Emilie Kisers Court Hearing RECAP

[00:00:47]Heat. Heat.

[00:02:25]Heat.

[00:02:44]Heat.

[00:03:02]Heat. Heat.

[00:03:25]Hey everybody, welcome to the Dot Challenge podcast. My name is Josh. I should get a little closer on these lives because this microphone. Um, can you hear me? Everybody's good. Let me know where y'all are from and uh what's been going on and I will give you uh what's going on here in this video. I was going to do a separate video, but I got a whole schedule coming up. So, I wanted to just get this done because I finally have the courts arguments released on audio. The Reddit thread has been awesome. Uh lady said that you can get the audio recording and she kind of gave us a way of doing it.

[00:03:58]They don't make it easy, that's for sure. But you pay a dollar and you can get the whole court proceeding. I have not heard it yet. But I've also heard that in the thread that it looks like Emily Kaiser might possibly win this thing, which I'm not worried about because I know that EWU will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court to release this. So, this isn't the end by any means, even if the judge does rule that she can cover it all up, which is crazy to me if you think about this because Justin Timberlake, famous people all over the world have had done thing and cannot get their stuff sealed. I don't know how many Kaiser is doing this. It's it's it it screams corruption in my opinion, by the way. But that's okay because they can get outside of the Maropa County and take it to the Supreme Court of of uh Arizona. And there's still many fights to be had. EW has deep pockets. They make a lot of money, right? And they're good. They're really good at what they do. And they're not I don't think they're going to let this one get away. And so it's a really really really big story inside the influencer community. And so we're going to do that. So in order to take a look at this, I'll put this up here. We are going to listen to the court case together. I have not heard anything about it yet. So, we're listening this together together. Okay. Um, here we go.

[00:05:09]This is from the court case here. I don't think you need to see it very big, but this is the court case. It's about 45 minutes long, and I might pause here and there because that's what my brain does, but let's hear the court case and see what we think near the end. Okay.

[00:05:25]>> Mediation yesterday, but um, Mr. Mr. Uh, Biggs, anything from your end?

[00:05:31]>> No. No, your honor.

[00:05:32]>> Okay. Um, can I just so we can be uh most efficient with our time, Mr. Bigs, on the on the jurisdictional show on the rule floor, tell me how a person I I think you'd agree that there is a privacy interest discussed in Carlson in in relation to public records um law and in showing wise. How how can those how would those ever be prosecuted fully and represented fully if if the person who has that privacy right wasn't able to prosecute a special action?

[00:06:05]>> And I I think that that's not what our argument has been is that they can't prosecute a special action. I think what what we've argued is specifically focusing on the language in rule 4B of the rules of procedures for special action. So when I use rule rules, I'm going to be referring to those specific rules.

[00:06:21]>> Is there anybody in here who understands legal ease and legal jargon? Because I think that's kind of how this works and this is the way the world works is that the legal legals are meant to be confusing. It's never meant to be accessible to the regular PL. That's why we have to hire lawyers to understand and navigate language and barriers and red tape and all this kind of stuff. I cannot turn it up. That's the only problem here. Everybody, what I might be able to do is hold on. Let me see something here. Let me let me remove this and I will share the screen without the volume from the video.

[00:06:59]Okay, I'll share this. Let me know if this works for you guys.

[00:07:17]>> Can you hear that? because I can uh hold on I can get I can get rid of the echo can I don't want to adjust I want that in there can you guys hear this >> I think what what we have argued is specifically focusing on the language in rule 4B of the rules of procedures for special actions so when I use rule rules I'm going to be referring to those specific rules >> you can't hear that through my microphone damn it so stupid hold on let me see if I automatically adjust mic volume.

[00:07:51]How about this?

[00:07:53]>> Um, so I don't have to do the R3 SA, which I mess up far too often. Um, if you if you look at it, uh, what we're taught in the case law is that that rule was supposed to replace the common law rits and it didn't expand what you could do under the common law rits. And so the particular RIP for rule 4B is the rid of prohibition. Uh and I think the the most helpful case to understanding what the rid of prohibition could do is uh Caruso v Superior Court. It's an Arizona Supreme Court case from 1966. Uh the site is 100 ARZ167 and >> 106 106 Arizona 107 >> 100 Arizona 167.

[00:08:35]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:08:36]>> Yeah. And and so it talks about how there's uh there's two parts of this.

[00:08:41]There's the without jurisdiction which also includes without legal authority and in excessive jurisdiction or legal authority. The without jurisdiction or legal authority I think might be that the hang up here. That's the one. It tests the external validity of the proceeding. Does the court or in this case the public body have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter whether they get it right or wrong. That's the without jurisdiction. I don't I don't think we're saying that the public body was without the chancellor didn't have the statuto authority to make a determination of this. So then it's did they act in excess of jurisdiction or in this case of their legal authority. Uh and Caruso says that uh examines the uh internal validity of the proceeding and it really asks two questions. Did and I'll use public body instead of court here since we're dealing with public body. Did the public body exceed its powers defined by constitution or statute? And then if not was the public body's act an abuse of discretion. So, what someone in Miss Hinrichson's position would need to do is come forward and show that the decision that Chandler made uh to or or the threat decision because they haven't made the decision yet. The threat decision Chandler is saying that it would release the redacted forms of these public records is an abuse of its discretion under the public records law. So, it's it's not wholesale error review. And there are a number of cases where the supreme state supreme court has said that limits of prohibition are not for review of mere errors. Uh but okay, who's who's he talking to? Does anybody know if this is her lawyer or if this is the lawyer on the other side? Because they're arguing that Chandler court overreached in the ruling on this matter. So he's saying that and the ruling that the Chandler had was that they were going to seal it, right? That was what I'm that's what I'm taking away from this is he's saying they overreached. So it sounds like he's fighting on behalf of getting it released, right?

[00:10:33]He said it was public record. Abuse of discretion very hard to overcome. Abuse of discretion is an understatement. So, can someone just I'm dumb, okay? So, let's be real. I don't know what that means. So, if there are people who know this [ __ ] please let me know cuz I'm trying to really understand this stuff as legal ease.

[00:10:51]Abuse of indiscretion is an understatement. Okay. So, I can even use AI It's a lot of words salad. Someone is trying to open up what has been sealed.

[00:11:07]I see what you're saying. Okay. Here for Arizona. And yes, it sounds like he's arguing that Chandler didn't have the authority to seal the records. So, he they're trying to get it unsealed because they have been sealed at this point. He's trying to get it unsealed.

[00:11:18]Yeah, we do need Annie. Annie would know this stuff. Um, abuse of indiscretion is not a standard widely recognized term.

[00:11:23]Appears to be misspelling. Okay. AI is no help. All right, let's continue.

[00:11:28]Where is it?

[00:11:31]>> It is to review whether there was an abuse of discretion. Um, and so we're not saying that someone in Miss Henrikson's position could never challenge something like this through a special action. It's just that the standard she has to meet is she has to show that the red that what the city of Chandler was saying it would produce would be an abuse of its discretion under the public records law. Uh, and so that's what the court's examining. um not not whether in the first instance the court will make a different decision than the city of Chandler, but whether uh what the what the city of Chandler is wanting to do is manifest the unreasonable exercise and untenable grounds, exercise for untenable reasons.

[00:12:10]Um there's a number of cases and we've cited some of them that talk about generally the abuse of discretion standard and that's what it really is.

[00:12:16]It's different than denovo review, >> right? But if if if I make I made a decision that the law requires the city of Chandler to um not under Carlson not produce except in the limited well actually it's not it they actually could release a lot under the previous order but >> yes >> if if I make that decision and then Chandler says >> um we're going to release >> something different than what your order how how is that whatever standard if it's a legal decision whatever standard you you want to call it how I'm not sure how 4B would not allow the challenge by Miss Hendrickson >> and uh let me make sure I'm understanding your question so I answer actually >> I'm not sure it was a well worded question >> no it it was probably me so so the question is uh under 4B uh how is not a legal determination is that the question >> that's that's more or less it if the if if Chandler makes a decision Um, and I find as a matter of law that the law prohibits under Carlson the disclosure, the production of of record, then isn't that always going to be an abuse of discretion if it's a purely legal issue?

[00:13:30]>> Is he saying the abuse of discretion, meaning they're abusing the the discretion? Like, I wish I could understand this [ __ ] My brain is just not meant for this. And that's why lawyers make a [ __ ] ton of money. The abuse of discretion is saying that he's accusing them of abusing discretion by sealing the documents. Correct. And he's saying that he could overturn that.

[00:13:50]>> Yeah. If I'm understand I think Yeah. If so, so backing it up, if if in your decision the court decides that a particular one of these public records that Carlson absolutely prohibits it as a matter of law from being disclosed, then under 4B, you could enjoin the city of Chandler from disclosing that. And if they if they were to violate that injunction, they'd be in contempt of court. Okay. The the remedy would be an injunction.

[00:14:12]>> Yes.

[00:14:13]>> Not a permanent. But >> so for those of you who are dumb like me, what I think I'm hearing is that the judge is saying, "Okay, what happens if I release this and I tell Chandler to delete it or release it?" And they don't. And the guy's like, "What are my the court's saying, what are my remedies for that?" And he's like, "Well, you can do an injunction towards Chandler."

[00:14:30]Basically, basically he they're afraid that Chandler is gonna just be like, "Well, we're gonna slow roll it or we're not going to release it or we're going to do different things or we're gonna partially or we're going to redact things that we're not allowed to redact." That's what it sounds like.

[00:14:44]That's am I right on that or am I just dumb?

[00:14:49]Parts of it are allowed to be sealed.

[00:14:50]Video autopsy photos and photos, but some things are not allowed to be sealed and they're considered public records.

[00:14:55]And I always thought that police body cams are public record. That's what the That's the whole point of them. So the public can pick it apart and look at it for the freedoms and so there's no corruption. Corruption comes to the forefront if it happens. Am I not am I not am I hearing this correctly? Man, I wish I wasn't dumb.

[00:15:14]>> Now based on my reading of the reply that the remedy being sought here is is although called a a ceiling in the initial papers is really a permanent injunction.

[00:15:22]>> Permanent >> is is I think what uh and and Mr. Mr. can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what they're seeking is an injunction.

[00:15:29]>> How is it different than what the court ordered in shown wise the court of appeals?

[00:15:32]>> So shown wise uh so that arose under different circumstances in the trial court. Shown wise was not a special action. Shown wise was brought we know that because it was brought in probate court. Um we don't have the pleadings in front of us so we don't know how they framed it if it was a declaratory judgment action or what it was but it was not at its initiation in nature a a special action in the superior court. Uh what happened was uh when the superior court made a decision um the uh the petitioner there took a special action as a means of an intermediate appeal.

[00:16:03]And >> and I think what he's doing here is he's talking about the case law. He's he brought up a case precedent and he's just saying this is what happened in that precedent. Am I hearing that correctly too?

[00:16:12]>> The court of appeals reviewed as an appellet special action, >> right? uh and so it reviewed it under 4C determining whether the court abuses discretion in choosing to order the release of the records uh without conducting an inc camera inspection. Uh so >> I guess I'm a little bit different. I'm I'm a little bit I think you and I are a little bit off on what we're my question is if you're saying hey this is injunctive relief and it it isn't an appropriate form of relief to a public record. It's almost like I need to get an attorney on here that can like decipher what we're what we're hearing.

[00:16:47]>> How is the result in showing wise where the court of appeals um said it's got to go back to the court trial court to do an in camera inspection and if the encounter inspection under Carlson shows that the privacy interests are are >> I don't think I think this the lawyer on the other side of Emily saying the reason why we think this should be released based on this case is because of this and the overreach. So, I think the guy we're hearing is the guy on our side, right?

[00:17:16]>> I don't know who that is. Tell him to come on the show.

[00:17:21]>> Heavy enough that that um it should be there should be an issue issue nor prohibiting the distribution of the um David Peterson's u autopsy report. How is that different than the relief stock here? And both are saying going forward it's sealed forever.

[00:17:41]>> Yeah, I mean it just has to be in the form of an injunction. Correct. That in showing wise they haven't gotten very far because the problem there was that the court never conducted the inc camera inspection. Um, and there's there's commentary in that decision about uh we think that when the court conducts an inc camera inspection of records that I don't even think the court of appeals has seen yet that there are probably going to be things because it was a medical examiner's report. Uh, verdict definitely would not be disclosable uh under the public records law and that the city there uh should have withheld.

[00:18:09]Um, again, we're not saying that Miss Hamilton can't meet the challenge she made. Uh I I think the fair reading of of our brief is we tried to because it hadn't been examined lay out the procedural requirements under rule four and we analyzed this under whether it was an abuse of discretion for Chandler to decide to make the redactions it did and not say that it would just wholesale withhold everything.

[00:18:33]>> Hey guys, really sorry to tell you this, but my be unit has passed away a little while ago. I did a video on it. Um it was really sad. But uh yeah, I miss her too. But um if people are wondering if this is live, this is live. This court, if for those of you just joining me right now, is for Emily Kaiser's trying to seal forever the body cams, the interviews, the lies, and all that kind of stuff. She doesn't want it out there.

[00:18:56]Um and she's fighting in court to overturn the Chandler judge who said that he was going to he basically sealed it. He just released the police report, which is bunch of pages redacted. And so now EW and another news organization are suing to have these records revealed, unsealed. And this is the court case that happened yesterday morning in Arizona. And I just got the audio right now about this. And so this is the fight that we're listening to. This is very hard to decipher. And so we're going to do our best to decipher it. But uh what people are hearing that understand law that have heard this apparently are saying that's a good chance the judge will keep it sealed. But that being said, this isn't the end because apparently this lawyer, you'll hear in a few minutes, will talk about how he can appeal because it sounds like he already thought he lost and they're going to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court hopefully. So that's kind of where we are right now.

[00:19:48]>> And that's the that's the way we have analyzed this and and I apologize if that wasn't clear in our briefing. I disagreed with how the brief reply characterized our briefing.

[00:19:56]I I tried to be very careful in being clear that we were analyzing this as whether it was an abuse of discretion, use that language repeatedly in our brief. Um and uh we think when you and we we analyze the Carlson factors and and the balancing test and how it applies here um and this gets the second part of what was in your entry, but that the remedy here uh or that the the scope of the relief we thought our view is is that the city of Chandler has properly balanced those interests and that it has redacted uh what is protected by the privacy concerns. Uh, and if your honor goes through and conducts an analysis of that, I what what I what we're saying is the issue is when you conduct that analysis, uh, if it's a close call that could go one way or the other, then the city of Chandler hasn't abused it discretion.

[00:20:40]>> So, I'm hearing it right. He's just like he's using case law and precedent to say this doesn't exist. This is why this doesn't exist. And they're trying to convince the judge to change another judge's mind, which if you think about the courts, it's probably hard. It's the onus is probably way harder to be like, okay, well, because a judge will have to not always respect another judge, but they have to be like, well, why do you think this judge who's in this position of power did this? And you have to change my mind about that judge's mind.

[00:21:10]That's what I'm hearing.

[00:21:11]>> I guess that's the better way of putting it without using all the the legal jargon is is if it's a close call, has Chandler abuses discretion? No. Um, this isn't this isn't the correction of the legal. It's not a denovo review.

[00:21:22]>> Okay, gotcha. Thank you. That's a really good point. Uh, Reena Rihanna, they don't have any legal grounds to seal these records and her feelings are not a valid reason, which I agree with you. I agree. Chandler absolutely abused their discretion. So, that is a really, really good sentence to describe what's going on here.

[00:21:37]>> That that answered all my questions, Mr. B. I appreciate it. Is there anything else that you wanted to Well, it's it's M. Clark's motion, so let me have him go first and I'll let give you a reply.

[00:21:47]>> Thanks, your honor. Uh in terms of the I I guess we did understand EWU to be making a a challenge to the ability to assert this type of claim as a private party um when the government has essentially acted or threatened to act.

[00:22:01]So >> this is Emily's lawyer by the way everybody.

[00:22:04]>> Um what I'm hearing today is it's not that special action relief is not the right path for Emily to have taken. It's just that the the way it's currently postured with the city having made a preliminary determination or some redactions and then threatening to produce the remaining materials is that we can only be heard to examine that for an abuse of discretion which is a little different than how we understood it but we're here now. So, um I think really there's sort of a very old case and a very new case that that really help on these questions. I I read I read Justice King's one that came out the other day >> and and I think that's informative. As of Friday afternoon, we have the latest statement from the Supreme Court on that. Now, granted, that came up in a different uh posture. That was someone who had been denied access, but I I think the part for the court to focus on is how Justice King articulated that the standard review would work in that situation. And that's that the court once the whatever determination is being made by the custodian or the government agency the court has to conduct an independent denovo denovo review of that to make sure that the factors support withholding or disclosing whichever bucket we're kind of in that that is a function of the judiciary to to have that final say. And so, you know, while that is the statement of the law as of last Friday, it really goes back to the 1952 Matthews case where this whole thing got started and Carlson kind of piggybacked on top of Matthews when the courts said, "Look, it it cannot be that that an individual does not have standing to challenge government action.

[00:23:37]The government, the person who makes an initial call does not get to be the final call on that." And and in that particular case, the governor had made the determination that that the producing the information would be detrimental to state interests and the attorney general argued that the governor's decision is final. And the court said, you know, we appreciate the argument, but that's just not how the law works. That that the the courts will be final on that. So that is a theme that is, you know, been per pervasive for, you know, coming up on 78 years or whatever the math is on that. And and it's consistent. And I I think when you piece those things together and everything in between with Carlson and Sha Wise, what we see is that the agency can make the first determination and and that it can do that balancing test, but the courts are the ones who have to have the final say in that when challen I struggled a little bit with the the way EWU kind of articulates the discretion aspect of it as to whether the agency may but not must. The courts are careful with how they use these words and and I think the way you have to look at that is that the courts are not going to require in every single public records request that the custodian conduct a cross and balancing test. That just is unworkable. But where jurisdiction or discretion is invoked, that's where the the agency has to do that balancing test and and if a party doesn't like the result of that, there's a judicial process to challenge that. And that's what we have here. So it is very clear and and you know I kind of looked at this in the sense of you know kind of like Jurassic Park where they say life finds a way the law finds a way and if you look at the cases it was significant to me that you had quotes from a couple of these cases where you know if you looked at in the show case it says although no Arizona decision imposes a per se rule requiring in camera inspection of public records and we do not announce one here the necessity of such a review becomes nearly inescapable when the court contemplates ates the release of documents that inherently raise significant privacy concerns.

[00:25:29]>> There it is. This is what pisses me off about this. You don't get privacy if and like this is what pissed me off that I think I think she might win in this. But he's like you don't like if something like this happens of public safety of public concern of a public figure, you don't get privacy. I have a body cam channel called Josh goes off. Those people are nobodyies. And that gets released to the public. Some of the most embarrassing moments they've ever experienced in their life that gets released willy-nilly.

[00:25:57]It's it's the two tiers of justice that are really pissing me off here. It's not like, "Oh, she gets privacy." No, she doesn't [ __ ] get privacy. She doesn't get it. Justin Timberlake can't get privacy. How can How can Emily Kaiser?

[00:26:09]This is a child died due to negligence in this case. And the fact that like I hope this comes up. It's like it doesn't sound like they know. All they're doing is arguing case law, which I understand that's how law works, but it's so stupid. Like, this is a human being who never got any justice. Like, well, during case law, this is this and nerdy McNerd over here is saying a bunch of [ __ ] That doesn't that doesn't help anybody.

[00:26:35]You don't you don't get privacy. Good point. When you freely film your entire life. Emily wants privacy now and it's not beneficial to her, but any other time that kid's life got shared on the internet forever. And I don't even know if they're allowed to make that argument in this court, which would be awesome, but I don't think they're allowed to.

[00:26:54]Thanks, Kimberly.

[00:26:56]>> So, there was no rule, but it had to be, and the court recognized that. It declined to work on the technical dichotomy between one aspect of uh ARS 39-121 versus another. It just said this is what it has to be and and it really didn't talk about the common law privacy interest that Carlson embraces. So, you know, I think the way that you have to look at that is that we have this common law privacy interest and when it is invoked by a private party or or the government, the court has to be able to review that. And so why we're here on a rule 4B situation which we think is the proper path because we think that the city has threatened to do something in excess of its discretion because when the privacy interests are invoked and when Carlson balancing shows that the balance favors the privacy interests over the public >> here's the thing that he's arguing something that even I know is not true.

[00:27:45]It never the private the private person's interest or the public's interest has never been overridden as far as I'm concerned. Some people, someone said in the chat already, if this gets overturned or if he does seal this forever, that's a precedent in itself. This is unheard of. So, he's all arguing like this has already happened and it should be standard. No way, man.

[00:28:02]Because if Emily Kaiser gets her [ __ ] covered up, that's going to set a precedent for other people to be able to do that as well, which shouldn't. This is in the public's interest. That's why I don't understand this argument.

[00:28:11]>> Watchdog function. Then the law is that information cannot be produced. So the city would be acting in excess of its authority and in excess of its discretion. Um if we were in a 4C posture, I think the court could also find that simply applying the standard operating redaction procedures to remove you know addresses, dates of birth and depictions of a child's body um is not a true Carlson balancing. So >> ah so here's what he's saying here. If I'm if I'm hearing this correctly, he's like look it's not just enough to redact addresses, pictures of dead bodies and all this kind of stuff. He's like, "That's not enough." But that's what EW is saying. Look, we don't want that. You can redact all you want. We just want this for public consumption because we are deserved it. This is what the damn body cameras are for. Like, why why are even their why are even courts I understand with minors. Uh but why are courts sometimes like, "Yeah, you don't no one gets any of this." Like, how can they do that? This is supposed to be public. This is what court is meant to be. Why is there so much secrecy allowed? That doesn't make sense. And he's just like, "Look, he's arguing.

[00:29:12]like they don't want anything out past the police report and I guess this is his job to do that and I understand that but it's just not fair to the world >> that has also acted in excess of its authority. So I think whichever way you get there, you have the power to do what we've asked you to do. And then the real question is what do you do with that power? And you asked the question, judge, about whether a more narrowly tailored approach would be appropriate here. And kind of looking back at everything, you know, we would acknowledge that the video I think it was nine. Let me go make sure I got that right. Apologize. I wrote something down so I didn't make a mistake there. It was um video nine, the Chandler police officer talking to the reporter outside the house. We would withdraw that from our request. I think that's something that doesn't really fit within here.

[00:29:59]>> So, there's a video called video 9 where the police are talking to reporters outside the house. That's news to me. I didn't see that coming. The reporters were arriving at the time this was all happening. Did anybody know that the reporter showed up during the moment this was all going down?

[00:30:17]That's actually crazy. Where is that report? Why didn't the news put that out? I've never seen anything like that.

[00:30:23]Also, Emily, I know you're watching this. Okay, that's for you. Everybody give Emily a a greeting in the chat because you know she's here watching this [ __ ] >> Um, but as as to the other things, we have not seen any cogent argument. And we start with with your words, judge. We have not seen coach in arguments EXCEPT FOR ALL THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION WE HAVE UP TO THIS POINT.

[00:30:50]What do you mean? What do you mean we haven't seen? Obviously, because you're fighting for it to be sealed. So, that's what you got to say. But are you saying the the reg why is your case so special than anybody else's case? That's why I hope he argues like why do they get this and someone like Justin Timberlake doesn't or any other famous person out there? He needs to be arguing from the point of famous people. like this doesn't make any sense. And he's like, "Well, I haven't seen any coach arguments." WELL, I HAVE. AGAIN, WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR THE LAST 50 years.

[00:31:19]>> It's that, you know, from your minute entry last August, the public can fully understand the scope of the investigation and the rationale for the county attorney's decision through the unredacted 53 pages of a police report.

[00:31:30]>> No, we can't. No, we can't. You know what he said? He's like, "Oh, they can understand it." No, we can't because you redacted some of it. So, no, we can't.

[00:31:37]We want to hear the lies Brady said with his mouth. We want to see the DCFS interview. We want to see the interviews inside the police department. We cannot understand this all. It needs to be put out for the for the good of the public.

[00:31:48]Sorry. He's like, well, that's good enough. Basically, what he's saying is like the the the redacted police report should be good enough for everybody. You know what, buddy? Kiss my ass. That's crazy sauce.

[00:31:57]>> Which describes events, timeline, witness accounts, and law enforcement conclusions.

[00:32:01]>> I honestly think that she's going to win this case, this one. I'd be surprised if she didn't, but I think she's going to lose when it goes to the Arizona Supreme Court because that's going to be outside of these counties.

[00:32:12]>> That is where we start. And EWU has offered no cogent region reason why that is no longer the case as applied to these audio and visual materials.

[00:32:21]>> Miss Hold up a sec. Um, >> yeah, >> Miss Gaming.

[00:32:27]>> Hi.

[00:32:27]>> I I apologize. I was having a lot of computer issues trying to get on. I so apologize.

[00:32:31]>> Lady shows up 40 minutes later.

[00:32:33]>> It's not a problem. you're on now. I appreciate it. Go ahead, Mr. Carter.

[00:32:37]>> What I was saying is that there really has not been an articulation of any cog and reason why that's still not the case. And particularly when we offer >> Here's what pisses me off about what just happened. Is this lady the one supposed to be representing the county that wants it unsealed? And if that's the case, you showed up 20 minutes late into this argument and be like, "Sorry, I was late."

[00:32:59]How is that going to help anybody >> to have a certified verbatim transcript of all the materials in those videos prepared at our expense? Um there there's no reason why that information does not give the public full and complete ability to review what's in those videos and at the same time protecting the privacy interests that are at stake. I mean, I looked hard in the briefing and and all I really saw was, look, we we we trust but verify and you can't verify without actually, you know, seeing the videos and hearing the the audio. That's just not true.

[00:33:30]>> That's what body cams are for, though.

[00:33:33]We trust but verify. He's like, "No, you can." Yeah, you can because corruption exists. Human error exists. Memories fail. So, yes, if we got the camera, we'll have it. So, he's saying things could have been lost in the police report that we really need to see. And he's right about that. But this guy's like, "No, it should be fine." Oh, the red doctor police reports all you all really need. F off, buddy. Now, I get I understand this is his job. He's fighting for Emily Kaiser, which is, you know, you're disgusting for doing that, but I understand this is his job and this is what he's got to argue, but it makes me angry.

[00:34:03]>> We can read it and and that's what the ah Bellow case talked about. And that's still a law. I mean, a transcript is just as good for the purposes of the public's watchdog oversight function as the the actual audio and visual. And yes, admittedly the audio and visual will be more lucrative from a broadcast standpoint like it was in the ah fellow or you know whether it's selling you know getting clicks on the websites. We understand that but that is not the standard. The standards the courts have applied consistently is whether it serves the public records act purposes.

[00:34:34]>> Exactly. And that's what I think is the easiest argument to make here. He's like we don't like what he did was a little jab at EW there and he said we don't care if it's for clicks and money blah blah blah. We understand that that's how the world works. But is how is that good for public consumption? Well, first of all, there's a safety issue here about uh pools fences in Arizona about what really happened and what really failed and that that's part of public information. She's a public figure.

[00:34:56]That's part of public information. The fact that she's lied and covered up things, the fact that Brady lied and covered up things. this DCFS interview.

[00:35:03]This is all information we need because they are public figures and this is beneficial to the community as a whole considering Emily Kaiser is not giving any information and you gave us a redacted police report which don't forget they they wanted to press charges presented charges to a prosecutor who then said nah I don't want to fight this because she has a large audience. So, if this guy doesn't make the argument that Emily Kaiser has a massive fan base that will go to bat for her and literally give people death threats who go against her, then they failed. And I'm not trying to tell them how to do their job, but this is of public information. It went nationally viral. If there were police, if there were reporters outside the house, which we just heard at the time of the drowning, that's a big deal.

[00:35:45]This is a big deal case. So, I understand why he's saying it because he has to and this is his only argument, but it makes me angry.

[00:35:53]>> And having the the more visceral audio and visual just does not serve those standards. So, for that reason, we believe, you know, keeping those things, you know, private so that this family can grieve the way it needs to grieve.

[00:36:07]>> Yeah. How's she grieving this far? This this bastard, he's like keeping things private so they can grieve. Well, it's been a year. Okay. She has she has had it sealed for the year. She's had a chance to grieve. And let's recap Emily's grief process. Three vacations, one including going to Mayorca with her son on a boat without a [ __ ] life jacket. That's one of the things she did. She's been on many girls trips.

[00:36:29]She's been to New York. She's been to Disney. She's now in California. She's just tramping about the world. She was filming content four weeks after her son died. She got a bob and did a stupid ass dance. She laughs. She has ice coffee.

[00:36:41]She shops. This is what this woman does.

[00:36:43]IS THAT GRIEVING? GIVE HER a chance to grieve. [ __ ] you. No, you don't get to invoke that [ __ ] when she's actually not doing it. And only and in capitalizing on it, don't forget the Factor Meal ad that she did saying that during this troubled time, Factor Meals gave us these free meals and we're so happy getting paid tens and tens of thousands of dollars to talk about microwavable meals becing son. [ __ ] you.

[00:37:13]Sorry, there's no grieving going on here. And and the fact that the judge doesn't get to see that or hear me say that or the world say that because he doesn't know, he's not following this drama on the internet.

[00:37:26]The fact that they could just say that and the guy should BE LIKE, "UH, JUDGE, HERE'S SOME HERE'S SOME education for you on Emily Kaiser." Because he knows it's probably detrimental to say it.

[00:37:38]That's not justice being served.

[00:37:40]There's got to be some human element to to to justice and there rarely is.

[00:37:47]>> We've we've said it before and I don't want to repeat what we've already argued, but they want to remember Trey as he was in life, not in death. And you know, courts have given very cogent.

[00:37:55]>> Too bad. Too bad. Then you know what? If you wanted to remember it like that, maybe you shouldn't have been responsible for his death.

[00:38:07]>> I'm so angry right now. uh articulations of that that I mean I think Judge Kazinski in the March case talked very eloquently about how important it is for parents to be able to not just control the remains and make burial plans but also control the memory of their child.

[00:38:21]>> Too bad you don't get to control the memory especially when you made that child famous. We're all forgetting here and the judge doesn't understand this and I cannot believe that EWU and all these people aren't saying this. It's like judge can I just interrupt you for a second here? She doesn't get to do that because she made Trigg famous without his permission, without his consent. She made this child Tik Tok famous. There are literally here's here's a thousand comments about how we're his auntie and we're so sad he's gone and I miss Trig and all this [ __ ] You made him famous. You don't get to then be like, "Okay, now I don't I unfamous somebody." You don't GET TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T PUT YOUR [ __ ] KIDS ON THE INTERNET. THAT'S WHY you don't do it. AND NO ONE'S SAYING ANYTHING. NO ONE'S SAYING ANYTHING.

[00:39:01]And that's what we're asking for here.

[00:39:03]We We have not sought to hide from the public material information.

[00:39:08]>> Yeah. Did you hear what that [ __ ] just said? We have not sought to keep this from the public. That's what he just said. Except literally that's what you're here fighting. I I know I'm dumb.

[00:39:18]I get it. And that's a lawyer. He's well way more educated and a lot smarter than I am. But are you kidding me? That's literally what we're trying to fight to release because she's TRYING TO COVER IT UP. She's trying to seal it forever.

[00:39:30]What am I? Am I taking crazy pills? Did Who gave me a crazy pill in my coffee this morning?

[00:39:38]>> That media report was very detailed and has a lot of information. Frankly, the family would rather not have had to deal with, you know, a DraftKings, you know, argument of what the TV was on, what channel it was on. Those things are all fair game and they're out there, but >> nah, he's like, that's all fair game, but that's just part of it. It's just part of it. And if this guy doesn't take the opportunity to be like, "Hey, she hasn't learned her lesson because just recently, Judge, she's been on a boat with her child without a life jacket, breaking laws. She does videos where she literally said she forgot her son at the gym." Like, there's too much that goes there's there's too much here for public record that we need to do because it needs to reconcile itself. And this is so infuriating to watch. adding the level of color and and gritty detail, uh, we start getting back to this idea that, you know, it's gonna live forever on the internet. And there are like, it's not there are bad actors out there.

[00:40:31]There already are deep fakes, but those will be so much more detailed and so much harder to discern when they have actual video, >> deep fakes, though. There isn't, >> and audio data to feed into that. It's just going to make it look that much more real. And that's just not what what the public records laws are about.

[00:40:47]>> Just so I'm clear, Mr. Clark that um your request is modified to concede that video 9 uh you no longer are seeking protection for and I don't think modified but your original um pleadings indicate that you would agree um the plaintiffs would agree that a verbatim transcript of the videos um could be produced.

[00:41:08]>> That's correct, your honor. And >> so okay, so they want video 9 released.

[00:41:12]They say we don't care about that. Emily Kaiser doesn't seem to care. She's kind of throwing them a bone. Oh, you can have video nine, which is probably has no like it doesn't obviously she doesn't care about it, so we we shouldn't care about it either. But I definitely want to see that. But they're saying, well, what about transcripts? Not enough. It's not enough. The reason body cams exist, because if it was just about transcripts, you could just carry an autorecorder that trans transcribes automatically everything that's been said. Okay? Audio, the the video exists for a reason, and it's for public consumption. It's for public scrutiny.

[00:41:42]It's to make sure that courts aren't lying. It's to make sure there's no corruption inside the police. It's to make sure the police are saying what's going on actually is going on. It's if it's for a famous person that's doing stupid [ __ ] we should be able to see it. That is what they exist for. I don't want to trans Well, I'll take it. I'll take the transcription, but I want everything. It all needs to be released because she should not get special privileges because this was not an accident.

[00:42:07]And the fact that he's not saying, "Well, hey, don't forget, judge, the police wanted to press charges here."

[00:42:13]So, it goes deeper than just being like it's just about morbid curiosity. It goes against like, okay, well, why didn't they press charges? We'd like to see what the police saw so that they wanted to press charges. Can we see that? And so, that's that's that's us looking to see if there's corruption involved and we want to know if there was. And so, let us be the judge of that. And that's what body cams are for.

[00:42:34]Am I wrong?

[00:42:35]I guess I would also add that while we do not see that Emily was ever a person of interest, she was not there, that there's really any public benefit for looking at what she said to child protective services.

[00:42:47]>> Oh, you see there, they're trying to block the child protective services against Emily. We don't Yeah, Emily is part of this reason this child died there. Dwad, she's literally the reason there was no pool fence there. The net wasn't up. The alarms on the door didn't work. So yeah, Brady was there that night. He's trying to pin it all on Brady right now, by the way. And yeah, I get it because that night, 90% Brady. I get that. But overall, they both are to blame for this. Okay, so he's just trying to pin it all on Brady. Be like, "Oh, Emily has nothing to do with this. Are you serious right now? Am I hearing this? Holy [ __ ] man.

[00:43:23]This judge obviously doesn't know, and it sucks that he doesn't know."

[00:43:26]>> Or right after the the, you know, in the hospital and she was interviewed by the police. If the court feels in doing its balancing tech uh approach here under Carlson that those materials do offer some some legitimate oversight function for the you know the public there then we would also be willing to procure and we can come up with a process you know whether it's hiring a court staff reporter or some certified court reporter but we can come up with a process to add her interviews to the transcript department but but again we would just say that the the transcripts coupled with the Chandler PD report are are more than sufficient for the public to exercise.

[00:44:01]>> No, the public doesn't agree with you.

[00:44:03]>> Hope this helps, bro.

[00:44:04]>> That admittedly appropriate and important watchdog function.

[00:44:08]>> Thank you.

[00:44:09]Um, Mr. Bicks.

[00:44:13]>> Yes. I I think part of this is is where uh it's important to understand the difference between a lot of the cases and the posture matters. Most of the cases uh with the exception of showing wise have been cases where a public entity has denied access uh to someone who's requested it and then it's gone up on appeal of that denial of access uh and the question becomes whether the municipality properly denied access or not and abuse discretion.

[00:44:41]>> This is a really good point. So I'll get back to that. This is a really good point. Emily they Emily does not want us to see her reaction during that night.

[00:44:49]The only thing that the reason that they want to cover this up and this just hit me. It just had an aha moment myself here is that Emily wants you to see that that night she probably wasn't even that it probably was like what it probably wasn't she probably wasn't freaking out probably all calm as a cucumber and Brady was probably chilling. There probably was no like urgency or anything cuz he took his shirt off. He took his phone out of his pocket. He lied to the police three times. I think what they want to hide here, and that's why they're willing to release the transcripts, is the actual demeanor of who they are. And that's why I think they need to release this because that's a big part of this. Body language matters. The tone of your voice, the intonation, the the urgency, all that really matters. Emily doesn't want that out in the public. It's a really good point, Lumpy Pillows. I appreciate you in denying access. Um why why that matters is even in the Goldwater venenix case that came out on Friday the court characterizes uh the public records laws establishing a strong presumption of transparency and public access.

[00:45:48]>> Yeah. The next next parag next sentence is also uh telling in that but >> uh I mean if you're reading this I I read it um over the weekend and I I I recall reading that and saying well yeah that's kind of stock but I thought Justice King's next sentence was there are limits.

[00:46:05]>> Yeah. She says then thus the degree of likelihood of specific material harm resulting from disclosure cannot be dimminimous, vague or purely speculative. Again, she she's talking about a different exception and analyzing that. But the starting point when you have that posture where access has been denied is the uh public body has to overcome that strong presumption through the balancing test. It has to show that there is a privacy interest in this case. That's what we're talking about that overcomes that presumption.

[00:46:32]Okay, here I think I'm hearing this and it's good argument.

[00:46:36]This is his way of saying she's famous.

[00:46:39]This is a very there's a public interest story. A lot of us want to know what happened and this there's been no precedent to say that that you've you've held stuff like this before. And he's like there's no presumption of of of of privacy, especially when you're a famous person who puts your entire internet, including your son's entire life on the internet. It's it's it's like saying she she wanted privacy up up until the point it didn't serve her anymore. But before that she put Trig's entire life on the internet that the and the burden is on the municipality and Goldwater venix talks about that the party seeking to block access always is the one that bears the burden of persuasion. What I keep hearing is that EW media has not before this or that reason. It was never AW media's burden of persuasion on this.

[00:47:25]It's always been Miss Himrison's burden of persuasion to show that the privacy interests outweigh uh the strong presumption of public access.

[00:47:35]>> Yes. Thank you. You hear what he said there? He's like, "This doesn't outweigh it. The public has a right to know her privacy doesn't matter. You don't get it." That's what he's basically. He's like, "This just doesn't it doesn't exist. There's no argument for this."

[00:47:49]Um, so >> isn't that I mean I'm sorry to inter interrupt Mr. but isn't that that's the way that the August I think it was last year order analyzed it. I said she's got the burden and here she has proven that there is a strong privacy interest and there's very little interest in the actual photographs and videos.

[00:48:08]I I I don't think your decision in August actually analyzed the photographs and videos because we're just talking about the police report and >> Oh, no. He This is the judge that made the decision.

[00:48:20]>> Oh, well, that makes this a little different. He's like, you're and the judge is so the this lawyer is fighting against the judge and the lawyer against the judge's already made decision on why he kept this quiet. Oh, so now I'm absolutely convinced that he's going to keep these records sealed and they have to take it outside of the Supreme away from this justice's hands. That's what I'm thinking is happening.

[00:48:44]Ah, well, there you go everybody.

[00:48:47]Unbelievable. So, the again, he's fighting against the judge's already made decision >> decision said that there was a portion of the police report that described the actual video of the drowning. And your honor said that the privacy interest there far outweighed any interest of public access and that portion of the police report was then redacted. Uh and consistent with that, Chandler has has indicated it won't even provide.

[00:49:10]>> So now we know it was redacted of the police report, everybody. If you're just wondering, that's really important. We always wonder what's redacted. He just mentioned it. What's redacted the police report is a very very probably detailed description of Trigg drowning in the pool through the video camera. That's what we that's what we're missing. It's probably the police got to see it and then they explained it in the police report and so that's why we didn't see that. So there you go.

[00:49:31]>> That video, it's not even among the ones submitted, your honor, because the uh particular video that was being described in that portion of the police report is the security camera that faces the swimming pool. We don't have any footage from that until well after uh Trigg has already been removed from the pool and is inside the house. So all of that has already been redacted and consistent with with the redaction of the police report essentially anything that your honor ordered redacted there.

[00:49:54]no videos of those things were produced uh or those things were redacted. Um and so I agree that your honor did perform the balancing test, looked at that privacy interest that way. Uh what we're saying here is that uh this is now the question is not redacting portions of um a police report. It's it's wholesale withholding of videos. And this idea of producing a transcript that doesn't exist that that part uh I don't believe is appropriate on a rid of prohibition is very clear. rid of prohibition can only prohibit someone from doing something. You have to stop. You can't do something. Uh it does not allow the court to order affirmative acts. I understand that uh Miss H. Hendrickson is now offering that uh some through some form they would produce a transcript uh that doesn't exist. I think that's that's outside of um really what uh rule 4B uh envisions in a special action proceeding. Um, >> so, so you would urge me not to include um in my order the disclosure of a transcript that that summarize or that is verbatim from any of the videos or recordings.

[00:51:02]>> Uh, if you're talking about ordering one to be produced, I I don't think that that's allowed. Okay. Um, I don't think that's within your powers under rule 4B.

[00:51:10]>> I I don't imagine I tell the judge what his powers are allowed him to do.

[00:51:14]>> Agree with you. I thought it was a more of a compromise. They were throwing you a bone. And I don't think I can.

[00:51:18]>> That's exactly what they were doing.

[00:51:19]They're trying to throw a bone. We don't want the bone. We want the whole freaking steak. That's what we want.

[00:51:23]>> If you're telling me, don't throw us the bone.

[00:51:27]>> Okay.

[00:51:28]>> No, no, no. Oh [ __ ] That judge just kind of did the wash my hands. Well, you don't want that. So, what I just heard from that judge, and if I'm correct, he's already made his ruling in his head. He's like, "You guys, you want this bone? We'll throw you the transcript bone, and then everything else gets buried forever. But then you can still appeal it obviously. But that's he's like, "Well, you don't want that." Okay. Well, because it sounds like this guy already made his mind up in his brain. And so he's like, "Well, then I won't give you that either.

[00:51:51]That's what this sounds like to me.

[00:51:53]They're using Emily's maiden name because she doesn't want Kaiser to be attached to this because it's very popular name." And it Googled it will come up with this stuff.

[00:52:01]>> I I mean, our position is the videos and the audio recording uh the audio recording being for the 911 call are are what need to be produced. And candidly, I mean, the the videos of the interviews are largely audio recordings because several of the interviews, the camera is face down and you're not seeing anything on the video. Um, and so, uh, our view is that those are those are public records and they can be produced in their entirety. The one case where a transcript was provided in lie of an actual, you know, audio recording was for the specific reason that the whimpers and cries of the child were being heard in the background.

[00:52:35]>> That's a different consideration than here.

[00:52:37]>> Good. He's fighting. And he's like, "Look, the only time this has ever been happened where we just got a transcript only is when we heard children in the recording." And so he's like, "That's not here." Like, he's fighting good.

[00:52:45]He's good. This guy's good.

[00:52:46]>> Here, the audio recordings are a 911 call where it is the subject of the police investigation is making statements which potentially in some of the officers eyes, you know, were inconsistent, were important to their analysis, and then actual police interviews. Um, I have a very hard time seeing how a video recording of a police interview in a police station uh should be substituted with a transcript.

[00:53:12]>> Just so I'm clear, your your view is four under 4B. I don't It's I can't I don't have the power to order Miss Hendrickson to have transcripts made or to or that or anybody, the city, anybody to have transcripts made. Mhm.

[00:53:29]>> All I can do is prevent them or not prevent them from disclosing.

[00:53:35]>> So he's just if you're if I'm hearing this correctly, he's like look there Hendrickson, Emily Kaiser and her husband are trying to throw you guys a bone by saying we'll pro we'll provide detailed transcripts and and he's like and the judge is like they're trying to throw you a bone. This isn't a judge saying you have to do this because he just told you he can't tell you to do this. And so Emily, it's very very telling that this is what they're willing to do because again I think the on camera is going to absolutely destroy them. They are really really really scared about the on camera persona of what happened about how they reacted to this. That's what they're deathly afraid of and that's really really telling.

[00:54:12]Good morning from Australia. Hello.

[00:54:14]>> Correct. That that's that's I think in reading the case law that's kind of what you're allowed to do. Um, I'm not saying that that this was the best solution, but this is what our our legislature has given us by creating the statutory scheme that doesn't explicitly allow a third party to come in and challenge it.

[00:54:29]That means we're left with what the rid of prohibition allows under, you know, rule 4B. Um, it's I I agree it's not a perfect solution, but getting a better solution, that's the legislaturator's job.

[00:54:38]>> Yeah.

[00:54:38]>> Um, >> he's like, "Look, it's not your job.

[00:54:40]It's the legislature, and this is what the legislature has legislated. So, legislate that." He's like, he's just basically saying, "There's just no precedent for this. you cannot do. He's like, "The legisle has given us the laws and the rules to follow. You can't change that, judge." And the judge, it sounds like he's going to try because the judge is arguing against this guy every step of the way. He's like, "This, this, this, and this." The other guy got to speak, and he never once pushed back against anything that he said. So that's why I understand the person on Reddit, heard this, saw this, and made the presumption, which I think is correct, that this judge has already made his decision. he's going to seal and they're going to have to take it to the next level through through through and wait another year before we see anything. I hear you. And until they do that, we're stuck with what we got, which which is an imperfect system. Okay. It really is.

[00:55:22]>> All right. I appreciate the really well written briefs and and the good lawyering again all the way around.

[00:55:28]They've been lucky in this case to have it's a hard case, but >> it's not a hard case. It's absolutely not a hard case. There's so much precedent that shows that this stuff is for public consumption. It's meant that way. It's the legislator has made it that way. That's why body cams exist.

[00:55:42]They wanted to press charges. They they they didn't. So, we want to know why the pro what the prosecutor saw so we can make, you know, we want to make sure that there's no corruption inside the prosecutor's office. That's the public's right to know, right? And how we're going to get there is by seeing it with our own eyes, which is why that exists to begin with, right? So, do you not want there to be like, hey, look, we're going to be open and honest. There's no there's no corruption inside the prosecution, inside the judges. No, there's no back deal handshakes. There's no like masons going on. We're we're all up on a board here. And here you can see it for yourself why a prosecutor wouldn't press charges.

[00:56:14]Here you go. But the more you hide this shift in the public, the more we're going to ask questions about the corruption going inside these courts inside prosecutions and highlevel up lawyers who own two law firms inside of Maricopa County and might be glading these people because aren't prosecutors voted in? I'm not sure. I could be wrong about that. But like isn't it like a public office where you have to be like you can be voted out? I don't know. Like there's too much going on. the prosecutor doesn't want to take on Emily Kaiser cuz she's got 5 million fans that will come for your ass and you won't get voted in anymore. Let us be the judge of it. Release this [ __ ] so that we can see that there's not corruption. Maybe we'll all be like, "Oh, okay. Now I see why they didn't press charges." The more you keep it hidden, the more we're going to have questions.

[00:56:56]>> Been no shortage of good learning. Um, Miss Miles, I see you joined again. I I apologize for announcing you in the previous case. I'm glad you got out of there and made clear you weren't there for that one. Um, anything from uh the county or the city?

[00:57:10]>> Okay, so the county the city lady that shows up at the bottom here, she shows up literally after they've made their arguments. She doesn't even know what's been said so far. This is these people are useless.

[00:57:22]>> We represent the county only office medical examiner and um MCAO in general and we just are concerned about that one part that I think that Mr. Big's um clients is not all that interested in, which is our records.

[00:57:36]And >> and what's that? Scammers.

[00:57:39]>> What are you What are you concerned about your records? What do you mean your records? What are you concerned about? What? What?

[00:57:44]>> Uh I don't have anything to offer other than um I apologize. I I missed the the very beginning. Um but yes, transcripts would be um I would say a challenge for us.

[00:57:59]>> Ah, good. That's really good. This is a really good important thing. So the lady the below says, "Look, our records are our records. We don't want to like we don't want to hire somebody. We don't want to spend the the money because these are likely hours long and they have to put someone in charge of putting transcripts together and they don't want to do it and that's good.

[00:58:13]>> Yep. I I I don't hear that as being an issue anymore. If >> Yeah.

[00:58:17]>> If I can't order the production of something that doesn't already exist, only the prohibition of disclosure of things that do, I don't think that's an issue.

[00:58:23]>> So, they're basically transcripts are off the table at this point is what I'm hearing. I can't order to do it. They were going to throw a bone. They don't want the bone. There's not going to be any transcripts. We're just going to fight this. And I think the judge has already made up his mind. I I believe that true. I >> I mean I I think that was a nice compromise. Um no >> alternative, but I I think that's off the table.

[00:58:41]>> Yes, it is off the table.

[00:58:42]>> The if um if >> E I'm sorry, I'm spacing. E E WU um >> Yes.

[00:58:54]>> is not >> seeking the the creation of a transcript.

[00:58:59]>> No. and in fact saying you judge you don't have that statute doesn't allow that then I that's not an issue I have to cross I've got the stuff that exists and do I order its production or not so I will struggle with that >> look he says he's going to struggle with it that's why I think he's going to win this one he's like I'm going to struggle with that why you going to struggle with it you got judge you got so much precedent to to lean on here you've got legislation you got laws you don't there's not a struggle here and maybe the struggle is a human it's human side because he doesn't see the side that we see about who Emily Kaiser is. And that's probably hurting on him. He doesn't see the reality because this is a judge who's not chronically online. He probably isn't on TikTok. He probably doesn't understand what's going on in public opinion and probably for the best, obviously, because they're arguing law here. And so, I do get that, but he doesn't see it, right? So, he's probably just thinks this is some grieving mother out there who's not. Just show him the dancing Bob video. That's all I want.

[00:59:52]Show him that one. Show them the picture of of uh the the other son, Teddy, on the boat without a life jacket while she's swimming in her cheeky ass bikini.

[01:00:01]Show them those. Just show them those two things. Just show them those two things. That's all I that's all I ask.

[01:00:06]Someone mail this judge a letter and just be like, "Hey, just so you're aware, this is this is how Emily's acting outside of the court. You know, you should you should be aware of this stuff." I don't know. You're allowed to do that, but you know what I mean. If this judge was actually aware of what was going on, he probably wouldn't have be struggling with this decision right now is what I'm saying.

[01:00:22]>> Yeah. then we will I'll get it to you ASAP. This is one I want to take a couple minutes on. So, I'll get it out to you as quickly as I can >> and he hasn't. I'm looking for the clerk of superior court judge right now and he has not put it out yet. It's been well over 24 hours and there's nothing yet.

[01:00:37]So, I don't like the longer it takes in my opinion the more it's going to favor Emily Kaiser because there might be conversations going on might be you know handshakes. There might be lunches.

[01:00:49]There might be hey can I knock on your door? Can I have a minute of your time judge? That's what I'm thinking might be happening. You know what I'm saying?

[01:00:58]Anybody have anything else before we end?

[01:01:00]>> Your honor, just just one piece. Um, will will the court seal the FTR from today as well? I >> don't I've not heard any objection I've not heard any objection to sealing either the pleadings or >> Well, what is the FDR? Someone explain to me sealing the FDR. What does that mean?

[01:01:18]>> Full disclosure something. What is FDR?

[01:01:27]Oh, my internet go down.

[01:01:33]Heck happened.

[01:01:39]Hello.

[01:01:43]>> As you did in cold route with the first page of the medical examiner's uh >> because if he just said, "Judge, are you going to seal this proceeding?" I'm literally watching this proceeding. So what full disclosed report? Okay.

[01:01:56]>> Document is public record and the rest is sealed.

[01:02:03]>> Is that what I did with the one last summer?

[01:02:05]>> Yep.

[01:02:06]>> I >> doesn't even know what judging me you made last summer.

[01:02:09]>> I don't that I anticipate that if I Yes, I anticipate I would.

[01:02:17]I don't I honestly I don't I don't remember doing that last summer that I that I said the first page is is public and the rest is sealed.

[01:02:24]>> Huh. My memor is gone. I don't remember that. But >> Well, that's good. Good to know your memory's going. You don't even know what judgment you made. What?

[01:02:34]That's a bad thing, right? Or is that a good thing where he's like, I don't know why I did that. Maybe I shouldn't have.

[01:02:37]Is that what I'm hearing?

[01:02:38]>> I will I don't see any reason that if I agree with the plaintiffs, I wouldn't do the same here.

[01:02:44]>> You did it. And it was actually a change in OM procedure that allowed for that.

[01:02:47]We used to say it's all or nothing. Um so you know binary choice but this allowed for the release of the first page which does not contain much information that's not already out in the public. It's just you know the name uh the official cause of death and doctor signature and and uh case number that type of thing. There's maybe you know half of a paragraph of words on a total >> just based on that line alone. If he if he rules against EWU, EW has that alone to appeal. The judge literally said he's losing his memory. Will we appeal? What?

[01:03:21]What the hell?

[01:03:22]>> Thanks.

[01:03:24]>> And and your honor, just because there could be an appeal one side or the other on whatever the court orders, I I don't want to be heard as kind of waving the argument. I I do think that given the common law and particularly how it talks about the court should consider whether there are less intrusive means for, you know, kind of striking that cross and balance. I do think that if the court were inclined to have a transcript out there, it would have the authority under the common law as articulated by several of those cases, but I certainly understand if the court wants to, you know, stick with what it's got and I didn't hear much of interest in that from EWU. In any event, >> yeah, >> so again, that's why it sounds like he's already made his choice. He's like the he's like, I hope you stick to it and if you do, it sounds like he's already made up his mind. I don't know that if EWU's position is like I don't order it and I don't know how on appeal they could say well you should have you should have at least given us the transcript. So I I I appreciate that. I think I understand that issue. Um my intent is to go through the actual motion and go line by line.

[01:04:23]This is what you're seeking. This is the ruling on it. This is the next thing.

[01:04:26]This is what the ruling is on it. And does that include I I'd have to go back.

[01:04:30]I don't have it in front of me. Mr. Clark. Does that include the first do we do you restate the position release the first page of the M8 report and >> we do >> okay I'll I'll go back through that that's that's I think the most efficient way to go through it um I I think there's there's a decent chance that there's an appellet review of this so I'll also include um finality language >> see that I that's why I think he's going to be like I'm going to I'm going to rule that this is going to be sealed and I'm going to include final language so this doesn't Damn it, man. Oh well. I know that EW will continue to fight for it and they should.

[01:05:06]>> And I think probably what makes the most sense, and I'm I'm welcome your thoughts on this, Mr. Big, um is sign the minute entry with finality language and and if you're going to if you're going to go take it up, take it up. That's probably the quickest way to do it.

[01:05:19]>> Yeah. I I I think I I'll let Mr. Clark speak on his side, but I think if there's finality language, the rule 54C language at the end of it and because I don't think there's any hanging chests.

[01:05:28]I don't think we have anything else out there. I could be wrong since my client's interest is only in certain of the documents, but if it resolves all the remaining issues with respect to special action, I would appreciate assignment and entry with rule 56 C language.

[01:05:41]>> So, he's just talking about the appeal.

[01:05:42]He's like, look, I know that you're about to rule against me, but I want to make sure that this this this and happens so that I can be successful in my appeal.

[01:05:48]>> Um, for either side, I think that way either side appeals. We don't have to deal with that problem of questions about whether it's an appbo order and it goes back up and back down for resigning the order. Nobody wants that.

[01:05:58]>> No, not me either. I mean those I get I get those revesting orders from the court of appeals and >> he's already made his He's already made his mind up. He's already made his mind up.

[01:06:09]>> Absolutely.

[01:06:10]>> They're frustrating. So, um >> one last thing would be that depending on what the ruling is and who might be appealing, we would like an opportunity.

[01:06:17]I think both sides might want an opportunity to have the relief stay while there's a public just so that you know obviously that would defeat the purpose of all this. Well, I um yes, in concept, although it makes sense to stay the relief if the if what I've ordered would result in the production of things that would there's a privacy interest.

[01:06:37]If I'm saying don't produce it, there's no relief. There's no I I think then staying the order doesn't do anything.

[01:06:45]>> I agree. It just to the extent there's >> Yeah. I'm not going to I'm not going to say produce it and then not give you a chance to get up to the court of appeals and supreme court whatever you need to.

[01:06:53]Ah, so he just said there, too. That could have been the thing. He's like, "I'm not gonna force you to to release it, but not also be able to appeal, but he's also he's only been on her on Emily's side the whole time." So, he didn't say that to the other guy. Holy cow. I'm baffled by how this justice system works right now. Judge is not being impartial.

[01:07:09]>> Thank you, honor.

[01:07:10]>> Okay. All right. Anybody have anything else?

[01:07:12]>> I I would just request that there stay language in the order. It just have some sort of language that makes it end if there is no appeal. Um I' I've seen that happen before, >> right? Did I say it and then nobody appeals?

[01:07:23]I I I've actually >> So all this all EW's lawyers saying, "Look, dude, if you if you if you decide against us, we're appealing the [ __ ] out of this."

[01:07:32]>> See that happen before and it created a problem and somebody had to move to lift the state. Um but just just I I know that's a small housekeeping matter, but that would be helpful.

[01:07:40]>> If when I get this order out you anybody's got a beef with it creating some kind of an untenable thing like that, just call. We'll get back on the record.

[01:07:48]>> All right. Thank you very much again for the good lingering. We'll get something out to you as quick as I I think I I really do think it's going to take a week or so. I want to make sure >> a week. He said a week. A week.

[01:07:58]>> Was crafted well.

[01:08:00]>> All right.

[01:08:01]>> Thank you.

[01:08:02]>> Thanks everybody.

[01:08:02]>> Damn.

[01:08:03]>> Thank you.

[01:08:03]>> A week.

[01:08:05][ __ ] man. I've been I've been like uh refreshing this page. A week. [ __ ] man.

[01:08:13]We might not have anything till next Monday.

[01:08:16]Anyway, that was very eye opening for me. Um, the fact that the judge you can like I I don't know anything about lawyer talk and I can I can feel in that conversation the judge was on Emily's side the whole time. Am I wrong about that? Do you guys feel otherwise?

[01:08:40]Yeah. Week to confer with Emily's dad.

[01:08:45]That's that that's there's again I I like I I think a lot of people thought this just because this judge already made the ruling that he might just stick with his ruling because maybe he loses face. I don't know. But again, the Supreme the appeal to a Supreme Court is going to be like and I think Emily side knows this. They don't want it to go there. But they they have no choice at this point. They he made sure in his his argument to say, "Hey, if you're gonna like vote against me, if you're gonna steal this [ __ ] you make sure this language is in there, this language, and this language because I'm going to appeal the [ __ ] out of this."

[01:09:17]Yeah. He sounded like his mind was already made up because he had already made that judgment last year, which he forgot about, and he just wants to make sure he was like, "Oh, yeah, no, I was right about this." That's he just wanted to be re like reincouraged that he was right.

[01:09:32]That's crazy.

[01:09:35]I guess you know what? Maybe we'll be surprised. Maybe he'll come to terms and he'll read this case law. Maybe he'll do a little Google search on who Emily is.

[01:09:42]Maybe he'll it'll come across his desk that she's out there without a life jacket, doesn't give a [ __ ] about water safety at all, is lying to everybody.

[01:09:48]Maybe he'll see the Bob dancing video.

[01:09:50]Maybe he'll see any some of that stuff.

[01:09:51]You know, maybe he'll see maybe watch one of my videos. You know, that'd be cool if he did that.

[01:09:58]I don't think that lawyers and if this is true. Where is that?

[01:10:03]Someone just said, I wonder if he plays golf with this judge. Do lawyers actually play golf and do dinners and hang out with judicial members of the the government? Because if that's the case, hell no.

[01:10:25]That was very disheartening.

[01:10:27]I don't like law. Absolutely crazy because it's just literally it's like fly by night. Whatever the judge is feeling at that time, it's like, you know what, forget president. I like this one. It's just all human error based when it doesn't need to be. It's like it's like it doesn't need to be. You don't need to import human anything, your own brain, into this. You just have to apply the law. literal apply the law.

[01:10:52]I don't need to I don't care what you think or what you forgot or what is going on. I just need you to apply the law here. What does the law state?

[01:11:01]What the hell?

[01:11:09]Your dad's a lawyer and they do. That seems super sus.

[01:11:15]Geez. My family members attorney go gourd to golf and exclusive resorts with judges. What are we kidding me? I'm ah seems he forgot the law. He seems he forgot what he ruled on last time and was surprised by the ruling that he had forgotten.

[01:11:37]Interesting.

[01:11:40]Interesting.

[01:11:43]That wasn't very I'm not happy about that.

[01:11:47]But I'm glad we got the recording. We'll keep our tracking on this. I have got to get to the real world, guys. I've been down here doing videos all day. It's good. I got lots of stuff coming out.

[01:11:55]But, uh, we're going to stay up on this, and I appreciate you guys for being here. Thanks for for your comments.

[01:12:00]Thanks for your input, for your for, you know, being here and helping me understand this. Uh, I like doing these open-ended conversations, these like open source conversations with you about this type of crime and these types of lawyer stuff. It's good to have you here. I appreciate you. And I will see you tomorrow.