art on the Atlantic, across the United States, well-meaning citizens are raising awareness about very bad things. Epidemic that doesn't exist at Kate underscore, Tiffany unpacks, how an internet conspiracy theory birthed a 21st century moral panic on the Atlantic article. Uh, his tweet, I have not been letting him, uh, live that tweet down good because it's a preposterous tweet that he tweets this in the same week of the GLA Maxwell trial in the same week of a senior producer at CNN, getting, uh, arrested for very, very, very bad things. And to just come out and say, it's in your head. If you see all these things happening, uh, who are you gonna believe me or your eyes?

Speaker 1: 28:25

Yes. Get him Viva. Love it. So, uh, we're gonna be on Viva's show tomorrow and, uh, gonna be joined by Joe Neman and good logic. And you can see we've got a lot to talk to. Didn't it look cold out there? Oh my goodness. I, I was not, uh, envious of that cold, but Viva's doing great work. And he's calling out these people and he, he did an, an excellent job summarizing this new narrative. That is a weird narrative that's happening. It's like, don't even worry about it. You know, it's all fake news. It's a fake epidemic. So we're gonna talk about that. Viva's channel and Joe Neman, good logics channel are both linked in the description on YouTube. So make sure you go and sub over there so you don't miss it tomorrow. We're gonna do a pre-show here for one hour and then we're gonna all pick up and over to Viva's house and hang out on his channel, talking about Glenn Maxwell. All right. So we've got additional stuff to talk about. What's next? Oh yeah. Expert witnesses. I forgot about them. Maxwell. Her defense team is now starting their presentation. Their case in chief is starting on Thursday. And you've got a lot of witnesses that Dave disclosed to the prosecutors. Prosecutors are now a little bit upset about this saying, we don't even know what order you're going to be presenting your witnesses. And there's 35 of them. We only called like 25 of them. You're making us look bad over here, knock it off. And so one of the witnesses that we talked about was Robert Glassman. Robert Glassman, of course, was the attorney for Jane. Jane was one of the first victims that we heard from here is the mind map. Robert Glassman. If we zoom in on the victims, we can see that Jane was the first victim that we heard from Rob. Robert Glassman is this attorney here. And so he was representing herb, the defense Maxwell's defense. They wanna bring him in. They wanna call him up to court, bring him in and, and have him testify. And the Def the prosecution of course does not want that to happen. So both sides, the defense and the prosecution, the judge said, why don't you guys talk about this? Let's see if you can come to a conclusion, a stipulation about Robert Glassman, see if he can testify or not. And let us know if you can reach an agreement, turns out not gonna happen. Prosecutors say, sorry, judge. All right. We're now respectfully submitting this letter about the question about Robert Glassman Jane's lawyer. After considering the issue and talking with defense counsel, the government remains of the view that, that email that you're talking about, it's not admissible accordingly. The government would not enter into a stipulation, so they're gonna have to continue to fight about it. And we'll see where that issue lands now. And we also mentioned that on yesterday's show, Bobby stern Heim said that they've got 35 witnesses and they're having some travel problems because the us prosecutors, they shut their case down. After eight days of testimony, we were all thinking that this case was gonna go well into January, gonna be six weeks of trial. They only had eight days or so plus a sick day. And so now the judge wants to know what the defense is going to be doing. They issued this order today out of the Southern district of New York. Judge Nathan says the court is in receipt of the defense's letter from yesterday about the anticipated witnesses. Thank you for sending it. The government now is ordered to submit a response no later than today by 10:00 PM tonight. So they're typing away over there right now. Government prosecutors are going through all 35 defense experts and saying this guy's can't have him. Here's why she terrible. Can't have her. Either one. After another government has asked the, the court has asked them to submit that by 10:00 PM, the defense now is also having to order, uh, to provide a witness order list by later today. And we're gonna be talking about the mind map expert witnesses that we know about, because remember there's 35 of them, but Maxwell's defense team. They gave us a little bit of a preview about who some of these expert witnesses are. And so if we go back over to the mind map, we can close a lot of this stuff out and we can just focus here on the defense experts, zooming in. We can see that there was an original disclosure. This was back from, I believe this was from November 24th. Yeah. So this was filed. This is part of exhibit a, and we can just spend a quick minute taking a look at the structure of this document. So via email, this was actually, it looks like it was filed on November 15th, but it was actually sent back on November 1st, dear counsel, sending this over to the prosecutors. This is from the defense team expert disclosure by the defense. So this is where all this information comes from. We've got Dr. Elizabeth LATI. We're gonna learn a lot more about her. We've got park deets. We're gonna learn more about him, but you can see the, the extent of the testimony that Dr. Deets is intending to talk about. Okay, it's still going. We're on page eight. Now, false memory talks, antisocial personality to disorder. We're gonna come all back to this. So let's, I just wanted to show you where this came from, and then let's break it down a little bit more now. So they're saying that, uh, reservation of rights, the defense reserves the right to amplify. The disclosures contained in here, here in Maxwell reserves the right to supplement these opinions, depending upon evidence that's presented at trial. So they're talking about Dr. Rocko. So for example, if Dr. Rocko comes out and she's talking about grooming, which she was, then they're gonna want to be able to rebut that with their own expert testimony. Okay. So let's go through some of these people. And again, this mind map is available over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com probably gonna be at public tomorrow, though. I've got a couple things I wanna wrap up, and I also wanna show you that we've added now links on YouTube, uh, to some of these. So if you actually want to go and watch the video on YouTube, you can. So, like, for example, if we're talking about minor victims and you wanna go see what we were talking about with Jane, you can click this link. And if you click this YouTube, it's actually gonna take you to the video that I made about that testimony. So you can sort of watch the testimony that we talked about connected on the mind map. Okay. So Dr. Ryan Hall, who is this guy, we see a photograph from him, looks like a nice individual. And he's got a pretty interesting bio, uh, from the defense disclosure. They us that his report is going to be about opinions, about diagnoses and opinions about a whole bunch of redacted stuff. So we don't really see what's in there, but we do learn a little bit more about this guy, forensic evaluations. He's got, uh, criminal responsibility, history, head injury, evaluations, general psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, major depression, obsess of depression, pharmacology. All of that. We also know that he interviewed somebody who was in, who was connected to this case pretty, pretty intensely. And so we, we have talked about this before the government presented their evidence, but now that they have presented their evidence, maybe we can sort of piece a couple things together. Dr. Hall's testimony, the defense is saying, this is why he should be allowed to in Maxwell's lawyers say the government is challenging him and his testimony, but he should be allowed to come in. He's eminently qualified. He conducted an independent medical examination of redacted. And we don't know who he's talking about there. Who did he talk about? His 100 and paid detailed page detailed report. And his six hour interview of somebody of somebody is unquestioned and unquestionable the government. They can see why it's so why the government is so eager to preclude Mr. Hall's testimony. So he interviewed somebody for six and a half hours, and he wrote 108 page report. So who would that be? Okay. Could it be Jane? Could it be Kate? Could it be Carolyn? Could it be Annie? We don't know, but six and a half hours, 108 pages. And the us government does not want him to come in and talk. That's Dr. Hall. We also have Bennett Gershman. Now Bennett Gershman is gonna come out. This is a prosecutorial integrity person from the defense disclosure. They tell us that he's been around since 1976, visiting professor number of different locations, but he really focuses on prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutors are bad people. He is a leading authority on misconduct and the author of the treatise, prosecutorial misconduct, a preeminent resource for scholars and practitioners, which I actually need to buy that book. Didn't even realize that was a thing we expect. Professor Gman to provide testimony on best practices, ensure the integrity of any prosecution. Focusing on the investigation, witness preparation, media contact neutrality provide accurate information and relationship with victim crimes crime with the victims of crimes. So Ben, Gershman this guy he's just gonna come out and talk about how the prosecutors really screwed this case up so badly. He's his bad background here. He's written four books over 75 articles and law review articles. Uh, op-ed pieces originally published his treatise back in 1985. Now it's in a second edition, continuously called upon quoted by the New York times, Washington post outstanding professor of the year, and the list goes on and on. Okay. So he's gonna come out and talk about just how, how awful the prosecutors are. We have Robert Kelso, he's gonna be a computer forensics guy. We bring him in. He's gonna talk about, uh, let's see. 25 years background, bachelor master's degree, professor university of Denver, teaching computer forensics, hold multiple, uh, computer forensic cert certifications. He's gonna testify about user data associated with the device ESD and with the government's team. In this case, documents, photographs, anything extracted from the devices, metadata. He's gonna testify about computer forensic principles, the creation of documents, storage, retrieval of documents, including the limits to the information that come out of the metadata. He's gonna have rebuttal testimony. He's going to, uh, go back against Steven flat. And he seems like he's pretty competent. We've got this guy, John Lopez couldn't find a photo of him. Little bit from him. He was a former I RS agent from the criminal investigation division of the IRS. He was there for 25 years<laugh> so he worked on complex fraud, corruption, bribery, tax, evasion, money laundering runs his private organization now. And he's gonna talk about all of the financial stuff. So remember when we were taking a look at the mine map, that there was a, a huge portion of, uh, whoops, what's going on here. Huge portion of the government witnesses were all transactional in nature. Remember these guys, Daniel Beson. He was the interlock in school of arts, Paul Kane. Uh, I believe he was the other school of arts. Yeah, the professional children's school in New York, JP Morgan. We had the FedEx paralegal, VD employee. So these are all records and the, a defense is gonna bring out multiple people to just, you know, smash those up a bit. So John Lopez, former IRS agent is gonna do that. Gerald LePort Jennifer NASO. These are two people who are also gonna do document analysis, right? Photographs and all that stuff. They're just gonna shred'em to bits. You can see Gerald LePort director of research testified expert witness in numerous cases received numerous documents pursuant to a defense, uh, subpoena. When these documents are disclosed, defense will have them analyzed and present testimony as needed. So we have more redactions about what he's gonna testify to, but more documents, Jennifer NASA, same thing. She's here talking about document analysis. 15 years of experience, her testimony is gonna be limited to, I don't know, redacted documents may require analysis. Defendant is gonna have them analyzed. And so, so what they're talking about here sort of in real time are using these experts every time the government submits it, an exhibit or a new in or new testimony comes out. These people are in real time taking those exhibits and analyzing them and coming up with new defenses. And so they're saying we don't really even know what they're gonna talk about, but they're ready. And if the government is presenting, you know, things to the jurors as exhibits, whether it's evidence, whether it's a massage table, whether they're boots. I know we got boots admitted in this trial. People are gonna be analyzing that as it comes up in real time, the documents we've got those two people on the Maxwell team. Now the two big, big, big witnesses, expert witnesses are gonna be these two people. We've got Dr. Elizabeth LTIs and she's really talking about false memories. And then we have park deeds. Who's about forensic psychiatry. And remember from Bobby stern, Heim's opening statement, what was the theme of this trial money, manipulation and memory. You got it. And so these two people are gonna come in here and talk about false memories in particular, Dr. Elizabeth Loftis. Very interesting that she's a female gonna come in here and talk about all of these victims, not remembering anything being full of it. Dr. Lata says, oh, let's see. She's the distinguished professor of psych psychological science and law out of university of California in Irvine. One of the nation's leading experts in the science of memory. In addition to her experience as an academic and a clinical researcher, she's been an expert witness in a number of cases, hundreds of cases, extensive experience are all recited in her CV. She's a, she specializes in the study of memory. She's gonna focus on the memory aspects of this case based on her education, training and experience. Testimony's gonna talk about human memory more specifically, the effects of suggestion on memory, the mechanism of creation of false memories, the characteristics of false men, memories, how memory fades and weakens over time, how memory becomes more vulnerable to contamination. She's gonna describe scientific research showing that false memories can be described with confidence, with detail and with emotion, just like real memories. This can even occur. And when people come to believe that these experience, they, they don't even think they're lying. Dr. Loftus would identify some suggestive activities that occurred in the current case. So you see what she's saying now, Dr. LATI is gonna come in and say, yeah, the government was basically planting these memories. They were in sectioning. These memories into these women ins heads. And guess what, who else is gonna talk about the impropriety of what the government did? Oh, well, this guy, we already talked about him earlier. Bennett Gershman prosecutorial integrity. So you're gonna have the, that one, two combo. Gershman's gonna come in and say, uh, they did all these things a little bit abnormally, and then Loftus is gonna come in and say, oh, well, there's a ripple effect. It's kind of like the butterfly effect that has a cascading consequence. And you know what? That means. Those memories are not reliable anymore. Everything that Jane got up there and talked about everything that Annie farmer was, was really persuasive about, not so valuable, it's all made up and they can't even tell. They don't even know the difference. They're sitting there communicating to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And they're thinking that they're telling you truth. They can't even recognize that it's not reality. They believe it to be real. So they're not lying, but it's just not accurate is what she's going to say. And then our last big expert witness that they're fighting over, they're trying to get all these people from testifying park, deets, MD, forensic psychiatry. This guy has a very, very long list of credentials. He's a psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry, 40 years of experience, Cornell university, John Hopkins. He's got masters. He's got everything. Chief fellow in forensic psychiatry, clinical professor for a long of time, Harvard law school. He's given lectures all over the place. Sharp guy. We take a look. These are some of the cases that he's worked on. Okay? Serial killers, including Jeffrey Dahmer, Gerald Gago Robert. We've got a son of Sam Douglas, Daniel Clark, different workplace massacres, various school shootings attacks at the white house capital. We've got abortion clinics, war crimes. I mean everything bomb bombers, FBI, top 10 feet. The whole list goes on and on park. DS has a long, long record of, of work in this space. Now let's take a look at what else they're talking about. So if we go back to this document, you can see that it's not just that. It's just not that simple park deeds. We can see he's got big chunks of testimony that he's anticipated to talk about. So specifically, rebutting Dr. Roo, she was talking about grooming. She gave us that five step framework that we talked about. He's gonna come back and basically take that apart. One by one Dr. Deets, they say he's aware of no authority, no journals, no studies, no tests, nothing to support a theory of grooming by proxy. Such a theory doesn't have any acceptance anywhere he's taking Dr. Rocko's testimony apart right now saying that her opinion that individuals with vulnerabilities are perpetrated are targeted. He says, this is a commonly accepted bit of clinical law. It's derived from frequent observation of highly vulnerable children. So step one from doc. Rocko was well it's you gotta identify them first, gotta go to schools. You gotta go to this, that and the other. And he's saying, that's, that's a, it's a myth. You know, it's, it's, it's other it's other explanations is what he's saying. Also talking about hindsight bias, many claims of abuse. He says involved behaviors that are in hindsight labeled grooming, but it's biased. It's hindsight. Wasn't actually that thing. It's people programming that also talking about the halo effect, halo effects. He says achieve cognitive consistency. So people will adjust their thoughts in order to get in alignment with other people. It spreads, they call it their halo effect, false assault allegations. And the list goes on. You can see false memory, intoxication anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, hysteric personality disorder. So all of these things have their own checklists. So maybe somebody has historian personality disorder, maybe they're groomed. Maybe Dr. Rocko comes out and says, it's these 5, 4, 5 elements for grooming. If you check every one of'em, you got it. Maybe part deeds comes out and says, well, you're a, you've got a hysteric personality disorder. If you have these five things and you just match those five things up with exactly what the victim sounded like on one of the, one of the stand, when they were on the stand, when one of the victims was on the stand. So a lot of expert witnesses, and this is just a handful. We just are taking just a quick overview. This is what has already been disclosed. A lot of people are gonna be testifying under pseudonyms or first names. And so we'll see what else comes out, but you can see looking like it's going to be forceful, a lot of expert witnesses coming out on the goin Maxwell trial. And so once again, if you wanna poke around any of this, feel free to do that. Join up over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, where can get access to all the mind maps that we have. Let's see, who's here guest number nine's in the house. Shout out to guest number nine, who's browsing this. Okay. And so we've got more to talk about with the Galin Maxwell trial. Our last segment of the day prince Andrew, his defense attorneys are now asking for, to dismiss in the lawsuit, brought against him by Virginia Jeffrey or Guffy. Don't know that one, but here is the photograph that a lot of people have been constantly pointing back to because it's not a good one. You can see here. This is prince Andrew. The duke of York is my understanding here with a very young looking girl who is Virginia Guffy. And look, who's over her left shoulder back there, it's the one and only Maxwell and a sort of a pseudo turtleneck, whatever that thing is. And so this is from the lawsuit that was filed by Virginia Guffy. This woman towards prince Andrew, from her in a lawsuit. It says that prince Andrew abused her back in the New York mansion during this encounter Maxwell forced the plaintiff, a child at the time and another person to sit in prince Andrew's lap. And he touched her during his visit to New York. Andrew forced the plaintiff to age in bad activities. And so this has been a whole separate wing of the Maxwell case that we haven't spent much time on and let's get our bearing straight on this. Let's take a look at the Virginia Guffy wing of the mine map, which is something that I just added today. So you can see here that we've got all of the Maxwell stuff that's sort of on the right side of the mine map. And so we can close some of this up just so that we can see and stay organized a little bit. We can close out some of those expert witnesses we just talked about and really focus on the Jeffrey Epstein side of the equation. And so when we zoom in here, we can see that Virginia Guffy has really intimately involved in a lot of this Virginia Guty has been very, very aggressive with this. She, uh, sort of the subject of a Netflix series, and there's been a lot of stuff that has come out of her lawsuits, including criminal charges for Golet Maxwell. Those two perjury charges that she's facing. Those are for lying during depositions when she was being deposed as a result of these lawsuits. So Virginia guff and she, uh, this is the lawsuit that we're talking about. So we now know she's got several different lawsuits that are flying around out there. Two, two in particular, one going against Alan Dershowitz. This is the 2019 defamation case and it's Virginia Guffy versus Alan Dershowitz. And if you take a look, you can actually, uh, see what the complaint is here. So once again, if, if you're browsing the mind map, you can click this and read through it, but she filed this. She said, this is a defamation lawsuit, basically saying that Alan Dershowitz is defaming her. Okay? So not, not, not, not a criminal charge or criminal allegations. These are civil lawsuits. And so this is 28 pages long, of course, you're free to read it if you'd like. But what they're saying here is, is D witch is making knowingly false and malicious and defamatory statements that he said, the story is flatly made up. It's false. And, and Virginia Robert Guffy, and all these people are making everything up. I never met her. I never slept with her. She simply made up the entire story for money. And so Alan DWI is out there just sort of saying that Guffy is a liar. And so she is suing him for defamation saying, no, I'm not. You did meet me. You did sleep with me. I didn't make any of this stuff up. You're defaming me. And that lawsuit is still pending. And so this was that same lawsuit that yesterday we listened to Ian Maxwell. I'm sorry. Yeah. Ian Maxwell Galen's brother is very interested in that lawsuit. So that is working its way through the courts right now. And if you want links to it, you can click this court listener website and you can follow it along. You can even include, you can turn on notifications. And so their updates in that case, you can be notified about them. That's what I do. We also have this lawsuit, which is what we're gonna be looking at because this lawsuit with prince Andrew, of course, that's that photograph that we just looked at, not a good one. And this is the lawsuit. So this is a battery and it's called I, I E D. This is the intentional inic of emotional distress. And this lawsuit is here. We can see this complaint. This was filed back on August 9th, 2021. So this is a new one this year, going against prince Andrew, the duke of York, Virginia Guffy now filing against the prince of England, duke of Yorker. However, they categorize it over there. So again, talking about abuse from when she was under the age of 18, talking about Epstein trafficking her around, she was only 16 years of age at the time. And so if you go through it, you're gonna see a lot of the same stuff that we've talked about. They detail some of the travels. You can see she's flying all back and forth between number of, of different cities. You've got London, Paris Granada, Taner Virgin island, San Antonio, Santa Fe St. Louis, New York, all over the place. And prince Andrew was somebody who took advantage of her. There's the photograph from the complaint. And we have two different charges or two different counts. First cause of action is battery. That's the physical contact with prince Andrew. And then we have the second cause the intentional infliction of emotional distress. He was 40 years old. She was 16. He knew that this was gonna cause her severe emotional distress. He did it anyways, signed off on by David boy. This is that lawsuit. So we can see that this is where all this is emanating from. And for a long time, shout out to guest nine for a long time, we have prince. Andrew has been kind of just quiet about this whole thing. Not really talking too much about, about any of it. And then, then we see his team respond. This is an update from this court docket and this lawsuit. And there's a couple interesting things here about the prince. Once again, this is prince Andrew's lawsuit. We have some lawyers that are making their way in, and then we get this order 1214, which is today, the judge comes out and says, oh, we're gonna release some documents to the public here by January 3rd, unless you give us good reason not to do so. Judge says in the absence of a showing on or before December 22nd of good cause by a party we're gonna be releasing these documents, the entire document. In fact, on the public record on or about January 3rd, 2022. And so what the heck are they talking about? Well, this is what the order says. There were several different settlement agreements that took place. We talked about Virginia Guffy suing Allen Dershowitz. Remember this one, we just reviewed that one and Virginia, Guty also suing prince Andrew, the duke of York. And so there was an order that came out as to both of these cases. These are two separate lawsuits. She's suing them both for two different causes of action, prince Andrew battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Alan Dershowitz's defamation. The order from the judge, both judges, you can see Loretta preska and Louis Kaplan. They signed off on this thing. They are in agreement on this, which you don't see too often, you know, sort of a joint order like this. For two cases, it says a document entitled quote, a settlement agreement and general release, which was said to have been previously executed by Jeffrey Epstein was filed under seal in this case. Okay. So in, let's say let's make sure we're very clear about this. There was a settlement agreement that was entered in the Allen Deitz case. Same document. The same document has been submitted in the Virginia Guffy case. Both have been filed unders seal. Now we know that Mr. Epstein is dead. The document is well known to miss Guffy. And although under seal has been available to all parties in these cases for some time. So that settlement agreement that was entered in both these cases, it's been around for a long time. Epstein's dead. Guffy knows about it. Judges are saying, well, we question whether any proper purpose would be served by the continued secrecy of this document. Hmm. Maybe save perhaps the dollar amount of the settlement it provided for. So the judges are wondering, why are we still having this sealed? You know, it's been sealed for a long time. Epstein's dead, Guffy knows all about it sounds like it might be an important document that maybe the public should have their eyeballs on maybe except for the dollar amount. But it sounds like there was a settlement here. So the judge says, all right, well listen, accordingly in the absence of a showing of good cause by either party as to why we should not make these public, we are going to make them public on January 3rd, 2022. So ordered. So we may get our eyes on some additional documents next year in January, if they cannot,'em up with a reason as to why we shouldn't see those settlement documents. So grie presumably entered into a settlement with Andrew or with Dershowitz or Dershowitz and Epstein of the estate. Settlements are happening all over the place. We have not been able to see it yet, but it looks like it might be coming soon. And we're going to be excited when we see it, see what those terms were. All right. Now, prince Andrew, his attorneys are not just gonna sit there idly by and say, well, we're just gonna, you know, settle with you Guffy. No, of course not. They're fighting this hard. In fact, they filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit. They want this thing gone. They filed that yesterday, December 13th, 2021, you can see it's 11 pay ages. There's a lot of law in it. And so we won't spend too much time reading, but we do have some, some in information here, a reply in support of the defendant's motion to dismiss. So this is the defendant prince, Andrew Duke of York. And they want this case gone. So the way this works is they file an an original mode to dismiss the plaintiff here. Virginia is gonna file a response and then the government replies to the response. So this is sort of the final motion here. And this is what they're saying. They're saying we need to make this go away. They start for someone who claims that the release she signed 2009 is irrelevant to this case, uh, which is what Guffy did. She devotes a significant portion trying to avoid its application according to its plain terms. In other words, this agreement should settle this, but it doesn't. They go on, they say Guffy does not challenge the authenticity of the release. She can't, her counsel gave her a copy contrary to her. Mischaracterizations Andrew does not ask the court to analyze the party's intent. And so what they say here is the court should not permit GRE's arguments to distract from the real issues. They say, GRE's ignore, ignoring the language of the New York law. Um, and they say that GRYS opposition confirms that her intentional infliction is duplicative of her battery claim. Okay? So she's got these two claims that are going on. And they're saying that they're duplicative. They're basically the same thing. Calling her accusations, co conclusory saying she's changing her story, whatever motivates her. They say that her complaint is deficient and it fails to state a claim. So we'll just take a look at some of the big highlights here. They say that the release agreement that she signed, precludes her from suing. She entered into a term. She entered into an agreement. Remember the settlement agreement that we're gonna learn about in January, whatever the settlement was, should settle. It is what they're saying on a motion to dismiss the court may properly consider matters. Subject to judicial notice. She faces no prejudice. And so they say she should. The motion to dismiss should be granted. Guffy says that the release, I'm sorry, somebody just corrected me. It's JRE. JRE says the release is not subject to judicial notice because it's been filed under seal. So they're fighting about this notice and about when it's gonna be publicly available. We get a little bit of redaction stuff here. JRE tries to manufacture a dispute. They say JRE is not dispute that she signed a release to settle this. She signed some sort of an agreement with the Epstein action. She receives a, a number, some money. She got some money in exchange for something. We don't know what it is. There's no evidence that JRE sought to resin the release. It's also too convenient that after accepting, you know, a certain amount of money, I'm sure probably millions of dollars from Epstein jure now refuses to be bound by the very obligations that constituted considerations for the money. When they talk about consideration, it's like, what did it's like? You're giving something for it. In this case, drew free got a bunch of money. What is she giving up the right to file a claim? Now she's filing a claim while she got a bunch of money in order to not do that. So why is she allowed to do it? They're saying she shouldn't be prince Andrews. Defense lawyers are saying, just interpret the pre the plane language of the release. Just read it. It's pretty obvious what it says. It's part of the Epstein victims compensation program is part of getting compensated. You give up your claims, the release agreements, plain language reflects the party's intent to provide direct and substantial benefits to third parties. Lot of key case law here, jure is saying that she never intended to release prince Andrew, but they say in the agreement, it's pretty obvious in its plain terms, the agreement they say embodies the party's intent to benefit directly and substantially a class of persons of which prince Andrew is a member. And so we can't see this stinking document, but apparently that settlement they're saying it includes prince Andrew and jure is saying, no, it doesn't include prince Andrew. When I signed this document, I never once intended to ex to sort of preclude prince Andrew from this. She settled this claim with Epstein and the Epstein compensation victims fund and, and Maxwell was a part of that. But not everybody who was a John in this thing, the settlement agreement includes everybody who used the services as well. Meaning any of these victims can't they settle with Epstein, okay? Maybe they can't Sue him or his estate cuz they got compensation for that. But she's not suing Epstein. He he's dead. She's not suing Maxwell. She's facing criminal charges. She's suing prince Andrew. Why is he being protected by that settlement agreement is what she's saying. And we can't see what it says or who the settlement agreement was between the defense here for prince. Andrew says he was in a class of persons. He's in a class of men who, uh, you traffic and underage children. And so as part of the settlement, it includes all of the men in that bucket who just get protected because they're in that bucket is what they're saying. It's in the agreement and she signed it. So she shouldn't be allowed to continue to bring this forward. And they're telling you, prince Andrew, he falls within that class of, I call him, I don't know, Peto, I guess drew phrase allegation both in Epstein's action in here compelled the conclusion that prince Andrew cuz the allegations, right? The allegations are that he is basically a Peto and they're saying the allegations alone, put him in that class. Prince Andrew is in fact somebody who's facing allegations of this type of nefarious activity. The end that puts him in that bucket. Therefore he is precluded from actions because he's in a protected class. Jure, alleged that Andrew was aware of, complicit traveled a number of times, she suffered a, a harm as a result, jure alleges that Andrew knew she was a victim. He knew she could not consent. And so that puts him in that class that puts him in that bucket. The plain language, the defense says of the release agreement, grants, redacted, redacted, redacted, the settlement agreement, which we hopefully get to see in January grants, something neither the allegations in the Epstein action nor the personal jurisdiction, taking a look at some other law. Yeah. Here drew FRA allegations about prince Andrew and his travel to Florida and the travel to Florida, which was a headquarters for the scheme, established the requisite minimum contacts for the purposes of due process. All right, then we see the Epstein victim's compensation fund release. Red herring does not change the legal analysis of the release agreement as a hail Mary, they say jure attaches an unauthenticated 2020 agreement to her opposition without any formal request. And she claims that her receipt of redacted, her receipt of, you know, a million dollars or whatever the money was somehow reflects the intent of a 2009 agreement. So they're just fighting over this agreement. These types of claims are barred by time. A also saying that it's disingenuous that prince Andrew. Yeah. Okay. So I, the rest of this is pretty much kinda some boring legal stuff here. Then they talk about the age of consent. This is interesting. Lack of consent is established as a matter of law for individuals who were under the age of 17 at the time like Joe FRA, who were between the ages of 17 and 18 lack of consent is an element of article one 30 ju freight and others. Not too much good there calling these types of claims, highly subjective and hampered by yeah. Again, hampered by the passage of time, memories, fade false memories are created witnesses die or otherwise become unavailable here. The only witnesses to the purported implied threats under which Duray allegedly engaged in acts with prince Andrew and Epstein deceased Maxwell, incarcerated, Andrew, the accused and Jeffrey herself jure herself, according to drew FRA tortured interpretation. It revived civil claims. Yeah. And that this is not a, a reasonable mechanism. It's a duplicative claim. And then we get a conclusion for the foregoing reasons, prince Andrew and his defense attorneys respectfully request the court, dismiss the complaint without leave to a amend signed off on by Laley and singer. Melissa Lerner over from a law firm in California are representing prince Andrew, the duke of York. So saying specifically there was a settlement agreement that was entered into. And as part of those terms, prince Andrew identified himself in a bucket of individuals that were covered under the umbrella of the settlement agreement. And therefore he can't be sued because Virginia Guffy signed the settlement agreement. And so we'll see what the judge has to say about that is the judge gonna dismiss the entire case and make sure or, or, or hold the settlement agreement to be dispositive and resolve the whole thing. If so then Alan der witch's case might go away too. Or we may just see a denial and this case moves forward. We see that the actual settlement agreement gets published later in January. And we're gonna be able to dive into that of course. And so let's take a look@whatyouhavetosayaboutallofthisstuffoveratwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. I've seen AUP a couple super chats come in over on YouTube. Shout out. Thank you for the support there. My YouTube friends, we've got AV equals adult video SL term for vid store days, adult video. I was thinking audio visual, you know like AV cables, but you're right. Uh, Nick Thra with a super chat. No question. Thanks for the donation there. Nick Mars, Z pan with another donation. Thank you, Marsa. And Nick tha with another one and another one, he says Virginia's name is pronounced JRE. Sorry I had to do it. I love the cont. Well, well thank you for correcting me. I got no problems. I'll I'll I'll I'll fix it. No problem. So jure, I'll try to keep that, uh, handy. And those were over from watching the Watchers dot locals. Those were from YouTube. Now we're going over to watching the watchers.locals.com and let's see what you have to say about this. We've got news now says for those wanting your Kim Potter fix. Yeah. There's a lot of people out there on locals. You're like Rob, hello, dumb, dumb. We're tired of Gill Maxwell. Can you talk about Kim Potter? And the answer unfortunately is no, there's not enough time in the day. I just can't do it. I would love to, but there's not enough time in the day. So we're gonna have, uh, of course recommendations on that. Nick Riata that's the only one go over to his channel. He's covering Kim Potter all day, every day. I don't know how he has so much energy, but he does. And so go check him out for that or get your updates from news. Now, Wyoming news. Now Wyoming is covering. This says so far, the prosecutor asked a lot of witnesses to defend their Blakely factors, which are used for agri elevated sentencing by the judge. Most witnesses have not testified on the investigation, into the shoot, all cop witnesses that were there testified that she was authorized to use deadly force today. They did bring in their use of force, expert and trainer who was a very reluctant witness and barely answered the prosecutor's questions. He did say her use of force was unreasonable. The defense get to cross him tomorrow. That will be a testimony to watch. And so, yeah, so Nick Rade is covering it news. Now Wyoming is covering it. He's on YouTube as well. And he gave us a very nice summary at our monthly meetup interesting case. I'm sorry, I can't cover both of'em monster. One says, I wish people like Rogan and Tim pool could do basic fact checking that trial tracker was taken down because they were stealing reporting from people like good logic and inner city press. People are getting in line at 4:00 AM to get in the courthouse. And those a holes just copy and paste other people's work. Yeah. Yeah. I think it was not really, even about that one particular Twitter account. Like that's the one that they saw, which I agree that Twitter account is not any good. I mean, it really is just reposting a bunch of stuff. I don't check it at all when I'm doing my prep because it's nothing really good. Uh, other than just reposting, what a lot of other people are posting. So I'm with you on that one monster one, but the bigger point and what really, what Joe Rogan was talking about was the issue about the hard drives with the open evidence seals and the idea that maybe Epstein had a bin of evident that was handed to him, maybe by some government prosecutor or, uh, investigator. I don't know, T Blakemore says I am. Re-watching the comedy show Joe Rogan was on in the nineties called news radio. It's so hard to believe that Joe Rogan has become this superstar quote radio personality. There was an episode of news radio where Joe, an electrician in the show gets a chance to go on air as a radio host. And he did so well. Everyone felt threatened by him, perhaps that was a bit of foreshadowing. Thank goodness. Joe is willing to question the insanity going on right now. He has really led the way in building a grassroots media platform. Absolutely true. Joe Rogan is, is, is, is a phenomenon. No, no doubt about it. No doubt about it. He's doing something that's very awesome. He's an inspirational guy. Sergeant Bob says, NICE's nice explanation of why evidence is open and resealed, et cetera. What the Watchers should know is that every person opening examining resealing evidence must write a report and log and why they did. I was a supervisor in the PPP crime scene unit for seven years. And this was critical. If the chain of evidence is broken, the defense has a field day. He's right about that. We love that chain of custody problems. We're like, oh, are you serious? Is it Christmas morning? Are we going to Disneyland? There's a chain of custody problem. This is amazing. It's like Christmas in July. It's a good thing for a defense attorney when there is a problem with chain of custody. And so that's why police are very, very detailed with that. They wanna make sure that they keep that locked. And again, it's this concept that you are tracking where everything goes. So let's say, you know, you have a pizza, you pizza from person a to person, B person B to person, C person C to person D person D to person E. And when it gets to person F there's a slice of pizza missing and you go that's son of a, B, nobody was supposed to eat that yet. And you go back through the log and you say, where'd that slice of pizza go missing? Who took that one? And you find out it was that freaking B as always. It's always B. And so you go, you can go back and you can dissect the problem with the evidence. And that's what defense attorneys are doing. Sergeant Bob says typical beat up the witnesses strategy. Totally, totally. Yeah. They're just gonna put one witness after the other<laugh> and just keep going. And it's gonna be a war of attrition and they've got the money and the experts and the resources is to do it. Sergeant Bob says nasty behavior has been the point of part of royalty for centuries. I've read a lot of British history. The real bloodlines are so confused due to many adventurous escapades from Sergeant Bob, good stuff, miles away says don't you love it. False memories, suppress real evidence and age expert word warfare on the prosecution's witnesses. APO to the times we slog through quote, a better call SA defense<laugh> don't you like lawyering, isn't it fun? And it's really all like true, right? You can go back and you can have all these studies. You can see why people kill each other over, you know, uh, medical and information and stuff. Spawn dog says are the Clintons and prince Andrew donating to the Maxwell's defense fund bill. And these dirt bags. Belief must be a grass on the spawn dog spa dog. Sergeant Bob says, we wonder where did Epstein's money come from? Was it all high profile pimping? I don't think so. Sergeant Bob, there's a story there where he kind of, uh, took it all from this ultra billionaire sort of, uh, used his charisma to weasel his way up into his organization. And then just took off with like 50 million bucks or 200 million or something like that. Uh, nobody really knows, I think specifically, but that's the story Kinkaid says evening, Rob, I am unsure about Epstein's death, but my gut says Dershowitz did something. Could there be new charges considering the settlement and Allen's talent. It would be interesting to develop some real discoveries. Also, if he got jammed up, what secrets could he revealed? Well, I don't know. You know, Dershowitz has been very consistent on this very cons. I've never touch. I, I got a massage, but I kept my underwear on that whole story. You know, you know, I don't know. I'm, I'm a presumption of innocence person and I'm a defense attorney, you know, who else is a defense attorney, a Deitz<laugh>. So I don't know what to do about that, but the settlement agreement will come out and we'll see what's in there. And then maybe we'll have some insight on that one. All right. We've got rad says, I'm sorry if you answered this question already, if prince Andrew's case is dismissed, will the other claims be dismissed, also example Clinton gates, if one is filed, I mean, I would think so if it's part of the same settlement agreement, I mean, if settlement agreement, a judge finds is inclusive enough to cover all those underlying claims and it's the same settlement agreement and they can make the same argument that prince Andrew did. I'm a part of that same bucket of people that was using those services unprotected as a part of the settlement. I mean, they signed away their rights. They can't file any more civil suits against us. So that would be the argument that they, they would make and maybe they would win. Thunder seven is here, says, Rob, I only caught the last 10 minutes of the show. So apologies. If you talked about this, the judge in that case has ordered the agreement with Virginia to be made public on December 22nd. So it's actually gonna be on December. I'm sorry, January 3rd, I believe. But they have to respond by December 22nd timing strange, but will it enable prince Andrew to wiggle out of any of the charges, Virginia? Wasn't the only minor that he slept with many more on the island. Those are not covered under this agreement. Yeah. So I think that would be right. The settlement agreement would be only applicable to the person who entered into it. So like Virginia jure was not, we would not be able to enter a settle on behalf of all of the other victims. Right. They would have to waive their rights, their own. She would not be able to do that. But if I'm not mistaken, I think that she said it was let's scroll back on this puppy. I had the docket. Yeah, here it is. The court will file the entire document on the public record on or about January 3rd. So next year is when see it, but they have until the December 22nd to show good. Cause otherwise if they don't then on January 3rd, it will be coming out. So it's a good question. That was from thunder seven and I believe that is it for us for the day, my friends and we're right on time. And so I wanna thank you for being a part of this show. We talked a lot of Golin Maxwell tomorrow. Very likely that we're gonna be releasing the mind map out into the wild. I've got a couple final things I wanna make some changes to. And then tomorrow we're gonna do just a quick pre-show. So we'll talk some headlines. We'll we'll do kind of an open forum, Q and a for one hour, from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Arizona time, which is gonna be 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM on the east coast Eastern time. And so do your math accordingly from six to seven on the Eastern east, east Eastern time, six to seven Eastern time, pre-show here. Seven onward. We're going over to Viva channel. We're going to his house. So make sure you subscribe both Viva's channel and Joe Neman, good logic. His channel are down linked below, and we're gonna talk all Maxwell on Viva stream. We might even take a look at the mine map. I hope you, uh, join us for that, cuz it's gonna be a lot of fun. So that is gonna be it for us for the day. My friends. Thank you so much for being here or for being a part of the show. We're gonna see you. Same time, same place tomorrow for one hour, then it's Viva's. After that not applicable sent in one final super chat before we wrap it up for the day, says try them under the higher law. Like at Nuremberg, you talking about all the Epstein people. I'm not sure how would work, but I like the idea. I wanna thank everybody once again for being a part of the program. Thank you. All the mods out there. Keep in control of the chat and for making it a lot of fun to participate in the program. Everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye.