Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / When the ‘law’ depends on who you are

Transcript

When the ‘law’ depends on who you are · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

0:11
Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to
0:13
ourselves and our posterity.
0:15
This is the Constitution Study on the America
0:18
Out Loud Network with your host, Paul Engel.
0:31
We've all heard that ignorance of the law
0:34
is no excuse, but what good are laws
0:36
if people aren't held accountable for violating them.
0:46
Glad you could join me today.
0:54
Where um we've tried to find ways to
0:57
excuse illegal behavior, either because, well, we're on
1:01
somebody's side, or because we don't want to
1:05
be held accountable for our actions.
1:09
And sadly, some of the groups that are
1:12
most well known for doing this are government
1:15
actors, including especially law enforcement.
1:18
Now, let's start with a referral made last
1:21
summer by the National Security Agency, the NSA,
1:24
concerning reports they found in, among other places
1:27
the New York Times earlier in the year,
1:29
during basically during the time that uh Tulsi
1:32
Gabbard was going through her confirmation process for
1:35
uh director of national intelligence, and that these
1:38
these were reports quoted information from an intercept
1:41
of two Hezbollah terrorist figures who claim that
1:44
Ms.
1:47
Gabbard and on 2017 trip had met with
1:49
quote unquote the big guy.
1:52
Now, of course, New York Times and others
1:54
suggested, well, this meant that Ms.
1:56
Gabbard had met with, you know, some top
1:59
Hezbollah terrorist leader, something she adamantly denies.
2:02
What the NSA found was that this leaked
2:04
information came from one of its intercepts that
2:07
uh Gabbard had not in fact met with
2:10
Hezbollah leaders.
2:13
Now, the agency then said, Well, where did
2:14
this leak come from?
2:16
And they're saying, hmm, looks like it came
2:19
from members of the Democratic Intelligence Committee.
2:22
Possibly there, or possibly actually from their staff
2:25
that uh they gained they had access to
2:28
these intercepts prior to the report.
2:31
Now, before we go on, I want to
2:33
point out that uh the right now they're
2:36
claiming that it was members of the Democrat
2:39
Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
2:41
I don't care if they're Democrats or not.
2:43
The question I have is okay, did somebody
2:45
leak information?
2:47
Because this is really important.
2:49
The idea of, you know, generally what government
2:52
does is supposedly public knowledge.
2:55
There are certain things that for good reasons
2:58
really shouldn't be public knowledge, but then who
3:01
keeps them, the these actors accountable?
3:04
And that's part of the role of the
3:06
both the House and Senate Intelligence Committee, they're
3:08
supposed to have access to the stuff the
3:10
general public is not allowed to see, so
3:13
that they representing the states and the people
3:15
can oversee what's going on here.
3:17
But if those if those committees or their
3:20
staff members, if they are leaking information, that's
3:23
a serious security concern.
3:26
It also helps kind of dissuades people from
3:28
informing the committee what's going on if they
3:30
know that this could easily be leaked, especially
3:33
as it appears in this case, for uh
3:35
a political reasons.
3:37
Now, this legal referral, no the referral for
3:40
a criminal investigation, well, just kind of languished
3:42
in the Justice Department.
3:44
There was nothing going on.
3:45
It was pretty much it was ignored for
3:47
months.
3:48
Apparently, according to reports, many of the top
3:51
leaders were even unaware of the uh of
3:54
the referral.
3:56
And then, well, once then director, FBI director
3:59
Cash Patel heard about it.
4:02
Well, then he decided to go ahead with
4:03
the investigation.
4:05
Now, was it because it was against it
4:06
was alleged Democrats that were alleged, their staff
4:08
members that were alleged to have done this
4:09
or not?
4:11
I don't know.
4:12
I'm not in Mr.
4:12
Patel's head.
4:14
However, since then, the FBI's counterintelligence and their
4:18
criminal agents have been uh expanding the investigation
4:22
into other potential leaks and and others from
4:26
again, they're focusing on the committee's democrats.
4:30
That to me is a political witch hunt,
4:32
but uh the question is well, do we
4:34
have referrals for any Republicans?
4:36
If not, I have to wonder why.
4:39
Uh according to reports, over the last 15
4:42
months, this investigation has led to indictments by
4:45
the Department of Justice of people like uh
4:48
former NSA uh National Security Advisor John Bolton,
4:51
uh, and an army employee who is accused
4:54
of leaking.
4:58
It also involved a previous case of a
5:00
former security chief James Wolfe, who pled guilty
5:03
to lying to the FBI about his leak
5:06
of non-public information to a reporter.
5:09
And again, if the punishment that's the problem,
5:11
or actually that that's important.
5:14
The fact that what they did was a
5:16
violation of the law, okay.
5:18
But if nobody gets investigated, nobody gets punished,
5:21
which is why I'm wondering, is the focus
5:24
on by the Department of Justice by the
5:26
FBI is the focus on Democrats because the
5:29
president's currently Republican?
5:32
Or is it we don't have anything on
5:33
the Republicans at the moment?
5:36
Uh I don't know.
5:40
John Solomon, maybe he's he's focusing on Democrats
5:43
versus Republicans.
5:45
I don't know.
5:47
But to me, it's just as important that
5:50
we hold our own quote-unquote team accountable.
5:53
That Republicans investigate Republicans, that Democrats investigate Democrats,
5:57
because that is how you build trust.
6:00
You want to know why people don't trust
6:02
government actors anymore?
6:04
Because of nonsense like this.
6:05
We're not going to investigate because you're the
6:07
same political party.
6:14
Right.
6:15
You know, people don't trust police because police
6:17
are known or have been uh we've had
6:19
examples of protecting their own, hiding their bad
6:22
actions in an attempt to, well, you know,
6:24
you're one of us.
6:27
Don't don't don't squeal, don't let others know.
6:30
And that is not only destructive to uh
6:33
trust in in in government institutions, it's destructive
6:36
of the rule of law.
6:40
And again, the other thing we've seen is
6:42
well federal judges that making uh well, what
6:45
it seems to me, biased decisions, politically biased
6:47
decisions.
6:50
For example, you remember Doge, right?
6:52
Department of Government Efficiency.
6:54
Well, they remember when they terminated like 1400
6:56
grants.
6:59
Um, these were, you know, again, congressionally approved
7:00
You know, again, congressionally approved appropriated funds awarded
7:01
appropriated funds awarded to scholars, writers, research institutes,
7:04
to scholars, writers, research institutes, and others.
7:04
and and others.
7:08
Well, Doge looked at those and said, this
7:08
Well, Doge looked at those and said, this
7:10
is a waste of money.
7:10
is a waste of of money.
7:12
It's it's not authorized.
7:12
It's it's not authorized.
7:14
Well, they recommended that um these grants be
7:14
Well, they recommended that these grants be terminated.
7:16
terminated.
7:20
Well, District Judge uh Colleen McMahon for the
7:20
Well, district judge uh Colleen McMahon for the
7:23
District of Southern District of New York said
7:24
district of Southern District of New York said
7:26
that the the administration uh engaged.
7:27
that the administration uh engaged in blatant viewpoint
7:31
discrimination in dealing with these cases.
7:35
She said that Doge should not have the
7:37
legal authority to terminate the grants.
7:39
I don't remember if Doge actually terminated the
7:41
grants or simply recommended their termination.
7:43
I don't remember that.
7:45
But what she says is what mattered to
7:47
Joe Doge was not whether a grant lacked
7:49
scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms,
7:51
or fell outside NEH's endowment for the NEH's
7:53
statutory purposes.
7:56
What mattered was the grant concerned minority group.
7:59
Well, isn't that interesting?
8:01
What actually evidence do you have of that,
8:02
Judge?
8:04
Yes, they included grants for black, Asian, Latino,
8:07
and indigenous communities, but what was the purpose
8:10
of the thing, the uh the grant?
8:13
And was it actually, you know what she
8:14
didn't ask?
8:16
Was the grant constitutional?
8:19
Never seem to ask that question.
8:21
Because again, remember, the federal government isn't authorized
8:24
to simply spend money on education, right?
8:28
They can pay the debts, the common defense,
8:30
and the general welfare of the United States,
8:32
not the states, not the people, the United
8:35
States.
8:38
The federal government's not there to award scholars,
8:41
writers, research institutions, or other other humanities organizations,
8:44
unless they are doing work for the federal
8:47
government in something that the federal government's legally
8:50
required to do, legally authorized to do by
8:53
the constitution.
8:57
But I can I'm not really surprised because
9:00
according to her her statement or her her
9:03
order, um, that uh that that what Doge
9:06
did was unconstitutional, she said uh that these
9:09
terminations violated First Amendment right to free speech
9:12
and Fifth Amendment, which confers equal protection.
9:16
Well, okay, um, do you have a free
9:18
speech argument?
9:20
In other words, can she show that this
9:22
was terminated because of what was said, not
9:24
what the grant was for?
9:27
But when she claims that it violates the
9:29
Fifth Amendment, which requires equal protection, um sorry,
9:31
it it ain't in there.
9:34
The First Amendment says no person shall be
9:36
held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous
9:38
crime unless on a presentment of indictment by
9:40
of a grand jury, except in cases arising
9:42
in the land or naval forces or in
9:44
the militia when an actual service in time
9:46
of war, public danger, nor shall any person
9:48
be subject to the same offense twice put
9:50
in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall
9:51
be compelled in any criminal case to witness
9:53
against himself, nor be deprived of life liberty
9:55
or property without due process of law, nor
9:57
shall private property be taken for public use
9:59
without just compensation.
10:01
Now, is she claiming that they are this
10:03
person denied of the liberty to accept federal
10:05
dollars?
10:08
Because you don't have a right to federal
10:09
money, you don't have a right to do
10:11
this.
10:13
And uh, you know, again again it's the
10:16
it's the stick of the federal bribe.
10:20
The carrot is take the money, the stick
10:22
is if you don't do it the way
10:24
we want, we're gonna take the money away.
10:26
But again, is this the application of law,
10:28
or is this just another example of well,
10:31
it was Trump that did it, so it's
10:33
got to be bad.
10:36
I don't know.
10:37
Because I have she she from what I've
10:40
read, I haven't gone through her entire opinion.
10:42
I don't understand.
10:44
Where's her evidence that uh the that uh
10:47
you know black and Asian and Latino uh
10:51
um grants were canceled while white and and
10:54
European and other were not.
10:59
I'm curious.
11:00
She claims she knows why they did this,
11:02
but she provides no, at least in the
11:04
report, I don't see any evidence.
11:06
Maybe she did in her decision.
11:09
I haven't read through the decision, I haven't
11:11
had a chance to, but again, it comes
11:14
down to the enforcement of the law, and
11:16
if it the enforcement is just so you
11:19
see, it's not just making sure that the
11:21
laws are enforced, but that they're properly enforced.
11:24
Not enforcing a law is just as bad
11:26
as enforcing it wrong.
11:28
In other words, to uh claim a law
11:31
prevent prohibits something when it doesn't, or holding
11:34
somebody accountable for a law that say violates
11:37
the constitution of the United States.
11:40
This is why it's not the laws that
11:43
deter crime, it's their punishment.
11:46
It's not the law that prevents bad activity,
11:49
it's it's punishment that dissuades bad activity.
11:53
And when the laws become meaningless, either because
11:56
those who are called are called to enforce
11:59
those laws, or those who are make the
12:02
supposed to make decisions based on those laws,
12:05
ignore those laws for their own whatever reason
12:08
that the rule of law dies and the
12:11
power of law dissipates, and we no longer
12:14
live in a nation of laws.
12:17
We live in a nation of uh uh
12:19
opinions, which it pretty much describes the United
12:21
States right now.
12:23
But here's the other point I want us
12:25
to make, because okay, we're talking about uh
12:27
doge and other federal agencies, we're talking about
12:29
uh uh judges, we're talking about uh the
12:31
NHS.
12:34
What about the people we hire to represent
12:35
us?
12:37
Remember, the people hire every member, every member
12:40
of the House of Representatives.
12:44
The people hire the senators that are there
12:46
to represent the states.
12:48
They work for us.
12:49
They're our employees.
12:51
We hire them through elections.
12:52
Do we hold them accountable?
12:54
Every one of them, including this judge, including
12:57
the members of the NH, uh NHS, and
13:00
NSA, Congress, they all take an oath to
13:02
support the Constitution of the United States, which
13:05
includes protections of our rights.
13:08
How many of you know what those rights
13:09
are?
13:10
How many new know what the Constitution says
13:13
about those rights to hold them accountable directly
13:15
and indirectly to hold the people that that
13:18
uh um in the other parts of the
13:21
one accountable for their actions?
13:24
You see, no one's gonna hold people accountable
13:27
unless we hold those who hold others accountable.
13:30
No one's gonna hold the the staffers accountable
13:34
unless we hold the principals accountable.
13:38
No one's gonna hold people accountable as we
13:40
hold the FBI, the FBI accountable, or the
13:43
president or the NSA, unless we are holding
13:46
our representatives in Congress accountable.
13:49
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it keeps coming back
13:51
to we, the people.
13:53
I know we wish it didn't.
13:54
We'd love to point fingers and blame somebody
13:57
else, but eventually all fingers ended up back
13:59
pointing at we, the people.
14:00
Pointing at we, the people.
14:02
And until we start holding our representatives accountable
14:02
And until we start holding our representatives accountable
14:06
for their actions, why should they hold others
14:06
for their actions, why should they hold others
14:09
accountable for their actions?
14:09
accountable for their actions?
14:12
It's the sad truth of humanity.
14:12
It's the sad truth of humanity.
14:15
If you don't punish people for doing wrong,
14:15
If you don't punish people for doing wrong,
14:17
they've got every incentive to keep doing it.
14:17
they've got every incentive to keep doing it.
14:21
Now, I have some other examples coming up,
14:21
Now, I have some other examples coming up,
14:23
but I have a break.
14:23
but I have a break.
14:24
Before I go, though, you know, for some
14:24
Before I go, though, you know, for some
14:26
strange reason, my wife wants me to be
14:26
strange reason, my wife wants me to be
14:28
healthy.
14:28
healthy.
14:30
She wants me to eat better.
14:31
She wants to make sure I get the
14:32
right nutrition because she wants me around for
14:34
a while.
14:35
Can't figure out why.
14:37
So I was looking around.
14:38
I found this interesting study.
14:40
It came from a group called the chemical-free
14:43
body that claims up to 85% of the
14:45
nutrients our bodies used to get from our
14:48
food don't exist in our food anymore.
14:51
They've literally been farmed out of the soil,
14:53
so they're not in our food anymore.
14:56
Now, this may uh explain why so many
14:58
people have looked to supplements to get their
15:00
the the body the nutrition that it needs,
15:02
but a lot of people they don't like
15:05
to take all the pills and stuff.
15:07
Well, again, chemical creati, they come up with
15:09
an interesting solution.
15:11
It's called green 85.
15:14
It's a juice formula, it's a juice powder.
15:17
It's organic.
15:18
You mix it with water first thing in
15:21
the morning before you have breakfast, and it
15:23
gives your body the nutrients, the minerals we
15:25
used to get from our food.
15:28
We get it now through this juice.
15:30
So I guess we're still getting it through
15:31
our food.
15:32
It helps with uh energy, it helps promote
15:34
weight loss, it helps your mental clarity, build
15:36
muscle, strengthen your immune system, all the things
15:38
that my wife wants me to do to
15:40
be healthy.
15:43
And it's easy.
15:44
Like I said, one scoop and some water
15:46
first thing in the morning, voila, you're getting
15:48
your nutrients, you're getting those supplements that your
15:51
body needs without a bunch of pills and
15:53
powers or strange diets.
15:56
Go to America Outloud.shopping, click on the green
15:59
85 panel, do your own research.
16:03
Read the directions, read the ingredients, read the
16:05
testimonials, see what's going on.
16:07
And then when you're ready to try, use
16:09
the code Outloud at checkout, and you'll get
16:11
20% off of your order.
16:14
So if you're looking for a better way
16:16
to give your body the nutrients it needs
16:18
without strange diets or or lots of pills,
16:20
check out green 85.
16:23
Just go to America Outloud.shop and uh give
16:25
it a try.
16:28
And I think you'll find it makes a
16:30
great difference in your life in your health.
16:33
And hey, I'd like to keep you around
16:34
longer as well.
16:36
Now, if you like the work that we're
16:38
doing here at the Constitution Study, it'd be
16:39
great if you help support the work that
16:41
we're doing here.
16:43
The easiest way is to go to the
16:45
Constitution Study store, constitutionstudy.com/slash shop.
16:48
You can buy a book.
16:49
I've got t-shirts, I've got mugs, I've got
16:51
all sorts of things all designed to help,
16:54
you know, give you ways of expressing your
16:56
your sub uh support of the constitution study
16:58
and our agenda of getting people to read
17:01
and study the constitution.
17:03
And no, you know, every dollar goes to
17:05
keep the constitution study up and running.
17:07
We don't we don't make money off of
17:08
this.
17:09
Nobody get here gets paid to do this.
17:11
So if you can help, that'd be wonderful.
17:13
If you can donate, even better, you can
17:15
do that at the site as well.
17:17
Constitutionstudy.com/slash shop.
17:19
Make a one-time or a recurring donation.
17:22
So help keep the constitution study, bringing this
17:24
great content, the radio program, the videos, the
17:26
articles.
17:28
Help me to go to other places and
17:30
teach without having to charge to pay off
17:32
my costs by donating to the cause at
17:35
Constitution Study.com slash shop.
17:37
Again, get a book, make a donation, help
17:39
keep the constitution study up and running and
17:42
free so that others can enjoy the learning
17:44
and the experience that you've been enjoying on
17:47
this program.
17:57
Your heart is the most crucial muscle in
17:58
your body.
18:00
Are you doing enough to keep it strong?
18:01
Introducing the wellness company's breakthrough healthy heart formula,
18:03
designed by Dr.
18:06
Peter McCullough, now upgraded with taurine.
18:08
This stately supplement supports cardiovascular health and works
18:11
to protect cells against oxidative stress.
18:14
Packed with D-ribose to boost heart function, taurine
18:17
to help maintain heart and muscular health, coenzyme
18:20
Q10 and selenium citrate to help reduce risk
18:23
of cardiac disease and a vitamin B complex
18:26
with L-carnitine for energy and muscle support.
18:29
Endorsed by the wellness company's chief medical board.
18:32
This formula is your ally for heart health.
18:34
Reclaim your health now at TWC.health forward slash
18:37
out loud and use code out loud for
18:40
20% off your first order plus free shipping.
18:43
The smartest food on the planet doesn't come
18:45
from a lab or in a package.
18:48
It grows in a glass jar.
18:50
I'm Doug Evans, author of the national bestseller,
18:52
The Spout Book.
18:55
Sprouts deliver up to a hundred times the
18:57
antioxidants of mature vegetables.
19:00
They grow in just three to five days
19:03
for under a dollar serving.
19:05
Get your sprouting kit at the sprouting company.com
19:07
slash out loud.
19:10
Use the code out loud for an exclusive
19:12
offer.
19:14
Grow smarter.
19:17
Never before.
19:42
America out loud.
19:44
News is that place to awaken your heart,
19:47
soul, and mind to the out loud truth.
19:58
Welcome back, everyday American jury.
20:00
Join the Constitution today.
20:01
Today, we're talking about holding people responsible.
20:05
And uh again, we tend to focus on
20:07
the responsibility of others.
20:09
Sometimes you've got to focus on the responsibility
20:13
of ourselves and recognizing the actual levels of
20:16
uh hold the process of holding someone responsible.
20:20
Now, uh, this story is a couple weeks
20:24
old, uh, but a federal grand jury has
20:27
indicted three people uh uh for the assault
20:31
of a turning point USA reporter, Savannah Hernandez.
20:35
Uh, this is according to the Justice Department.
20:36
Now, again, it's been a couple weeks.
20:38
I think I talked about this a little
20:40
bit before, but we need to understand that
20:43
in this country, the first step of criminal
20:45
liability for something as serious as um as
20:48
this attack is an indictment by a grand
20:50
jury.
20:53
The Fifth Amendment requires that in order to
20:56
be tried for a infamous or other crime
20:59
like a felony, it's not the government that
21:00
Crime like a felony.
21:02
does it directly.
21:02
It's not the government that does it directly.
21:05
They need, well, they need uh a grand
21:05
They need, well, they need uh a grand
21:08
jury, a group of civilians to say their
21:08
jury, a group of civilians to say their
21:11
case has enough merit to go forward.
21:12
case has enough merit to go forward, right?
21:15
Right?
21:15
That's the only way you can be for
21:15
That's the only way you can be for
21:17
some this type of of infamous kind is
21:17
some this type of infamous comment is a
21:19
a grand jury.
21:19
grand jury.
21:21
Now, this is both good news and bad
21:21
Now, this is both good news and bad
21:23
news, right?
21:23
news, right?
21:24
Because the good news is it means it's
21:24
Because the good news is it means it's
21:27
we the people that indic people.
21:27
we the people that indict people for criminal
21:29
for infamous crimes.
21:32
The bad news is the American people generally
21:35
take this responsibility so lightly that well, as
21:37
I've said before, a good prosecutor can indict
21:40
a ham sandwich.
21:42
It's the running joke in the uh in
21:44
the legal field.
21:47
But it's the first step, it's an accusation
21:49
of criminal activity.
21:52
Now, what happens then becomes very interesting, because
21:55
you can either go to trial and have
21:58
a jury of again, citizens look at the
22:01
evidence and decide whether or not someone is
22:04
guilty.
22:07
Notice they don't find someone innocent, you're either
22:09
guilty or not guilty.
22:11
And of that specific crime, that's the way
22:13
this is supposed to work.
22:16
This is part of the and and I
22:18
bring this up for a couple of reasons.
22:20
Uh one, uh it's important to understand the
22:24
adversarial process is meant to find the truth.
22:28
Doesn't always work that way, but it's meant
22:30
to find the truth.
22:32
It's how we again work to discover what
22:34
really happened.
22:37
But I also bring it up to recognize
22:40
that as citizens, we have a part to
22:42
play in the justice process, whether it's serving
22:44
on a grand jury.
22:46
Now, again, a grand jury for indictments.
22:50
Uh the defense does not present, it's only
22:52
the prosecution.
22:54
They're supposed to show their case.
22:56
Do they have sufficient evidence?
22:58
Um, and uh, well, sometimes they're a little,
23:01
well, let's just say one-sided, right?
23:04
They're not going to show the holes in
23:06
their case because they want the indictment.
23:08
It's up to the jury to dig and
23:09
investigate.
23:11
It's the same for a common jury, where
23:13
you're looking at the facts of the case
23:15
to find is this person guilty of this
23:18
crime.
23:20
It's not supposed to be whether or not
23:21
they're guilty of other crimes or they look
23:23
mean.
23:24
That's the way the justice is that's how
23:26
we hold people accountable.
23:28
It's up to we the people.
23:29
Now, of course, you can also have somebody
23:31
say, you know what?
23:32
I'm caught, and they admit their own guilt.
23:36
For example, there was a an event back
23:38
end of April, or there was back in
23:39
April.
23:41
Um California Highway Patrol officers were uh under
23:45
a freeway overpass during the immigration, the anti-immigration
23:49
riots last year.
23:53
And uh, well, six people, six men actually
23:57
pled guilty to criminal charges for throwing rocks,
24:00
igniting fireworks, and throwing burning degree debris at
24:03
the CHP officers.
24:07
In other words, they thought the officers are
24:10
doing wrong, but rather than holding them accountable
24:12
for their actions, they instead committed criminal actions
24:15
of their own.
24:19
This to me is an example of the
24:21
the ends don't justify the means.
24:23
Just because you think the immigration enforcement was
24:26
wrong, doesn't mean you get to assault uh
24:29
aggravated assaults, uh, people in in response to
24:31
it, right?
24:34
Throwing rocks, burning debris, light lit fireworks.
24:38
No, that's that's I believe qualifies as aggravated
24:40
assault, and uh you don't get to do
24:42
that just because you feel justified at what
24:44
the other person is doing.
24:47
That's why, okay, they pled guilty, they admitted
24:49
to their wrong.
24:51
I'm assuming they did so in order to
24:53
get uh a lower sentence.
24:55
Uh I'm not sure, I'm not privy to
24:58
those details, but again, it shows that there
25:00
is a right way and a wrong way
25:02
to hold people accountable.
25:05
Right?
25:05
Uh, you know, violence should only be used
25:07
when life or serious bodily injury is at
25:10
risk, not because, well, you don't like what
25:12
they're what they're doing.
25:14
Now, I've also seen examples where ICE has
25:16
gone way beyond their legal authority, and they
25:18
need to be held accountable for that as
25:20
well.
25:22
Uh, perfect example is uh we see these
25:26
these immigration checkpoints not on the border.
25:29
That is the definition of an unreasonable search.
25:33
Well, what's the reason for the search?
25:34
Well, we're looking for.
25:36
Do you have any reason to believe that
25:37
I'm an illegal alien?
25:39
No.
25:39
Well, then that makes this detention, this seizure
25:43
unreasonable, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
25:46
Now, you would think courts, you'd have judges
25:48
that took an oath to support the constitution.
25:51
They would know better, but they don't.
25:56
And they don't, in large part because, well,
25:59
let's face it, they went to law school
26:01
where they're almost assuredly were not taught the
26:04
supreme law of the land, they were taught
26:06
judges' opinions, and let's just say judges' opinions,
26:09
in my opinion, seem to lead much more
26:11
towards supporting law enforcement than the actual law
26:14
itself, the supreme law of the land.
26:17
Now, if these people thought that the ICE
26:19
or CHP were violating the law, they could
26:22
have filed a civil lawsuit.
26:24
If they had evidence of criminality, they could
26:26
have taken that to the district attorney and
26:29
uh file a criminal complaint.
26:31
No guarantees in either place, but the idea
26:33
of holding people responsible doesn't mean you get
26:36
what you want.
26:38
It means you have the opportunity to seek
26:40
a redress for a grievance.
26:43
Remember that from the First Amendment, right?
26:45
Congress cannot pass a law that deprives you
26:47
of a right to seek redress for for
26:48
your grievances.
26:50
So we have three that have been indicted
26:53
for criminal assault.
26:55
We have six that have fled guilty to
26:58
various uh uh counts of assault.
27:02
We see one that's still going through the
27:03
process.
27:04
We have some that is us receive the
27:06
punishment, I believe.
27:09
But what happens when the per the the
27:11
people being accused are not everyday ordinary people,
27:13
right?
27:16
They're not just demonstrators, they're actually part of
27:17
the government.
27:19
Do they get held accountable?
27:21
That to me is a much more interesting
27:22
question.
27:25
For example, a a new DOJ report says
27:28
that the Biden administration, their justice departments pushed
27:31
for a harsher sentences against pro-life defendants than
27:34
it did against pro-abortion defendants under the face
27:37
act.
27:41
Uh, according to records, um, the Biden DOJ
27:46
on average requested a sentence of 26.8 months
27:50
for pro-life defendants, but when pro-abortion defendants were
27:54
charged, they asked for less than 12.3 months.
27:59
Again, half the sentence, supposedly the same law,
28:00
Half the sentence, supposedly the same law, supposedly
28:02
supposedly the the same violation, but politically biased
28:03
the same violation, but politically biased uh uh
28:06
uh uh sentencing.
28:06
sentencing.
28:10
Now, that's what the DOJ requested.
28:10
Now that's what the DOJ requested.
28:14
What did they actually get?
28:14
What did they actually get?
28:15
Well, again, pro-life defendants got an average of
28:15
Well, again, pro-life defendants got an average of
28:19
14.7 months of that they were actually sentenced.
28:19
14.7 months of that they were actually sentenced.
28:22
While pro-abortion defendants got three months.
28:22
While pro abortion defendants got three months.
28:27
Now, I'll admit this information is not necessarily
28:27
Now, I'll admit this information is not.
28:29
dispositive, right?
28:31
Because there are factors that would uh relate
28:34
to sentencing, um, physical contact, violence, other things
28:38
that might lead into sentencing.
28:41
But I'd say there certainly is a a
28:45
point here that um well, not just the
28:49
Biden DOJ, but the courts actually uh gave
28:53
more more longer sentences to pro-life defendants than
28:57
they did to pro-abortion defendants.
29:02
I'd have to look at these individuals to
29:03
see why.
29:05
What was the was there an aggravating factor
29:07
or were there mitigating factors that would have
29:09
impacted this?
29:11
But again, if we're holding people accountable, a
29:14
lot of people are focusing on the Biden
29:18
DOJ and Biden, dirty rotten anti, you know,
29:21
pro-abortion, anti-life uh fascist and blame him.
29:25
What about the courts?
29:27
What about the judges that sat on the
29:30
courts that gave these uh again the the
29:32
sentence much longer sentences?
29:35
Were there certain judges that tended to go
29:38
harder on pro-abortion than pro-life, or the other
29:40
way around, more than pro-life than pro-abortion?
29:44
I I get when you start averaging data,
29:46
you're diluting the truth of the data, right?
29:49
Because you're you're seeking an average.
29:52
But to me, it certainly is worth taking
29:53
a look at.
29:55
In fact, I'll take a look to the
29:57
at the image that was captured of the
29:58
report.
30:00
I'll put it in the show notes so
30:01
you can look at it yourself.
30:02
And again, I'm not saying this dispositive, but
30:06
there certainly does bring the question of well,
30:09
are people people being held responsible for their
30:13
actions, or is the so-called just a system,
30:16
as I often contend, just a system, and
30:19
we're seeing a viewpoint bias in not just
30:23
the charges by a certain president's department of
30:26
justice, but actually in the justice in the
30:30
judicial branch itself.
30:33
Don't know about you, but that would concern
30:35
me.
30:37
And let's remember at the federal level, who
30:40
holds judges accountable?
30:43
That's right.
30:44
The House of Representatives and the Senate.
30:47
It starts at the House with an impeachment.
30:49
But Paul, you can't impeach them.
30:51
Oh, yes, you can.
30:52
Remember, the judges of both the Supreme and
30:55
Inferior Court served during their good behavior.
30:58
I would say assigning uh uh uh sentences
31:02
based on political viewpoint is bad behavior, certainly
31:06
not equal protection under the law.
31:11
And I would consider that an impeachable offense.
31:14
All right, maybe one or two, but if
31:16
you see a pattern, again, I don't know
31:18
if this is an individual judge, I don't
31:20
know if there was certain number of judges,
31:22
I don't know if it was rampant, but
31:24
I see these problems, and these are problems
31:26
that I think we really need to uh
31:28
to hold people responsible for.
31:30
And I think we need to hold our
31:33
members of the House of Representatives accountable when
31:36
they don't bother even considering impeachment for these.
31:39
Now, I think in large part they they
31:40
should actually think they should be held accountable
31:42
for the fact that they passed the face
31:44
act to begin with, because it's a blatant
31:46
violation of the Constitution of the United States.
31:48
It's a deprivation of liberty and property without
31:50
due process of law.
31:52
You're telling me I can't demonstrate in front
31:54
of a certain building because of the business
31:56
that's in there.
31:59
I'm not saying you get to block the
32:01
entrance, I'm not saying get to harass people
32:03
going in and out, but you're saying if
32:05
you cannot demonstrate simply because it's an abortion
32:07
clinic or it's another, that is a is
32:09
a violation of the law.
32:11
It's a deprivation of liberty without due process
32:13
of law, and that, ladies and gentlemen, violates
32:15
the Fifth Amendment, which makes it unconstitutional and
32:18
void.
32:21
Sadly, most Americans don't even recognize this.
32:23
Certainly, the members of Congress don't recognize this.
32:26
If they did, maybe they'd do something about
32:27
it.
32:29
But how are the people supposed to recognize
32:32
when their elected representatives are violating their oath
32:35
of office when they don't understand the document?
32:38
These people took an oath to support.
32:41
That's our fault.
32:42
Sure, you can blame it on the school
32:43
system.
32:44
They had something to do it.
32:45
They didn't do their job, but remember, we
32:47
the people are the ones that are responsible.
32:50
John Jay said that we are to read
32:51
and study and teach the rising generation be
32:53
free.
32:55
Not have the government do it for us,
32:57
that we are responsible for the education of
32:58
our children, that we are responsible for our
33:00
own education.
33:03
So the fact that it's not taught in
33:05
high school, it's not taught in in middle
33:07
school, it's not even taught the constitution's not
33:09
even taught in law school, really comes down
33:11
to we the people putting up with that
33:13
nonsense with recognizing a law degree that doesn't
33:15
include the supreme law of the land.
33:18
But Paul, what am I supposed to do
33:19
about it?
33:20
Well, you start by well, teaching yourself the
33:21
constitution.
33:23
It's not that hard.
33:24
All you have to do is read it.
33:25
It's in plain conversation.
33:27
For the most part, it's in plain conversational
33:28
English.
33:30
Yeah, there are a couple words that's both
33:32
funny, and there's one or two clauses that,
33:34
well, I'd say they're real brain tweet uh
33:36
twisters, but um that's still it's not that
33:38
hard.
33:41
If an 18th-century farmer can understand it, why
33:43
not a 21st century American?
33:46
So I guess if we're holding people accountable,
33:48
we gotta hold ourselves accountable as well.
33:51
What have we not done?
33:53
What have we failed to consider?
33:56
What have we simply put our hands up
33:58
and expect someone else to deal with?
34:00
Yeah, maybe if we did that, we'd have
34:03
uh better answers to some of our questions.
34:06
Now, I've got another break coming up.
34:08
I got some more content I want to
34:09
look at, but I have to take this
34:10
break.
34:11
Before I go, though, you know, sometimes the
34:14
problem is ours, but it's it's indirect.
34:17
See, there are plenty of organizations, uh, political
34:20
action groups, uh, you know, uh advocacy groups,
34:23
they have an agenda.
34:25
And uh their agenda, well, I'd call it
34:27
un-American.
34:29
It's designed to deprive you of your rights
34:31
in promotion of their own political agenda.
34:34
And many of these organizations are funded by
34:36
the very corporations you and I do business
34:38
with.
34:40
Yeah, there are certain companies I don't do
34:42
business with anymore because I found out they
34:45
support these unamerican, these these anti-rights organizations.
34:48
It's one of the reasons why I joined
34:50
Patriot Mobile.
34:52
Not because they're America's only Christian conservative law
34:54
as provider, they are, and not because of
34:56
their great 4G and 5G coverage or even
34:58
their 100% U.S.
35:00
100% U.S.
35:01
based customer support.
35:01
based customer support, although they have great coverage
35:02
Although they have great coverage and they do
35:03
and they do have US based support.
35:04
have US based support.
35:06
But because a patriar mobile donates a portion
35:06
But because a Patriot Mobile donates a portion
35:08
of every dollar to organizations fighting for your
35:08
of every dollar to organizations fighting for your
35:11
rights, fighting for your freedom.
35:11
rights, fighting for your freedom.
35:14
Organizations like uh Turning Point USA, First Liberty,
35:14
Organizations like uh turning point USA, First Liberty,
35:17
Folds of Honor, and now the Constitution Study.
35:17
Folds of Honor, and now the Constitution study.
35:21
That's right.
35:21
That's right.
35:21
Not only did I become a customer of
35:21
Not only did I become a customer of
35:24
them years ago, I've become an affiliate, which
35:24
them years ago, I become an affiliate, which
35:26
means if you join us at Patriot Mobile,
35:26
means if you join us at Patriot Mobile.
35:29
do so today, use the code constitution, you'll
35:31
get free activation.
35:34
But it also means when you pay your
35:36
bill, portion your dollar sports organizations like the
35:39
Constitution study that are defending your rights.
35:42
Go to Patriot Mobile.com says constitution, find a
35:44
plan that works for you.
35:47
See if you're eligible for a discount.
35:49
Family with multiple lines, you're eligible for a
35:50
discount.
35:52
A veteran or first responder, eligible for a
35:53
discount.
35:54
Even NRA members are eligible for discounts.
35:57
But only if you go to Patriot Mobile.com
36:00
says constitution, find a plan, find a discount.
36:02
Don't forget, use that code constitution to checkout
36:05
to get your activation absolutely free.
36:08
So join me at the only wireless provider
36:11
that not only gives you great wireless service,
36:13
but helps defend your rights by supporting organizations
36:15
that do so.
36:18
You do by going to Patriot Mobile.com says
36:19
constitution, finding a plan and discount that works
36:21
for you.
36:23
Don't forget that code constitution and checkout to
36:25
get your new line activated absolutely free.
36:28
Now, of course, I also hope you'll join
36:30
me here at AmericaOut Loud.news.
36:32
I go there each and every day for
36:33
news and information.
36:34
And not just for the radio program, the
36:36
website, but to share with friends and family
36:38
and neighbors.
36:39
See, it's more important than ever that we
36:41
do our part.
36:42
Go to AmericaOut Loud.news, read the stories in
36:45
the articles, but then share them.
36:47
Listen to the podcast, watch the videos, share
36:49
them, friends, family, neighbors.
36:51
You'll be surprised how often people had no
36:53
clue what was going on because it's not
36:55
what corporate media wanted them to know.
36:58
It's the sharing of this data.
37:00
It's letting other people know the stories that
37:02
the corporate media and their overlords don't want
37:04
you to know that helps secure the blessings
37:06
of liberty for all of us.
37:12
In just two minutes per day, you can
37:14
reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill
37:17
in half with one simple convenient product.
37:19
Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formulas, powerful
37:22
dose of ultra concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger
37:25
in its tracks, and supplies your cells with
37:28
what's missing in the grocery store food.
37:31
Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud
37:35
today, get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower
37:38
your immune system, cut down on your grocery
37:41
bill, and save 20% on your first order.
37:44
Have you been looking for a healthy snack
37:46
for on the go?
37:48
Well, not all energy bars are soft and
37:50
sugary.
37:52
Bear bars or a crunchy savory bar made
37:55
from just six simple natural ingredients.
37:59
Bear bars or plant-based, organic gluten-free, contain six
38:02
grams of protein and are low temperature dried
38:05
for unique crunch.
38:08
Most energy bars are based on chocolate or
38:10
fruit and are held together with syrups or
38:12
sweeteners.
38:15
To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out
38:17
loud.
38:20
You wouldn't go a day without brushing your
38:21
teeth or washing your hands.
38:23
What about washing your nose?
38:25
I mean, your nose does filter the air
38:28
you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and
38:30
irritants, make nasal hygiene part of your routine
38:32
with clear.
38:34
No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
38:37
Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the
38:40
added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and
38:42
viral adhesion.
38:44
Available in stores and online at clear.com.
38:47
That is XLEAR.com.
38:55
Welcome back, everyday Americans.
38:56
You rejoin the Constitution study.
38:59
Today we're talking about holding people responsible for
39:01
their actions.
39:03
And it's not always just the person in
39:04
government.
39:06
Sometimes it's we the people that need to
39:07
be held accountable and responsible for our own
39:09
actions.
39:11
But uh I there's another thing I want
39:12
you to consider.
39:15
Um we often talk about justice and justice
39:19
delayed is justice denied, right?
39:23
If you if you have to wait to
39:25
get justice, well, then you're being denied a
39:28
right while that delay happens.
39:31
Take, for example, uh special counsel former special
39:34
counsel Jack Smith and uh his uh well,
39:38
let's just say not just investigation of Trump,
39:41
but his Arctic Frost investigation, which included um
39:44
targeting certain members of Congress, and uh, you
39:48
know, let's just say that uh there are
39:51
people are not happy with this.
39:55
So uh Congress is now considering a law
39:58
to limit federal prosecutors' ability to secretly obtain
40:01
phone records.
40:03
This is the way it works.
40:05
Again, people are all upset because it was
40:06
Congress, but you just live it's you and
40:07
me.
40:08
So let's say that uh some uh federal
40:11
agency decides you need to be investigated, and
40:13
the best way to do that is to
40:15
get uh oh, I don't know, some phone
40:17
records or maybe records from your internet service
40:20
provider or anything like that.
40:23
And they do so with a subpoena and
40:26
what's called a NDO or a non-disclosure order.
40:30
Meaning they go to the Googles, the Verizons,
40:33
the ATTs, they say, give me this data,
40:35
but do not disclose the person whose data
40:38
we're looking for, do not let them know.
40:41
So, in other words, the government is investigating
40:44
you for some reason, but you're not even
40:47
allowed to know that the uh uh the
40:49
government's investigating you.
40:52
So the House Judiciary Committee recently passed what's
40:55
called the NDO Fairness Act, and it's an
40:58
attempt to restrict the use of these non-disclosure
41:01
orders.
41:04
Now, I took a quick look at the
41:05
text as it stands.
41:06
Um this is the Senate version, Senate 3663,
41:10
and uh it basically says, listen, if a
41:14
governmental entity is seeking a warrant order or
41:17
subpoena under federal law, when it's not required
41:21
to notify the customer or subscriber, or when
41:25
it may they may delay notification of uh
41:29
the sub uh the customer or subscriber, there
41:32
need to be certain things, all right.
41:36
Um there needs to be a time limit,
41:40
but interesting enough, this is the one I'm
41:43
looking at that caught my attention was um
41:47
in order for a court to issue this
41:50
uh an NDO or to extend such an
41:54
NDO, the government entity must um provide articulate
41:57
facts, including written findings of fact and constitutions
42:00
Constitutions of uh conclusions of law that the
42:00
of uh conclusions of law, that the grant
42:03
grant of the that that not granting the
42:04
of the that that not granting the request
42:06
request will likely result in endangering the life
42:07
will likely result in endangering the life or
42:09
or physical safety of an individual, flight from
42:11
physical safety of an individual, flight from prosecution,
42:12
prosecution, destruction of tampering with evidence, intimidation or
42:14
destruction of tampering with evidence, intimidation or potential
42:15
potential of a potential witness, or otherwise seriously
42:18
of a potential witness, or otherwise seriously jeopardize
42:18
jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay delaying a
42:21
an investigation or unduly delay delaying a trial.
42:21
trial.
42:25
Now, let's stop for those and think about
42:25
Now let's stop for those and think about
42:26
those for a second.
42:27
those for a second.
42:28
So you are being
42:29
So you're being investigated for a crime.
42:32
Uh, what would be a reasonable articulal specific
42:36
facts that uh telling you that you're being
42:39
investigated would endanger the life or physical safety
42:42
of an individual?
42:46
I mean, obviously, if you have a record
42:48
or a history of this, that would be
42:50
too uh flight from prosecution.
42:52
Well, again, that's that uh what does it
42:54
take to flee from prosecution?
42:57
All technically you have to do in a
42:59
state issue is is cross state lines in
43:01
a federal thing, you have to cross international
43:03
borders.
43:05
But uh again, uh you could always claim
43:07
destruction of or tampering with evidence, but again,
43:09
if the evidence they're looking for is not
43:11
in your possession, uh how could they do
43:13
that?
43:15
Uh intimidation of a potential witness, I suppose
43:17
they could they could uh charge in other
43:20
words, these things sound fairly reasonable, right?
43:23
Otherwise, to jeopardize an investigation or unduly delaying
43:25
a trial.
43:28
I always find that interesting.
43:29
Because what do you mean by jeopardizing an
43:31
investigation?
43:33
If you're saying that letting that person know
43:35
means they would be able to put together
43:37
a defense to challenge the the search, well,
43:39
that would jeopardize an investigation, even though the
43:41
person was well within their rights to do
43:43
so.
43:45
So that to me, this is a small
43:48
step.
43:51
And again, I'm sure there's more in here.
43:53
I haven't gone through there's a lot of
43:56
of legal uh uh uh stuff in here
43:58
that I haven't gotten to, but I have
44:01
to ask you if a number of lawmakers
44:04
agree that the the Arctic frost investigation should
44:07
never have happened, then why is there solution
44:09
to say, well, then what we're gonna do
44:12
is stop these non-disclosure, or say we're going
44:15
to restrict them when they're putting some mild
44:18
restrictions on that.
44:21
I mean, I don't think the burden of
44:23
proof uh that that uh letting you letting
44:26
the person know could lead to the destruction
44:28
of evidence, it's a pretty low bar.
44:31
Uh, you know, it's like, oh, well, you
44:32
know, yeah, they you know, we may find
44:34
stuff and we may they may have other
44:35
evidence.
44:37
We have no idea, we have no idea
44:39
that it's there, but they could destroy it.
44:42
But then that would be true of pretty
44:44
much every investigation that ever existed.
44:47
Now, I agree, these non-disclosure orders are dangerous,
44:49
right?
44:51
Because they deprive people of the right to
44:54
challenge the investigation.
44:56
But I also see the other side.
44:58
I see situations where letting somebody know, in
45:01
other words, if you're doing an investigation of
45:04
a criminal act that involves violence, right?
45:07
Okay, maybe we don't want to let that
45:09
person know they're being investigated, because if they're
45:12
if we have believed that they've they've had,
45:14
if we have a reasonable uh suspicion based
45:17
on facts and data that this person has
45:19
committed violence in pursuance of a crime, that
45:21
they may do so again.
45:24
I can kind of understand that.
45:25
And this really comes down to well, how
45:28
hard is the judge going to make their
45:31
fellow government actors work in order to show
45:34
they've got uh a reasonable articulable belief that
45:37
they need the non-disclosure order.
45:41
You kind of see the the circular logic
45:42
that's going on there.
45:44
I mean, I'm sure there'll be some judges
45:47
that are very strict, and there are some
45:49
judges that are more likely to rubber stamp
45:51
such an NDO.
45:53
And I'm sure it won't take very long
45:56
for those in the law enforcement community to
45:58
figure out which judges are going to give
46:01
them the easiest time in their NDO, and
46:03
then of course they get the NDO and
46:06
you find, oh, well, there was actually nothing
46:09
there, and there's uh their articulable suspicion was
46:11
really just nonsense made up on made up
46:14
out of out of thin air.
46:16
But the judge didn't care because in the
46:18
judge's mind they had they they'd given such
46:19
it.
46:22
This is not the the solution that we
46:23
I think we all need.
46:25
And again, we're talking about uh government investigating
46:28
others, where the government has the burden of
46:30
proof.
46:34
But I have to wonder will they actually
46:37
fulfill that burden of proof or or not.
46:41
Now, again, that burden of proof is important.
46:44
And I want to give you an example.
46:46
Now, you've probably heard reports of the I
46:49
would say surprising number of DUI arrests where
46:52
the person is not driving under the influence,
46:55
they below zero, zero zero.
46:58
Um, it's been in the news a lot
46:59
late, it's been happening a lot here in
47:01
Middle Tennessee.
47:02
But this is a story I heard that
47:04
was let's just take this to the whole
47:06
other level.
47:08
Now, I have to give credit to we
47:10
the people you.
47:12
That's where I found this video.
47:13
I'll put a link to the video on
47:14
the web page on the on the show
47:16
notes so you can follow it and see
47:17
the whole thing.
47:19
Because what I'm focusing on is not so
47:21
much the analysis by we the PPU, which
47:24
is which is good analysis, but due to
47:26
time and and constraints, I want to focus
47:28
on the report by a guess it's ABC
47:31
7 uh that did the report on this.
47:34
As the sun rose on the morning of
47:36
June 2nd, 2024, local restaurant executive Sherard Holland
47:38
says he was confused when he saw the
47:40
police lights.
47:42
Uh because you swear the son of a
47:45
Chicago police officer, Holland says he was the
47:47
designated driver for a co-worker after working overnight
47:49
when he was pulled over by Illinois State
47:52
Police Trooper Kevin Bradley.
47:54
After speaking with Holland, Trooper Bradley wrote in
47:56
his report he could smell the odor of
47:59
an alcoholic beverage emitting from the vehicle.
48:01
We're gonna relocate, suspecting DUI, Bradley asked Holland
48:03
to continue driving down the road to a
48:05
gas station.
48:08
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
48:09
Time out.
48:10
You you think this person is intoxicated, and
48:13
you tell him to drive somewhere.
48:17
That is the first clue that this is
48:19
a bogus DUI stop.
48:21
This is this the DUI is a an
48:22
excuse.
48:24
It's a predicate.
48:25
If we're gonna make something up and we
48:27
just claim DUI because, well, I I smelled
48:29
an alcoholic beverage.
48:31
I find that amazing because alcohol has no
48:33
odor.
48:36
Alcohol doesn't smell the drinks that are there
48:38
in, but that doesn't mean it was alcoholic.
48:41
So we already have we know we can
48:43
pretty much tell by now that this officer
48:46
knew this was not a this person was
48:48
not intoxicated, otherwise, he wouldn't let him drive
48:50
down the road so that he could uh
48:53
uh well, I would say interrogate him more
48:55
deeply.
48:57
There, Bradley accused Holland of driving drunk when
48:59
asked if he would submit to field sobriety
49:00
Drunk.
49:00
When asked if he would submit to field
49:01
tests.
49:02
sobriety tests, Holland calmly refused.
49:03
Holland calmly refused.
49:05
So thank you.
49:05
Oh, thank you.
49:06
No, thank you.
49:07
Okay, but for what reason be under the
49:08
For what reason?
49:08
rather.
49:11
Okay, here's problem number two.
49:11
Okay, here's problem number two.
49:13
This officer has zero evidence that this gentleman
49:13
This officer has zero evidence that this gentleman
49:16
is driving under the influence.
49:16
is driving under the influence.
49:19
He has every right to refuse a field
49:19
He has every right to refuse a field
49:21
sobriety test.
49:21
sobriety test, but that doesn't seem to matter
49:22
But that doesn't seem to matter to this
49:24
to this particular uh uh officer.
49:24
particular uh uh officer.
49:27
And uh he goes through and he uh
49:27
And uh he goes through and he
49:28
arrests.
49:30
But that's when things start to get a
49:32
little weird.
49:33
In this dashboard camera footage, you can see
49:35
the trooper searching through Holland's things before his
49:37
car was impounded.
49:39
Later that day, when Holland needed his MacBook,
49:42
he noticed it wasn't on his inventory slip.
49:45
So the officer did what's supposed to be
49:48
called an inventory search of the vehicle to
49:51
inventory what's inside it, and it doesn't include
49:54
this gentleman's MacBook computer.
49:57
He says he assumed it must be with
49:58
his car at the tow yard.
50:00
I decided to ping my MacBook, which was
50:02
missing and it pinged to an address.
50:05
Using Apple's Find My feature, Holland says his
50:07
MacBook pinged at a Tinley Park home instead.
50:10
When you got to the door, what happened?
50:12
Well, I was met by him.
50:13
Him was Trooper Bradley.
50:16
He denied it.
50:17
So now you have incontrovertible evidence that this
50:20
officer not only well, we we have evidence
50:23
that this is a false arrest.
50:26
Now we have evidence that this officer committed
50:28
theft.
50:30
And then there's a bit more to this
50:32
than just oh, he committed theft.
50:35
And began to argue with me and I
50:36
decided to call the police.
50:38
This is a recording of that call.
50:42
I met that was stolen last night.
50:44
And what did they say when um you
50:45
confronted them?
50:47
Hang on one second.
50:49
Okay.
50:49
My iPad, how should I find your access?
50:52
And once I call the police, he requested
50:53
that I hang the phone up.
50:56
Okay, that to me is the first mistake
50:58
this person has made, this executive has made,
50:59
because he never should have hung up with
51:01
911.
51:03
He has evidence of a crime, just so
51:05
because it's a it's law enforcement that committed
51:08
the crime, he has evidence of a crime.
51:10
He never should have hung up, but he
51:11
did.
51:13
Thankfully, I think it was his wife was
51:15
taking video from their car.
51:18
This cell phone video picks up shortly after
51:20
that 911 call recorded by Holland's wife, who
51:22
was waiting in his car.
51:24
You can see the trooper walk out and
51:26
hand Holland his MacBook.
51:28
The trooper even opens his garage door to
51:30
show Holland his state police vehicle.
51:32
It was a very traumatic interaction with him.
51:34
A Tinley Park dispatcher eventually called Holland back.
51:38
Everything okay, you're fine.
51:39
Uh, yeah, he's a police officer for some
51:40
reason.
51:43
I'm back for home with him.
51:45
Oh, gotcha.
51:46
Okay.
51:47
Yeah.
51:47
You probably want to speak to a supervisor
51:48
over there.
51:49
That's what Holland did.
51:51
He filed a complaint with the Illinois State
51:53
Police and the iTeam obtained a copy of
51:55
the state's internal investigation.
51:57
According to the findings, investigators determined Trooper Bradley
51:59
never reported this interaction with Holland to his
52:01
supervisors, nor did he make note of it
52:03
in his reports.
52:06
According to a transcript of an interview with
52:08
internal investigators, when Bradley was asked why he
52:10
took the laptop, he said he was doing
52:12
Holland a favor.
52:14
I kept it for his courtesy, like I
52:16
said with his phone, key, and wallet.
52:19
I'm sorry, but keeping private property on your
52:22
person is not a courtesy.
52:25
Now, if you had taken it back to
52:27
his home and said, I'm returning this to
52:28
you, that would have been a consurgency.
52:30
Taking it to your home and denying you
52:33
have it, that is theft, ladies and gentlemen.
52:36
And just because it's a law enforcement doesn't
52:38
make it not theft.
52:40
Now, uh the gentleman, we the people you
52:42
did an interesting analysis because of the value
52:44
of the MacBook, that makes this a felony
52:46
theft under Illinois law.
52:49
And listen what happened, the consequences the officer
52:50
suffered.
52:53
The report states investigators determined Bradley had violated
52:55
state police policies, and he was suspended for
52:57
one day, and he was suspended for one
53:00
day.
53:03
So wait a second.
53:04
You commit felony theft in uniform on the
53:06
job, and your punishment, you violate policy, you
53:09
commit felony theft.
53:11
The punishment is a one-day suspension.
53:15
I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, that itself is
53:16
criminal.
53:18
That that is the actions of the Illinois,
53:20
and I love the Illinois State Police go,
53:22
we hold uh uh complaints accountable.
53:24
We're we're serious about this.
53:26
No, you're not.
53:28
No, you're not.
53:28
You're you you you would you address any
53:31
discrepancies or complaints when they're this is uh
53:33
blatantly false.
53:35
And it's why we need to make sure
53:37
that we understand that just because you wear
53:39
a badge, you're not above the law.
53:41
And you don't have as as the the
53:44
officer, sovereign immunity.
53:46
No, you there first of all, sovereign immunity
53:48
isn't a thing in the United States because
53:49
the body of the people are sovereign, not
53:51
the cops.
53:53
You don't have qualified immunity.
53:55
This is a no way you could believe
53:56
that keeping someone's property is legal, it's not
53:58
a violation of the constitution.
54:01
And unless and until this officer is um
54:03
indicted or at least brought to a grand
54:06
jury for indictment, then there is no justice
54:09
in this case.
54:12
The the person who was falsely accused of
54:15
um DUI was found not guilty, but the
54:18
theft needs to be dealt with.
54:21
And as I understand it, they're suing the
54:23
the uh Illinois state police.
54:26
Um I don't think that's good enough.
54:28
I think that's the start.
54:30
I think uh the the if if the
54:33
attorney general of the state of Illinois should
54:36
be looking at this and uh uh investigating
54:38
this as a criminal referral.
54:42
Now, if the officer's right say, hey, I
54:44
just I just made a mistake.
54:46
Well, that can come out in sentencing, that
54:48
could be a mitigating circumstance for sentencing, but
54:50
that doesn't mean this doesn't get investigated as
54:53
a criminal act.
54:55
That it isn't brought to a grand jury
54:57
for felony indictment.
55:00
And the fact that it hasn't been kind
55:02
of shows what happens when we don't hold
55:04
people responsible.
55:07
You have law enforcement, which now you have
55:09
evidence of a of a false arrest of
55:12
fake DUI charges, uh which makes it an
55:14
illegal detention.
55:17
Uh you have a theft of of property,
55:20
all of which makes this not only a
55:23
felony, it makes it a federal crime, deprivation
55:26
of rights under color of law.
55:30
This should be a lot more serious, and
55:31
a lot of more people should be talking
55:32
about this.
55:33
And I hope you'll spread the word.
55:35
And that's why this is so important.
55:37
And I'm sorry I ran a little long,
55:38
but it's important to me that we do
55:40
this.
55:41
It's one of the reasons why I want
55:43
people to read and study the constitution.
55:45
If you want help doing that, head to
55:47
Constitution Study.com/slash wizard, take the Constitution Study Wizard,
55:49
get some ideas of how you can improve
55:52
your study.
55:54
It's free to sign up.
55:55
It's free.
55:56
Your many suggestions are free, but it's a
55:58
great way to consider what can I do
56:00
What can I do next in this study?
56:00
next in this study.
56:02
I also hope you'll come back and join
56:02
I also hope you'll come back and join
56:04
us here for the Constitution Study every weekday
56:04
us here for the Constitution study every weekday
56:06
at 4 p.m.
56:06
at 4 p.m.
56:07
Eastern time on America at Loud Talk Radio
56:07
Eastern time on America Out Loud Talk Radio
56:09
heard on the iHeartRadio Network.
56:09
heard on the iHeartRadio Network.
56:12
Listen on our media player or our apps
56:12
Listen on our media player or apps for
56:13
for Apple, Android or Alexa, or listen via
56:14
Apple Android or Alexa, or listen via podcast.
56:15
podcast.
56:17
Now it takes a day or two for
56:17
Now it takes a day or two for
56:19
an episode to get to podcast, but it
56:19
an episode to get to podcast, but it
56:21
you can listen in your favorite podcast app.
56:21
you can listen in your favorite podcast app.
56:23
But do me a favor, subscribe to the
56:23
But do me a favor, subscribe to the
56:24
show, leave us a rating, especially on Apple
56:24
show, leave us a rating, especially on Apple
56:26
Podcast.
56:26
Podcasts.
56:28
It helps the algorithm show us.
56:28
It helps the algorithm show us to more
56:29
people.
56:31
You can find all the links you need
56:33
at the homepage at AmericaOutloud.news.
56:35
But please share those links, share this episode,
56:37
share these stories, and help share the blessings
56:39
of liberty to everyone who calls this great
56:41
nation.