Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gouveia. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Do you remember that? That was our old, our old opening. We’re not gonna go back to that, but today we’re talking about Maxwell. Her brother, Ian Maxwell was out on the BBC right before the holiday giving an interview discussing appeals for go Maxwell. And so we actually have a clip of that. It’s about five minute interview at a little bit of a segment that he did a we’re gonna break that down because there are some, uh, I think some, some things we can tease out of that that’ll be worthwhile and worth the investigation.
And then of course the big news of the day is the Virginia Guffy prince, Andrew Allen Deitz settlement agreement. And so we’re gonna take a look at that as well. I’ve got the full document. It’s looking like, you know, there’s some interesting stuff in there. We speculated a little bit about this last week, talking a lot more about, uh, whether there was gonna be anything median here. Did we kind of get everything we were gonna get out of this whole saga out of the trial? Are we gonna be able to peer inside a box every now and then, and sort of investigate follow the clues like Sherlock Holmes from one box to another, or then piece to other anything? Well, maybe, maybe not. We’ll see. We do know that the settlement agreement was a $500,000 payment to Virginia Guffy. And we also know that both Alan Deitz and prince Andrew are using the settlement agreement to justify a dismissal of Virginia Gora case against them.
We’re going to have to piece that together. I’ve got a full copy of the settlement agreement and more, and if you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com have a form over there that looks like this. And this weekend, we did a little bit of a live stream over there. I gave everybody an update on the name change. Obviously, if you’re here, you’re saying and who the heck is this guy? I, I knew you as Robert grr. You’re saying you’re Robert Gove. Now what’s going on? Well, I’ll tell ya. I mean, it’s pretty simple. Really. There was a labeling error back in 1985 when I was coming out of that thing. You know, things can be chaotic in an ordeal like that. Uh, not that I was really, you know, too involved in it, but there was labeling error.
They slapped on, you know, my father’s last name, my biological father’s last name when really I am my mother’s son. So my mother’s maiden name, my mother’s last name is Govea G O U V E I a. And it is a beautiful Italian name. It really is who I am. And so it’s taken me a long time, about 36 years to finally make that change. And so in the process of doing that now decided to start the new year off with the new name. And so that’s all, that’s all it is. And um, if the FBI asks about this or if me Garland asks, uh, it’s just Gove. Now don’t mention the grr thing. Just forget about that. We’ll leave all of that, uh, out. All right. So without any further ado, we’ll get into the rest of the show. <laugh> and, and, uh, we’ll talk about gal Maxwell.
Thanks for the support over there. Yeah. Some people are like, well, what’s going on. This is a little bit suspicious. It’s very interesting. Are you trying to create a new identity? No, but uh, thank you everybody. Yeah. All right. So thanks for the good feedback. I know it’s kind of a big thing for me, so thanks for letting me share that. Yeah. All right. And so I, without any further ado, we’ll get into the nuts and bolts of the case. Ghislaine Maxwell’s their Ian Maxwell was out hitting the media. Of course, his sister Maxwell is facing potentially the rest of her life in prison, depending on how long she lives, depending what the judge sentences her to. But this is now, uh, time for the family to respond. And we’ve been hearing from them. Ian Maxwell is now responding and they are detailing some of what the family’s playing are.
What is it next happening? What’s the next step for goly Maxwell? Is she going to be appealing? This is she going to be accepting her fate? Is the family gonna be fighting this vigorously until the end? Are they gonna be sort of making peace with the outcome? And the other big question that we’ve had about a lot of this was whether or not goly Maxwell was go to flip. In fact, we have a poll about this. I think there’s a poll, uh, up over on our poll form, which is pinned up to the description over on YouTube will Maxwell flip. If you see that in there, you’re going to see that it is, uh, about 62%, 68% of the people say, uh, no, the answer is no, that that is not going to be E happening. She’s not going to flip. And they’re in agreement with her brother.
Ian is making the same statement. He came out over at the New York post, posted this over the weekend, over the long holiday weekend. And by the way, have I said happy new year yet already. We, we, I said, happy new year over on, uh, on the locals, but happy new year, my friends, my goodness. It’s 2020 D two big changes. And we’re off to a, a rock and start. And we’re so excited about the news. We didn’t even stop to say happen new year. So we have Ian Maxwell. He’s telling us that Ghislaine Maxwell is not going to rat out anybody for a lighter sentence. And this is sort of what we were speculating about. Know it, why? Okay. Let’s say she did want to rat somebody out. Does the government want that? Do they even have an incentive? Are they giving her that opportunity?
If she says I’ve got a whole dossier of everybody that you want, does Maureen Comey, daughter of James Comey care? Are they gonna do anything with this? Are they gonna go prosecute? Anybody else? I have a hard time believing that to, to be the case why? Well, they only spent about eight days prosecuting Ghislaine. We have a whole mine map with various different tentacles, permeating all over the place, and they’re not prosecuting any of those co-conspirators. So I’ve been always skeptical that they are actually interested in, in finding justice here. It’s always been my position that they were just gonna put a bow on this thing, wrap it all up, put it under the, the basement drawer. Nobody was ever gonna look at it again. And so here, Ian Maxwell is basically confirming that. He says, listen, the prosecution back before this evens started before the trial, they confirmed, there was not gonna be any plea bargain offers that were made or received before the trial even started. So they didn’t even offer her a deal before the trial.
So why would they give her a deal after the trial? Now that she’s been convicted on five of six charges, they wouldn’t. And so we see that this is exactly what Ian Maxwell says. I expect that position to be maintained. In other words, Maxwell, he says is not gonna trade names for the prospect of a lighter sentence. Her refusal to cooperate with prosecutors could come as a relief to many other people. Like, I don’t know, prince Andrew, bill Clinton, bill gates. And they’ve got Donald Trump on here. A oh, Maxwell’s not gonna talk. Oh yeah. The us government that has all the leverage, all the bargaining power that could give her an out is probably not. Why is that? Could it be because it’s the same government that wrote that 2007 disgusting plea deal maybe. And so a lot of people are hitting the air waves.
Last week, we talked about a Deitz. He was over at the BBC and he was getting on the case about Virginia Guffy. And he was saying, well, what the Ghislaine Maxwell trial showed is that my accuser is totally non-credible somebody who cannot be trusted at all because the government didn’t call her in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. That means that she is a weak she’s suing me by proxy. I can use the government’s failure to call her as evidence that she is just a, essentially a garbage witness. So we’re a little bit critical about that. Why was the BBC having him on, obviously he’s not as fair and impartial as maybe they might want their viewers to believe so shame on the BBC, but what about out a Dershowitz? Pretty esteemable lawyer. Somebody who’s extremely smart. Somebody who has been around this game a lot knows, presumably what he’s doing.
Why did he do that? Why did he get on there? Hmm, interesting. Wonder if he might be thinking a few moves ahead. Regardless. What we can see here is that the BBC apologized for that when Alan Dershowitz was on their channel, they said, uhoh well, he didn’t meet our editorial standards was not a suitable person to interview to call him an impartial analysis analyst. We did not make our relevant background clear to his, to our audience. And so they’re gonna look into how that happened. Now, Alan Deitz was on the BBC. I have a clip of that. That’s what this sounded like after
A long, uh, set of deliberations, spanning Christmas with a, a break, uh, suddenly the, the, the, the jury, uh, reached a verdict.
Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British lawyers is that the, um, government, uh, was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness. The woman who accused prince Andrew accused me accused many other people because the government didn’t believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia goof Ray was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse. And so this case does nothing at all to strengthen in any way, the case against prince Andrew, indeed it weakens the case against prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who had used. It used only witnesses who they believed were credible, credible, and they deliberately didn’t use the main witness. The, the woman who started the whole investigation of Virginia gore, because ultimately they didn’t believe she was telling the truth. They didn’t believe that a jury would believe her and they were right in doing so. So it was very smart part
Of the go. Okay. So the BBC got blasted for that. We’re gonna come back and talk about Alan Dershowitz later on in the show, because we have the settlement agreement that Virginia Guray has now, uh, what entered into back in 2007, 2009, that a DERT just using as a justification to dismiss the case against him, Virginia suing him. He is not very impartial because he is the defendant in a civil lawsuit. So when he gets invited onto the BBC, you would imagine that they would want their viewers to see that this guy’s impartial, right. He’s is gonna give us a fair imbalance take on this case, not somebody who would be very, very biased towards one direction. Of course, he comes out and makes the argument that is very biased in that direction, says gore is just a terrible witness. So after the BBC got caught up in that, they sort of did it again, kind of, except this is a little bit of a different situ. And so I wanna see what you have to think and say about this here. The BBC is also criticized now for giving Ian Maxwell airtime to defend his sisterly. And so now we have to ask ourselves, is this the same thing? Is Ian Maxwell getting up there and defending his sister different than Alan Deitz? I mean, Alan Dershowitz is a defend a name defendant in a lawsuit. Ian Maxwell to my knowledge is not.
So there’s a little bit of a distinction there. Ian Maxwell, to my knowledge, also not a lawyer. Alan D Schitz is so a couple different distinctions there, but the BBC once again, is getting criticized for it again. So there’s sort of like over two on their coverage of this case. And we’ve got some Twitter reaction that we’ll take a look at, but here the guardian is reporting that the brother was over on radio four today’s program. And I have several clips from that, that we are going to talk about. BBC has faced further complaints over its coverage of go Maxwell. That her interview with her brother was on radio four flagship news program. Ian Maxwell made the case for his sister’s innocence on the today program. Now this took place on Friday the 31st. So it was after Ghislaine was of course convicted. And he got on this show, casting doubt on the testimony from the victims and detailing plans for an appeal. And so when he got on there, you know, a lot of people are, are sort of scratching their heads about this. They’re saying, well, Ghislaine Maxwell. She is now a convicted offender. She is somebody who has been confirmed by an American court of law to have committed the most heinous of crime that exist under our law.
And she’s going to prison for a very long time. So a lot of people are saying, well, why, why are you giving a platform to Ian Maxwell? Who’s the brother of somebody who’s been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of her peers in court, where there was plenty of due process. Why are you giving him a platform to get up there and still continue to slam these victims? The jurors are the fact finders. They heard the evidence, they found what the facts were. So it might seem like they’re giving a little bit of preferential treatment to the Maxwell family. Several people, John Nicholson, an MP over there says, uh, another odd decision by the BBC post Ghislaine Maxwell trial. This time to allow her brother Ian, a lengthy opportunity to tell are for today that the victims are lying. Yeah, it was a little interesting.
Why would they give him a solid, you know, five and a half minutes to duke it out. Brian, more, another blue check mark says, I see the Maxwell family, which comprises at least two criminals is being given airtime to protest Ghislaine Maxwell’s innocence. I doubt my or your family would be similarly indulged. Oh, you see that? Yeah. Don’t you like when there are just two standards of justice or sort of two tiers, two different access points. Okay. You see, you sort of see this everywhere you go. You know, Alec Baldwin, I made the point in the Alec Baldwin must be prosecuted video. If you have not seen that, that came out this past week saying that he is using the media to his advantage. He’s getting out there and he’s going on George Stephanopoulos show, and they’re doing this very soft somber music. Oh, it’s very, very somber and sad.
And Alec Baldwin’s gonna cry for everybody. Are they gonna give that same benefit to David halls or to Hannah Gutierrez? The armor? I doubt it. Same story here. Would the BBC give privilege, give air time to, uh, your family or your daughter or anybody else? Probably not. We see here, the secret barrister says, I cannot understand why they’re providing a platform for family and friends of go Maxwell to proclaim her innocence and undermine the jury’s verdicts. Is this service being made available to all of the offenders? Does the BBC just go through the Rolodex of convictions and just, oh, let’s call that person up. Let’s see what her brother has to say about her criminal charges. Curious, Sonya Soha says, why is the BBC now running an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother pleading her innocence on its main bulletin? Would they do that for any other offender found guilty in a court law?
Yeah, probably not. Right. So you can see the pattern here. A lot of questions being asked about this. Some people who come from powerful backgrounds have a it more access to more tools within the justice system than the everyday person. So out there crafting the narrative and this stuff matters. And if you don’t think it matters, why is Alec Baldwin doing it? Right? It, it absolutely matters. The media is extremely powerful. And so they’re already out there as we’re seeing the family from Maxwell craft this story about an appeal. Let’s take a look at the interviewer. This is Michelle Husain, somebody who is, uh, over there with the BBC, it was a five minute interview. And she kind of, you can see that as she’s going at this, that she’s kind of going after them a little bit. So she, I, you know, part of the reason I think she wanted this interview is she kind of wanted to go into a attack mode, not sure that she really succeeded, but I can understand from her perspective why, you know why she might want to get a provocative interview. But Ian says these were Epstein’s crimes. He’s not here to pay that price. She has been made to pay the price that he should have paid. And so Michelle, who’s saying on whether women who testified were lying, she asked him about that and we’re gonna hear from him.
And so we’re listening to Ian Maxwell, somebody who’s probably very, very tightly integrated into the Maxwell defense. We haven’t heard much from Bobby stern Heim or Jeff Paka or Laura Menninger or Christian ever, or any of the other attorneys there, obviously I’ve not heard from Maxwell. Bobby stern Heim told her, told us, told the world the day of the conviction that they were going to be appealing. This they’re already working on it. Happy new year. That’s about as much as we got. And so this is Ian Maxwell now telling us about the basis for the appeal. And we just have a short eight seconds, but listen to what he’s saying, cuz he’s gonna give us two broad categories about the types of appeals that we’re gonna be looking at. We’re gonna explore those a little bit further. So here is Ian Maxwell. This is over on BBC over the weekend. My lawyers
Say is already being prepared. I asked her brother I who attended the trial. What the grounds for that would be,
This is essentially going to be on legal grounds, both in terms of pretrial process and indeed the trial process itself.
Okay. So he broke it up into two things. Now she said, what, you know, what are you guys doing? How are you preparing for this? What does an appeal look like? And he said two things, pretrial process and the trial process. And so I just wanted you to get clear on the, the different buckets of potential appeals, because we’ve been talking a lot about this in fact way before the trial started. Every time that we’ve been talking about the Ghislaine Maxwell, largely it’s been coverage based around what the defense has been doing to create errors, to create markers where they will have appealable issues on the record. And so that was all taking place during pretrial. And remember, one of those incidents was where Bobby stern Heim was saying that we’re going into, she was actually going meet with Maxwell. And somebody said that she brought a notepad that she shouldn’t have brought in with her.
And she said, oh, are you looking at my notes? Oh, well I’m gonna file a bunch of complaints because if you’re looking at my notepad, that means you’re looking at my notes. Those are protected by attorney client privilege. That’s a violation of my client’s rights and we’re gonna mark that down on the record. And so of course she did that like every 10 minutes, I’m like good Lord. They must have a binder of like appealable issues that looks like this all the way. Going back to the very beginning of the trial, all of those issues are pre-trial issues and largely many of the motions and the rulings on the motions and everything that we’ve discussed that was sort of denied that went against the defense. They’re gonna say that those are appealable issues. And so tho that’s the big bucket of things that her defense attorney and her teams are gonna latch into.
The other category that we get from Ian Maxwell of course, are the trial objections, the any, any errors that took place in the course of the trial. And we saw a lot of those as well. The most recent being is the one where are saying that the jurors were off track a little bit on that count four. They were asking about New Mexico and about transportation and all these issues. And Christian ever wrote to the judge and said, judge, they’re off track. You better alert them because if they get this wrong, it’s gonna be catastrophic for the decision in this case. And the judge said, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna correct anything. So if the defense can prove to the court of appeals, that some of those errors were wrong. And remember, judge Nathan is gonna have to recuse herself.
Those will be appealable issues that happen within the trial. And so the, the defense attorneys are just getting started on this case. This is all to be appealed out the Wazu all right. So here is another clip from the interview. Once again, this is Ian Maxwell over at the BBC, and we’re gonna talk a little bit more about some of those pretrial problems. So we talked about Bobby stern Heim going in there and complaining about the notepad, but there was another thing the family was complaining about very, very frequently. Every time they were on the media, they were talking about what a horrible situation it was in Maxwell cell. And so Ian gets asked, asked about that today, the
Pretrial process. I remember you talking to us before, and you said how you thought the conditions your sister was being held in amounted to torture, but she appeared engaged, animated, able to converse with her siblings, with her lawyers, study everything very carefully
For me, all the condition in which she’s been held, not withstanding that she appeared superficially to be, uh, able to pay attention and talk to us or to her lawyers. The fact is that over 18 months of the kind of conditions that she’s had to endure have seriously impacted her ability to participate meaningfully in her defense pretrial and during the trial itself.
But that, and we heard a lot of that regularly, the Maxwells, it was Ian, and it was the other brother who was there regularly, I think. Is it max his name max, his name max Maxwell. Well, one of the other brothers was out there regularly talking about the eggs and the food and the sewage. And remember we heard all the stories about Ghislaine Maxwell and her hair sort of coming out of her body and the conditions just being really, really bad. Well, what was that all about? You’re in jail. You’re not gonna be at a four seasons. What are you talking about? Are they just upset that she doesn’t have, you know, good food? No. It’s about the fact that the food is gonna contribute to the inability of her to think, or to sleep or to function appropriately. And if she can’t function appropriately, she can’t aid in her defense.
And if she can’t aid in her defense because of the malnutrition or the, the improper conditions that she’s in, guess who’s responsible for those conditions. The us can government, they have custody over her. And so if they’re causing this inability to present herself in a court of law in a reasonable manner, that’s a constitutional violation. It’s interfering with her due process. She doesn’t have a right at a fair shake in, in court because of the abuse and the defense lawyers are gonna say that justifies, throwing out the case, the sanction, the penalty here should be a dismissal of the charges because the government broke the rules, the government breached their obligation. They’ve got a duty to make sure that prisoners are treated well and they didn’t do that. Therefore is a sanction. The penalty, what the defense should be, is going to say should be a dismissal. Couldn’t meaningfully protect her right to a proper defense Maxwell continues. Now we have this interviewer and she’s, you know, digging into him a little bit. And she says, okay, so listen, you heard the same testimony that we did. We covered it here. We had Kate and Carol. We had many, many more people talking about the, the activities that were going on in the Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein saga. So this interviewer from the BBC says, Hey, Ian,
Did you hear what we heard? What do you have to say to those victims who came out? And so bravely told, told their story.
I saw four women give deeply disturbing testimony against your sister. And they were believed by the jurors testimony like that. Of Jane, who said she was 14 in, when she was approached at a summer camp by your sister and Jeffrey Epstein that she was abused every other week for the next two years. Carolyn who said she was paid by your sister to have sex with Jeffrey Epstein, hundreds of times, between the ages of 14 and 18 similar accounts from a woman who used a peu name, Kate, and also from Annie farmer, as you heard this testimony, what did you think? No
Heart rendering, testimonies, heart rendering, but not withstanding the testimony. My own view is that Gillen had nothing to do with it. These were Epstein’s crimes and he’s not here to pay that price. And she’s being made to pay the price that he should have paid.
And yet these,
Okay. So it’s the same theme that we heard from the trial court, same defense that the defense attorneys put on. Right? We, we spent a lot of time on this channel talking about it, victim or villain. Was she somebody who was a compadre with Jeffrey Epstein or was she a victim? He’s still on the victim train, right? The jury didn’t buy that. He’s saying repeatedly. No. I mean, look, yeah, the victims, they took up, they, they got up there, they took the stand. They explained the horrific acts that came down upon them. And I feel for ’em, but had nothing to do with that. It was all Jeffrey Epstein. And so the BBC says, uh, but I mean, we heard from them. I, why do you, how, how, how do you respond to that? Here’s
What she says. Cue says one after another put forward her role in their abuse, that she was the one who befriended them. She was the one who showed them what to do. She was one who said, I thought it would be fun for you to take Jeffrey his tea in this outfit, which was a schoolgirl outfit. Now she didn’t take the stand herself. The strategy of seemed to be, to undermine. And belitle these women who were deeply distressed often as they were putting forward these accounts. Well,
You know, we’re not gonna replay the trial right now, but clearly there were enormous discrepancies between the testimony that was given it in court. And the test was given by the accusers to the FBI and to the prosecuting authorities, which remained very hard to explain,
But what, all right, so again, it’s the same, it’s the same trial argument, right? So nothing real, really new here, other than we’re hearing the brother explain it. And you, you can see that these are gonna be the same avenues of appeal that they were foreshadowing a long time ago. And so the detail here is about the difference between what the victims said on the stand versus what they said previously in the FBI 3 0 2 S from those interview summaries, we saw this pattern over and over again in the trial, somebody would take the stand. They would say something on direct exam. The defense would come out, Laura Meger or Jeff Paka, the G silent, like lasagna would come out there and they would say, yeah, but is isn’t it true that 10 years ago you said this? I don’t recall said Jane. I don’t recall.
I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. And then we had a lot of, a lot of, there were a lot of discrepancies in this and a lot of this testimony, I remember Carolyn right. Had a, had a very sort of checkered past said that there were a lot of things that happened that were of marginally corroborated. And so he’s continuing on with this narrative that, okay, the jury believed them, but it’s still not true. And there are credibility problems because they don’t match their own statements, which I think he has a point on, right. There was a lot of credibility problems there. We went through the testimony from Jane. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. And I’m not sure it was such a grand slam because it took the jurors quite a long time, five full days, almost as long as the case in chief that was being presented by the government to make their decision.
Ian Maxwell continues on. And he says, even though the victim’s testimony was difficult to year and since Maxwell had nothing to do with that in the first place, it still doesn’t negate her ability to have a proper defense. Just because what you heard from somebody sounds horrible doesn’t mean that you just have to punish somebody, right. Sometimes that’s kind of what happens. It feels like criminal law, the jurors are very angry with what they heard and somebody’s gonna get punished for that. And your defendant just happens to be sitting right there. And so it’s very easy for the jurors to be outraged about something and just pick on somebody and just say, we’re gonna make you the scapegoat sort of like how, I don’t know, Derek Chauvin became the scapegoat for all of America’s racial ills for the last 300 years. Ghislaine Maxwell apparently is gonna be the person who solves, uh, global trafficking now indefinitely not gonna be a problem anymore since she’s been convicted. And so what his point is, yes, even though somebody is saying something that’s horrible, that trauma that was traumatic for them doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve a defense. Here is what he says. What did
You think as you heard those accounts? Well, as I said to you, you couldn’t but be moved by them. But nonetheless, my sister is entitled to a defense. I don’t have anything against the jury. The issue is that the process that led to that, the pretrial denial of so many motions and all other kinds of things that went on during the trial, uh, grounds strong grounds for an appeal on which I think Gillen will be vindicated, but
Let’s go back to what was actually said,
Strong grounds for an appeal on which I think that she’s gonna be vindicated. Now, we haven’t really heard any of the strong grounds other than some of the big, broad categories, pre-trial objections, uh, actual objections, appealable issues that came out during those proceedings. But the interviewer asked him specifically, look, if you’re saying that it didn’t happen and the victims are saying that it did happen, then we can just sort of deduce that. You’re saying that these victims are liars. Is that what you’re saying there, Ian, but in the trial
And the counts that the jury believed, the accounts that corroborated one after another, from these four women, one of them saying that your sister had given her a topless massage when she was 16. Another one saying that your sister told her she had a great body for Epstein and his friends before touching her breasts. Um, uh, another saying that your sister was the one who showed her, how Jeffrey Epstein liked to be massaged. Are you saying to us that all of these women are lying?
No, I’m not saying that they are lying. You know, it may well be that they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but I do not accept that they were victims of GI. That’s my position. And that’s also her position,
Which would, which would mean that they’re lying. Is that what that’s kind of what you’re saying, right? <laugh> uh, yeah, I think that’s, I think that is exactly what you’re saying there, Ian, but he didn’t want to go that route. So he is not gonna come out here and do the victim shaming thing, which is a smart PR move. And he’s not really gonna go down the road that we heard a lot about in trial, like from Dr. LATI who told us that this was all about memory and manipulation of the memory incentivized by money. We heard about the Epstein victim’s compensation fund. And so we don’t hear too much from Ian or maybe he did get into all of that, but they clipped it out for the interview, but he kind of just kind of, uh, glosses over most of those arguments, which I think are very good arguments, very reasonable arguments here. And remember, most of these allegations are like 20 years old. Okay. So we have now Ian Maxwell, who is, uh, wrapping up the interview, I think he is now, uh, commenting and trying to distinguish about, uh, he’s talking about the evidence. Yeah. So this is how he’s justifying the differences between what the victim said and sort of what he heard. Here’s Ian Maxwell
Have to mean that they were lying when they said that she was the one who introduced them to Epstein that she was part of the procurement of them for Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, your sister was an integral part of Jeffrey Epstein’s life. Wasn’t she? She was his home. She was at his side. We saw the photographs during the trial of all the time they spent together all the places they went together, how intertwined their lives were. If what you are saying is correct, it would mean that she was at his side and had
No idea what was going on. That’s the impression that the prosecution wanted to give you? I think there was something like a hundred photographs out of 37,000. None of them were dated. Most of those looked to me from about 19 92 93, it’s designed to paint a picture. And of course the prosecution didn’t put into evidence. The prior interviews that they had with these accusers prior to trial, which showed a completely different case memory is faulty. And so in my view, the trial that has occurred was not a fair trial from Gill’s perspective. And that is why she’s going to, and I think she’ll be successful. Well, Charlotte proud,
Specialize. All right. So you heard that from me and they’re gonna continue to drive this thing home. He gave us the two big buckets, a lot of pretrial objections, mostly about her conditions, about some of the rulings, the decisions that were made and a whole bunch of actual trial objections, appealable issues. And again, we saw a bunch of those come through. I still think that the biggest appealable issue and I’ll still stand by it. But I think when you fast forward time, let’s say a year, year and a half from now, when this is all wrapped up, I would not be surprised. I I’m sort of, this is my long shot prediction, but that Ghislaine Maxwell walks as a result of the 2007 non prosecution agreement, which I think is analogous to the same type of deal that bill Cosby got that set him free.
And so the big question of course, is why was that agreement ever created in the first place who was behind it? How did that get through, how did that pass muster and why is the Gillin Maxwell case? Just wrapping up with a nice little bow on there with only Gill Maxwell. Good questions. We learn a little bit more though, because we see that more and more documents continue to be unsealed. The big news of the day in the lawsuit of Virginia, Guray against these two people, we’ve got a Dershowitz and we have prince Andrew, the duke of York. You can see both their mugs here on the screen. And we saw this order come out last week, right before the new year 12 29 21. This was an order from both judges in these case. Remember that gore is suing both of them. And these are two separate lawsuits that are sort of being joined together because in this lawsuit, both of these people responded and they submitted, what’s called a settlement agreement.
You can see that here, a document called a settlement agreement and a general release was executed by these two people, Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia gore. That document has been hidden. It’s been filed under seal since 2009. And nobody’s seen it other than these people, of course, DWI has seen it. And prince and your release, his legal team has seen it. So this settlement agreement exists and Dershowitz filed a copy of that agreement back against Virginia saying that it protects him. Virginia is suing Dershowitz. Virginia is suing Andrew. They both submitted the settlement agreement back. And they’re saying that the settlement agreement makes them immune. It, it draws this gigantic shield in here. And so for some reason, we have not seen this settlement agreement, right? These two guys have are saying, look, we were not a party to this agreement. This was between and Epstein, but it’s so broad.
And the agreement is so powerful that it actually protects us. And so many of us are going, what on earth kind of agreements are these where people are just waving all their rights. And everybody is basically immune. I mean, are we gonna see Alan Deitz in this settlement agreement that says you can’t Sue a, you can’t see you, the prints. Is that gonna be in there? How are they saying that they’re immune for these things? Well, we can see now that the judge previously has said, we’re gonna unseal this document. And they did that on January 3rd. And what is the date? It’s January 3rd. And so the accusers deals now have been made public. And you can see this headline over from the BBC is giving us a headline.
This is a, an assault case filed by Guray against the president for assault and battery. This happened 20 years ago. And so let’s take a look at the actual court document. Now this was five previously in this case. So this is Virginia goof Ray versus prince Andrew it’s 0 6, 7 0 2. This was filed back on 10 29. And you can see here, this is an agreement that was executed on November 17th, 2009. And so they don’t sign this document in the same, you know, in the same, obviously these two people are not ever gonna be in the same room together or shouldn’t have been. And so this document goes over to her on November 17th, 2009, she signs it she’s over there in new south Wales, Australia, shout out to Greg Virginia Guray is signing. This document I did was her driver’s license back home in the states. Jeffrey Epstein gets a copy of the signed document.
It looks like on the 25th, about a week later, and he signs it. You can see a signature, just a big JS. He’s probably used to signing these, a lot of settlement agreements coming out from Jeffrey. He he’s just like, oh, $500,000. Who was that? Oh yeah, whatever sick. Here’s what the settlement agreement says. Virginia gore, AKA, Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein enter into this agreement. Why are they doing this? It’s to resolve the pending litigation. Remember gore is suing him. And the pending lawsuit is called Jane DOE number 1 0 2 big list of the Jane dos here versus Jeffrey Epstein. This was a civil lawsuit filed in the Southern district of Florida. And so what they’re saying here is that by entering this settlement agreement, we’re gonna release the charges. We’re gonna release the lawsuit. We’re gonna dismiss it with prejudice, which means it cannot come back.
As soon as you get the money, as soon as the settlement amount clears. However, we’re gonna ask that the court retained jurisdiction to a enforce the terms of this settlement agreement. Okay? So don’t dismiss the case entirely. We want you to execute this agreement and be able to control this case because we want you to have the power to exercise the rules in this agreement. And so this continues now, now we know why we have this document. It’s gonna dismiss another lawsuit, brought by Jane DOE, which was Virginia goof. Ray, back in 2009, here are the terms of the general release, Virginia and everybody else that she’s involved with here for, and in consideration of the sum of $500,000. And other consideration is acknowledged Steve from Jeffrey Epstein and his agents it’s acknowledged, okay, she’s got the 500,000, she’s getting it for something. What is she being paid for in law?
This is called consideration. Okay. She’s doing something in exchange for this money. Uhoh so why didn’t somebody tell me that? So there we go. Okay. So here, this is what I was circling. When I, when you were looking at my face on the screen in two versions here, you can see Virginia Guffy, $500,000 being paid for consider of this agreement. Now, what is Virginia goof Ray going to have to do Virginia goof. Ray is now going to have to release a quit satisfy and forever discharge, the second parties and everybody else who’s involved in this thing. It’s gonna dismiss everything. They’re gonna be relieved from everything all in all manner of actions, including state and federal causes and causes of action, whether they’re common law, whether they’re statutory, any lawsuits, any debts, any dues, any sums of money, any accounts, reckonings, any bonds bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damage, everything.
They just went it to blacks law dictionary. And they just started drawing out words from the page. Basically it says you can’t do anything ever to Epstein the first parties or the second parties, everybody involved in this thing or that of any personal representative successor air, a sign of first parties, or this is the magic language other potential defendants for upon or by any reason matter. Cause or thing whatsoever, whether known or unknown from the beginning of this world to the day of this release from the beginning of this world until the day of this release we’re immune.
So it basically covers everything like in existence. It’s pretty neat, pretty neat agreement. Isn’t it? It works well for Jeffrey Epstein because anybody who signs it sort of totally eliminates the possibility that anybody even remotely within the realm of Jeffrey Epstein’s umbrella is immune very, very convenient. Now the agreement continues. It says further agreed. This settlement agreement is a final and disputed claim. It’s intended to avoid litigation. It shall not be construed as a admission of fault. It says here they stipulate and agree that this is the fulfillment of Epstein’s obligations to Roberts, exclusive of all the and all the addendums. Now you recall that on this channel, we talked about the mind map and we talked about that non prosecution agreement that really exempted several different people who were direct co-conspirators in the Epstein case, in the original saga. Remember this was the screenshot from that 2007 non-pro agreement. All right? So we’ve got two different things we’re talking about now. We’ve got the Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Guray settlement agreement. That’s not this, this is the settlement. This is the plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein signed with the us government. This is not a private civil settlement agreement. And you’ll notice in here that we also got that gigantic B broad language that basically encompasses everybody in consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty.
The United States agrees. It will not Institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to Sarah Kean, Adrian Ross, Leslie GRA, and Nadia Marcine Cova. But for some reason, Ghislaine, Maxwell’s just not included in that deal. Even though this says any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, but goly Maxwell got charged because the judge said that this didn’t apply to her. You know? So I think this is kind of consistent then isn’t it. It could be if the judge finds that this is also not applicable to the princes or to a Dershowitz, you may be seeing that this language, the other potential defendant’s language is being considered to be just too broad in covering encompassing everybody. So here, as this continues on, it says the first and second parties agree. The dis doesn’t show that Epstein was at fault for any of this stuff. Payment of the funds has already been made to Virginia Roberts account. We’ve got reciprocal confidentiality here. So Virginia Roberts is not gonna disclose anything. Virginia Roberts lawyer, Sid Stubbs is not gonna disclose anything. Any third party who finds out about this is not gonna disclose anything. And the list goes on and on.
If something happens here, we’ve got different notice requirements, five days to do something here, 10 days to do something over here, anonymity, second parties agree. They’re not gonna be releasing Virginia Roberts identity. Okay. This is back in 2009. Obviously this whole situation has changed.
Different parties can subpoenas and things like that. Jeffrey Epstein has a no contact order. So judge Mara back in 2009, July, 2009, issued a no contact order or any modification of the same by the court. And we see here, enforcement settlement agreements shall be governed by the laws of the state of Florida. And the different attorneys are allowed to accept service. Okay? That’s bad. Basically it, anybody who breaches the contract may have to pay attorney’s fees. Settlement does not include any of the amounts for the attorney’s fees or the costs. And we’ve got some different distinctions here for miscellaneous items.
Virginia gore is saying the parties confirm and acknowledge that this is being made without any duress. Nobody promised Virginia to do this. Nobody influenced her to do this. They had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the terms of the agreements. Roberts agrees that it’s her obligation to pay a, any outstanding bills related to healthcare providers. And the Epstein state is to be held harmless. The provision also does not include any healthcare evaluations. It says here, the settlement agreement was negotiated and entered into with the advice of counsel. And it’s gonna be executed with separate signatures, and they’re gonna cooperate as necessary to carry out the terms of the agreement. You can see signed here for Virginia Roberts. We’ve got a couple different attorneys out of Florida, Miami, Florida, Jeffrey Epstein, couple different attorneys listed as being available for receipt of the any issue. And so the big, the big language here, I think that we’re, we’re spending some time talking about is this right here? And the question of course is are these two fellas prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz covered by this sentence, remember, Virginia goof is suing them. This basic encompasses everything, but it doesn’t name their names. It just says other potential defendants, by any reason matter, cause or thing whatsoever, whether known or unknown from the beginning of the world to the end of this release, to the day of this release, that’s a pretty big umbrella. Isn’t it?
Do you think it should be held to cover prince Andrew and a DERs. Let’s take a look at your questions over from my friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and let’s see what we’ve got here. Let’s see here. Okay. We’ve got some questions coming in. Hopefully I have these queued up. Yes, we have one monster. One says, all right, I’ll always remember the day I found our Rob was a fraud. Ugh. I knew it. Monster one is here. Either that or he’s in witness protection. How deep are you into this Epstein saga? It’s a little suspicious that right after the verdict, you wanna change your identity? Are you a fed? Are you wearing a wire? Help me. I’m so paranoid now. No look monster one. It’s not a problem. I’m gonna hold, you know, a rally here in Arizona. I’d love to invite you. Nothing suspicious going on at all. Just bring your mega hat and we’ll talk about America.
<laugh> no, I’m not a fed. No, I’m not a fed. I’m not a fed. All right, we have monster. One says, Rob, I bought a suit. You’ve seen it. Now it’s covered in mud. This town doesn’t have a one hour cleaner. So I had to buy a new suit except the only store you could buy a new suit in has got, COVID got that. The whole store got COVID. So I had to get this in a secondhand store. So it’s either wear the leather jacket, which I know you hate or this. So I wore this ridiculous thing for you. <laugh> thank you, monster one. I don’t really know what that meant, but I read Sergeant Bob says just because a potential witness is not called in one case does not mean the witness is irrelevant in a totally different case, brother. Unbiased, not likely sensationalism.
If it bleeds, it leads. Yes. Sergeant Bob. I think that I, you know, I personally don’t have a problem with the BBC having him on. I think that, you know, it’s kind of now as long as they’re forthcoming about it, right? As long as they’re saying, Hey, this is her brother and he’s got an issue. And I think they did that. Sergeant Bob says, uh, regarding Baldwin, he’s a professional actor. That’s why he he’s crying. Cuz he’s a professional actor. He makes movies <laugh> thank you for that. Sergeant Bob, he also says having to hear Ian Maxwell is nearly as painful as the Camela cackle, which is true. It is, it is. It’s not as bad. You know, I was gonna do. Who would I, uh, this weekend I did, uh, Liz Chaney. I took a 92nd clip and I broke that out into like 15 minutes because it’s too hard to listen to the full 90 seconds.
Same thing happened with Ian Maxwell. You know, we’ll make sure I’m thinking about you Sergeant Bob. And you’ll notice we haven’t had many Jen Saki clips on here, much to the dismay of Zulu, but we’ll have to go track down some Jen Saki clips. Hopefully she’s feeling better. Chris Wal says, Hey Rob, I agree with Robert Barnes, his opinion on this, this trial seems like a charade with both sides, trying to avoid exposure of other incriminating things in persons. They’re both trying to stay away with narrow lanes to get through it. Yeah. That’s Chris wo. Yeah, I think so too there, Chris, which is why I was kind of thinking that the bigger strategy here was the win on an appeal, short sweet trial barrel through it. Just like the Cosby situation, everybody shouts and, and, and cheers and parades around. Oh yeah. Great. You know, another horrible person is off the streets, but then forget about it for a little bit of time.
Let the appeals work their way up. Oh, Cosby’s free. Now. I would guess the majority of the country doesn’t even know that and that same template could be used here with, we have some other ones. Monster one says news flash for Ian, nobody gets a fair trial. Not even people who win like written house, look at what the prosecution did in his case, they had a meeting and said, we’re losing let’s fabricate evidence and change our theory during closing, if prosecutors are willing to do that on televised trial, imagine what prosecutors are willing to do to people who are represented by public defenders. Prosecutors don’t give two damns about justice. They care about conviction rates and promotions. Yeah. And you know, there are, it’s not every prosecutor. There are prosecutors who are certainly that way. There are prosecutors who, who certainly care about justice, but in my humble opinion, their hands are largely tied due to the bureaucracy.
Okay. This is just the, the problem in general with government, I’d say is they, they create systems that everybody has to follow. They create laws that they think are useful and they’re not. They’re very inefficient. They have no eye towards costs. They have no real eye towards justice, cuz there’s almost no accountability. So there’s no incentives, right? You can have a local prosecutor who hides in the shadows for 20 years, doing injustice with no real mechanism for recourse, other than filing a bar complaint, which gets laughed out O of, of their office because they’re prosecutors, they get a lot of bar complaints. Nobody’s happy with them. So they just go away. And so you have prosecutors who think that they’re doing justice or they stand out there and they’re like, well, you know, we’re gonna keep another bad guy off the street. But in my opinion, they’re alluded in the mind because they are prejudging people.
They are not in, uh, accordance with the presumption of innocence in any way, shape or form. They’re not even willing to explore that. They just automatically default to guilty why cuz their officer said so they don’t even question their officers, which is uh, a problem cuz they’re supposed to do justice, not get convictions. Monster one says, oh it was a quote from my cousin Vinny, the greatest law movie ever. I changed flu to COVID. Can I have I admitted that on this channel that I’ve never seen that movie? Have I admitted that never seen it? My cousin Vinny <laugh> I never seen it. Uh, never not one time. I, I think this is a law movie, right? It’s the greatest law movie ever. I think I’ve heard that before, but I’ve never seen it. Th thunder seven says all these so-called victims, Virginia and the ones in trial were willing participants in the sexual encounters with Epstein and others.
They got paid. They were not minors. Andrew was with Virginia and others at the island. But you know this isn’t new people pay for these types of affairs all the time. We’re not hearing the real trafficking crimes and the horrors, all this is a coverup by throwing out Trump’s name and not talking about the Clinton for foundation, which Epstein co-founded and his island is not too far from Haiti. <laugh> yeah. Thunder seven. You’re right. They did everything that they could to, to, to trash Trump’s name. I noticed that. I mean, they didn’t say anything about bill Clinton.
Maybe they did, but not to this same degree. Right. And why is that? There’s a reason for that. Sure. It’s naked partisan politics obviously, but it’s also good legal work. They’re in New York, Southern district of New York. Do you think those jurors are, are Republicans? No. Do you think they’re like those people who almost kill juicy smally? No. They’re not like them. <laugh> okay. So several people at, uh, uh, over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com have disowned me, Avalon acres says that it’s the end of our relationship. Black cat. Meow says, yes, you have admitted that before. Never seen that movie. And, and now I can’t watch it because it’s, it’s a thing. Now Avalon still be my friend. Okay. Viti kiss says, I’ll come with my hat, make avocados guacamole again, which is I can get behind that. Cause yeah, by the way, your lack of knowledge and movie references never ceases to amaze.
I’m pretty bad with pop culture. Yeah. I’m I’m not any good at most of that. <laugh> uh, thank you for that. Vient kiss. Uh, monster one says Rob’s been a fed for five minutes. He’s already trying to set me up in a Whit Whitmer style setup. Mon no monster one. No, it’s not about that at all. It’s about, you know, play and hide and seek with a public official. It’s not about kidnapping hide and seek. That’s all. <laugh> uh, what a country we’re living in. We have a couple others that are coming in here. Tweak says, well, is it true or not that the settlement agreement only has legal standing in Florida. In that case, it shouldn’t affect legal cases in other states, places like New York. Right? So, uh, I didn’t read the details on there, but it would be, you know, it would be binding.
I would, I would presume in all jurisdictions, right? Remember that paragraph where it says, you give up everything, including your firstborn, your limb and your second kidney and all of those things that you don’t need for that $500,000, right. That they’re not gonna allow gore the courts wouldn’t allow her to go forum, shopping in different states and file additional lawsuits. Right. This is gonna be a global universal release. So she wouldn’t be able to pick this up. And go into, into, into New York and file a separate of a claim there. Now, if there were, because this is a civil claim and this is a settlement that she’s voluntarily entering into. Okay. Now, if she wanted to, before she entered into the settlement yeah. Theoretically, she could file different claims in different courts, as long as there were different offenses that happened in those jurisdictions. You know, if she was actually abused in New York and in Florida, you know, the theoretically she could file.
I was, I was assaulted here in this jurisdiction. New York has jurisdiction over this case, but in Florida, I was assaulted there. You have jurisdiction over that case and, and, and you, and you could still file in both places and then maybe come to a global settlement that way. But what she was doing here was entering into this $500,000. That’s it? No more games here and she signed it, but that was only for Jeffrey Epstein. Now, prince Andrew, who’s not named in there now, a Deitz who’s also not named in there are saying that they are covered by that agreement.
Not sure that they are, if they’re covered, right. Isn’t Gill Maxwell covered by that non prosecution agreement Maxwell obviously was not covered by that non prosecution agreement. So why should they be covered by this settlement agreement? Viant kiss just said, anatomy of a murder with Cagney is another great law movie. I haven’t seen that one, either kiss English. Dave says, do we have an update on that red SUV? Yeah. That angry red SUV that just went haywire and just accidentally, or, you know, erratically drove through that parade, uh, killing a bunch of people months ago. It went quiet really quickly. I’m wondering if you can cover it from the start and any updates. We actually will do that. Their English day. It is on the docket list. Let’s pull that up right now. I think he’s got a court date coming up and I actually have that on my list. So that was the Waukesha massacre that was Dar Brooks. Let’s pull up the high profile cases, docket list. And we can take a quick look at that.
Yeah. Dar Brooks, January 14th, Wisconsin courts have an update for us is when he’ll be back in court. So, uh, we, we will cover that English day. Thanks for ping us on that one. Let’s see what else. We’ve got a few more here. Sason academy says if gets an appeal, would judge Nathan get the opportunity to judge in that courtroom? So, so if she appeals, she’s going up to the second circuit, judge, Nathan would recuse herself from that appeal almost certainly. Now, you know, it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have any close proximity to the other judges who are making decisions, but yeah, theoretically you’d expect a judge to recuse herself from that. Just, just to make sure there’s no conflict of interest or any hints of impropriety there. So good question. But I think that, uh, she will, she will likely do that. We have another one monster.
One says, Rob, do yourself a favor and watch it. It’s my cousin Vinnie. I don’t know if I can now monster one, you know, it’s kind of one of those things. Don’t mandate it. If you mandate it, I’m not doing it. I swear. I will not wa I’ll never watch it. Don’t do it. Don’t even think about it. DEI McBride says I took the weekend off and missed a name change. May I ask what it was? So I’m sorry if you’ve answered this a dozen times already. Yeah. So it’s DEI. McBride is just a very simple labeling error. That’s all it was when I came out, they put my biological father’s name on me, grr, but I’m not that you know, I’m I’m my, my mother’s son and my mother’s last name is Gove. Very beautiful Italian name. And so it’s been a long time coming, but finally, you know, it’s like, all right, enough of this already time to make the change.
And here we are. And it’s a pretty good name. I’m pretty proud of it. I’m pretty excited about it. Can’t wait till my mom finds out. It’s gonna be fun. Let’s see what else we have here. We’ve got monster. One says, Rob, your local still says, grr. Don’t know if you can change it. I know I’ve got a lot of things to change. Tell me about it. Even these business cards, those good looking business cards. <laugh>, I’ve got a lot. I got a lot of stuff to change, but we’re gonna have, it’s gonna happen. We gotta start somewhere. And you know, and new year 2, 20, 22 fresh starts looking forward to it. Grouchy old cat lady says reversible errors is my favorite law movie. I don’t think I’ve seen that one either. Where are all these law movies coming from? Yeah. And everybody’s saying, can we just call you Rob?
That’s perfectly fine. No problem at all. Gove is complicated. I of that. It it’s like a challenge. I know what I’m getting into. Right? I’ve been having people use my mother’s last name, difficultly the whole, my whole life. I know what I’m getting into. It’s gonna be fun. Thunder seven says I would like to give a shout out to Julie Brown, who is the only journalist willing to dig deep, to find out why Epstein got that deal. She interviewed over 80 girls who were minors and they were assaulted. Not one of them was at the trial back then. Julie said, Epstein didn’t work alone. There were important people orbiting him. I hope she follows up with a book delving into this whole operation. I believe it was a paper in Miami that published her in depth reporting. I don’t think I know who that person is.
So Julie Brown. Yeah. You know, we started digging in a little bit to that 2007 plea deal. And we know that it was that guy Acosta, who was the person who actually, you know, authorized the whole thing, but still, you know, a deal like that, that be basically insulates. Every single potential criminal defendant is just kind of, uh, nuts. So we’ve got another one here from Viti kiss says maybe I should have sent you some DVDs instead. Well, I don’t even know if I have a DVD player, Viti kiss. It’s probably why I haven’t watched that. Right. Isn’t my CNY Vinny, my cousin Vinny. Isn’t that a DVD. I don’t have a DVD player, so that’s probably not gonna work out. All right. Let’s see if we’ve got any other questions before we wrap it up here.
Uh, Vanka says, you know that every time you say, when I came out, I’m going to, I’m going to add of the closet. And so I just gave you both of those phrases. So now you’re just gonna have to clip out the middle and just put, when I came out up here, I’ll just do it. When I came out of the closet there, I’ll save you the, uh, the editing time there Vient kiss. <laugh> Chad. I didn’t say that word. Okay. I didn’t say that word. YouTube chat. I didn’t say that word. I said my cousin Vinny. I didn’t say it. Okay. Couple other ones here we have. Oh, what a Monday Sergeant Bob says, okay. The blues brothers with John Belushi is most excellent. By the way, you look way more Italian than German. Well, that’s, that’s true. Sergeant Bob. That’s why I have to, you know, the name has to reflect the ethnicity Gove.
<laugh> you it’s it’s uh, Robert Govea. Ooh, I like it. Well, thanks for indulging me on that one, everybody. And I think we’re about running outta questions here. We’ve got monster. One says, Rob is smashing the patriarchy. That’s right, baby. I’m declaring allegiance to house Gove and my mother <laugh> it’s so, so, uh, you know, I don’t know if Jack Murphy would be happy about that. He might call that ultra beta mail. I don’t know, but you know, I don’t know what can you do? So all right. My friends, well, I think that is it for the questions for the day. A little bit of a shorter show. We’re gonna see if we can maybe move on from Gill Maxwell tomorrow. I think that we have a very, we have a very high I, um, high profile hearing happening tomorrow that involves goof Ray and prince Andrews.
And they’re going to be talking about a motion to dismiss, gonna guess that be that that motion is ultimately denied, but we will decide, uh, what to talk about tomorrow. But, uh, I think that’s it for the day. Let’s see if we have any other questions. We’ll give some shoutouts over on YouTube. Jess cows is back here. Jess cows was running some errands. He’s back here in the house. We’ve got Talbert’s mom a day over on locals. We’ve got, I’m not gases here. It’s been a while. Avalon says my new last name is just trying to be bougie. Yeah, it’s true. I’m only gonna get Italian designer clothes. Now actually the show from now on is just gonna be me. Just, you know, leathered out in, uh, Italian designer clothes. It’s it’s it’s all it’s gonna be. And we’re gonna use a lot more meatball analogies here, too. Meatballs, meat sauce, teasing out. It’s gonna be an Italian banana. So get ready for it. Uh, let’s see here.
Red Ford on YouTube. Lean is saying, Rob, I think she’s not happy with this. Rob also Nick’s over there. We’ve got Colin. Neil cam is in the house. Cam’s from UK, from Windsor. Good to see you cam glad that you’re over here. Jess. Kyle says, well, feel free to hang out with me. <laugh> Rob looks like he’s about to Hulk outta that stretch rap shirt. Well, this, this is a, um, they call these sch mediums. You know, it’s not quite a small, it’s not quite a medium. It’s a sch medium. So it’s, you know, makes you look, makes you look good.
Zis having fun and lean is saying, Rob, come on, stop it. <laugh> Rob. Stop at your bare yourself to me. Um, Robin may says he’s always gonna be grr to me. That’s fine. That’s fine. You know, as long as I have a special place in your heart, the name doesn’t matter. It’s about that connection. We also have crypto beauty, south academy says Italy has beautiful. Been there twice, which is true. I’ve been to Italy too. Yeah. I mean, it’s a beautiful country. Been to Rome into Venice. It’s beautiful over there. Love the people. Jeremy Madrea says, Hey Rob, Hey, Jeremy Avalon says the G will always be silent in, I think that’s in OI Z Booz. I’m not gas as Rob, have you been training, testing your strength and Ava giving up. He’s giving me steroid puns, which I don’t use steroids.
You don’t need steroids. You just need BCAAs. You know, maybe, you know, creatine’s a pretty useful supplement out there. Not all the time, but it is useful. Lean says I’m knew there would be an Italian connection. Yeah. I mean, that’s the name? It really is. And we’ve got, we’ve got some good lineage there in the Gove, the Gove family. It’s a lot, you know, it’s a great family. We’ve got a big, huge family, tons of cousins spread all over the place. So it’s, it’s overdue. And I appreciate everybody allowing me to have some fun with it and sharing that good news with you. Feisty lady says, do you have any good Canole recipes? No, I don’t. My mom does the cooking. You know, she does the cooking. She heard about the meatloaf shout out that we had the other day. We were talking about meatloaf on this, on this show, because guess who had meatloaf on her birthday go Maxwell did.
And we were talking about meatloaf and this was a very, very complicated issue because some people were saying there shouldn’t be onions in the meatloaf. Other people were saying that, you know, onions are kind of necessary in meatloaf. And you know, it’s a complicated subject. And quite frankly, it’s an issue that is a little bit too volatile for this show, frankly. Right? We talk about Ghislaine. We talk about trafficking. We talk about, uh, police brutality and officer involved shootings, but we’re not gonna be getting into the meatloaf debate. Okay. There’s one kind. That is good. It’s the kind my mom makes. That’s it? No more discussion monster. One says, Rob, you gotta make the Italian hand gesture. Every time you make a point, that’s right. I’m gonna stop going like this and start going like this <laugh> monster one. Yeah. You know, and, and that’s why those prosecutors are the worst. And we have to fix this justice system.
Don’t we, I’m not gas as I get it from the back of the local butcher shop meat loaf sandwiches rule. All right. I think my friends that is, uh, it for the questions. Let’s see. <laugh> I’m Scottish Milky, pure blood says I’m Scottish. What, what is a meatloaf? What do you do with that? You consume it. All right. And so my friends before we get outta here, couple quick announcements. So obviously the name change is a thing. You’ll notice that I make a experimenting with some new content as well. Okay. Uh, there, there were some posts that came out over the weekend and the holiday break that we’re talking about stoicism, the daily stoic, which I was going to be reading from every day. If you bought that book, probably not gonna be reading from it every day. Why Ryan ho is on YouTube. I had no idea.
He’s got a huge channel. And so if you want stoicism, he’s the channel to go to. He’s got more videos than, than anybody knows what to do with. So if you’re reading this book, great book, it’s called the daily stoic. It’s one stoic reading every day. Ryan holiday is the author of this book. He has a whole channel about it. And so I’d encourage you to go check that out. We are, I am still wanting to sort of experiment with some new content, try some new things, stuff that is a little bit less topical, certainly political, certainly legal in nature, but more political science and philosophical. And so I’m just experimenting with stuff I’m playing around with stuff. And so you may see some changes. And so tomorrow you’re gonna see a new video tomorrow morning at 6:00 AM. That covers Federalist paper, number one. Okay.
This is the Federalist papers. We’ve talked a lot about these. These are some of the most cherish documents in American history. And so I’m sort of, uh, playing around with different things that we can review and study here on the channel. And so tomorrow morning I got about a, a, I think a 15 minute video about the us constitution asking whether we actually need a new constitution and going through the same factors that Alexander Hamilton reviewed when they were considering the new constitution back in 1787. And so I’m gonna be playing around with some of that content, keep that in mind. You know, if, if you want to, uh, if, if you have any feedback for me on any of this stuff, stuff you like, if you don’t like, I would, I would appreciate it, uh, you know, appreciate your thoughts on it. So just make sure you’re dropping comments and I’m gonna be paying ultra close attention this year.
Cuz I want to improve the channel. I want to improve our relationship. And I want to, you know, to continue to get better and evolve and grow. Isn’t that what 2022 is all about. So as we continue to experiment, I pre appreciate your feedback and understanding some stuff might stick around some stuff. We might try it and just throw it away. And so we’re gonna continue to flesh it out. But my commitment here is, is more, more deeper content because it, it is I think very important to the mission. And I had a lot, uh, a lot of time over this holiday break to speak with, with my business partner, we’re communicating sort of a new vision for the firm this year. And I, I, I wanna make sure that I am playing all in on my commitment towards really reforming the justice system. And I think a big part of what we want to do here is I is based around the conversations that we have here on the reg on a regular basis us.
And so, uh, I just wanted to share that with you. So just keep that in mind, some stuff may be changing. Some stuff may not be still making a commitment to do the live show every day. As usual, you just may see some more content before or after, and we’ll just keep playing around with it. So as always, I’m open to your feedback. And before we get outta here, I want to mention, uh, some new people who joined up at our community. Big welcomes to L L I N N a. We’ve got Piper who joined up. We’ve got Todd Hupp. We have suspicious chick. We have got the Azzie lawyer. Gin Tuka here. We’ve got S baker got a good Jim, 2008. FCON us. N Y yeah. Well we got re not RWC Chuck David mark on w Shindo nosy, Texas Rosie. And TA’s mom is here along with cookie monster too. And that my friends is it for us for the day, for the show for the day. We’re gonna be back here tomorrow to do it all again. And I hope to see you here so that with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system. With the hope of finding justice. I’ll see you tomorrow my friends. Have a tremendous evening. Bye bye.