And it looks like we are. Hello everybody. Welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live, my name is Robert crueler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the beautiful, always sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have helped to represent thousands of good people facing criminal charges. I’m talking about DUIs and drugs and domestic violence and all of that stuff. Unfortunately, sometimes good people hit bumps in the road. We’ve all been there. And one of our duties, one of our sacred honors is to help people get through that and get their lives back on track. And we’ve been doing it for some time. We’ve got a great team here out in Arizona and over the course of all of that time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, with the justice system in general, all across the board, not just exclusive to criminal law, but we were talking specifically about problems with the police.
We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We see judicial misconduct and we see the politicians, the people who are responsible for drafting the laws and implementing them even they behave poorly and it all trickles down. And so what we’ve been focused on a lot here on this channel is calling out that misconduct, identifying where this malfeasance is taking place, discussing it, and making sure that there are not two tiers of justice in our country, because we all want to be held to the same standard. And so that’s how watching the Watchers was born. Recently, a large part of what we have been discussing has been about the politicians today. We’re going to get into more of that right now. We’re in the middle of a unique era in American history. We have this transition happening or not happening depending on what side of the aisle you’re on.
And it’s really, really sticky. There is a lot of attention on both sides of the aisle. And every single day, we see little bit of movements towards what feels like a resolution. And so today we’re going to spend some time talking about some of the lawsuits that are taking place to settle some of this stuff up. And in particular, we’re going to be spending some time talking about Pennsylvania. There has been a number of different lawsuits. There’s a Pennsylvania case that has been before the Supreme court, Rudy Giuliani, and the Trump team. They filed a opening brief in the third circuit court of appeals. And we want to show you what that looks like. We’re going to take a look at the original documents. We’re going to take a look at some case law, because there’s an interesting new remedy that they’re proposing. And then we’re going to show you what some of the responses are from the opposition parties, the Democrats who have filed a, a motion to intervene.
So they want to be a part of this lawsuit. Now it’s going to be a lot of, you know, a little bit of a block, text of language and so on, but we’re going to try to make it as decipherable as we can. The next thing we’re going to talk about here today is a little bit more about the transition specifically about the GSA, the general services administration yesterday. We saw that Donald Trump authorized them to begin giving some resources to the Biden team. They wrote a letter, but the letter is a little bit interesting because it doesn’t necessarily say that they’re even believing that Joe Biden is the next president. They’re just going to open up some additional resources for him. And then lastly, we have got a couple of the smaller stories that we want to just blaze through. We have a situation in Santa Clara where a number of different police officers have been indicted.
This was an investigation that took two years and we just saw the indictments. They were released on Monday. So I want to tell you about these bad police officers or as we call them here, the bad Popo. And yesterday, if you were a part of the live stream, there was a Superchat that came through, had comes through quite regularly from a friend of ours over in the UK. And so we have a little bit of UK news. There was a judge over there who has responded to some of the, the great Britain, some of their lockdown orders as they relate to COVID-19. And so we want to hear from what our friends across upon, what do they have to say now, before we dive into all of this, I want to remind you if you’re not a regular of this channel, we go live at this time every day. Now’s a good time for you to hit that subscribe button and become part of the community. There’s a very active live stream, live chat that happens every time we’re live, the way the program works. We go through some of the material and we’ll save the super chats. We’ll save all the live chats till the end of the program, ms. Faith and our moderator, mr. Mom are going through and screen grabbing some of those questions
And they are funneling them to me. We’re going to save them
All to the end and we’ll get those addressed for you. One other reminder, if you want to chat before and after the show, if you want access to any of the slides that we’re presenting today, we have them available in our discord chat server. So that’s a different chat. You have to click the link in the description and go over to a different piece of software. Because as soon as we’re done here on YouTube, the live chat ends, but people want to continue to talk both before and after the show. And they want access to a copy of my book as a free PDF in the discord chat. And there’s a lot of good, cool stuff that happens there. So go and check that out. All right, let’s dive into the material today. So the third circuit is what we’re talking about. Want to give you a little bit of a crash course on how some of this stuff works.
Here is a map of the different circuit courts around the United States. And if you’re listening on audio, only by the way, you’re not going to see any of this stuff, but we are putting this stuff up on a podcast. The link is in the description. I apologize. We can’t see it. But what we’re looking at here is a map of the United States. And you can see that there are a number of different colors on this map because the state, the United States are broken up into different circuit courts. And what we’re talking about specifically is the third circuit. So you can see here at covers, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, and the way that this works traditionally, keep this in mind is you’ve got state courts and you’ve got federal courts. So the state courts, you have, you know, a lot of your criminal law takes place there, your family law.
And so on, the federal courts are reserved for a different type of subject matter. Typically they are appeals from lower level state courts, or they’re dealing with conflicts between the States. There’s a, there’s a certain subject matter. That is applicable only for the federal government. It has to implicate federal rights. And so that’s what the Trump team had originally done. I think this was last week. We covered the lawsuit, but they filed a new complaint. They filed a bunch of different complaints around the entire country, but in Pennsylvania, they issued, they filed a new complaint. You may have seen this spinning around in the headlines over the last couple of weeks. And there was this back and forth. They filed a complaint. They filed their lawsuit in court in the lower level federal district court, which is the first entry. It’s a first stop on the path in the federal system.
So you go to a district court, then you go to where we’re at now, which is the third circuit. And then from the circuit, you can go up to the Supreme court. So it’s really three different levels. And right now we’re in the middle level. Now last week, or it might’ve been earlier this week, the, the lower level district court heard the original complaints and they decided that they didn’t really like it. There was some back and forth between Donald Trump and his team. There was a changing of the attorneys. We’re going to see what happened there. That Trump actually had three attorneys who were on and then got rid of them. And, you know, there was a substitution of counsel. Then that’s when Rudy Giuliani came on. Then we saw a lot of the headlines that the original complaint needed to be amended. So meaning they needed to adjust it because it didn’t capture everything that they wanted it to.
So they went and filed an amended, or they wanted to amend it. And the judge said, no, we’re not going to let you. We’re not going to let you amend it. Sorry. And the judge’s rationale essentially was, even if you amend it, there’s nothing we can do. And so they denied that amendment and they dismissed the case with prejudice, which means you can’t refile. It. That’s the end of that claim. If there’s another type of claim that comes through the court from the same parties, with the same issues, the court’s going to say, no, we already ruled on that. You can’t bring it back again. With prejudice is a big problem. If you’re the person bringing the lawsuit, now there are, there are situations where you can get a case dismissed without prejudice, which means you can come and refile the lawsuit. You can file the criminal charges again, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
It’s with prejudice, meaning you cannot bring this puppy back. So what the Trump campaign that campaign is doing now is they’re appealing that denial. They’re saying we wanted the ability to go and amend our original complaint. Remember they, the original complaint had a bunch of claims in it. Then the second proposed complaint, what took a lot of those complaints out and they filed another, another request to amend it again. And the judge finally said enough already, no more amendments you’re gone. So what we’re talking about here in the third circuit, the Trump team is just asking for more permission to go and re amend that original complaint. So they’re asking the third circuit, which is the second, which is in the middle level before the Supreme court to send the case back down to the district court and tell that judge to issue a better ruling in other words.
And so let’s go through some of this complaint because a lot of the claims that we’re going to see here are the same type of claims that we’ve been covering here. Some of them are good. Some of them are not so good, but the interesting part that we caught out of this was some case law. So a lot of our conversation on this channel has been well. What about the remedy? And remember this distinction between the problem, the harm and the remedy and the Trump team and Giuliani, and a lot of people who are a part of his legal entourage or the, the elite strike force or whatever they called themselves have been saying that the fact that they have not been able to observe the ballots justifies essentially invalidating all of the ballots, everything that they didn’t see. So anything that was coming through the door or coming through the tabulation center, if they didn’t see it get assessed or tabulated, the claim has been that those shouldn’t count.
Everything that came through that building should just be gone. And the judges largely have said, well, that’s just not how it works. We’re not going to invalidate six and a half 7 million ballots because you didn’t get to observe them. And so a lot of the conversation here has been, well, what kind of remedy then if we’re not going to throw out 6 million ballots, what can we do? And the Rudy Giuliani team and the Trump campaign have come to a request, which is a little bit different than what we’ve heard about. So let’s dive into the complaint itself. So you can see here, this complaint comes from the United States court of appeals for the third circuit. And it’s the same, same names we’ve been covering here on this channel for a long time. Donald Trump for president is the plaintiff suing Kathy Boockvar, Kathy Boockvar. We spent a lot of time talking about her and all of the different claims.
Remember in Pennsylvania, this is the big one, right? It’s 20 electoral votes. There’s a lot of stuff going on here. They move the deadline of the election. And the Supreme court got involved and said, segregate the ballots that come in after the election day and so on and so on and so on. So here we are. Now, this is, I would say the most sort of recent filing. You can see down here at the bottom that it was filed on November 23rd, yesterday. And so let’s take a look at what it says here. It says on the, on an emergency basis. So this is Donald Trump and his team filing this. They’re asking for this, they’re saying Donald Trump for president and two voters who are part of the lawsuit are asking the court to reverse the lower level denial of their motion to amend the original complaint.
They’re saying they want this matter to be remanded back down to the district court, as I already explained. And they’re saying that if this appeal is granted, the circuit court of appeals should maintain jurisdiction over it. So in other words, they’re asking that the court get involved for all of the lower level rulings. They want the federal third circuit court of appeals to be involved on this thing. And they want to specifically, they’re asking here the court grant demand that they expeditiously hold a hearing of their injunctive relief motion in order. Here’s what they want in order to prevent awarding Pennsylvania’s electors in the presidential election based on defective mail ballots. Okay. So that’s really what they’re asking for an injunction, which is an order that prevents the awarding of the electors based on defective ballots. Okay. So a lot of the same type of stuff we’ve been hearing thus far, when we go through the complaint, we’ll see here, it’s kind of broken up into a couple of sections and I want to comment on a little bit of it.
I’m not going to read all of this tax because it is a lot, but let’s just go through and maybe hit some of the highlights. So we’ll see here, uh, on Monday they give a little bit of the background on what happened here. So let’s reverse course and sort of lay out the timeline. Remember election day was November 3rd on Monday, November 9th, immediately after the election Trump campaign. And so on, they filed a, this claim in the middle district of Pennsylvania. So in the district court, in the lower level court, and they have a couple claims in here, many of which we’ve heard already, the first being that there’s a violation of equal protection. That means that the law is not protecting all votes. Equally. Some votes are being counted. Some votes are not. And in their claim, the Trump votes are not being counted. They’re also talking about due process, and this is another big overarching claim.
You can’t have something taken away from you by the government without process. You can’t be thrown in jail for a crime, unless they prove that you did something and they gave you the process. They put you through a procedure, they put you through trial, or they had you go through pretrial proceedings. And so on. You had process before they seize your Liberty and put you in custody. So they’re saying the same thing happen here. This is a violation of due process, Donald Trump and his team and America, and these voters are suffering harm because of the fact that the process was bad. They’re also saying that there’s some problems with the election clause, the electors clause, and they’re, they’re, they’re putting this all in this big underlined red line here. It says defendants scheme, favors Joe Biden over Donald Trump by counting defective mail ballots. And they’re saying that this is sufficient to turn the result of the election, which is a big deal, right?
So they’re saying that they have identified in this claim, a bucket that’s big enough. It’s going to change the course of the election. And this has been a lot of, of what we’ve been talking about here for some time. And it’s sort of becoming like a broken record here, but they’re saying that something went wrong. But the question then is what is the remedy? And if the remedy that if the remedy is connected to the harm and the harm is, is proven, and the remedy seems reasonable and just relative to the harm, the next question is, is this going to change anything? Is this going to alter the final outcome? And if it’s not, then a lot of this stuff doesn’t need to be addressed on an emergency basis. It can all just be dealt with after the election, after the certification, after the process completes itself.
But Donald Trump and his team are saying, no, no, no. You have to literally stop the certification process because what we’re about to show you is going to change the course of that. And now we have to, now we have a, a couple of different check boxes that we need to hit. We need to say we’ve identified a big enough bucket of votes. We’ve identified a remedy. What we, what do we want to do with those votes? And it’s going to change the final course of the election. And if it’s not going to do all three of those things, I think the judges are going to be less inclined to rule in the Trump campaign’s favor. All right, let’s go back over to the complaint or the opening brief itself. It says here, the district court set a settlement or a scheduling conference, and you’ll see it.
There’s a lot of information here about the procedural history. And four days before secretary Boockvar was to certify the presidential election. They scheduled the hearing on November 19th. And so all of this stuff is just getting really, really pushed on. So we go from November 9th to the 10th, to the 13, to the 17. Now we’re at the 19th and now we’re at the 24th. And this motion was just recently filed. So the Trump campaign is really on a tight, tight, tight deadline. I mean, they don’t have a lot of time to be moving through this stuff and they hit a little bit of a problem in this last go round. So you see this next paragraph here. It says the unexpected withdrawal of plaintiff’s counsel. And what that means is that the attorneys left following the filing of the original complaint. Trump’s long time main counsel Porter, Wright Morrison, Arthur Arthur received threats of violence and economic retaliation and withdrew on November 13.
So 10 days after the election, his hired attorneys bail, and we saw this, they all filed motions to withdraw. And many people in the commentary commentary out were saying, well, that’s well, you know, everybody’s jumping ship, abandoning ship. The, the rats are fleeing the sinking boat, right? And there was one remaining attorney Linda Kerns, which has mentioned here in this complaint, says a sole practitioner. She received a threatening phone call from opposing counsel over at Kirkland and Ellis. We talked about that here on this channel, as well, rather than oppose the motions to dismiss. She filed a first amended complaint. And they’re saying here, they’re throwing her under the bus entirely saying it incorrectly omitted, numerous allegations and counts. Okay, one more time. They’re saying that Linda Kerns, who was one of the original attorneys, rather than oppose the motions to dismiss, she filed a first amendment amended complaint, which incorrectly admitted numerous allegations and counts.
Whoa. Okay. So they’re basically saying that their prior attorney blew the underlying case and they should be given another opportunity to go in and modify the second complaint. The judge had oral arguments on that I believe. And they scheduled it for an evidentiary hearing. This was one of those cases where Rudy Giuliani went in there. And it sounds like he was maybe a little bit off, off Keester, a little bit. He was talking about, uh, not knowing or the allegation was that he did not know what some of the fundamental things are in constitutional law. Things like a strict scrutiny and the rational basis test and some of these basic constitutional concepts. The allegation was, I didn’t see it, that he didn’t really know much about what he was talking about. And so after that original proceeding, the judge went ahead and vacated the next evidentiary hearing.
Essentially, the judge said, I heard enough. I don’t need to hear any more of it canceled the next proceeding. And shortly thereafter issued the order to dismiss the case with prejudice. And so what Trump’s team is doing now is they’re saying, wait a minute, you shouldn’t have done that because the other lawyer who was working on the case, they blew it, not us. So we shouldn’t be penalized as a result of their incompetence. They incorrectly omitted all of those original allegations and those counts. And now they’ve got new lawyers. And so you can see here in the next paragraph, it says plaintiff’s immediately engaged new counsel and they’re requesting additional leave to amend. So Rudy Giuliani was brought on as new counsel and they want to include all of the original allegations and new allegations based on their continuing investigation. The court denied their request to adjourn court basically just said, Nope.
Uh, and, and I think we went through some of the opinion on this channel. We may not, I may have just explained it, not gone through the actual text of it, but, you know, it was, it was, uh, not flattering to the Trump team. The judge had said that, you know, this whole thing, the remedy doesn’t match the harm. And even if it did, even if you came and presented a different remedy, it wouldn’t change the course of the election. If the remedy was more in alignment with the harm. And so they dismissed the suit. So now they’re back in court, here is what they are claiming. And then let’s talk about the different remedy that they’re proposing. So the Trump team and Rudy Giuliani, they’re saying that the lower court abused its discretion. You can see in this paragraph, it says, this prevents the campaign from litigating its serious.
And well-founded claims that the defendants secretary Boockvar over in Pennsylvania and seven County board of elections controlled by Democrats engaged in a partition scheme to favor by over Trump, by counting potentially tens of thousands of defective mail in ballots, contrary to historical practice in Pennsylvania, observation of the canvasing of mail ballots was prevented in order to conceal that defective ballots did not comply with Pennsylvania signature dating and other requirements. So the observation was prevented in order to conceal the cheating essentially is what they’re saying. They’re saying that all of these things, they were being mixed, they were being counted. Defendants knew these ballots would overwhelmingly favor Biden, and then they commingled them around underlying quote here. It says, in other words, defendants deliberately counted defective mail ballots because they knew the results would benefit their favorite, favorite candidate. And again, talking about equal protection and due process, they give three reasons.
And then we’re going to, I’m going to explain a little bit about some of the case law that they cite. And then we’ll talk about the response. So it says first the court abused its discretion saying that there was undue delay that would have really made this more difficult for the court to rule on there’s it it’s, it’s, it’s too late. You know, there’s too much that’s going on on Monday, November 23rd, Pennsylvania is going to certify it. And the court disregarded their real deadline of December 8th, which was the safe Harbor provision. This we’ve been talking about a long time on this channel, right? December 8th is the final deadline. December 14th is electors day when officially everything is done and entered in Congress receives the electoral votes from all of the different States. And so they’re saying that that should have been the final date, not on Monday, November 23rd.
It goes on, it says on Monday, November 16th and the 18th, there’s no reason the court should have adjourned the oral arguments, a motion to amend should have been allowed. And there should have been a new oral argument on, on the case. There’s plenty of time to allow all of this to happen. And they’re saying that December 8th is the date that should be used not November 23rd. Okay. So now we’re arguing about timing and this is another, I think another interesting point that we should, we should just pause on for a quick minute. Remember what we have been talking about on this channel for some time. Now, a lot of people on the legal side of Twitter and Facebook and elsewhere, any of the mainstream commentary people, you know, they’re all saying that Donald Trump has one in 35 in lawsuits, Jenna Ellis, we saw was coming back and saying, well, no, we only filed three of those things.
And this is something that, uh, you know, we shouldn’t be tethered to their losses because we weren’t the ones responsible for the lawsuits. Yeah. And no, I mean, a lot of the claims are very similar between between the camps. Donald Trump’s team is only filing certain claims. And a lot of those same claims have been mirrored in these different various lawsuits that are being filed throughout the rest of the country. And so very similar, it may not be their actual lawsuit, but it’s very, very similar. And, you know, th th th the difference I would say is, is negligible. At that point, I understand it’s not their lawsuit, but it’s still the same arguments. And if those arguments are getting dismissed largely, then that’s a problem. Now, the other sort of strategic thing that I think a lot of people are missing in that equation is that they have to file a lot of these lawsuits.
And necessarily a lot of these lawsuits are going to get dismissed because they needed to preserve this underlying issue, which is this timing problem. Remember there are strict deadlines, strict certification deadlines, and what the initial flurry of litigation was all about getting the foot in the door and making the claim to stop the next thing from happening, whatever that was to stop the County certification, the state certification, the precincts, whatever certification, you know, they have to get their foot in the door before the deadlines expire, because there are many statutes that say that you can’t file a claim if you’re outside of a certain time window. So that’s what was happening here. And now we’re talking about, you know, a Trump, uh, Trump has now had the time to draft up some solid complaints, do some research. We’re now three, three something weeks out from the election.
And so these claims should start to be more, I would say more meaty, a little bit more full, put some meat on the bones as it were. And well, let’s see if we have any of that coming through. So second they’re saying the court, even if the court found delay the defendants, it never found that the defendant suffered harm. So the defendants had not responded and still have not responded to the motion to amend. So the second complaint here is that the lower district court, they were the ones who on their own dismiss the complaint. It wasn’t that the defendants, the people who the Trump people are suing, they didn’t come back and say, we wanted this dismiss. They just didn’t even respond to it. The court acted on their own without the input of the defense, which is not entirely customary. So thirdly, we see the court ms.
Strewed, and this is, this is kind of the meaty part of what we’re getting at here. The court also misconstrued the remedy sought. So remember what we were talking about, about identifying buckets of votes, and then the Trump team needing to convince the courts to throw out those buckets of votes. It goes on, it says the campaign campaign is not seeking to disenfranchise 6.8 million Pennsylvania, which they kind of were for some period of time. We saw that a lot, same type of language from Rudy, same type of language from Trump. We mentioned it here on this program that it’s too big of a bucket, you know, unless there’s serious, serious, serious malfeasance, a court is not going to invalidate 6.8 million Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvania is we thought that there was no way that’s going to happen. And the truck team is saying, yeah, look, we’re not even trying to do that.
And, uh, you know, essentially we, they’re not apologizing here, but they’re saying we’re not trying to do that. Let us clarify. Rather as explained in numerous filings, including the renewed injunction, the campaign only seeks to set aside defective mail ballots among the 1.5 million casts in defendant counties. So now they’re, they’re, they’re narrowing their claim a little bit. So they’re going from 6.8 million down to 1.5 million. And it’s only being narrowed to certain counties in Pennsylvania. The campaign seeks the remedy here is the remedy. What they want to be done is to examine a sample of the mail ballots, to determine the defective percentage, and then engage an expert to calculate the overall defective number among the 1.5 million, the defective ballot should then be deducted from Biden’s votes, which may change the results of the election. All right. So let’s break that down a little bit. All right.
So we’ve got all these different buckets of votes. We’ve got 6.8 million where they started. Now, they’re saying, no, we’re not going to focus on the 6.8 million. We’re not going to throw out. We’re not going to ask the court to throw out 6.8 million votes. That’s insane, but we have identified 1.5 million defective mail ballots in certain counties. And so what they want to do is bring in an expert, somebody who can come in and talk about what percentage almost of an audit. So they go, they look at a number of these ballots and they say, okay, based on these, this, this bucket, we’re going to comb through them. And we’re going to identify that a certain percentage of these things are deemed to be defective. What percentage of that? Is it one out of a hundred? Is it 10 out of 150 out of a hundred? Is it 99 out of a hundred?
What’s going on? They don’t know, but they want to identify what that percentage is. And then extrapolate that to the total 1.5 million. So let’s say you get 1.5 million. Let’s say a third of those are potentially bad. Well, now, now you’re talking about potentially 500,000 votes that you extrapolate from the, the, the smaller bucket into the bigger bucket. And the Trump people are saying all of those, literally every single one of those, as you can see here, the defective ballots should be deducted from Biden’s votes, which may change the course of the election, which is interesting. Okay. There’s, there’s, there’s some legal authority that comes next here, and we’re going to go through that, but why should those defective ballots just be deducted from Biden? Wouldn’t the better remedy be to identify how many of those of that percentage that this expert identifies? How do we break that percentage up?
What percentage of the percentage are for Donald Trump and what are for Joe Biden? That’s not what they’re proposing. They’re just saying if it’s a defective ballot, all of those votes should be deducted from Joe Biden, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a defective ballot that has a Donald Trump vote on it, or whatever. Everything should be deducted. If it’s a defective ballot that went for Donald Trump, they still want to take that vote away for, from Joe Biden. That that doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Now they go through here and they say that the, this exact process and remedy was approved in a different case in marks versus Stinson, which is a us district court case. And it was appealed and affirmed by the federal third circuit court, which is the same circuit that we’re in.
So we have some case law in Marx vs. Stinson that we can look at. They’re saying here that this process that I just flushed out for you, this is the exact process and remedy that was approved by Marx versus Stinson in 1994. That’s what they’re saying here. We’re going to look at this case next, because I don’t see that there. Lastly, finally, the court erred in dismissing the injunction erred in denying the motion to amend the final part of this is really saying the court should reverse the denial of the motion and immediately decide the motion to amend and allowed, allow a hearing on the second amended complaint. So it’s a lot of legal leads going on here, but they’re saying that they want to identify 1.5 million votes. They want to bring in an expert witness to analyze those 1.5 million. They want to identify of the 1.5, how many of those were bad and illegal votes as a result of the defective mail ballots.
And then they want to deduct all of those votes from Joe Biden’s team. And they’re saying this was exactly what happened in marks versus Stinson. Well, let’s take a look at March marks versus Stinson. So we see here that this was a case that was decided, like we talked about on March 16th, the 1994, this was for the third district court, third circuit. And this is the case site here. If you want to go pull it up, full title is March versus Stinson, Bruce Marks and so on. All right, the holding here says, and we’re going to go through an actual paragraph. Holding says if the district court, so this is, would have been a lower level court that Donald Trump was a part of originally, if it finds a constitutional violation, it will have authority to order a special election. All right. So a special election, which is just the summary here from a website called case text, where you can look up some legal cases.
They’re saying that Marx versus Stinson says that the remedy is a special election. And not like we saw on this slide where they’re just going to deduct defective ballots from Joe Biden’s votes. And so my original thought was, I’ve never heard of that remedy. I’ve never heard of bringing somebody in and just assessing what percentage they think are bad and then deducting those votes from anybody. It just, it doesn’t even make sense to me. So I was wondering, how did they flush this out in Marx versus Stinson? And here is a little bit of a paragraph from the actual citation from the actual case. All right. It says here while Griffin. So again, we’re talking, so courts are talking and they’re using precedent from different courts. The third, uh, this is, this is the third circuit speaking and the referencing a case called Griffin, which took place over in the 11th circuit, which is a different case, different court, different jurisdiction, different precedent.
So the third circuit doesn’t have anything. It doesn’t have to follow what the 11th circuit does, but they can, they can say, well, this is persuasive authority. A different circuit did. That seems like it worked out for them. So we can choose to do that on our own. Or you can have, what’s called a circuit split where the 11th says, we’re going to do it this way. The third circuit says, ah, that’s stupid. We’re going to do it this way. And then both different circuit courts can have competing philosophies. What ultimately usually ends up happening is there’s a conflict this bubbles up, because now we have disparate treatment in different parts of the country. People having different results, the Supreme court, here’s the case issues, a ruling, and then rectifies it across the board. And so what this court is doing is they’re saying, okay, let’s look at a different case in a different court and see if we can tease out any information that will be useful to us in our current analysis.
So they’re talking about this other case. Griffin says, unlike this case, Griffin didn’t involve massive absentee ballot fraud, right? This case is on point. It’s talking about massive absentee ballot fraud, which is the same claim that a lot of the Trump people are making and have been making for several weeks. They’re saying just because it, it doesn’t involve massive ballot fraud. It doesn’t mean that it’s not helpful here. Let’s look at a couple things. First, the court concluded that the rejection of a ballot where the voter has been effectively deprived of the ability to vote it implicates, federal due process concerns. All right. That’s a big thing. That’s pretty important. I think that’s good precedent for the Trump team. And what they’re saying here is that if a voter doesn’t get to vote a state may go ahead and say, we’re okay with that. But the federal constitution, which does grant people, the ability to participate in self-governance, they’re saying, uh, the state can’t supersede the state, can’t overrule the federal protections, the federal constitution.
And so federal due process is implicated, which takes some of that a little bit out back from the States, the constitution. If you remember, we’ve talked about it here gives a lot of authority, a lot of deference to the state legislatures to go in and run their elections. However they want to, which is why we had so many big problems with the courts, just on their own changing, how the laws work. We saw this all the time. We talked about this yesterday with governor, Whitmer basically passing an executive order that looks like it’s 10 pages of statutory law. The governor doesn’t have the authority to do that. The court doesn’t have the authority to modify the laws that are passed by the legislatures. And so if they pass something that impedes on a constitutional right, that’s a problem and the federal courts can come in and step in and, and issue a remedy.
So this case is acknowledging that over here in Mark versus Stinson, it’s also talking about the court’s focus was not upon the alleged prejudice to the candidate. Okay. There, they don’t care about the candidate who endured the rigors of electioneering. They don’t care about that. They say, who may have been the choice of the electorate, if it’s a may, okay, that’s fine. We’re not focused on that. I’m sorry that stinks. But rather they’re going to focus on the right of the electors to vote and have their votes counted. Okay. So it’s changing that analysis a little bit. A lot of people here are saying, well, Donald Trump, you know, he, he, he was robbed of this thing. And so he should be given a fair shake. His campaign should be given a fair shake. What can they do? What’s the burden of proof? What do they have to prove in court, in to make their claims stick while there’s some case law here that says we’re not super concerned about that, we’re more concerned about the claims that the voters are being disenfranchised or that the will of the people is being thrown out.
And I think that’s a good point so far. We haven’t really seen much of that from the Trump team. We’ve seen some of them saying that we weren’t able to observe. We weren’t able to, you know, be in the rooms and all of those things, but they haven’t. They’ve tied that to them. It’s our inability to observe, not so much about the voters, not getting their say in the election. It’s a nuanced distinction, but I think it’s important. And this court agrees. And lastly, thirdly, we see here that they’re talking about the finally, even in the absence of fraud, where it was not feasible to establish who would have won a properly conducted election, a new election was appropriate to restore the integrity of the electoral process. So it’s like a little bit of good news and bad news for Donald Trump, right? On the one hand, we see that in their complaints, they sorta misstated the law.
Now the opinion out of the third circuit, it’s very long. I didn’t read every single word of it, but I didn’t see anything in there that says anything about a percentage and having an expert come in and, and evaluate things. It just wasn’t. In that case, there may have been a different case. This could have been a mistake in their citation. They could have cited a different case, but the remedy that they’re proposing and citing as a basis, the studying of different cases, the basis for that remedy, it’s not in there as far as I can tell somebody else can, can read it or look it up, but I haven’t seen it. And I spent a decent amount of time combing through the opinion today. So that’s a bad thing, right? You’re, you’re filing a sloppy complaint in the third circuit. You’re referencing case law that doesn’t stand for the claim that you say it does, that’s wrong, but also keep in mind, anytime you’re filing these appeals, they’re almost extremely compressed for time.
And so this could have been a clerical error. This could have been something that, uh, you know, they’re going to remedy later down the road. I don’t know, not such a good appearance, but what is good or what is interesting in a way to view this in favor of the Trump team, if you’re on that side of the aisle, is that the remedy here that that is already on record in precedent is that in certain situations, a new election is appropriate. We’ve been talking about what the remedies are, and in this case you can go read through it. But there was, there was some pretty massive claims of fraud. Essentially one candidate was just handing out all mail-in ballots and there was the whole thing was totally rigged. The lowered level district court wanted to modify the remedy a little bit, not count the mail in ballots, only count the machine ballots that the, the electronic tabulators and so on.
And so the courts are really trying to wrap their heads around this whole issue. And it’s going to be curious to see where it ends up and whether or not the Supreme court does weigh in. All right. Let’s take a look at who is responding to this complaint. So I know we’re going a lot. We’re going deep, deep, deep, deep into some case activity here. This won’t take long. This is a response for the interveners, the democratic national committee. So the DNC filed this. We have Mark Les Uzman and so on all these different names, Perkins, coy, and they filed a response. So now this means they are trying to intervene in the case. Donald Trump file is filed his complaint. We just read through some of it and they filed this literally today, probably just a few hours ago. So the Trump team initiated their opening brief.
The Democrats have already responded, and here’s what they’re saying, introduction, this appeal and the plaintiff’s underlying lawsuit is now moot. The actions plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin have already occurred all 67 counties in Pennsylvania, including the secretary of state have tabulated those results just within the last few hours. Governor Wolf has signed the certificate of ascertainment for the slate of electors for president elect Biden and Harris, and submitted it to the United States certification of November. Third is complete. There is nothing to enjoin. The court should dismiss this appeal. And so, you know, this is one of those situations where they have a, this is not their entire response. It’s a huge brief lot of material. They were just waiting until the state certified it to fire that thing off. And as I mentioned previously, this is why Trump’s team was scrambling to get all of these original lawsuits filed, because I think they have a point once the States do certify things, it does kind of become mood it’s already done.
We already, you know, they already analyzed everything. It’s all said and done. It’s, it’s, it’s over with. That’s gonna be their argument. And I think it’s going to be persuasive to a lot of judges unless Trump’s team can really deliver some, you know, some, some solid evidence that meets the different check boxes that we’ve been speaking about, particularly it has enough to change the course of the outcome. It’s a big enough bucket. The remedy matches the harm and it’s enough to alter the course of the election. Whether we see that or not. We don’t know. I expect that there will be a ruling on this case this week, and it could be a bombshell. We’ll see, we’re hope you’re around for that. This is a good time to remind you hit that subscribe button because we want you to be here. All right. So, all right.
The legal stuff is continuing to heat up in all of the different courts. As we see here, uh, we’re in, in the third circuit, there’s a case knocking on the door outside of the Supreme court. There’s other litigation going on in basically all of the States. It’s a lot to keep track of. And so many of us were wondering, what does Donald Trump have to say about this? And what is he going to do? Is he going to continue to litigate this thing all the way up to December 8th, all the way up to the 14th. When we have electors day, what’s going to be going on. And as we were on this program live yesterday, somebody sent a super chat in that said, Donald Trump authorized the transition. And it was a little bit of groundbreaking news that we got to discuss live on the show. And today we’re going to revisit it.
And we’re going to talk specifically about what happened because it’s, it’s very interesting. I didn’t know about this presidential transition stuff until we started diving into this, but I learned some interesting things in let’s dive into it. So yesterday this was posted while we were live from Donald Trump on Twitter, he says, I want to thank Emily Murphy at the GSA, which is the general services administration for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our country. She has been harassed, threatened, abused. I do not want to see this happen to her or her family or the employees of the GSA. Our case strongly continues. We will keep up the good fight. And I believe we will prevail nevertheless, in the best interest of our country. I’m recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols and have my team do the same.
So that sounded like a concession yesterday. It was about as close as I thought we were going to get out of, uh, out of, out of Donald Trump regarding a concession. And it kind of sounds like that. Like, alright, you know, yesterday was the day that I think Michigan certified their electors today, Pennsylvania did a slew of other different battleground States are in the process of certifying their results as well. And so we were speculating yesterday that maybe this was Donald Trump’s way of conceding. This was him saying, all right, we’re not going to be able to convince the legislatures to go in there and modify anything. We’re not going to be able to, you know, get, get these, these big buckets of votes thrown out and it’s going to change course. And so this is his version of concession, but then we, uh, we wake up today and that’s not the case.
Here is Donald Trump. Again, he says, what does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with? The Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history, we are moving full speed ahead. We’ll never concede to fake ballots and dominion, which is very Donald Trump of him, right? And, and, and it doesn’t have to concede, we’ve made this point here on the channel for some, some time the country is going to move forward one way or another, and the deadlines are all coming up. And so, as we were commenting on a number of this, you know, these developments over the last few weeks, this is, this has been the point that these deadlines are going to come and go. And I’ve sat on this channel that I am not sure that we’re going to see that big, you know, big bang, a big explosion.
It’s not going to be like, we’re going to have a massive movie Hollywood moment where somebody comes into a courtroom, slams down a dossier of paper and says, this is the evidence and everything should be thrown out. It’s just not going to be like that. Instead, it’s going to be kind of this slow transition to slow moving transition. And it feels like we’re sort of in the middle of that, because this is the letter from the GSA, which like I said, is the general services administration. This comes from her name was, uh, Murphy, Emily Murphy. And this was her letter over to Senator Joe Biden or president elect Joe Biden or projected president elect, Joe Biden, whatever you want to call the guy. This is the letter to him. This was drafted and sent yesterday. And it’s interesting. It’s not as, uh, as welcoming as I would have otherwise guessed.
It says here, dear mr. Biden, as the administrator, I have the ability under the presidential transition act of 1963, which we’re going to cover here to make certain post-election resources and services available in the event of a presidential transition. I take this role seriously because of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results. I’m transmitting this letter today to make those resources and services available to you. I have the dedicated, this is where she’s talking about sort of, you know, how difficult this whole process has been for her. And I don’t doubt it. I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service, always strive to do what is right. Please know, I came to this decision, this decision independently, based on the law and available facts, I was never directly or indirectly pressured by any executive branch official, including those at the white house, with regard to substance or timing, I did not receive any direction to delay my determination.
I did. However it received threats online by phone, by mail and so on threatening my family and even threatening my pets. Even in the face of threats, I always remained committed to upholding the law. All right, my decision was not made out of fear or favoritism, and this is where she gets into some of the legal stuff. I strongly believe that the statute requires that the GSA administrator ascertain not impose the apparent president elect. We’re going to read that. We’re going to read what that says, and you’ll be able to decide what you think. I strongly believe that the statute requires the GSA administrator asks pertain not impose the apparent president elect. All right. I’m not sure that there’s much of a distinction there, but she seems to think that there is all right. Unfortunately, the statute provides no procedures or standards for this process.
So I looked at precedent from prior elections that have legal challenges and incomplete counts. The GSA does not dictate the outcome of legal disputes, nor does it determine whether those proceedings are reasonable or justified. So what you’re saying here is I don’t, I don’t get to play the judge. If this stuff is pending, I’m just going to sit on the sidelines until it gets resolved. These issues are that the constitution, federal laws and the state laws lead to the election certification process and decisions by the courts and competent jurisdiction. I do not think that an agency should be charged with improving federal procurement. And I strongly urge Congress to consider amendments to the act. So she’s saying, yeah, this act is pretty bad. We should modify this thing. And this is the second part of her letter. And I wanna, I wanna, this is, you know, she’s kind of throwing a little bit shade at Joe Biden over here.
She says, as you know, the GSA administrator does not pick or certify the winner of a presidential election. Instead, the role is to act, the role to act is extremely narrow to make resources available as stated because of these legal challenges and certification issues. I’ve determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in section three upon your request. And then she notes here. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detail in the constitution, which is uninteresting sentence. Okay. It’s basically saying, I’m going to give you access to this stuff, but you’re not the president yet there, buddy. Boy, why don’t you pump those brakes a little bit? Uncle Joe, you’re not the president until it’s determined by the electoral process, detailed in the constitution, which is going to happen on December 8th and December 14th to the safe Harbor provision on the eighth.
The 14th will be the final day and yeah, technically she’s right, technically, but kind of a little bit of a, huh. Right, right there towards the Biden people, section seven, she’s talking about it. It’s making 6.3 million available, 1 million for other stuff. And if there’s anything we can do to assist you, please contact somebody else. Don’t call me contact Mary Giber. The federal transition coordinator signed by Emily Murphy copied all of these different honorable individuals. So she’s saying, uh, you know, look, I’m gonna give you some access to this stuff. Don’t call me though. All right. You’re not the president yet. Get the hell out of here is what you say. Not too, not too, uh, not too much of a warm welcome from somebody whose job it is to transition the next administration. And all right, let’s take a look at the presidential transition act. And you’ll notice here that this act was written back, I think in 1963.
Yep. It was. And this is what it looked like in the original reporters. So when you have old laws, they would bind them into these big reporters, these big books. And because this was back in 1963, there’s some interesting things in this transition act. And I would agree with Emily Murphy that it is time to maybe, maybe add some amendments to this because it is starting to look a little bit dated. Here’s what it says. The act to promote an orderly transfer of executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of an office of president and the inauguration of a new president went into effect in 1963. Here’s what section three talks about, which is what Emily Murphy was referencing. She says here, section three, the administrator of the general services refer to as the administrator, which is her, is authorized to provide upon request to each president and president elect for using connection with his preparations, for the assumption of office necessary services and facilities.
And it goes through this big, long list. I’ll briefly tell you what they are suitable office space for appropriately, appropriately equipped with furniture, furnishings, machines, equipments, office supplies that are all determined by the administrator, which is Emily Murphy after consultation with the president elect. And that’s just the first part. They also talk about the, the, the transition includes office staff and, and, uh, and consultant salaries. So subsection two and three, they talk about office staff and the salaries for all of the different staff, also experts and consultants. So there’s a section that’s carved out for additional funds for, for those people. Also travel expenses are included. So, uh, the, the Joe Biden and his transition team, they can make reasonable travel accommodations, communication services are included in that. And then finally, where this act is really getting data is they have two subsections, sub-section six and seven, where they’re talking about printing and binding costs and also postage costs because you have to mail a lot of stuff back in 1963.
And so some of those things have changed a little bit, but they still are going to get it covered. It sounds like. And now the other part here where we’re asking about whether the president and the president and elect, what does that mean under this act? All right. So if, if they’re going to be calling Joe Biden, the president elect, what does that mean? Well, it’s defined in the act in the presidential transition act under the definitions section. Here’s what it says. The term president elect as used in this act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the president and the vice president, respectively as ascertained by the administrator, following the general elections, held to determine the electors of the president and the vice-president in accordance with the us code. All right. So the apparent successful candidate as ascertained by the administrator.
So she doesn’t want to give him a warm, nice, friendly, welcome into the white house, but it sounds like she’s kind of considering him to be the next president. The apparent successful candidate is what the act says she has made that determination. So I think, I think we can conclude that based on the act and based on what she’s doing, that the GSA is now of the position that Joe Biden is the apparent successful candidate by the statutes own quote language. All right. And another interesting part of this act is that Donald Trump also gets some transitionary costs covered. Section four says that the president will get six months from the date of the expiration of his term of office as president for use in connection with winding up the affairs of the office, necessary expenses and facilities have the same general character that are authorized to be provided for the presidents elect and the vice presidents elect.
So if Donald Trump is going to give it, if he’s going to want, if he’s going to need that stuff, then he’s got to give it over to Joe Biden. So that may be another reason. You know, he may want access to some of those resources as he is transitioning out. Maybe he wants to start preparing for some of that stuff. If he thinks that this is a foregone conclusion, but maybe not, we will continue to see, but it sounds like it is underway now. And it kind of hard to unring that bell a little bit. I understand that there’s still lawsuits being filed still some serious claims. Sidney Powell is still saying she’s filing lawsuits. We haven’t seen anything from Victoria town Singh. Yet this week she’s made the same claims. The attorney secular has also made some claims that they’re filing additional lawsuits that are going to be, you know, mind blowing or whatever they said out of Georgia, Lynwood’s doing the same thing.
So there’s still time. There’s still a couple of weeks until we get to the 14th. But you know, this stuff is, this stuff is humming along now. And we’re going to see where it goes. So make sure you are a part of the conversation when we do that, all right, let’s switch over gears. Let’s leave some of the election stuff behind a little, and let’s talk about some bad police officers. That’s why we call them bad. PO’s on this channel. There are a lot of them. We haven’t spent a lot of time covering them, but this is kind of a staple of the program. You know, this is where it’s really easy to articulate the kind of the two tiers of, of justice. And one of the reasons I like to focus on these because the hypocrisy just grates me to no end. When I see men and women who are sworn to uphold the law, to enforce a law, enact the law, cherish the law, love the law, make their lives about that.
And then they suddenly are the ones who are responsible directly for violating it. Willfully not by accident. You know, somebody doesn’t have an addiction problem, or they’re an alcoholic. I get that. If you’re an officer and you have an alcohol problem and you get a DUI, all right. You know, that’s not in my mind. That’s not one of those egregious types of intentionally malicious crimes where you’re going out and intending to do wrong. When we see officers who literally go out there, know what they’re doing is kind of wrong or borderline or in the gray area. And they do it anyways. That’s what really irks me because they don’t give those same benefits to our clients. They wouldn’t give it to you either. They certainly wouldn’t give it to me, especially if they’ve seen this program, but let’s take a look at what’s happening over in Santa Clara showering.
So Santa Clara Sheriff’s officers were indicted here. We see over from Chris, when he says that a grand jury has issued two indictments charging the Santa Clara County undersheriff, which is sort of the deputy sheriff, uh, previously indicted. Sheriff’s captain, a local business owner and the head of global security for Apple, Apple, inc. The app, the iPhone company, the iPad company, Apple, we all know who they are with bribery for CCW licenses. CCW stands for carrying a concealed weapon. So a CCW is a concealed carry permit. He says more. The da is the district attorneys. They say that the undersheriff a guy by the name of Rick sung. So somebody who worked for the Sheriff’s department and captain James Jenson, they’re accused of requesting bribes for the CCW licenses while insurance, broker harpy, Chad DRA Chada and Apple’s chief security. Officer Thomas Moyer are accused of offering bribes to get them.
Ooh, it’s going to be a juicy one. Let’s take a look. This is Thomas Moyer, who is over at Apple he’s ahead of global security. You can see down here responsible for strategic management of Apple’s corporate and retail security, crisis management, executive protection investigations, and new product secrecy. These are the two officers. This is, let me get rid of my image there. This is undersheriff Rick sung. And this is captain James Jensen, both over from Santa Clara. Here’s what the article says over from ABC seven news, Santa Clara County, undersheriff Apple security, chief indicted in alleged concealed weapons scheme. We have the indictment. We’re going to run through it, but let’s do some high-level stuff first. Okay. So this was written by Chris. When he says, according to Rosen that sung held back issuing concealed weapons, permits to Apple’s security team. So Apple had a team.
They wanted CCW permits. They all live in California. California has the most draconian gun laws in the entire country, as far as I know, and they wanted firearms because it’s our second amendment and firearms are pretty neat and they provide pretty good protection, kind of an important thing, an important staple of American life. And they wanted access to them. But they live in California. California thinks that they know better. And what they wanted to do is they wanted to get those concealed weapon permits and they weren’t going to get them unless they donated $70,000 worth of iPads over to the Sheriff’s office. And me do the math on that. How many iPads is that? $70,000 worth of iPads. I should have done the math before the show. I’m going to guess that’s a lot of iPads. Let’s say you get the iPad pro and one of those, like a thousand bucks.
So 70 iPads, maybe 70 iPad pros with some of the, uh, some of the, the, uh, amenities as it were. It’s a lot of iPads. All right. So Moyers wait 70. Yeah, that’d be 70 iPad. All right. So I, I don’t do math very well. I’ve got to double-check that stuff. So Moyer’s attorney is maintaining his client’s innocence. So Moyer is a guy who works for Apple. He says nothing to do with any improprieties that the sheriffs they’re, the ones responsible for this stuff. He knows nothing about a bribery scheme. Wasn’t asked to make a bribe didn’t offer one Rosen says the iPad donation was pulled back. Once the DA’s office started investigating this was search warrants. A total of seven indictments have now been issued in the alleged scheme where some of the money went to sheriff Laurie Smith, 2018 re-election campaign. That’s right.
So the main, the sheriff herself is apparently on the receiving end of some of this money. That is the subject of this entire ordeal. The DA’s office would not specify whether the sheriff would be charged, but said the investigation is far from over. All right, here is a statement. The grand jury issued two indictments charging, Santa Clara County undersheriff, uh, previously indicted and so on with bribery cues of requesting bribes for concealed firearms licenses. There was an insurance broker by the name of heartbeat. We already talked about him. The defendants are going to be arraigned on January 11th. So an arraignment is a very, very sort of preliminary hearing. Uh, almost nothing substantive happens there. Generally. What happens is everybody’s brought into court, you’re in front of a judge. The judge makes sure you are who you are, make sure you understand what’s happening. Make sure that you have an attorney.
If you don’t have one, they will appoint one for you. And they want to make sure you understand the nature of the charges against you. So in this case, they’ll say, listen, you know, you were charged under California statute, whatever it is for engaging in bribery, we’re going to look at the indictment next. And here are the maximum penalties you can go to prison for X number of years. Do you understand? Yes or no? Do you want me to read this? Do you have any questions about this? Okay, great. You have an attorney. Your next court date is going to be in 30 days or in this case early January, January 11th. And that’s about it. The judge will some release conditions. So the judge will say, well, you’re kind of a danger to the community. We’re not going to let you out of custody. You’re going to have to sit in custody until your next court date.
Or they may impose a bond like we saw with the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Now Kyle had a $2 million bond posted it got out of custody. So they’re settling those issues at the initial arraignment. Now this all stemmed from a two year investigation by the DA’s office that revealed that the sheriff was aided by captain Jensen, held up the issuance of CCW licenses, refusing to release them until the applicants gave something of value. In the case of four CCW licenses with help from Apple employees, the, these, these two cops managed to extract from Thomas Moyer, a promise that Apple would donate iPads to the Sheriff’s office. The promised donation of 200 iPads. There it is worth close to 70 grand was scuttled at the 11th hour, just after August 2nd, 2019, when sung and Moyer learned of a search warrant that the DA’s office executed on the Sheriff’s office, seizing all of its CCW license records, uh, isn’t that great prosecutors going in and seizing evidence of misconduct from a Sheriff’s office.
In the case of a CCW license, withheld sung, managed to extract a promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box C tickets to San Jose sharks hockey games. So these cops wanted iPads and to go to sports games and sheriff, Laurie Smith, family members, and some of her biggest political supporters had a small celebration of her reelection as a sheriff inside the suite. So they’d go, Oh my goodness. So they go to the hockey game, they’re checking Facebook on their new iPad. And they’re reelecting celebrating the reelection of the sheriff with all of this money, the various fees that are required to obtain a CCW license, generally total between 200, $400 under state law. It’s a crime to carry one w carry a firearm without a license, although they demonstrate good cause and so on. So, uh, so they were just funneling, uh, CCW licenses around.
All right, this is the indictment that was filed by a number of different district attorneys over there in the superior court of County, California in Santa Clara. This is the complaint for both of these individuals. Rick sung harpy Ciadra grand jury says here, these are the two. These are the charges that they’re facing asking for, or receiving a bribe by an executive officer, which is a felony. And, uh, that was for those two California here under count two, another count was asking for, or receiving a bribe by executive officer that was also for Rick song, who did ask, receive and agree to receive a bribe from heartbeat Ciadra who was the defendant from the County of Santa Clara upon an agreement and understanding that the vote opinion and action of the defendant upon any matter may be binding and so on. All right, so bribing another executive officers.
Another count. We have another felony being committed by James Jensen, who was the other officer charged here is conspiracy between defendant and others violation of California, penal code another one from bribing, an executive officer we see here on overt act. So they’re talking about a conspiracy between, uh, further it’s. Okay. So we have here, uh, ASMR solutions, inc manager Martin Nielsen would procure hard to obtain CCW licenses for his company, executive protection agents, local gun parts manufacturer, Michael Nichols texted attorney Harpal NOL. I need you to meet. I need you to meet my buddy that runs the Facebook executive protection team followed by it’s a potential 50 K. So there’s all sorts of this. Just seven people all engaged in this sort of maneuvering of CCW licenses on May 29th, another overt act Martin Nielsen Christian West met with James Jensen, the cop, and a couple other people at a Jamba juice out in San Jose. They reached an agreement where the CCW licenses would be issued to as many as 10 to 12 ASMR employees in exchange for a $90,000 donation supporting the reelection of sheriff
Smith. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. So
A lot. And this just keeps going on and on. You can see overt act. Number 10, James Jensen texted Martin that the initial $45,000 donation for a $5,000 per plate fundraising dinner supporting sheriff Laurie Smith reelection would only cover nine D dinners. You can only sponsor about to nine deputies over that number 12 on or about October 2nd, 2018, Martin Nielsen moved $45,000 into his personal checking account from 70,000 that had been wired to his business from AIS solutions, FYI, all set for tomorrow. He says another one after receiving the address from James Jenson, Martin traveled to Christopher Schumer’s office and handed him a personal check for 45 grand made payable to Santa Clara County safety Alliance, referring to an independent expect expenditure committee supporting the reelection of Sherry Laurie Smith of which Christopher Shum was an assistant treasurer. So here’s another check that was, that was literally sent over there.
Santa Clara County safety Alliance, 45 grand as a donation written on October 4th, 2018. And it just keeps going on and on and on count two bribing executive officer falsification count five falsification of public records by a custodial officer government code section. We have another one filing a CCW license with a false statement. We have another one conspiracy between the defendant and others committed by James Jensen. And this is the entire crew. This is who we’re talking about. These are all of the different individuals looks like six pictures and one LinkedIn bio Harvard law school. We have harp hall and the hall and attorney. We have two attorneys on here. We got some bad Popo. We’ve got some bad sheriffs. We got some bad attorneys on this list. We want to call them out. We’re equal opportunity, equal opportunity badness going on around. This is what Lori Smith had to say. Sheriff, Laurie Smith,
Very, very, very quiet little a statement here
November 23rd, Santa Clara County district attorney’s office publicly announced that they’d been formally charged with felony bribery by a grand
Jury. As law enforcement officers, we are held to the highest
Moral and ethical that’s right? You are, you are. This is a difficult time for our organization. Of course it is. Of course. However, our goal remains to provide the highest level of public safety to the residents. Hundreds of men and women serve our community with command, passion, honesty, integrity, not addressing the issue at all, not at all, but it’s a nice relief. We’re going to see if she gets indicted. We’re going to see, uh, if she gets charged. Cause it sounds like a lot of that money was trickling up there to miss Laurie Smith, sheriff, Laurie Smith, out of Santa Clara. All right. The last story briefly of the day yesterday, we talked about, uh, we had, we had a, we had some people over in the UK, the UK, which is just amazing. We’ve gotten some feedback on this channel that people are watching from Australia and New Zealand and all over, you know, all different parts of the world.
It’s kind of amazing. And so I want to make sure that we’re providing some content for you, people as well. And so let’s talk about Lord Sumption, who is a former Supreme Marine Corps judge out of the United Kingdom. This is this fellow right here. And I, uh, I, I think I, uh, um, I think I have a little bit of a affinity for this English fella. His name is Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption, Jonathan Phillips Chadwick assumption. Lord’s assumption is a British author, medieval historian, former senior judge, who sat on the Supreme court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018. And he is, uh, he’s not particularly happy with the Corona virus. I don’t even know if that’s how you say his name by the way. I could be totally butchering that. But here’s what he said about the coronavirus. Our lives belong to us, not the state, it’s morally wrong for government control freaks to tell us what we can do at Christmas.
Bravo, Lord assumption. I appreciate that my friend and here’s what he has to say. This article goes on, uh, you can find it over on the daily mail. The risks posed by the disease vary, according to age health, gender, and perhaps ethnicity, the, the impact of isolation varies with employment status and so on. And all of these aspects, all of these respects, we only, we know enough about our own circumstances to judge what is right for us. And those around us put simply we can look after ourselves better than the government who solutions are indiscriminate. The insistence on coercing on the entire population, regardless of personal circumstances is disproportionate inefficient and destructive. It ignores most of the social, psychological and economic considerations. It is indifferent to basic considerations of humanity. It has serious collateral effects on other aspects of our lives, which may be more important to us than they are to scientists and to politicians.
It is morally and constitutionally indefensible in a country, which is not yet a totalitarian state like China. The government has not earned our trust sooner or later, people will take back control of their lives and do the right thing, whatever ministers say, Bravo on that. My friend Bravo well done well done, not possibly agree more. And I think that’s more pertinent now than ever. We are gearing up for Thanksgiving. A lot of people are going home for the holidays to spend time with their family. And the government is cracking down across the board, all over the country, all over the world. It sounds like, and people are tired of it. And anytime I can find another Supreme court judge, who, who is in alignment on that, we’re going to dive into that. So hats off cheers over to Lord sometimes. All right, let’s go over to the super chats.
We have dr. EMB in the house. Good to see you again, doctor, thanks for being here with the super chat. It says, thank you, miss faith, Malda Fox and Robert Esq for your ongoing efforts and explanations appreciate all that you do. Dr. ENB is always in the house. Always has some very nice, generous, super chats. Really appreciate you. Really appreciate your support of the channel. Appreciate you being in here. And, uh, and, and just being a part of the program. All right. Another one from Joshua Leonard says, is it possible? These lawsuits only purpose is to get SCOTUS to know there is a problem, be unsure about the scale, know what needs more investigation and use that as a reason to kick it to the house. So Joshua, I think, you know, I think, um, I think you’re kind of, you’re, you’re kind of conflating a two to two sort of separate pass to the white house for the Trump team.
There’s there’s several of them actually. So one of the strategies would be to invalidate big buckets of votes that would reverse the election in the individual States that would flip those electoral votes into the Donald Trump camp. The Supreme court could get involved and essentially do that. So we’ve talked about this previously that if they get into court, if the Supreme court hears the Pennsylvania case, for example, and they say that any votes that came in after election day that were authorized by an illegal ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme court, they’re gonna invalidate that ruling. So anything that came in after election day would be thrown out. Currently they’re being counted up until November six, but if they took out those three days worth of votes and said, those are gone, if the Supreme court did that, then that would invalidate or theory radically. If that bucket of votes was big enough to change the margin in Pennsylvania, then that would be something that would change the votes in Pennsylvania.
And that would be, you know, those 20 votes would flop over to Donald Trump. If that happened in a couple of other States that could still happen and Donald Trump could still be the next president, probably unlikely at this point, because that would need to happen in a number of different States and the Supreme court. I’m not real sure that they’re going to do that. Now, another, another thing that the Supreme court could do, there’s no precedent for this. We have not seen this, or at least I’m not aware of any time in history or something like this has happened where the Supreme court would come out and say that the way that the elections were run entirely or a violation of due process or equal protection or any of the claims that the Trump team raised, I think there’s some good arguments there, but the remedy in my mind and just doesn’t yet meet the harm.
I know there’s there’s of, you know, not being able to observe of some absentee ballots being, you know, weird. There’s a lot of weird stuff going on, but if there’s more evidence that comes out that matches the, the harm, the proposal remedy matches the harm. And there’s some indication that if, if something changes the course of the election is going to be altered, the Supreme court may, may take those cases. They may say, all right, look, this is relevant because it could change something. And there’s enough indication here that the remedy that they’re seeking is relative to the harm. And therefore we’re going to craft a resolution for this thing and get this settled once. And for all, what the law about, about, uh, elections. We’re kind of waiting for the Supreme court to say what that looks like. And it hasn’t really been defined yet.
We talked about some lower level case law that we’ve seen in, in the different circuits. Specifically, we talked about what we saw in the 11th circuit or their recommendation to the lower district court was to have another election. So if the Supreme court crafted a remedy that was based in the constitution of the United States or based in federal law, remember we have the supremacy clause. So what the federal, you know, if the States are doing something that interferes with the federal government, or is an opposition to the constitution, the federal government is going to win every time. And if there’s a problem, that’s big enough at a lower level that the Supreme court says equal protection. This is wrong. And due process has been violated. We’re going to require a new election or a new election in that state or a new election in that County or whatever it is.
That could be one way the Supreme court changes the course of the election. Now, if to answer your question a little bit more specifically, I’m not sure that the Supreme court could, could do, do something to kick it back over to the house. The house would be, the house would get implicated. If there was no number of electoral votes, and we had a contingent election, we spent a whole show talking about what contingent elections were under the 12th amendment. If, if there’s, there’s no person running for office who gets the majority of the electoral votes, then it goes to the house. And that’s when we have the different delegations and so on from the different States, every state gets one vote. If that doesn’t work, then we have the presidential succession act that would install Nancy Pelosi as a president and so on. So if the Supreme court gets involved, just because they issue a ruling or something to that effect, doesn’t necessarily give them the authority or the power to go into local state governments and have those state legislatures flip the electoral votes a locally.
But if they heard a case and they said, you know, this was massive fraud, and we’re going to craft a remedy for the entire nation. They could do that. I don’t think it’s likely, I don’t think that they’re going to want to interfere with some of this stuff, but we will see. It’s a good question. There’s a lot of speculation right now. I was looking at the, that there is one case it’s I think it’s the DNC vs Boockvar that is in front of the Supreme court. People are filing, um, supporting memorandums all currently. They filed them in November all the way through November 9th, a number of different parties, a number of different States, even I think nine 11 different States are asking the court to listen to this issue, because we all want to know what they have to say about it. We have one from, uh, Sharon Quinny who says, thanks.
Thanks, Sharon. Thanks for being here. Thanks for the support. Thanks for the Superchat and the Shitzu in your profile. Avatar is on points. Very nice. Looking Shitzu. All right. Dan Sundin says status of Arizona cases. I had seen two still in play. Yeah. My understanding is there, there are still two cases that are being filed right now. I don’t know the current status of them offhand. Um, I know they’re scheduled for oral arguments at some point. I can, I can actually take a look at that. I’ll have an update on those probably later this week, we’re going to try to try to get an update on some of the pertinent cases that are still pending to see if some of those things can get closed out, or if we can answer some questions about them. All right. We have Angie Hoffman who says Amazon’s mask mandate violates existing statute that bans covering the face in public with some exceptions can emergency orders contradict statute.
Uh, yes. So they can, yeah. I mean, the emergency orders are emergencies that the governments are given just massive amounts of power to deal with public emergencies and the health emergency our, um, our, um, I think a good excuse. We’ve seen that around the country, especially, we’ve seen it in Arizona. A number of courts here have just said, yeah, you have the ability to go and do those things. You can curtail certain rights. I mean, you’re talking about face coverings, right? Having a face cover on your, on your face might violate a Minnesota at you that says you can’t wear face coverings in public because it’s security thing or, you know, a privacy thing or whatever. But think about this, not only are they mandating you to do something, but they’re preventing you from doing something in many situations that are enshrined in your bill of rights, in the constitutional bill of rights and the first amendment free exercise of religion, for example, many different States around the country are saying, no, you can’t go to church.
Oh, wait a minute. That’s in the first amendment, by the way, my friend let’s do bad. Governor’s executive order or supersedes that. And many courts have upheld that, unfortunately. And that’s what I think or something is, is sick about. And so am I, we have another one from that one time at the biggest story here, isn’t a few corrupt police. It is the violation of the second amendment by the California government for these permits to be so hard to get. I couldn’t agree with you more on that. Uh, you know, California, I think is one of the most backwards States in the whole country, as far as I can tell, uh, it’s beautiful. I like, I like to go and spend time on the beach there, but their politics and the way they run their, their whole state is just wild. I, I truly don’t know why people live there, but that’s that’s for them to decide. All right. Let’s see. See if there’s any other chats going on here. We have some other comments coming in. We have McCain’s revenge is in the house. One of written houses, sisters told the post that he supported peaceful demonstrations, but objected the violence and called the riot. Isn’t Kenosha monsters. Does this, does this state damage Kyle’s is the statement damaged? Kyle’s defense? Um, one of Rittenhouse posts.
Um, I don’t know. I don’t, I don’t think so. It sounds like hearsay to me. I don’t know where that stuff is going to be relevant. If it’s, if it’s people saying stuff out of court, that’s not really particularly relevant. I mean, it might show motive. It might show that he wanted to shoot somebody or something like that. But I think that’s a stretch. I mean, if you, if you go back to the Rittenhouse case, it’s pretty cut and dry. He’s literally running away from Rosenbalm. Somebody behind him fires a gun in the air shooting, kind of in his direction. And Kyle’s running files. Some warning shots turns around and shoots the guy who’s chasing Adam, chasing him and throwing him, throwing stuff at him. Somebody who’s been aggressive the entire night before. Soon as that initial altercation ends, he’s running down the street. Other people are shouting.
Get it, get that kid, get that guy. People are swinging at him. They’re jumping at him is a self-defense case. I don’t really think that anything that he said prior or to, or after that is going to change that defense. All right, we have, let’s see here. Aaron CV is here. He says, thank you, mom. I didn’t know you were a ref and chat to a great job. Mom is doing a great job. MA’s an awesome guy. We’re getting to know each other a little bit better over there in the discord. Ma is a cool dude. And we have MAs, has anyone noticed how Trump Trump is playing golf a lot more usual on his last days, he’s literally using taxpayer money to pay himself, to play on his own golf course, as much as possible before moving out. All right, Joe gas borrow says each state has a different oath and there is a set of rules regarding attorney client relationship. Generally us protecting client is top of the list. After following the law, did he say Lord something up, maybe that’s his name? I don’t know. We have.
All right. We have, uh, a dial C says get over at 80 million Americans said you are fired to the most corrupt president in the U S a history. We have huge MacDonald who is saying, where can I find get good info on the legal notice issue? Is that on the [inaudible] side? Uh, let’s see, what else? Alright. Zulu is here. He says, seeing people advocate for activist Supreme court justices with vendetta makes me proud to be an American, which is I’m sure is a Zulus trademark sarcasm as always. Thank you for being here. Zulo, uh, Zulu, Dirk Kessler says gut feeling that Arizona legit flip blue, you know, I mean, according to the numbers. Yeah, they did. And it’s hard for me to contest that because literally everybody here who’s local, essentially the governor hasn’t come out and made a final say on it. But Mark Barnovich is some of the people here who are, um, I I’d say still contesting.
Some of the allegations that are going on are kind of on the fringe a little bit. We’ve talked about some of their claims here, but you know, I’m, I’m not so sure I’m not so sure how reliable of sources they are. And I don’t want to get, you know, give any names out here, but there are, there are some people who are still really aggressively pursuing this, this idea here, that Arizona was totally fraudulent, but all of the people who are running things here and say, no, it was pretty legit by the book. So I don’t know. I will tell you this. My gut feeling is that everybody around all of Arizona, I drive around a lot of parts of the state. I was seeing Trump support everywhere. When I, when I saw that Donald Trump had lost Arizona, I was shocked by that because the Arizona’s traditionally read number one and number two, the amount of signs and support and masks and flags and all this stuff, we were seeing everywhere.
And then when Joe Biden came to Arizona, nobody even knew he just showed up to a local facility downtown in Arizona. And the news was like, Joe Biden was here. Hmm. All right. There was no enthusiasm for him here. So it just felt off as a gut feeling. But if the numbers are what the numbers are and, uh, Arizona is one of those States where we had the Sharpie problem. Remember this Sharpie? I thought the Sharpie was going to save America. I used to fill my pen out, but not going to be the case. Let’s go right in the garbage. And so, you know, I don’t know. I’ll tell you, my gut feeling was, I didn’t feel like Joe Biden was going to win America w when Arizona, but apparently he did. All right. So let’s see what else. Um, yeah, this is one of the most important questions that I’ve gotten on the show today comes from, uh, G I P U Z K O says, should I have some mint, chocolate chip ice cream?
The answer to that is a hard, yes. One of the best flavors ever created. So I would dive in to that and I would have no shame. It’s Thanksgiving week, I’d say go hard, hard, hard, hard on that ice cream. Right? We have happy-go-lucky. He says interesting that Trump didn’t seem to care about Arizona’s SOS, getting threats, like his pals in Michigan, which he decided deserve to an invite to the white house. All right. I can smell BS from here. Somebody says, AC did not vote for Biden, nor did Michigan. Uh, Zulu is laughing. He says, it’s called the silent Jordy. Tommy Carl says here at ricotta law and civil law stream today, they said, Rudy, didn’t draft a complaint with the evidence and testimony to the judge. Would that be a problem for Trump in the Supreme court? So yeah, what you’re, what you’re asking here is, um, what, what I think what you’re asking is can they bring claims that are not a part of the underlying complaint?
So you have to, you have to plead your case case with what’s called specificity. So you can’t just file a lawsuit in court and then bring in everything under the sun, into your underlying claim. So if you say that person punched me in the face, I’m going to Sue him for damages. I want to, uh, I want my, my, my jaw fixed. I need some medical bills paid for it. Well, if you go into that lawsuit and the, and the person who you’re suing, if now you suddenly start to say, well, he also sent me a text message that was really offensive, and it caused me post-traumatic stress disorder. And also I saw him at a grocery store and he said the F word to me, which caused intentional infliction of emotional distress and so on. And you bring all of you can’t. In other words, you can’t take your case into trial and then start bringing up all these additional claims.
There’s some pretty strict rules on how some of that stuff works. And so I think what ricotta law and uncivil law, when they were streaming today, they’re probably talking about some of that, that, uh, you know, their, their lawsuits kind of go in waves. And one of the first things you want to do is get your foot in the door to make a claim and what Rudy and the Trump legal team are doing right now is all really still very preliminary stuff. And the way you can tell it’s preliminary is just by looking at what they’re asking for. So in this last complaint that we talked about specifically, it was that they wanted to stop the certification process in Pennsylvania. Well, that’s now moot. So what do they want? So it’s not about, you know, they’re not filing complaints saying we want to have a trial.
We want to present all of this evidence. They’re just, they’re just sort of really asking for the bare minimum extensions non-certification, uh, you know, push, uh, stop the States from nominating their electoral votes. That’s really what these, these complaints have been about. Not so much about the evidence. You know, I have not seen a demand for a trial or anything like that. It’s about just getting their foot in the door so that they can make a bigger claim later. All right. We have a couple of the super chats that came in one from Wolfgang Wolfgang. Dayo says, I heard that the higher, the denomination is on a dollar bill, the more infectious via COVID. It is if you wish I offer myself as a tribute for disposal. So there you have it folks, any bills that have zeros on the end of them, two zeros in particular, Wolfgang Dale, he is your man.
Send those over to him. We have Zulu [inaudible] in the house who says, hi faith, thanks for the bad Popo fix guys. Yeah. You know, I think, I think if the transition is underway and we’re not seeing any additional lawsuits filed, maybe we get back into some more of the criminal justice stuff where there’s interesting stuff going on every day, every day, every day, it’s never ending. We may, we may transition over toward that direction. All right. So student does, calculus is in the house and he asked a question and he says, I’m having, Oh, that’s not him. Um, let’s see where that went. Regardless of bias. Why do you think Biden might win the election? Well, I think right now he has the votes. He has more electoral votes. So that’s as simple as it is. The Republicans have been trying to show that those votes are not legal or they don’t count, or that there’s buckets that should be thrown out and they haven’t done a good job of supporting their claims.
So he’s going to win based on the fact that he’s got more votes currently, and nobody has been able to disprove that those are invalid votes. So I think it’s as simple as that, we will continue to see though, somebody else with another important question, I’m having homemade chili for supper. Should I add extra cayenne to it? Cayenne pepper? Um, you know, I don’t know. That’s a tough one. The, the, the mint chip ice cream, that’s like a no brainer. That’s obvious. Anybody knows what the answer to that question is, Gorge yourself on it, cayenne pepper. You know, I don’t know how much you put in there. Originally there, Brian, if you went a little hog-wild on it to begin with, like, if you’re at a level seven or eight and you want to put more in it to raise that puppy to attend, I can’t be a part of that.
I am a responsible level, 10 cayenne pepper, homemade chili for supper. I’m not, I’m not condoning that this channel is not supportive of that type of recklessness, but good luck to you on whatever you decide. All right. So let’s wrap it up. Let’s take one or two more. Uh, don’t prosecutors overcharge in cases, just so they can’t get guilty, please. So why not in this case shotgun and see what sticks. Yeah. Prosecutors do do that all the time. Aaron. And I think that is a large reason why we were seeing so many different, uh, so many different lawsuits filed all over the place. All right, let’s leave it at that. My friends, I want to thank everybody so much for being here, being a part of the show today, as a reminder, you know, a lot of the times our content on this channel gets sort of, uh, age restricted or algorithmically punished because we’re talking about the election and nobody likes, you know, nobody wants us to continue to talk about the election.
And so it’s, we, we kind of don’t show up as much in some of the search results and some of the shares. So if you want to support the show, I’d really love to ask you if you could just share it. We have a Facebook page now makes it super easy to share. The link is in the description. If you want to send the, the YouTube channel, invite some of your friends or family to come be a part of the broadcast, we go live at this time every day. And we have these really in-depth conversations about the legal world, what is going on. And we look at these primary sources and we analyze things from this perspective and it’s entertaining. It’s fun. It’s, it’s a good time when there’s more people who are part of the conversation. And I think it’s useful. We’re just trying to be useful and sort of treat this like a dinner conversation where we can discuss some important issues that are relevant.
So if you want to invite people to the table, bring them on over. We would love that. I’d ask you to share the show. If you’re not already a subscriber. If you’re watching this on a replay, definitely join us, hit the subscribe button, because we want you to be a part of the program. If you want to chat before and after the show, if you want access to the slides, if you want to, to get to know some of the other people in the chat in a deeper level, join us on the discord server. There is a link that I think ma is going to ma has already put it out there. The night bot has already sent that out. So come join us over there. The chat will continue after the program, we’re going to dump our slides in there. And as one final reminder, if you know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, that’s my day job.
That’s what we do here at our firm. We have an awesome team of people. We really love to help people get through the justice system. Unfortunately, it can be really hard. People can just get kind of ground up in the system and their lives are worse. As a result. We don’t want that to happen. We want to help them get through it and get back on track. And so we would be honored if you had anybody that you wanted to send our way to help, it would mean the world to us. And I know that we’ll do a good job for them, so we will leave it at that. I want to thank you once again, reminder, we’ll be back here tomorrow. We will not be here on Thursday. I asked my mom, I said, mom, can I, can I live stream on Thursday instead of Thanksgiving? And she said, absolutely not. Robbie. You better be here. Yes, mom I’ll be there. So I will not be here on Thursday, but we will be back on Friday. We want you to be here. It’s at 4:00 PM. Western time, 5:00 PM in Arizona and mountain time, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM. Eastern. This is the place to be. Everybody have a wonderful evening. I will see you all tomorrow. Bye-bye.