Shady Prosecutors Fought to Keep Exonerating Video Hidden

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]A 58-year-old grandfather walked into a Walmart to buy Tylenol and spent the next 47 days in jail. 47 days off his blood pressure medication, losing weight, watching his case explode across the local news while his wife was a thousand miles away caring for her sick mother. After digging through the latest court filings, I'm telling you right now, this case is no longer just about what happened inside the Walmart. It's about what happened after the arrest.

[00:00:24]Because the filings now show a fight over the surveillance video, media pressure, and one- timing coincidence that should make every defense lawyer pay attention. The defense subpoenas the Walmart footage, and within days, Patel is indicted by a grand jury. So, the question now isn't just whether Mahendra Patel did what he's accused of. The question is whether this case started changing the moment the defense tried to test the evidence. Hey, I'm America's attorney. I've been a lawyer for 25 years. I've helped over 12 million people. Let's break down the insanity of Mick Patel's case and hear directly from Patel's lawyers coming on this channel because when I asked them what was happening behind the scenes during those filings, some of their answers raised even more questions than the paperwork did. Now, if you like your legal analysis with a side of courtroom chaos, questionable timing, and filings that somehow create more questions every time you open them, hit subscribe. It's a button. Hit it. Because around here, we read the footnotes, we spot the plot twist, and occasionally we discover the most damaging admission in the case is sitting in the defendant's own answer.

[00:01:25]Now, for anyone who's new to this story, here's the 30 secondond version. Back in March of 2025, Patel walks into an Aworth, Georgia Walmart, asked a mother where the Tylenol was, and within minutes, that interaction turned into one of the most talked about criminal cases in Georgia. I think I'm actually not from Georgia, but anyways, the mother, Caroline Miller, accused Patel of trying to pull her two-year-old child from her lap, leading to charges of attempted kidnapping, simple assault, and simple battery. Patel was arrested, denied bond, and spent over six weeks sitting in the Cobb County jail while the case started blowing up across local media and social media. during his time in jail. According to the complaint, Patel says he went days without necessary hypertension medication, lost significant weight because of limited food options, and lived under constant stress and fear while surrounded by other inmates. He also says his wife was out of town caring for her elderly mother. His own mother didn't speak English, and outside of one video call, he had virtually no family contact while locked up. Patel's defense team has maintained from the beginning that this was a misunderstanding, not an attempted abduction. And if you've been following this channel, you already know we've broken down the surveillance footage, the public statements, and the original criminal allegations. Well, today is about what happened in the filings because the real fight is no longer about what Patel did. It's about what the state did after they arrested him.

[00:02:42]And this is where the case starts to get a lot more interesting and frankly a lot more strategic. Just days after Patel's arrest, the criminal defense lawyers did what a lot of experienced lawyers would do in a case built around witness statements and surveillance footage.

[00:02:54]They moved fast. They subpoenaed the Aworth PD for everything. The Walmart footage, the body cam, the audio, the police reports, the witness statements.

[00:03:01]They wanted it all in front of the judge at the preliminary hearing, the first real adversarial test of the state's probable cause. Now, if you're the defense, that makes perfect sense. But then the state made a move that changed the tone of this case completely. They didn't produce the materials. They didn't litigate them in open court. They moved to quash the subpoena entirely. In the state's own filing, they called the defense's request a quote fishing expedition, arguing Patel's lawyers were improperly trying to use the preliminary hearing as a discovery tool instead of just testing probable cause. Stop and think about that. If the surveillance video supports your case, early disclosure helps you as the prosecutor.

[00:03:38]But if the video creates problems for your case, then delay is the only play you've got. And predictably, the state chose delay. Just 3 days after Patel's defense team issued their subpoena, a Cobb County grand jury returned an indictment charging Patel with attempted kidnapping, simple assault, and simple battery. And if you're wondering why the timing matters, here's the legal reality. Once a grand jury indictes, the probable cause hearing often becomes irrelevant. The defense loses one of its early chances to cross-examine the detective, challenge the investigation, and force the state to start showing its hand in open court. Now, to be clear, indictments happen every day, and nothing in these filings proves prosecutors did anything improper. But from the defense perspective, the timing raises an obvious question. Did the case naturally progress to indictment, or did the battlefield change the moment the defense tried to get the video into court? The timing tells you what the state was prioritizing. They weren't prioritizing the truth, and they weren't prioritizing transparency. They were prioritizing keeping that video out of court. Here's the clip again of Patel abducting the child.

[00:04:43]Yeah, he's really not that good at abductions. By early May, this case was no longer being fought in court. It was being fought on television, on social media, and in the court of public opinion, and the state knew it.

[00:04:54]Prosecutors filed an emergency motion to prohibit extrajudicial statements, a gag order in plain English, asking the judge to restrict what Patel's lawyers could say publicly. The filing specifically pointed to defense media appearances and statements suggesting that the surveillance video proved Patel innocent. And whether you agree with that motion or not, it tells you exactly where the state thought this case was being decided. They weren't worried about Patel's lawyers tainting the jury pool. They were worried about Patel's lawyers showing the public the footage because once the public sees the footage like you just did, the state's probable cause story disappears.

[00:05:34]whatever.

[00:05:35]>> And then came the moment that changed everything. In early May, Patel's defense team finally obtained Walmart surveillance footage. The same footage that would have answered key questions from the very beginning. Once that video was reviewed, bomb was finally set, Patel was released, and just a few months later on August 6th, 2025, the criminal charges were formally dismissed. 47 days in jail, 5 months of his life with these charges hanging over him for asking about the location of Tylenol. Now, everything we just covered happened in the criminal case. But now, Patel's civil lawyers have turned that timeline into something much bigger, a federal civil rights lawsuit. Because one thing jumps out at you when you read these filings, somebody had access to evidence. Somebody made charging decisions. And now everybody seems to have a different story about what was known and when. Let's hear straight from the lawyers behind Mix's lawsuit.

[00:06:27]I'm here with Solomon Rner and Martin Rner. You have seen Martin Rner on YouTube at the Brother Council channel.

[00:06:35]And if you haven't, people, come on.

[00:06:38]He's one of us. So, get over there, check it out, hit subscribe. But right now, let's find out what these geniuses are working on. Guys, were you involved in Mr. Patel's case prior to his release from jail?

[00:06:54]>> No, I had nothing to do with his case at that point in time. Uh I know that my brother had something to do with him. My brother had spoken to him a couple of times and um but I didn't have anything to do with the case until after he got out and we filed a lawsuit for him.

[00:07:07]>> Yeah. I mean, he was represented by an excellent criminal defense attorney named Ashley Merchant. You may have heard her before from the Georgia litigation, the uh Donald Trump uh you know election litigation. So she was involved in that. So she was actually Mahandra MC Patel's criminal defense attorney and she did an amazing job getting him out. Now while he was going through this entire ordeal, that is when I got wind of this case for my channel and I actually had him on the channel.

[00:07:35]We had actually did an interview while his case was still pending. Um actually no, that's that's incorrect. He was actually formally dismissed from this the case was dismissed, then he came on my channel and then after that further conversations uh and then he ended up hiring the one and only Solomon Rner for the civil rights litigation. Sometimes I'll pick up a story and I'll follow it and I'll find out either the cop that's involved or the prosecutor that's involved like this is not their first rodeo. They're kind of all the time abusing power or you know frequently. Is this a prosecutor or a police officer, any investigator, whatever, where you've already picked up the scent on similar cases where they're doing this like over and over?

[00:08:16]>> What I can tell you about that is we have picked up that scent. I really don't want to say more than that right now at this juncture until we litigate a little bit more. Um, there are a number of people who have come forward with amazing information about what was going on behind the scenes. And we have very good reason to believe that this was not an accident. This was not just prosecutors and law enforcement doing their best uh but more of uh an intentional an intentional prosecution knowing that there most likely was not any evidence that my client committed a crime.

[00:08:45]>> Do I understand the timeline correctly that he's in the Walmart on day zero, let's say, but he's not actually arrested until day three or day four. Is that right?

[00:08:56]>> That's correct.

[00:08:58]>> He wasn't arrested until several days later. That seems like a way more um I'm looking for a word that's not evil. That seems like a way more evil case than if they arrested him inside the Walmart at the time having not seen the footage.

[00:09:11]>> Right. And what happened here was they saw the footage. They saw the video footage that proves that Mr. Patel did not commit a crime. And despite that, they continued on as if the footage did show that he committed a crime. Now, let me tell you just how obvious it was that he did not commit a crime. They refused to produce this video to the defense for a long time. And Ashley Merchant, the amazing criminal defense lawyer representing Mr. Patel, actually sent a subpoena to Walmart to get the footage because the prosecutor wouldn't give it to her. And the prosecutor filed a motion to quash that subpoena.

[00:09:45]>> That's how badly they tried to hide this footage.

[00:09:47]>> That's completely illegal. Like that violates every principle of criminal discovery. So, there are some nuanced Georgia laws that have to do with discovery and when discovery has to be made, but that's why Miss Merchant had the good sense to send a subpoena to Walmart directly. That way, she doesn't have to get discovery from the prosecutor. She can get it directly from the source. And if she would have had that video, this charge probably would have been dropped much sooner than it was. And the biggest proof of that is that once she finally got the footage and released it, there was an uproar.

[00:10:20]And everybody who saw that video knew this man was innocent and wondered what the police and prosecutor were doing.

[00:10:26]>> Like if you watch the video, it defies explanation that he could be charged with a crime. Like I I've watched the video over and over. This is my third video about this case. I know the point is us is for us to come on screen and talk and use our words. I literally don't have words to describe how stupid this is.

[00:10:44]>> The video absolutely proves Mr. Patel's innocence. It absolutely proves his his unequivocal innocence. It completely disproves the theory of the prosecution and the so-called victim in this case.

[00:10:55]And there's just absolutely no basis whatsoever for them to have charged him.

[00:10:58]As soon as they saw that video, it should have been over. They should have just looked at her and said, "I don't know what you claim happened to you. I don't know what you think happened to you, but this was not an attempted kidnapping. It should have ended right then." Instead, they took her back to the office and ended up arresting Mr. Patel at gunpoint several days later.

[00:11:16]>> Yeah. Not only does the does the video show that this is clearly not a crime that was committed, but also completely destroys any sort of credibility that Caroline Miller uh who is the uh alleged victim in this case. You guys you can call the false victim in this case. uh what her story was because apparently she sat down with the with the press and she had the cameras on her and she said that this was a tug-of-war for 10 seconds with uh Patel over her child when really the video shows that it was no more than maybe half a second when the child was literally falling out of her hands just like you see on the video that the children are falling out of that motorized scooter as she's banging into things when she's not really supposed to be driving it. A lot of my viewers are just like shocked and like kind of beside themselves that Mick was held in the jail without bond for so long. Does the county have a narrative for why he was in jail for so long and it was somehow not unjust?

[00:12:11]>> Well, as of right now, all they've done was filed motions to dismiss. And this is where constitutional law is incredibly nuanced, very often by municipality or by city. there are immunities that they can argue and that they can rely upon. And just so that your viewers a are aware of just how egregious the these immunities are. The prosecutorial immunity is absolute. If theoretically you can prove that a prosecutor maliciously, intentionally, purposefully put a perjurer up on a witness stand and put an innocent man in prison. And you had proof, unequivocal, unquestionable proof, emails from the prosecutor saying, "I know this man's innocent. let's bury the evidence and put him in prison. If that's the theoretical case, you still can't sue that prosecutor. It's virtually impossible anywhere in the country because they have prosecutorial immunity for some ungodly reason that I can't figure out. And even the prosecutors that you can sue when you can sue their offices for something called a Monell claim where you basically say they have an unconstitutional policy, you can't do that in this particular case because there are a number of states and a number of municipalities throughout the country that the prosecutor's office is considered an arm of the state. And if you're an arm of the state, then you're protected by 11th amendment immunity.

[00:13:27]the immunities that protect government officials when they violate our rights would sicken anybody who took the time to actually look into them.

[00:13:35]>> The most common uh comment of all time on my channel is end qualified immunity or qualified immunity has to end now.

[00:13:46]But I don't think a lot of people understand just how extreme and um unamerican the immunity is for the prosecutor. So, there's there's actually three different immunities at play here.

[00:13:57]There's prosecutorial immunity, which I just kind of talked about. There's qualified immunity, which protects law enforcement officers even if they intentionally violate your rights, by the way. And then there's something called 11th amendment immunity, where you can't sue a state office. It's protected by the 11th Amendment. You can't sue them in federal court. If I can just explain for a second of just how outrageous qualified immunity is and how intellectually dishonest the courts are with it. Qualified immunity, there's a two-step test. Number one, would any reasonable officer think that those actions are justified? That's number one. Number two is there has to be something called clearly established law. Clearly established law means you have to have an exact fact pattern that happened that a court said this is unlawful in order for you to know it's unlawful. In other words, if you shoot somebody in the face with a taser, and there's no identical onpoint case law in that circuit that says shooting somebody in the face with a taser is considered excessive force, you cannot sue for that because it's not considered clearly established. Nobody else in the country gets this defense. And by the way, just to prove how intellectually dishonest this is, even law enforcement officers can't use qualified immunity if they're charged criminally. In other words, the same action that they may take, let's say they shoot somebody in the face, they can get sued for that, they can go criminally charged for that. They can raise qualified immunity in the lawsuit to protect the government's money, but not in the criminal case to protect themselves from prison. That's how intellectually dishonest the courts are with qualified immunity. There was a recent decision in Virginia which held that um just because there was no identical fact pattern that would have protected the cop in question did not mean that he that it wasn't clearly established law. The judge said, "Perhaps your actions were so egregiously unlawful that no other law enforcement officer in the history of United States had the audacity to do what you did and denied qualified immunity for for that defense, which I I love that because if it's if you have to have a fact pattern line up all the way down, you can NEVER GET THERE. YOU got to have judges who are bold enough to say, "Well, this is over the line."

[00:16:20]>> I've seen some fact patterns that would actually make your head spin if you would see what certain law enforcement officers were able to get away with.

[00:16:27]Now, at the same time, I believe in giving police the benefit of the doubt.

[00:16:31]If there's a split-second decision that they have to make, they should get the benefit of the doubt. But if you can prove that they purposely or at least recklessly violated somebody's rights by using either excessive force or arresting somebody without probable cause, there has to be some way to hold them accountable. The government can't do it on their own. They've proven that to us repeatedly. They stink at internal affairs, at investigating themselves.

[00:16:56]What they're very good at doing is investigating themselves and clearing themselves. That they're very, very good at. But as far as actually holding themselves accountable, they're awful at that. Are you guys able to share how we know that the um officer who swore out the warrant had seen the footage from Walmart security?

[00:17:17]>> It's in the police report.

[00:17:18]>> It's in the police report.

[00:17:19]>> In the first police report that that you read, it says right there, I got it pulled up right now. It says over here um right after she describes the incident, it says Walmart cameras showed the incident and Corporal Lumpin viewed the footage showing what Miller explained. In what universe does that video show what Caroline Miller explained?

[00:17:43]>> Yeah. So, I think it's so egregious that that that he could be sued for it.

[00:17:48]>> I kind of want the officer to be lying that he looked at the footage. I kind of want that to be the lie because it's it's so ins if he's actually looked at the footage, it's even worse somehow.

[00:18:01]Well, the police report says they watched the footage. We have every reason to believe that they did watch the footage. And despite that, they still prosecuted Mr. Patel, making sure that that video footage didn't see the light of day. They tried so hard to keep that video footage from the defense going to the lengths of filing a motion to quash the defense's subpoena sent to Walmart.

[00:18:24]>> Is there um >> it's ridiculous.

[00:18:26]>> Like I I I want to >> I want to make sense of how egregiously stupid this is. And so like in my mind I'm like, "Okay, well is Caroline Miller is she like friends with the arresting officer? Is there like personal history there?

[00:18:43]>> I don't know. I don't know. I I I try to stay away from any conjecture that I don't have a basis to say.

[00:18:50]>> Yeah.

[00:18:50]>> I don't know the answer to that. We'll find out during discovery. I don't.

[00:18:54]>> Okay. So, does Mr. Patel have a history of like flipping off police officers in this county?

[00:19:00]>> He has a very clean history.

[00:19:03]>> Mr. Patel has a history of being an engineer, a father, a husband, a son. He has a he has a reputation of of being a very good person, a volunteer in the neighborhood. He's he's a good man. Mr. Patel is a very good man. There's no reason for this to have happened to him whatsoever.

[00:19:20]>> He he's a he's a business owner. And aside from being a business owner, actually the what what led for to him going to Walmart was the fact that his mother was living with him at the time.

[00:19:32]He was taking care of his elderly mother and she needed some very specialized Tylenol and normally they have this on order and for whatever reason the order didn't come in and she needed this Tylenol. She was in pain. He went to Walmart himself to get this specialized pain medication for his mom who they are taking care of in his house and he sees what he thinks is a good Samaritan, Caroline Miller. He asked her where can I find this Tylenol and he thinks that she's trying to figure help him. And actually when he's leaving the store, he shows her the Tylenol that he's buying and that, you know, he found it. And then he leaves the store, he buys it, he walks out, he strolls out after the whole terrifying incident. And uh he just walks on and goes about his business to bring it home to his elderly mother. So this is a very nice person, a very uh a caring person. takes it takes care of his mother, brings her into his house, and he made the mistake of going to Walmart and asking Good Samaritan for some help.

[00:20:30]>> No, that's not a mistake. We're supposed to be able to do that. that we're supposed to be able to be kind and help people and not be afraid that some whack job is going to say something stupid to a cop and then some cop is going to be so stupid that they agree that something happened that didn't happen and that some prosecutor is not going to be so stupid as to believe a lying cop. Like it literally it's so broken on so many levels. Like, I'm sorry I'm freaking out, but like I need this to make sense because it's so stupid.

[00:21:04]>> Well, there's going to be a lot of very hard and difficult questions that are going to be asked to a lot of people throughout this litigation and we fully intend on getting to the bottom as much as we can to see how deep this goes. So, there are going to be people that are going to have to answer some very hard and difficult questions from us and we're going to get to the bottom of it.

[00:21:23]>> Yeah. like this to me uh it after the discovery is done after you've survive after the claims have survived that can survive to get ready for trial. This seems like the the type of case that a a smart lawyer on the defense side can't take the trial because of how long he was in jail. It it's so offensive to any law-abiding citizen that he would sit in jail for that long. It's just it's just like it's you you can't actually even wrap your mind around it.

[00:21:55]>> Well, I can tell you right now the only way the case is going to settle is if they put a very very very large number on the table because the only way the case settles is if both parties agree.

[00:22:04]And I can tell you right now this is not a short quick simple money grab for Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel wants his name vindicated and he wants a justice. If it were up to me, frankly, the people who did this to him would go and serve a prison sentence for what they did, for the abuse of process that my client was forced to endure. However, we can't do that. As I'm sure you know that, as I'm sure the majority of your viewers know that, we can't put our government officials in jail. The only thing we can do that our legislature allows us to do is sue them for money. They've created a system where the only justice we get is money. We're going to make sure that we get that justice. I feel like a lot of these cops and prosecutors get away with this garbage because they take advantage of people who don't have the resources or the knowledge to go out and hire sophisticated counsel and file a smart winning lawsuit. And they they got the wrong guy with Patel.

[00:23:01]Like you got >> so much more than that.

[00:23:04]>> Yes. Anybody else? Anybody else who doesn't have the resources to hire Ashley Merchant, who again is one of one of the most prolific lawyers in the state of Georgia, somebody who doesn't have the resources to hire a lawyer like that and is not able to fight this the way it has to be fought. Uh, I know that you filed your lawsuit. They filed a motion to dismiss. You've answered their motion to dismiss. Is there a court date set like will there be oral argument on the 12B6 motion?

[00:23:33]>> We don't know. The court has not scheduled it yet. I like to tell my clients that we are going to move at the pace of federal litigation. That is about as slow as uh as anything ever possibly moves. So, we're in this for the long haul. It's a marathon. We're not sprinting anywhere. And whenever the court's ready to hear from us, obviously, we're we're prepared to proceed.

[00:23:52]>> I hope that when we get down the road some I can have you guys back on, we can talk more about where the case is at.

[00:23:58]>> Be happy to talk to you anytime. Thank you for your interest and thank you to your viewers for your interest in this case. This is a very important case and this sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[00:24:08]The more people see it, the more people watch it, the more people follow these kinds of things, the better it is for everybody.

[00:24:16]>> Yeah, thank you very much. Also, Josh and I and and I sense that we are going to be uncovering a lot of very interesting things that a lot of people are going to be interested in in hearing about. So, uh we'll see when we're allowed to talk about what, but uh we have fully intending on on uncovering everything that's there. So, all right.

[00:24:34]>> We hope to stay in touch.

[00:24:35]>> Yeah. Well, I'll stay in touch with you guys. Thanks a lot for coming on.

[00:24:38]>> Thank you so much.

[00:24:39]>> Thank you very much.

[00:24:41]>> Patel's lawsuit doesn't just name the arresting officer. He sued officer James Wallace, and the city of Aworth, Cobb County DA investigator Tim Stoddard, the elected DA in her official capacity, and even our old friend, the clumsy mother of toddlers, Caroline Miller, the woman who can't even drive a Jazzy, whose allegations help launch this entire case. At the heart of the lawsuit is a fourth amendment malicious prosecution claim. Patel alleges Wallace and Stoddard initiated and continued criminal charges against him without probable cause while allegedly providing materially false, misleading, or incomplete information and ignoring surveillance footage that he says directly contradicted the accusations against him. Sidebar, the video directly contradicts the ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM.

[00:25:22]IT DOES. He claims that if a reasonable investigation had been done, if the video had actually been fairly reviewed, no reasonable officer would have concluded that there was probable cause to charge him with attempted kidnapping.

[00:25:33]But Patel doesn't stop there. He also brings a Monell claim against the city of Aworth, arguing that the city failed to properly train or supervise officers when it came to reviewing exculpatory evidence before seeking warrants. And then there's the conspiracy claim. Patel alleges multiple people, including that private citizen, played a role in pushing a criminal case that he says should have never survived basic scrutiny, which it shouldn't have. If even part of that is proven in discovery, this case could become a serious test of how far civil liability reaches when a bad arrest turns into a full prosecution. And despite all that, the defendants are not rolling over here. Not even close. In fact, almost every major defendant in this case is pushing back hard. In some places, directly contradicting Patel's version of events. The most important examples may be officer Wallace and the city of Aworth. Chel's lawsuit alleges Wallace either ignored or failed to properly investigate Walmart's surveillance footage before seeking charges. But in their formal answer, the city defendants flatly say Wallace did know about the surveillance footage and did review it before applying for that arrest warrant.

[00:26:37]That is not a defense. That is an admission because in a malicious prosecution case, >> I never saw the exculpatory video >> is a hard defense TO BEAT. I WATCHED THE EXCULPATORY video and arrested him anyway >> is a confession to the central element of the claim. And it raises the question that every one of us should be asking.

[00:26:56]What exactly did Wallace see in that video that he thought justified putting a 58-year-old brown grandfather in jail for 47 days? The state defendants are fighting on a completely different front. District Attorney representatives and investigator Temperance Stoddard have already moved to dismiss the case outright, arguing sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, regular immunity, immunity immunity, immunity from immunities, and failure to state a claim. In plain English, they're saying, "Look, even if every word of Patel's complaint is true, which it is, the prosecutors and their investigators can't be sued for doing their jobs. So, at this stage, nobody is admitting wrongdoing. The cops are not admitting that they're racist. The defense strategy is clear. challenge the facts, challenge the legal theories, and try to narrow or kill this lawsuit before discovery ever gets fully underway so that everyone can tell just how racist these people are. At its core, this case isn't about a Walmart or about Tylenol or about one bad witness statement. It's about what happens when a single accusation collides with available video evidence and whether the people with the power to arrest, charge, and jail a human being have any constitutional duty to slow down and verify what actually happened before that human being loses 47 days of his life in jail. Mick Patel lost those 47 days in jail because somebody in that chain, the officer, the investigator, the prosecutor, or all of them, decided that one witness's word was worth more than the video sitting on Walmart's server, which they already had a copy of. When Discovery proves that the video really did tell a different story from day one, this case stops being just another wrongful arrest lawsuit. It becomes the case civil rights lawyers site when they're trying to prove that ignoring exculpatory evidence isn't an oversight, it's a strategic choice. and the people who made the choice are about to spend the next two or maybe three years explaining their racism under oath. Hey, what are your thoughts about the developments in Mick Patel's story?

[00:28:48]What do you think about the defendants's Caroline Miller and the officer's arguments? Do me a favor and drop your prosay opinion down below in the comments. I want to know what you think.

[00:28:57]And don't forget to lawyer up with me, America's attorney, while you're down there by hitting that subscribe button cuz I will be back soon with more legal breakdowns just like this one. And I'll see you then.

[00:29:11]I can't. I'm sorry. I'm getting a call and I Come on, Tommy. Go to voicemail.

[00:29:14]Go to voicemail, Tommy.

[00:29:17]Tommy, go to voicemail.

[00:29:21]Motion to prohibit extraditious.

[00:29:26]Do me a favor and drop your prosay opinion down below like you drop a toddler off a Jazzy. There's no way you're letting me put that.