Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Ghislaine Gets the Booster and Prince Andrew’s Motion to Dismiss

January 04, 2022 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Ghislaine Gets the Booster and Prince Andrew’s Motion to Dismiss
Show Notes Transcript

Prince Andrew’s defense lawyers argued their motion to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s case today in Court. Judge Kaplan has taken the decision under consideration, but we review the day’s events, including:

🔹 Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG
🔹 Poll Form: https://forms.gle/W2Rk9ycZT2BKToH96
🔹 Review of the sealed Motion to Dismiss filed by Prince Andrew’s defense team.
🔹 Who is representing Prince Andrew? Andrew B. Brettler, a well-known defense attorney.
🔹 A review of Judge Kaplan biography and appointment history.
🔹 Today’s from today’s hearing in Virginia Giuffre vs. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, via @innercitypress
🔹 A review of Judge Kaplan’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
🔹 Judge asks David Boies, attorney for Virginia Giuffre, about the settlement agreement.
🔹 Judge Alison Nathan issues a new order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, requesting a scheduling order.
🔹 Sounds like the Perjury charges against Ghislaine will be moving forward, and we review the indictment.
🔹 Judge Nathan confirms Ghislaine Maxwell will be getting the booster, and twitter responds.
🔹 What do you think? POLL FORM: https://forms.gle/W2Rk9ycZT2BKToH96

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 #MaxwellTrial #GhislaineMaxwell #JeffreyEpstein #PrinceAndrew

Speaker 1:

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. I'm sorry, my name is Robert Gove . Gosh, I've got so much stuff going on here and I changed my name. Hello. If you forgot that if you missed a show yesterday, it's a big change. You can tell. It's like writing 20, 21 it's 2022 . My last name's Gove . It's gonna take a minute to get used to it. And so thanks for bearing with me. But today we've got a lot to get into. We're talking about Maxwell and prince Andrew Prince Andrew of course, was in court today, arguing a motion to dismiss he's being sued by Virginia gore . And he was arguing that he shouldn't even be there because he was immune as a result of the settlement agreement that they entered back in 2009. And so there were oral arguments that took place today. We're gonna hear from prince Andrew's lawyer, the guy's name is Andrew Butler. And then we're also going to hear from David boy , who is Virginia goof phrase , lawyer, the plaintiff's attorney. And so they were arguing about this settlement conference. This was a big deal today because if prince Andrew is successful, if the judge grants his motion, he's free and clear, this is done. His civil case would now be gone with the wind and Virginia goof . Ray would not be able to Sue him or recover any damages for his us salt and for what he did to her. So it's a big deal today. And so we're gonna break that down. We're gonna go through what happened. Of course, this is in federal court. And so we couldn't hear anything, but we are going to go back and go through the reporting, of course, from inner city press, who is doing a great reporting as usual on all topics, Maxwell and Epstein. So go give them follow. And then we're also going to talk about a goin Maxwell update because the judge came out, judge Allison , Nathan, remember that she was just convicted of five of six counts there for some pretty serious charges. We still don't really know what the sentencing schedule looks like or what kind of the next steps are for goin . Cuz she has a couple other charges out there. She's got the perjury charges, she's got a rule 29 motion that she can make. She's got some health concerns that we're gonna talk about. And so we have just an all around general go Maxwell update because some , no new stories are coming out as well. Her husband, you know, kind of might be hooking up with somebody else, which is just, you know, shocking. And so we've got a lot to get into. If you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected], where they are chatting away over there. We're taking a look. We've got Avalon acres. We've got Gale oh eight tweak is here. Kinkaid is chatting away. Feisty ladies in the house. We've got sugar . Bris is over there along with VTI kiss prime, holding the Fort down with chip Fon , shoulder others over on YouTube. This is what we're playing around with. This is what took me an extra minute to get booted up. I wanna see if I can get this working on the screen here. Oh, look at that. This is a shout out to chairman of the board over on locals. He showed me how to hook this little thing up so I can put some stuff on the screen. Now, rather than that goofy little siren, we have some actual things we can post up there. So Chris Maxwell is saying hi from Scotland relation to Glen Maxwell. Let's see what else we've got here. We can see, I can post this up. We've got cool guy says, Hey Robert Gove . What's cool guy. So this is neat. This is very nice technology. Just house is over there, says hi Vijaya . And so very neat. Thank you chairman for helping us figure this out Southend academy is saying that's fabulous. And I think my friends that even, even Twitch will show up now over there. And so we're getting fully integrated. Baby 2022 is a lot of new, exciting stuff happening right now in real time . And I'm excited that you're here with us. Okay. And so as always, if you want to ask questions and you're a part of our amazing community, there's a form that looks like this and we will be taking your questions as we go throughout the show, but you don't need to see two of me. All right ? And so let's get into the news of the day, a prince Andrew back in court today being sued by Virginia gore . Now he was in there filing a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The basis of his argument was that he was covered by a settlement agreement that Virginia entered into with Epstein long, long time ago. And so let's take a quick look at the court docket just to , to familiarize ourselves with what is going on here. You can take a look here. You can see that we didn't have a whole lot of activity. Very recently. We've got 12 22, 12, 28 after Christmas. We've got a motion to compel about some jurisdiction, some discovery stuff. We've got an order from the clerk on January 3rd, they're going to unseal the document . Remember that. And so we spent a lot of time talking about this document that was unsealed. We read through it. This was the settlement agreement that was completed by Epstein and Virginia Roberts. We also see here on 1230, there's another response. Then we get an order. And then finally we get this, this minute entry now out for the proceedings held for a motion to dismiss. This is prince Andrew's motion to dismiss. He wants this entire case gone. And so take a look. Now this doesn't happen until January 4th, right? We're in 2022. And you'll notice he's like, when did this motion to dismiss come from? Where did, where did this even happen? Who filed this? And when well you gotta rewind the clock pretty considerably back down to 10 29. You can see you gotta go all the way back to the , just the end of October, when this was filed by Andrew Butler, this was prince Andrew's lawyer, his , his current lawyer. We're gonna a little bit more about him. So on 10 29, that's when that got originally filed and you'll notice on 10 29, there's a bunch of stuff that also got filed. So a bunch of a memorandum of law in support we've got, this is being disclosed to only to selected parties. And so when I go actually in here and I want to click and see, oh, what is exhibit F Maxwell complaint? Or I wanna see what is exhibit G. This is the DSU its amended complaint. Or if I wanna see what is exhibit H the stipulation of dismissal. If I wanna look at any of these documents, I get a sign that looks like this. It says, Rob, you don't have permission to view this document. And so we can't really see too much of what's in there, but we can, you this very first motion, this motion to dismiss, it's just a cover sheet. And then we can sort of pull out and tease out what else is going on here? Because the argument was all around this motion today. They submitted it back in October. There's a bunch of responses and replies and they're hashing this out every which way. And then today they have to go in and, and argue it out. And so let's take a look at what the cover sheet looks like. You can see, this was the oral argument requested motion, defendants, Andrew Prince, Andrew, duke of York. This is his motion to dismiss signed off on here by Andrew Butler. We're gonna learn a lot more about him in the next slide. He's got an office over in Los Angeles, California, and you can see the motion file back on 10 29, 2021. Not a lot here other than this is a general 12 [inaudible] motion. And if you're in law school or you're a lawyer, you probably sat there in civil procedure. And you were just beating that statute into your head, like a Jack hammer , just like, oh 12, B six 12 B six 12 B six , because that's kind of the answer for thing. Oh, it's uh , 12 [inaudible] , uh , you know, motions to dismiss, oh, it's failure to state a claim. Obviously they haven't stated a claim. It's in the civil procedures. It's rule 12 B6 . So you know what I'm talking about if you're in law school or graduated, but , uh , this is the attorney here. Andrew Brightler is the guy who is actually representing prince Andrew. And you can see those two , uh , have photographs over there. This guy's been around for a long time practicing since 2005 admitted, New York, New Jersey, second circuit, California, nine circuit dis all district courts in California, Hollywood reporters, 2019 power lawyers. Hollywood's top 100 lawyers, AV rated all of that stuff. Most of that I think is irrelevant these days, but judicial clerkship, we , uh , see here, us district court, Los Angeles county bar association. Again, those aren't huge deals. We have reported decisions that he's got a couple things on Brooklyn law school, you know, been around a long time, obviously represented some very high profile cases . When I say when I'm about some of these things like, like California, super lawyers, like things like that, Southern California, super lawyers. That's kind of what I mean. I think, I think I'm a super lawyer, one something or other , you know, it's kind of one of these things they want you to, they , they call you a super lawyer and you pay, you know, $300 and you get listed as a super lawyer. And you're like , oh wow, I'm a super lawyer. And I can call myself a super lawyer. This is super. And so you see a lot of that type of stuff. Um , I, I have it. I mean, I'm not, you know, it it's, it's, it's something that lawyers do. And so what they're talking about this guy is representing now prince Andrew, and this is the agreement they're ding it out over. You can see that , uh, this is, is , uh , a settlement agreement that was signed off on by both Virginia gore and Jeffrey Epstein. And so it's , uh , sign , she signed it off in new south Wales. You've got Jeffrey Epstein , uh , 2009. And , uh, this is going to be an argument about this agreement . And so let's flesh this out for a minute. We have an agreement here that people are , are saying exists and that both parties entered into. And that is in effect that has the effect of law. And so the judge is gonna say, okay, look, this is the binding document. We're gonna all only argue about this document. And so the judge acting as a neutral arbiter is supposed to come in here. And what he's gonna do is he's gonna look at this document and he's gonna read it in a light most favorable to each side. So he is gonna go, okay, so prince Andrew, I'm gonna read this document as though I am an advocate for Virginia rock Roberts , and he's going to interpret it that way. And he's gonna say, okay, Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Butler respond to this, this document says this arguing on behalf of Virginia and then ask him to respond. And then in the exact same hearing, gonna reverse that and gonna say, okay, so Mr boy , rep Virginia , this document also says all other defendants, and he's gonna read it in a way that's most favorable to prince Andrew. He's gonna make that argument. And he's going to ask the plaintiff now, or the Virginia and her, her team to make an argument as to why that should be overcome. And so the judge is gonna play basically devil's advocate for sides , and the judge is gonna do it very effectively here as we're going to see. And so just keep that in mind, the judge kind of, he kind of wants to just poke this enough and make both sides argue against each other. So he is gonna refer to the document and say, oh, well, this looks pretty bad for your side. What do you say about that? And they're gonna make an argument. He's gonna , oh, well, this side's pretty bad for your side. What do you say at about that? And then you're gonna hear him go, well , that's pretty good arguments. And now what I'm gonna do is retire to my chambers and make a decision. Let's learn more about the judge. Who's going to be going through this process. This is him. His name is judge Kaplan, Lewis Kaplan born 1944 district judge for the Southern district of New York took so senior status on February 1st, 2011 . So he's been around for a long time, worked on the Chevron versus the Donziger case. As many people have , uh , seen and followed for some time here, worked on Guantanamo detainee cases. Other miscellaneous cases appointed by bill Clinton. Oh, isn't that convenient? Bill Clinton , uh , bill Clinton, who , uh, you know, didn't fly on the airplanes and didn't get massages. So you love when that happens, right? Education, career, and personal life. Bachelor of arts from university Rochester, J JD from Harvard law school back in 1969. My goodness been around for a long time. So let's see , uh , married to former New York times reporter and also former vice president of random house. Leslie OLS, special master here during his time in the private sex , he was a partner of Paul Weis represented Philip Morris . All right . And so we have proceedings. We have proceedings that <laugh> , that , uh , get started here. And as usual inner city press is reporting and he is doing outstanding work. Please follow him at inner city , press on Twitter. And he's got links to his Paton and other places where you can support his war . Please do that. Here is how he reported here today. He said, Andrew's lawyer as the judge called everybody in there. And the judge, remember the judge is holding up this settlement agreement. And we talked all about the settlement agreement yesterday, and he's holding it in a light most he's, he's basically asking both to justify it . Soler Andrew's lawyer says, listen, Virginia released Epstein and others. Okay . He did it right there in the settlement agreement. It says other potential defendants. You can see that judge. And so, because it says that in the settlement agreement, I'm arguing here today that it must apply to Andrew. I mean, I look, it could apply to the head football coach of the university of Kansas for all I care. I mean, it's basically everybody other potential defendants. And so you can see here, a Andrew Butler is arguing for princes. Andrew saying that the settlement agreement is so gigantically broad, that it encompasses everything capital and , and says, okay , well, who is a potential defendant? I mean like, let's define this word who is a potential defendant. Kaplan says, well, this language excludes people who had already been named. Right. Right . So, so what he's saying here, there were people who, who had been identified. They're excluded. Okay. Got that. Right. But what about the people who are not named and here Butler says, well, it doesn't really matter, judge. That's a distinction without a difference. Yeah. Andrew was not named, but so what and Kaplan says, but hold on a minute here, we're , we're taking a look at the word potential. We're looking at the word actual, you know , potential. What does that mean? I have a clip of that here. It says, it's underlined right here in red. You can see that other potential defendants. What does this potential defendants mean? This is from the settlement agreement. And so we'll come back to that in a minute. But as this testimony continues, he says, we can't really find the meaning of this document. So I , you know, if we look to the rest of the settlement agreement, can we see what the word potential means? They can't find it. And so Butler then Andrew's lawyer says, look, prince Andrew could have been sued, but he was not okay . He could have been. And he says that Virginia Roberts, when she signed this, that she was intended to release royalty and Kaplan says , uh, including the Salton of Brun . I , I think the judge is being facetious there to release royalty. He oh, including the Salton of Brunai over there. Oh, okay. Yeah. How about , uh , a X Jin ping . Is he also immune here? The head football coach. Do you want throw , uh , old putty Putin over there in here too. Counselor is kind of what this judge is saying. And so he's having fun with that. And he said , and Butler responds. He says , well, I mean , yeah. I mean , I guess if there's allegations against him then yeah. The Salton two . Yes. Even old putty Putin over there would be immune if it went that far. And so Kaplan , the judge is like, right . Listen, I , I understand that you're saying this, like I understand you're saying it's like a gigantic broad release here, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Okay. There could be a different view about how this works, you know, instead of this gigantic huge, massive umbrella policy might be a different way here. And Butler says, well, you know, I don't think you need to get there, judge. Listen, it's pretty simple. There's not much more to talk about. I know you want to distinguish and discuss this a lot, but we don't need to do that. He says Robert's here made allegations against royalty and academics. And when she signed the meant , she released them. It's very simple. They were released all there is to it. So it doesn't matter what category they're in. It doesn't matter if they're royalty or academics or whatever they were released, whether they're named or not named. And so judge Kaplan, he's sitting there and he's like, man, gosh, you know, this is really, this is kind of a tough agreement here. You know, we've got Virginia Roberts she's over here and we've got , um , uh , Jeffrey Epstein. He's dead, I guess, killed himself allegedly. And we've got , uh , two people, prince Andrew and Deitz who are not named in this document. God should be really helpful if, if Epstein we're here. So we could ask him about this to see what his view was. He says, we don't have him here. It would be nice just to get his interpretation of this document. I mean, since he's a party to it, since he signed, it sounds like he was offering X dollars. Like let's try to peer into Epstein's mind X dollars for the broadest release. And the other party was willing to get of him. Okay. So he is gonna pay for like the biggest protection he can possibly buy. Hmm . Okay. So that's what he wanted. And the judge says, but she may have attended it more narrowly. Right? Cuz she wants it a little bit more narrow cuz she wants more value for her money. Epstein wants maximum coverage. She wants minimum coverage. If he wants more coverage, then he should get more money. It's like insurance. And so we're having this argument about the scope of this agreement. How broad is it? How narrow is it? And so Andrew's lawyer says, all right , listen, I, I got it. I understand we're talking about scope. I agree with the concept. But, and then Nathan just chimes in. He says, you know, the phrase that we're so concerned about here is other potential defendants. I mean, what is , you know, I wonder what, what Virginia had in mind about that, you know, other potential like she's signing this release, Epstein signed this release, Virginia sign , this release. I wonder who they could be talking about. What does she have in mind? And Butler says, well, judge, it doesn't really matter what she had in mind here. Uh , this is a contract and we're looking at the plain language of the contract. So it that's all that matters. It says other potential defendants, dang it. That's all there is to it. And so what this judge, just, I is sort of asking is, but, but what did she mean by that? Was it like all of the other potential defendants that were in the flight logs? Was it all of the other potential defendants that may have also violated her? Was it other potential defendants who were royalty, who were lawyers like Durst or like, were they princes ? You know, what , what , what was other potential defendants? But the lawyer just says it doesn't matter. It says other potential defendants. It's very simple. It's what, what it means. It means anybody who could potentially be a defendant, other defendant , that's it. And the judge says, okay, well we're not talking about the parole evidence rule now. I mean, are there two interpretations and Butler is saying yes. And so parole evidence is a contract term. It's saying, you know, basically external evidence to come in and show what the meaning of a term in a contract is. And so we don't need to worry about that, but were there two interpretations is what the judge is saying is yes. Yeah. There are two ways to look at this thing. There are two interpret interpretations about this phrase, other potential defendants. And so we're, I guess we're just gonna have to explore that. And so Brett Butler just keeps going, you know, keeps has harassing the judge on this. Eventually judge Kaplan says, Hey, next point, all right , we're done with that topic. There are two interpretations of this. It's not a blanket umbrella. Move on. So Butler says, I'm sorry about that, judge. All right . He says, all right . So look, Virginia needs to lock herself into a story today. All right . We , we gotta get down to this. What date did this take place on? And a place? Okay. All we have is an apartment. She doesn't even explain what the abuse was. He's saying. And so Butler is getting very frustrated. Now he's saying, look, judge, this is America. And in his court of law, prince Andrew, before he is required to answer, he should be told specifically what the allegations are. Meaning we're not getting enough details here. And judge Kaplan is saying, hold on there, Butler boy, that dog is not going to hunt. She has no obligation to do that in the complaint there, buddy boy only in discovery. And we're not at that stage yet. And so we are going to get there, but you asking for some sort of , uh , demand that she tell you exactly what's going on here at this stage in the comp in the case is just not proper because it's not ripe yet. She doesn't need to get into that in complaint is what this judge says. And he said , this dog is not gonna hunt there. And so Kaplan says, the judge says, look, Mr. Butler, look, I understand your point. Okay? I know things are getting testy, but it's just not the law. It's just not how it works. Andler says, judge, she needs to allege on a one 30 allegation under New York law. And she doesn't and Kaplan says, well, I'm obliged to accept that as true at this stage, the allegations, the, all the allegations enough satisfy that rule. Article one 30 allegation. <affirmative> some showing of , you know, some, some allegation of some criminality he's saying she doesn't approve it. The judge is saying, yes, she did. She said that she was forced to sleep with prince Andrew. That kind of covers it. Not gonna go into basic biology here with you counselor. But when your mother and your father got together on the , that one night, certain things had to happen. And Butler says, yeah, but judge, I mean, we don't know what the conduct was. And judge Kaplan says, well , uh, here, I think the conduct was , uh , involuntary intercourse. How's that for conduct? He says, there's no doubt about what that means. At least since someone else will, was in the white house. <laugh> hashtag bill Clinton from inner city press amazing. So Butler continues on the last point and he's just not having a good day today. He says, look, the constitutionality of the New York law judge, this case was filed after the second temporary extension in light of COVID and Butler says was the former governor's extension, constitutional Virginia Roberts waited it's untimely. So it sounds like what they're talking about is sort of the statute of limitations argument saying that Virginia is bringing her claims to late. In other words, she can't bring this lawsuit because she should have it earlier. And there were extensions to the statute of limitations that have gotten extended. And so Butler's making this argument, judge, it's not even constitutional. She waited it's untimely. I don't care if there were COVID extensions, it's the rule. And she's not following the rule. Butler says that extension was done by executive order. It wasn't a legislative bill. It was Cuomo out there after he was done , uh, eliminating senior citizens from New York. And he was the one who passed this judge Kaplans oh, by the way, he's not getting charge. Did you see that? Yeah. Yeah. Creep show Cuomo over there. No charges. It's very convenient if you're , uh , in power, isn't it Butler continued. He said Cuomo did that. But judge Kaplan continued. He said, have you briefed this issue of the governor's power to do this? Like have you looked into that? Is the governor allowed to just extend these statute of limitations? Do you know? And Butler says, well, yeah, judge. I mean , uh , yeah, we could , we , we would brief that for you. I mean, we could tell you that, but uh, Virginia is well represented . She's got her own lawyer and her own counsel. So make them go do it. Don't tell us to investigate this stuff. It's their lawsuits, their per make them do it. And Soler finishes his argument. And he says, all right , judge, listen, this woman, Virginia Roberts has been giving interviews all over the world. And then she files this lawsuit. He says, it's unfair, it's unjust. And it should be dismissed. Did you see that kind of a trilogy there? Nice cadence unfair and just dismissed. See that. All right . So that was prince Andrew's lawyer, Andrew Butler making his arguments in court today, as for why Virginia's case should be thrown right out of the courtroom saying that the settlement agreement that was entered by Virginia and Jeffrey Epstein back when it was executed, applies to him. But it's not over yet because we get a response from the plaintiff. Of course, this is David boys who I believe is how you say his name. I'm not sure he's an American lawyer. You can see a picture of his photograph over here. He is boys Scher in Flexner national prominence for three major cases leading the us federal government's prosecution of Microsoft in us versus Microsoft. I remember that when I was just a boy, his unsuccessful representation of democratic president Al gore in Bush versus gore. And he has a successful representation of Hollingworth versus Perry , which invalidated prop eight in California up boys represented various clients in the United States, including theos and uh , homes just got convicted. I think four of 11 counts, tobacco companies and Harvey Weinstein. And I could be wrong on homes. I think it , I think it was four of 11, but definitely got convicted of a few things. So David boy is now represe, ding , Virginia gore and Guffy . And he , he is in court today. Here's what it sounds like. And so remember we just heard from prince Andrew's defense lawyer coming up with all of these justifications for why this case should be thrown right out. But now it's David's turn. He takes the podium. Judge Kaplan says right , Mr. Boys , please proceed. He says, judge, I'd like to start off this way in their motion to dismiss this case. They attack the legislative revival and they contrast it to what governor Cuomo did. Other courts have already addressed that. Now they're attacking governor Cuomo. Let's break that statement down here for a quick minute. What is he talking about? This legislative revival saying, they're saying that this is a problem. So what it sounds happen is that at some point Virginia had a dead cause of action. Okay . She was not allowed to file a lawsuit . There are, as we've talked about, there are things in the law that will enable you or disable you from bringing a claim. One of those tools is called a statute of limitations. You have to bring a claim within a certain period of time. Otherwise you lose the ability to do that. And why do we do that? Because our legal system wants to incentivize people to process their cases, process their claims. You don't wanna get in a car accident and then wait 15 years and then say, you know, my back hurts. I should probably get compensation for that because how do you remedy that accident? How do you justify or determine what harm was done to that person? Whether it was directly from the accident or whether it was from 15 years of wear and tear on that person's body. How do you gather evidence in a case? If, if , if you bring char or how do you gather evidence to defend a case? If you bring charges 10 years down the road, the government gathered their evidence, but we can't go out there and inspect the scene. Everything else changed. And so we have a strong incentive to bring cases quickly in New York. It sounds like Virginia had a dead claim. At some point until New York revived it, the legislature came back through a cause of action and they revived it. And so the defense is saying, no, you can't do that. Not to prince Andrew, not to Al and Dershowitz obviously. And so they're upset about it and they're saying this needs to be tossed. So then David boy comes out and he says, look, judge, other courts have already addressed that. So we don't need to, to dig into that. It's not relevant. Here is BA basically what he's saying also here, he's saying there is a lack of implied consent. And then he says, let me turn to the release, which is where the crux of his argument is going to be. And so what he has to do is deal with this big sentence here. Other potential defendants. This says that they're immune from any demands whatsoever. You see that right there. They're immune. And so, as we talked about, judge Kaplan is now going to go back to David boys and say, listen, this is a pretty bad sentence for you here. What do you have to say about it? And so boy starts off. He says, listen, I'm not gonna address this head on judge. We concede that quote , potential defendant could have more than one interpretation. We're gonna acknowledge that it's a nice little tactic, right? Because the other lawyer just came out Butler. And he said, judge, there is no way to interpret this differently. And he kind of got scolded for that a few times. <affirmative> this is an ambiguous term. According to David, if you're Redler, you're , it's not ambiguous at all. It's clear what it says. It says other potential defendants. It means all other potential defendants. If you didn't want it to mean that, and you shouldn't have written it that way. So boys comes out and he says, look, judge, I'm much more reasonable than that other guy. I will concede that there are other potential defendants that are relevant here, but here's how we're arguing it. Here's how we're interpreting it. We're saying that it means a person quote , subject to jurisdiction. Okay. There's a modifier at the end of this thing. And uh , and accused of the activity alleged in the action prince Andrew at that time was not subject to jurisdiction. Okay ? So he's putting an end cap on this. He's putting a limitation. Otherwise there's no limiting principle to this, to this document, right? It could be anybody and everything. Even the judge acknowledged that even the Salton of Brunai , he said, what do you nuts? You're gonna go over there and say, that Putin was immune from all of this international affairs is ridiculous. And boys comes out and says, yeah, I mean, look, you could, you could theoretically interpret it that way. Not denying that. But what we're saying here is this document. I mean, the way it was actually like written, if you, if you expand that, if you zoom in and pinch in, on other potential defendants , what it means is really people who are subject to the jurisdiction at this time and location, people who were sort of contemplated in the realm, in the universe of possibilities, that's what it means, judge. And so he points back to that and he says, back at that time, prince Andrew was not subject to that jurisdiction. He wasn't physically there. And he wasn't accused of the activity alleged in that action. He wasn't named. And in this case, this was between Epstein and Virginia. And so judge Kaplan, now he's gonna put the old hat on, right. He's gonna be putting the hat like he's prince Andrew now. And so he says, yeah, okay there, David. But I mean, couldn't there be a problem here because there's overlap between the federal courts and the common claims that could happen. Right? We've got some overlap here. He says, yeah, that's true. But the only claim that the defendant asserts from the 2009 complaint that would cover prince Andrew is transporting someone for illegal activities. He says, but there's no allegation that Andrew was the trafficker . Okay . He's a person to whom the girls were trafficked. So there really is no overlap because back in that other case, the overlapping issue, the overlapping crime was the transporting here. There's no allegation of that. It was a person to whom they were trafficked. Counsel did not address. This says boys, if a third party beneficiary to a contract claims, they were recovered. The parties to the contract can respond. And so now we're gonna be talking about this. Now we've got a very complicated issue because we have a settlement agreement . That's sort of wrapped up with confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements and enforcement provisions, and other potential defendants. And it's engineered to cover basically everything that Jeffrey Epstein could theoretical wants and give Virginia Roberts, essentially, you know , very little protection and, and have her sign all away. You know, this from EP Epstein's perspective, he wants her to give everything away for the $500,000. And so now we have a question, you know, what, if there's a violation, what if there's an enforcement problem? What if somebody discloses something, what Virginia starts running around and you know, making Netflix series and showing up all over the media, talking about this stuff, who can enforce this? What if you're an other potential defendant and you're being investigated by the government or you're being sued by somebody, let's say you're being sued by Virginia and there's this settlement agree , but it's a secret agreement. That's, nondisclosed, it's perfectly anonymous, but you are somebody who wants to be included in that other potential defendant category. But you don't know about this agreement. So how do you enforce it? And so what the heck is going on , right ? It , it , it's , it's difficult. And so the judge is trying to figure all this out and he's, he's saying, well, have to talk about this a little bit more. Judge is gonna refer them back over to paragraph two , talking about the release before he does. We hear from David. He says, look, judge. Also, there is no reasonable reliance here on this document. Okay. If prince Andrew was saying that he was relying on this document because he , uh , uh, was I guess, being a prince without fear of reprisal for a long period of time. And he was relying on that. And now she's breaching that and his trust is gonna be violated and all that stuff, right? Not really like did , did he do anything to show that he absolutely needs this case to go this way? Was he relying on this settlement agreement in any way? No. He says the defendant did not even know about the contract until recently and their affirmative defenses are not appropriate at this stage. So Kaplan then says, all right , let's dig into this a little bit. I wanna talk to you about second paragraph in the unsealed document. It says he , your first parties in second parties, let's take a look at it specifically. You can see this is the big section from the release. It says that this release is going to discharge forever, second parties. And everybody else is involved from all claims whatsoever. And it includes Jeffrey Epstein or other potential defendants. So the judge directs him to that sentence and he says, yeah, I see what the court is seeing here. He says, but the parties explicitly agreed that the only person who could assert this release would be Epstein. We're gonna come back to that is Epstein. The only person who could enforce this, we'll see, judge Kaplan also says, well, what about this paragraph here? It says , uh , neither the settlement agreement nor any copy. It says here, neither this settlement agreement, nor any copy nor the terms hereof shall be used or disclosed in any court or any legal proceedings except to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And he's saying, well, Hmm , sounds like we're using this in this document here , uh , in , in this court proceeding, how , how is that working out? And judge says, and, and this deal was supposed to be secret too. And so paragraph two left enforcement into the hands of the contracting parties, but it, they couldn't tell anybody about it. And so again, he says, take the Salton of Brunai , let's go back to that example. We've got all these obligations and requirements, but nobody can know anything about it. And if the Salton of Brunai is being investigated here, and he doesn't know about this agreement, and he's an other potential defendant, he's kind of at a disadvantage, isn't he? And so if we have this term in this contract, in this settlement agreement, it has to have effect, right? It's gotta mean something. So if other potential defendants, nobody knows that they're a potential defendant, then that doesn't give that clause meaning, right? Because they really have no practical things that they can do with this. It's like this magical, mystical benefit that they have in a contract somewhere that they never know anything about. So is it really your right? And if you're gonna be reading a contract in a way that's gonna give that term meaning, is there a different way to interpret it that is going to give that term meaning? Or is there a different part of this settlement agreement? That's gonna give that effect here, here . Here's gonna go on here. He says, look, the point is, it's pretty hard to square all this together. When no third parties can enforce it and no one is gonna be told about it. And so they actually pull up the document, they look at it, judge , um , Kaplan is hanging out there. Butler says, Melissa, can you pull this up on your computer over there? And miss learner says, yeah , yeah, it's up. I got the document here. And it sets venue in Palm beach, which is the location. So they're saying that any disputes that arise under this settlement agreement have to be dealt with in Palm beach, Florida. And so now you're saying, okay, look, so let's go, go back to the Salton of Brun nine now. So let's we , we say, okay, it could be a football coach. It could be Putin. It could be the Salton of Brun nine , whatever is he gonna come to Palm beach for this settlement agreement protection that he didn't know about, that nobody told him about that gives him blanket immunity. So, so he's worth like $25 billion over there. He's gonna come to Palm beach. All right . Well, that's a pretty powerful thing because if we can bring the, the Salton of Brunai over here, maybe we can bring the prince of England over the duke of York. Hmm . Curious. Yeah. So you can see, can see where that's going, but he says, do, does Epstein, does, does Virginia Roberts, do they have any authority to make them come here? Like to make them accept this jurisdiction? Uh, no. Right. Very unlikely. And so Kaplan says the language your colleague read to me has Epstein and goof in their benevolence, limiting third parties to Palm beach, which they had no authority to do. So the terms of this agreement give Epstein, give goof Ray powers that they really can't legally enforce if we're interpreting this document that way. So then the judge points to something that's very, very interest sting and very problematic for the prince. Here's what he says. Okay. So we're talking about enforcement then how do we enforce this? If it's signed by Epstein, if it's signed by Virginia Roberts, if they're the only two who know about it, and this thing has to be enforced in Palm beach, let's take a look at the enforcement section. It says that this settlement agreement represents a final resolution. It's intended to avoid litigation shall not be constru construed as an admission default by anybody. Additionally, as a material consideration in settling parties, first parties. And second parties agree that the terms of this agreement are not intended to be used by any other person like prince Andrew, or maybe like Alan Dershowitz nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal. So you see that , uh , two, two sort of parts of that sentence, can't be used by any person by anybody else other than Epstein can't be used in any case, other than something involving Epstein. Now the Virginia Roberts case obviously does not involve Epstein. It involves the prince allegations surrounding EP umbrella, but not the prince . And so the prince starts to get a little bit nervous under the collar there because this sentence is sort of excluding, it's adding a limitation, it's adding a cap On the extent of the protection from the settlement agreement. And so we see that judge Kaplan says, all right , everybody, thank you, appreciate you coming out here today. You'll have a decision from me pretty soon. And so that is something that we will keep our eye out on. And we'll bring you the news. When we hear what judge Kaplan rules, the question of course being whether prince Andrew's case is going to be dismissed as was a motion to dismiss. And if the judge grants, it it's the end of the case. I don't think the judge is gonna do that based on what we heard today. I think the judge is leaning towards, I don't buy the argument, the settlement agreement, that it would be overly broad to encompass virtually everybody would almost be just against public policy. The interpretation of a blanket agreement. That way would be sort of , uh , society's best interest in many ways. However you wanna slice it, whatever legal framework you wanna wrap around that. But that's happened before in this case, we got a plea deal that looked exactly like that in 2007. So wouldn't surprise me, but regardless of what happens, we'll cover it. I hope that you join us along. We have another update. Let's see what is coming next. Judge, Allison Nathan in the Glenn Maxwell case issued a new order on January 3rd, 2022 . And it's only a page. You can see this was filed electronically, signed off on by the judge out of New York, New York. And there's a lot that is going on here. So let's break this down first and foremost, everybody here in this case is ordered to submit a joint letter by January 10th. And so we've got another date to keep our eyes on. This is gonna be a letter from the government, the prosecutor's PANCE , Maureen Comey , James Comey's daughter, et cetera . And a letter from Maxwell's defense attorneys proposing a briefing for the defendant's rule 29 motion. So we've got a deadline and we've got a big fat motion. That's coming soon here. It's gonna be a rule 29 motion. And we're gonna learn about what that is. It's a big one. It's a motion for a judgment of acquittal and a motion for a judgment of acquittal. If granted of course is gonna reverse the final outcome in Glenn's case. Now it's unlikely that happens. This is something that is being filed largely to preserve the record and to make the case for an appeal, but it still is possible right there . They could file a rule 29 motion. The judge could grant it theoretically, but it's gonna be a big motion. And so this is a, a , a giant motion where the defense is gonna raise all sorts of problems that they observed during the trial. All those objections, all the questions that the judge answered one way or the other, they're gonna make complaints about that. And they're gonna submit this motion. So they're gonna need a briefing schedule because the government's gonna have to have time to respond and reply and around and around we go . We also now, so let's sort of keep tabs. We've got the rule 29 stuff. We've got a joint letter. That's also going to talk about the severed perjury count. So Maxwell has a second trial coming up and that's going to be , uh , whenever the a court schedules it . So that's one, two , and then thirdly, my friends Maxwell gonna be getting the booster shot. The defendant also inquired about a booster court has been advised that the MDC is making booster shots available within a week of receiving a , a request from the inmate. So counsel is advised to follow their instructions for requesting that booster. And if it is a request is made and a booster is not provided well, just let me know. And we'll just go in there and give that to Golin herself. And you know what folks, I forgot to even , uh , to check this, but we have the poll form, which is active and we forgot to take a poll on the last segment we were talking about this specifically, Andrew Butler for prince Andrew, Dave boys , for Virginia Guffy on the motion to dismiss. It's looking like two thirds say that David boys for Virginia Guffy had the better argument on the motion to dismiss 80% saying GRYS gonna win. And then on the Glen photo, we're gonna get to that shortly. All right . So forget don't don't let me forget about the poll form. All right . So we saw these three different things that we're talking about here. Number one, we've got the rule 29 motion. Number two, we've got the perjury counts. And then number three, we've got the booster, which is coming up. And so let's take a look at the one rule 29 . So this is what Golin Maxwell can still do to win the case, to get a judgment of acquittal. Here's what rule 29 says before submission to the jury. Now this is a kiss case has already been submitted to the jury. And let's see here. It says, subsection C after a jury verdict, a defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal or renew such a motion within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges, the jury, whichever is later. And so the clock is ticking now, and they are going to, they're gonna be drafting this. And the judge wants a briefing and a scheduling order issued on this wants a memo from both sides. So we can see here there , the ruling under part two, if the jury has returned a guilty verdict, which they did in's case the court may set aside the verdict and may enter UNE acquittal. So judge Allison , Nathan can still take this away from the jurors. If the jury has failed to return that doesn't apply. Note prior motion is required. A defendant is not required to move for judgment of acquital before the court submits the case to the jury. Now, in Maxwell's case, they did remember when the prosecution arrested their case and Christian Adel got up. There was like, judge, we moved for acquittal. And I don't think it was a very strong motion from if I remember correctly, from what we read, sort of just a couple tweets. He's like, well, you know, the , um , government has failed to , to meet their burden. And the burden in America is beyond a reasonable doubt. And so judge, I , uh , asked that you a quick Glenn judge is like, <laugh> , uh , no , uh , no, thanks. So denied next witness , uh , defense, it's your case Europe . And so we can see that they made that just as a matter of record, but they are really gonna be submitting the main motion here. And then this is how it works now out . So they could , uh , let's see conditional ruling on a motion for a new trial. None of that really applies. The next thing that we wanna take a quick look at is Maxwell's perjury charges. So remember that she was charged with eight different criminal counts. We only heard evidence on six of them and she was convicted of five of them, but there were two, two other counts in the indictment, count seven and counts eight. And they come actually from two cases involving I believe it's Virginia Guffy . Let's take a look at this one here. It says here, the allegations in paragraph one through nine reincorporated, we've got April 22nd, 2016 , Southern district of New York. Golin Matt X . Well , the defendant was taking a deposition. She was sworn in, she was under oath and she knowingly made false material declarations. She was asked a question, did Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls from massages? If you know, and she said, I don't know what you are talking about. <affirmative> and they're saying , uh, you did. Yeah, you did know . She says, I don't know what you're talking about. So you see how that's a bad answer there because they can make a claim that you do know what they're talking about. So for her to answer that way was bad advice. We also see here, count eight allegations contained one through eights. Were you aware of the presence of , uh , toys in Mr. Uh , Epstein's house? Uh, not that I can recall. Do you know whether Epstein possessed toys or devices used in activities? Uh, no. <affirmative> and we saw that in many of the , uh , trial exhibits. That is not exactly right. Is it because we saw those twin torpedoes with the remotes , uh , multiple boxes with multiple remotes all over the place. And Juan lessi said that he had to clean him up and they didn't even call him Juan. They called him John. This case is just a travesty. All right . And so let's carry on. Now, our final Maxwell update, the booster's getting boosted up. The defense is also inquired about this. They're saying what's happening here. Court has advised the MDC. It's making booster shots available within a week of receiving its request. And so Twitter, my friends, they know what's really going on here. I'm sure you do too. Right after the news broke, we have th the deplorable on Twitter. He said, uhoh Glen , Maxwell's getting a booster shot. I think we know where this is headed. My first thought too, there, Thor that we had Bo nerdly who used to co-host with Donald? Not no with , uh , rush Liba <laugh> says the judge approves a Galin Maxwell, getting a booster shot. What could possibly go wrong? That's from Bo nerdly over here. We have Susan St . James who says judge approves Maxwell to get a quote booster shot. That's what Hillary's calling it now. <laugh> oh, the Hillary Clinton's gonna go in there and , uh , administer all a little booster shot. Oh, no, it's good for you. It's approve . Have to approve . Let me just get in there. And then we also have, of course, the most obvious from Thomas McGregor Maxwell didn't booster herself. Yep . It's true. <laugh> hopefully Maxwell doesn't booster herself. Yeah. That's not medically approved. Obviously. You want somebody to administer that in case it's a dangerous situation. So hopefully that doesn't happen. Now, there was another interesting story that came out showing more and more about the coverup that, that happened here. Glen Maxwell attended a vanity fair party party after they killed an Epstein expose. So Glenn Maxwell Yed up with celebrities after vanity fair, killed an expose, detailing her role, Jeffrey Epstein. And it's funny because the party was , uh , I think over there, yeah, 60 year old mad was photographed in a glam sparkly evening dress west Hollywood, grinning smiling, a series of photos, hugging one guest in a suit posing beside the world's richest man, Elon who later insisted that she photo bombed him. And so that was the question. The question on the poll form . This is the photo. Elon says it was a photo bomb. She says it wasn't. She says , uh , this was a , uh, you know, a very planned and orchestrated photograph cuz they're buddies she's Gill Maxwell. Now say, look what this poll form has to say about this. Oh yeah. It's that's kind of, even here responses looks like 58% say it was a photo bomb, but 41% say it was a , they were posing really interesting. You know, I think I'm inclined to believe Elon over there. I'm not sure. I imagine that a lot of people wanna take pictures with him. All right . And so this story continues as we can see the party was thrown at the vanity fair editor in chief residents per since name is Grayden Carter been at the helm since 2002. And the magazine back then refused to run an interview with Annie farmer magazine's then star journalist Vicki ward last week revealed a transcript of Maxwell angrily, demanding that they nixed the interview from a piece on Epstein ward noted how Epstein was quote also paid to visit a cartel at the vanity , uh , car at the vanity fair offices. Months later, the magazine instead wrote a society profile titled the talented Mr . Epstein, can you believe this? They were going to release an expose a but they posted this. The talented Mr. Epstein. It says lately Jeffrey Epstein's highflying style has been drawing S and Oz . The bachelor financer lives in new York's largest private residents claims to take only billionaires as clients and fly celebrities like bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 7 27, but Pierce his, he of mystery in the PI , uh , picture changes. Vicky ward explores Epstein's investment career and , and ties to Realty, magnate, Leslie Wexner, and his complicated pass . So did you catch the timeline on that? They're gonna write an expose. Glen Maxwell kills it. She goes to the party. They write the talented Mr. Epstein. After that, it's just like, it's like amazing. Uh , no spines whatsoever. Everybody's just, I guess, bought and paid for. We can see here that is also having some marital problems has been for a long time. We learn now that her young husband has quote moved on uhoh with a pretty yoga instructor. Scott B age 46 was secretly married to Maxwell. Who's 60 14 years, his senior, senior, they got married in 2016 after he broke up with somebody else. He had initially vowed to stand by Maxwell and even to put up offered to put up millions of dollars of their joint assets as part of a 28 and a half million dollar bail plea. But today this author exclusively Daphne Barrack can report the marriages over close. Friend of Maxwell told me quote , there was a dramatic phone call between them. She was in jail. She was in solitary confinement. It even became confrontational. Oh my gosh, what happened? Scott told her he had moved on and that he was seeing someone else here. She is folks, the yoga instructor that Scott Berson , the daily mail of course taken the photographs. They looked like a very nice, happy couple. I wish them well, hope things go well for them now that , uh , they don't have to worry about Maxwell until she gets acquitted on appeal <laugh> or she escapes with a helicopter , uh , through the roof of a jail. We'll see, we'll figure it out. Or if that booster shot goes problematically, we'll take a look at that. Also. Let's see what you have to say about it over from our [email protected] and where is my come on. All right . Let's go. Here is the form from Sergeant Bob, totally off topic. Uh, would your mom share your mom? Share her meatloaf recipe with us? I cook a lot of miss lucky suppers. If the fair is not first class, I am punished. I'll have to talk to my mom about that. She's very , you know, Sergeant Bob for you, I'm sure she'll do it, but you know, it's kind of a , it's kind of a , a cherish family thing. We got Mike Falcon says people who deny the seriousness of them , this pandemic fall under what I call the Steve jobs syndrome, smart, intelligent individuals who otherwise rational when faced with mortal health issues will not accept the advice of experts. They're totally in reality distortion field, where they are smarter than what science says. Steve jobs would be alive today. If he did not suffer from his ego driven disorder. Yeah. He kind of did have that, that sort of , uh , from what I have read and know about the guy sort of that, that God complex, right? That he sort of knew more about , uh , his own health than the medical professionals did. Monster one says, remember, Maxwell didn't die of COVID . It's true. She hopefully not monster one says as an Italian, what's your feelings on pineapple on pizza? I personally love it. Let the debate begin. Uh , the , the thought offends me , uh, deeply. Yeah. So <laugh> , I don't like the idea of it. And , um , it's a problem here at our office too. We have to deal with that regularly. Thanks for bringing it up. Monster one, thunder seven says, Rob, I have no sympathy for any of them, including the, a reptilian Royal family, but what exactly is the charge? Virginia has accused Andrew with. It's a good question there. Thunder seven, let's go over to the mind map. Shall we? Fortunately, I have it conveniently listed here and you can see here is a copy of the actual , uh , complaint. So let's pull this up. Gry versus Andrew. You can see here's the complaint. This was filed on eight , nine, 2021 there, and the nature of the claim. So , uh , abuse when she was under the age of 18, you can see there's two counts. I think up here at the top. Uh, Nope . They didn't list them. So I think one was battery , uh, factual allegations. Epstein's trafficking. We can also see , uh , the number of flights, the relationship, the abuse, we see the photograph and , uh, then we're gonna see the counts here shortly enough, first cause of action battery. All right . So that's specifically what they're saying. Prince Andrew intentionally committed battery by assaulting the plaintiff when she was a minor at, as described above actions, constitute offenses under New York penal law and that's first cause of action. Number two, intentional infliction of emotional distress, right? She was , uh , he was 40, she was 17. That's gonna cause extreme and uh , serious consequences for her it's extreme and outrageous conduct. And he knew it was gonna cause her emotional distress. So those are the two main claims that's for thunder seven, just a quick refresh. Good question. So let's see, he says , uh , she wasn't a minor. She didn't tell him that she was a victim of trafficking and he was under the impression that he was engaging with a , uh , person who pays, who, who complies with those requests. We a photo for smiling while Andrew holds her waist , which kind of proves that he was thinking he was having fun with a paid person and not any kind of victim. I don't think the agreement applies to him, but there also isn't any crime in my opinion. Yeah. And he's not really, he's not being charged with a crime, right. He's being charged with battery from her and it's a much lower standard. And so I actually agree with you. I think that there's, there is pretty bad evidence for a lot of these for a lot of these cases. I mean, in a court of law, these cases are old. They're, they're very old. And you know, whether you agree with them or not, right. A der witch's point is a good one. Why did the government not call all of these other witnesses? There's a whole mind map of other people who could have come in and supported their claims as to , as to this nefarious. They're not prosecuting anybody else. They hardly prosecuted go in . So I agree with you thunder seven . I mean there there's , there's plenty of evidence, but none of it is being presented by the prosecution. <affirmative> I don't think they care. Oh, we got Vladimir putties here says, Rob do not associate me with Epstein. I have my own Russian girls to abuse. If I want KGB agents visit you shortly name change will not save. You do not try hide. Oh , shoot. I've really stepped in it. Well, come and do your worst air Putin. I don't care. Do you know what the GDP of Russia is? It's pathetic. Shout out to my Russian listeners. If we have anybody from Russia who listens to this show, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody , uh , ever, but I still love you. If you do, give me a shout out , drop a line. Kareem says, are you planning on having the special locals meeting this month? We are planning on it and we're gonna boost the security. It's gonna be like Fort Knox in there, which means you're gonna have to be registered and you're gonna have to submit your social security number and all of those. I'm just kidding about all of that, but we are gonna lock it down. Um , and, and we are gonna , it . It's gonna be a registered thing. And uh, I got a beef up security because things got outta control last time. But yeah, we're gonna schedule that. I don't have the date off the top of my head, but I'll get it updated. Uh , this week, Sergeant Bob says, Brett, Laura is poking the lion with a sharp stick, bad form. Yeah. He's getting a little bit getting a little bit needy over there. Isn't he? Sergeant Bob , you noticed it. So did I, and let's see what else. Sergeant Bob says brilliant point by Virginia's council to narrow the scope of the agreement makes total sense. Yeah, he does. Right. And it , it does because it's sort of one of those agreements that if you interpret it the way that Epstein's, I'm sorry that Andrew's lawyers want it to be interpreted, that it really is gigantic. I mean the , the judge, it , it is sort of something that feels outrageous. It's an absurd result if you, if you interpret it that way. So you're really saying here that this is intended to include the Salton of Brunai really. Wow. That's, that's, that's a pretty powerful agreement. Uh didn't know that you could also demand that he come to Palm beach to be served with a lawsuit and , and appear in court to address the charges. Huh? Wow. That's pretty powerful. And so the judge is probably gonna say now , if we interpret it that way, it's not gonna go in , um , it's, it's sort of bad public policy and it would lead to an absurd result and therefore the case can move forward is what I would guess. Sergeant Bob and Ms . Luck . He says, we can see you up there with the top barristers in a few years, but don't forget us little people. How could I ever forget you? Sergeant Bob and MIS lucky that's impossible would never happen. I'm not going anywhere. Kinkaid says good evening, Rob and all. And thank you gentlemen , for the books. I verified the following from a passing comment at VI and Barnes related to governmental and commercial conduct for at least 20 years, the developers and others knew that some thing is causing damage. We've got a pilot review comp uh , pharmaceutical companies are facing a class action lawsuit. Let's see what this one's about. Antier drug, federal class action lawsuit. He's sharing with us. Ooh , there's a paywall here. So there's a lawsuit, us military lawsuit. Cool. Well thank you for sharing that. That was from Kinkaid huge globe trotting class action. So look that up . If you are interested in that one, we've got, Shindo says what happens when a non prosecution agreement is ill founded federal jurisdiction only, right . Can states prosecute outside of that? So, yeah, and I , I actually think that the , the agreement even says that as , as such, Shindo, let's pull that up real fast while we're here. We've got some time, I've got a few more extra minutes. Uh , we have the non prosecution agreement itself, which I thought I had pinned here. Why is that not pinned? Did I get rid of that? All right . So I don't actually have it right in front of me. I thought I did. I must have deleted it from the mind map somehow, but I will go back and add it. But if I recall there was a section in there that specifically says that it says, look, you know, in , in this current situation with Palm beach, we're gonna wrap this up. But if there's something else that happens late , you know , later, we actually don't have the jurisdiction to go in there and influence them. But I mean, yeah, look, look, if you're a federal local prosecutor and the federal us department of justice comes into your office and says, we're taking this case over and we have this global deal worked out and we need you to be on board with it, drop those charges. He's gonna set up the Epstein victim's compensation fund. He's gonna pay a ton of people, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars and get on board with this deal. And they go fine. All right , fine. Whatever. And they did. Do you think those police officers who came into court were happy about this back in 2004 , or back in the 1990s, do you think any of these FBI agents were happy that they just went in there and did this raid and found what they raid? And then the us government sat on this thing essentially for 20 years, I'm guessing not, but the feds can go right in there and just kind of, you know, suction it right out from underneath. That's why you see it in the movies, right? Oh , those , those , those cops are out there. You know, Mel Gibson lethal weapon, you know, they're out there. And then the feds come out and they're like, oh, the feds are here. The feds are like, this is our case. What was the movie die hard . That's the one I'm thinking of. Remember when the feds rolled up to die hard . I'm thinking of Bruce Willis. <laugh>, he's out there. And the guy from , um, the Steve Kel guy, the cop. Yeah. And the feds roll in there, like we're in charge. He's like the hell you are. This is my case. That's my man in there. And they save the day and Naka to Plaza, you know, needs a remodel afterwards. But yeah, the feds come in and they scoop it all up. All right . We have another one from Kinkaid says, Rob, nice to you have the name you want to fully embrace. I've had three first names, two middle names and three last names. Hmm . How much for a name change? Well in Arizona, it's a $333 or something to that, to that effect. I know <laugh> but uh, we don't help people with name changes. Monster. One says, what experts are we supposed to listen to? Exactly. The ones like Fauci who have been wrong about everything thus far, or the people who are right, but got banned. If you can't answer a question, it's not science. It's propaganda. Yeah. And that's a good point there from monster one. Who are you supposed to listen to? And most of the things that you see on the internet, especially in mainstream media is just basically copied and pasted over and over and over. It's like a Xerox of a Xerox of a X , almost no original thought. It's very difficult, but it, it , it is something that I think is worth thinking about it from a sort of a , a risk management perspective or a probability perspective, or sort of a global perspective or a trend perspective. The , the guy I'm thinking of as I'm, as I'm talking about, this is Naim , EB , Nicholas Naim , EB . He wrote a , a gigantic series called in Chatto and he he's written books like anti fragile and the black Swan and fooled by randomness and his frameworks are not gonna give you the details on the specific knowledge, but they're gonna talk to you about bell curves and GA and distributions, and the way that the world works in terms of probability and, and, and contemplating outcomes that I think are , are much more applicable or much better heuristics or filters on the world than anything that you're gonna hear from CNN alternative perspective. There probably doesn't make any sense, but hopefully it does to somebody. Sergeant Bob says, oh, my monster one derails, the topic pineapple on pizza is sacri . Ms . Lucky likes that sort of pie. Yuck . And we always must do half and half pie. My first X mother-in-law made pepper pie, which is much more authentic Italian as she was that's from Sergeant Bob. And here it goes, we've got tweak says , here we go. We have another one. Let's see what this one says. This is from tweak , posted this over on locals. Oh, oh , look at this. Look who this is, this is hello. I'm here to give you your booster shot. Perfect. Well, thank you tweak . And, and she looks like she's just really excited about that. So that was , uh , over from tweak T Blakemore says no pineapple on pizza. Oh no. Now we can't be friends. And that's T Blakemore T Blakemore posted an amazing post. Well , well , uh , I understand that see Blakemore, but I'm not gonna let you get away that easily. I wanna thank you for that post that you, you posted over on locals talking about the name change and the other Italian individual who also did the name change thing. And it was very cool, very inspirational. I sent it to my mother. So I appreciate that. But the pineapple on pizza thing, and that's just, that's Kuku talk . We have Viti , KA says the whole thing with the reach of the contract makes me think of the Asange situation. Yeah . Asange and I think bill Cosby, right? Bill Cosby also gave a deposition that incriminated him much to the same way that gal Maxwell did hers is for perjury charges, but is, you know, I would say analogous to that case, at least. So Asange yeah. There's many, there's many areas where this is relevant. We've got PWS, M K a Z says Rob, a little off topic, but what are your thoughts on Roelle Aguilera Mero having a sentence commuted by the Colorado governor by 100 years? I thought it was great news. Honestly, I made, I made mention of his case in the a Baldwin must be prosecuted video. If you haven't seen that that's on the channel now. And that was the case of the young man. I think he was 26 and he was driving a car , uh , I'm sorry, a, a semi truck , a big rig and something failed with the brakes and you know how they have those runaway truck ramps so that when that happens, these trucks, these truck drivers, Don go crashing and coring into, you know, people in front of them. They go onto these runaway truck ramps and they safely slow the vehicle down and land on the other side into a barrier. Well, he didn't take that off ramp. And so his vehicle, his gigantic truck, when the , you know, ended up killing, I think, seven, eight people. And he got a penalty for basically a negligent homicide charge, manslaughter charges. He didn't intend to kill anybody. Didn't wake up wanting to kill anybody. It was an accident, something malfunctioned, something went wrong and he screwed up and they gave him 110 years, something like that . And the judge commuted that all the way down to 100 or to , to 10 or dramatically down, cuz it was an accident. Right? And, and society recognizes that there was a statutory maximum of the , there was a , you know , sentencing, mandatory sentencing that was applicable to his case. But the judge commuted that down. I think it was the right call. Absolutely right . Call. The Antica says it's really simple. Actually. We're supposed to listen to all the people who are experts at being wrong. That's what listen to the experts really means. I'm convinced that mostly it's entertainment really. It's almost like, you know, pressing that button and getting that pellet . It's like, oh , you know , I need to be energized today. I need to be angry. I need to get those rage pellets. I need to get my blood pressure riled up. I'm gonna turn on the news, see what they have to say about it. So you're almost not listening to it for facts or for education or for interpretation. You're just getting that jolt. Oh yeah. Wonder what he's gonna say tonight. I wonder what she's gonna say tonight so you can get riled up and joining on the cause, right or wrong is just a side thing. Monster one says is die hard . A Christmas movie. I say yes, clearly it is. Obviously it's not even up for debate. The anti kiss also says no pineapples on pizza and no pickles on anything. You're only 50% right on that. There V kiss halfway there. Kinkaid says my grandma sauce is to, is the bar to meet for me. LOL. Also it made sense. But seeing the world is chaotic, mathematical grays can be like staring into the void. Batman can do it. <laugh> oh , well thank you for that there. And that was from ADE and I think we have another, an , uh , let me see if I can figure this new tool out. All right . So I saw a super chat come in now I'm trying to pull it up on the screen now, where did that go? Okay. Don't send any super chats today, cuz I don't know how this works. See here , what I was trying to do. So like digital warrior said, it sounds disgusting, but that's what I thought until I tried ham in pineapple pizza. Now I know somebody else submitted a super chat and, and I apologize that I don't see it. We're gonna just spend one quick second on this until I can figure this out. <laugh> uh, what did it get commuted down to? Zulu? Ze is here. We've got , uh, anonymous justice says bill. Cosby's another example of a Hollywood movie brainwash versus a horrible reality. Probably panicked , uh, macaroni and cheese on pizza. Never tried that one, but it doesn't sound bad. Governor commuted that case to 10 years, that one came over from G Willdore , uh, stad on the case says by the way, he went to the complete side of the highway. I was scared. I believe it scared the heck out of him. He was in panic mode. How long had he been driving? The co at that pickles are terrible. So , uh , Sonya Downey says welcome Zulu. Zes calling me a boomer, which is totally true. Uh, just Kyle boomer, but we love you Rob. <laugh> right. Well, somebody submitted a super chat and I don't know where it went. And I apologize for that. So , uh , send me a message. I'll read it tomorrow, but my friends that is it for us for the day. Let's see here. We had a couple more questions. Come in. Monster. One says it's the five minutes of hate or well was right. And we have another one from Sergeant Bob and miss lucky says we no. Or even watch the media, no TV. Our news sources are the Prescot daily courier and your show. Well that means a lot. Sergeant fab . I appreciate it. Kincaid says, Rob click here. No here wait there. And then a few more VICA says Joe Biden loves grilled cheese pizza from his favorite spot in Delaware. Grilled cheese pizza. All right . And so that my friends is it for us for the day. Wanna welcome a couple new people who join the show. We've got Linda who is now in the community, along with Piper. Welcome to you both. We've got Todd Hupp. We've got suspicious. Chick Ozzie lawyer. We've got green Tuka . We've got S baker . Gotcha . Good Jim . 2008. Falcon . NY . Yeah . Well Resy not R w C Chuck David mark on w we've got Shindo nosy, Texas Rosie . TA's mom as well as cookie monster too . And that my friends is it for me for the day. I wanna thank you for being a part of the show tomorrow on deck. What do we have coming up? Laura Russo got a video that I'm gonna record here tonight about Laura Russo . Laura Russo is the woman who was , um, a science teacher who jabbed a 17 year old student without permission of his mother. She got arrested out of New York, got a video on her and then tomorrow morning, we're gonna take a quick look at the anti Federalist paper. Number one by somebody with a pen name, Dewitt who is going to be telling us all back in the 17 hundreds to slow down. Maybe we don't need a gigantic federal government, cuz it can turn into a big mess. So we've got a couple things to talk about, make sure you stick around and subscribe so that you can join us for those videos and on the show tomorrow when we're back. And we do it all again, but that my friends is it for me for the day. I wanna thank everybody for being a part of the program. Everybody sleep very well, rest up and I will see you back here tomorrow. Bye-bye my friends.