Full Colin Albert Hearing Reveals What Everyone Missed

[00:00:00]Well, it turns out none of us got the real full hearing of the Colin Albert Make Him Come here right now hearing and for some reason CBS did not provide the entirety. So, thank you to the trial channel for finding the entire video and we're going to go over the first half of it because that's the first half that apparently everybody, including yours truly, missed as a result of CBS's negligence. Let's go over it.

[00:00:31]He doesn't say anything new. You must follow the law. He was present. So I think he can answer whether or not it happened or not.

[00:00:38]>> Have you had any conversation with the prosecutor?

[00:00:40]>> I could say the same thing by taking Amber Heard as a client.

[00:00:42]>> Mentive, don't you think?

[00:00:43]>> Oh, hardly.

[00:00:44]>> Are you able to estimate of those thousand different types of cases dealing with accident reconstruction? Uh we're not with the jury present. That was >> Have you reached a verdict?

[00:00:53]>> We the jury find the defendant not guilty.

[00:00:55]>> Not guilty.

[00:00:56]>> Not guilty. Not guilty. not guilty.

[00:01:03]>> Well, hello everybody and welcome back to Buckle Up. It is the law with attorney Larry Foreman. Folks, first things first, I have to tell you that today you are going to see for the first time since last summer, not one but two videos on this channel starting today.

[00:01:20]This video is premiering obviously at 400 p.m. Eastern, 1:00 p.m. Pacific, 1000 p.m. European time. So, there's going to be a second video tonight at 7:00 p.m. We're going back to our old schedule from last summer, folks. There is a lot to cover and not enough time in the day. So, I can't keep it to one video anymore. It's now going to be two videos. One at 400 p.m. Eastern, one at 700 p.m. Eastern every day right here on this channel. So, with that out of the way, housekeeping items out of the way, let's get back to the task at hand. We missed the first approximately 17ish minutes, thank you CBS, of the Colin Albert deposition hearing. We I thought maybe we missed like a few seconds and we just launched right into like the middle of the hearing, but apparently like almost half, if not more than half of the hearing for some reason was absent from the initial recording that was posted online. I don't know why. I don't know if it was a glitch. I don't know if somebody forgot to press record.

[00:02:25]I don't know. I can't answer that question. What I can tell you is that myself, the lawyer, you know, Melanie Little, maybe Emily D. Baker, I don't know. We're all convinced. Anybody who has covered this, Brother Counsel, we all cover the exact same thing, including me yesterday. And now today, I have to supplement because of their negligence. So without further ado, let's dive in to the beginning of the Colin Albert, you must procure him hearing in Massachusetts in the O'Keefe versus Karen Reed civil case. Let's go.

[00:02:56]>> All right.

[00:03:02]>> This court is now. Please be seated.

[00:03:05]>> Good afternoon, your honor. May proceed.

[00:03:07]>> Good afternoon everyone. The matter before the court is civil action number 2483 CB00692 Paula O'Keeffe individually and personal representative of the estate John Joseph O'Keefe III at all versus CNC hospitality LLC doing business as CNF McCarthy's at all council if you could please state your name for the record because the plaintiff >> Good afternoon your honor Dan Buck on behalf of the plaintiff >> plaintiffs excuse >> good afternoon Rosenberg on behalf of defending >> good afternoon your honor Damon Sison on behalf of Karen Reed.

[00:03:39]>> Good afternoon. Good afternoon. You are on Thomas Tang on behalf of Karen Reed.

[00:03:43]Good afternoon. Argument on behalf of >> Okay. Can I just say something? Look, everybody is standing out of respect for the court. They're the parties. I get it. They're the lawyers for the parties.

[00:03:53]I mean, I get it. Why is Tberry sitting down? I know he's a lawyer representing a nonparty Colin Albert. I get that. I get that. But it's just so it it already rubs me the wrong way. If I'm the judge and I'm saying hello to everybody, to Buck and Rosenberg, Celix, you know, I'm saying hello to everybody. I I I'm going to be a little, you know, why is he sitting down? You know, I'm not going to say anything about it. I might, I might not. It all depends on the kind of judge you are. But the fact that right out of the gate, Tuxberry is already rubbing the judge the wrong way subconsciously.

[00:04:24]He's sitting down. He's got his He It's like a kid who's been put in the corner. I don't want to be here. That's fine if you don't want to be there. Just don't show it. You know what I mean?

[00:04:35]What's sorry who's going to argue? I am I see counts at the side of the bench for let's start with plaintiff's motion to compel responses and let me start out with a question to the read.

[00:04:53]Okay, so remember in the first video that we covered, I was like, "This dude is no nonsense. He just went right in."

[00:04:59]No, he didn't. He is starting with the motion to compel responses. This is what I was like, "All right, this judge is all about it, you know." Well, turns out he actually did cover it, so I do apologize for misleading you. It's only because I was misled. So now, let me correct the record. In the previous video, when I said, "Oh, wow. The judge was really just going straight for it."

[00:05:20]Looks like he has had some preliminary talks about the motions to compel. So, let's see what they are. I'm excited.

[00:05:26]Attorney Rosenberg, >> in your opposition, you're basically saying the motion is moved because you responded to requests on May 21st, >> right? As of filing that. Yes. But I I have an update that we >> You go on to say in an email that's attached, >> oh, I'm sorry. This is the plaintiffs.

[00:05:52]This is the O'Keefe's motion to compel Karen Reed's documents. And he says, "I'm sorry. I I I got my wires crossed.

[00:06:00]This is not about Colin. This is about documents that Karen Reed has to provide." And Rosenberg said, "I provided some of those items, but not all of those items. The others are forthcoming. Therefore, the motion is moot." And now the judge is probably going to be like, "Well, the motion is not moot because you haven't finished providing all the items." So, he might chew Rosenberg out for a little bit >> here. Oh, I should also point out in the submission that you made, you pointed out to the clerk that some of the exhibits that you had submitted were not complete copies. So for the rec, you submitted complete copies of ex three exhibits that the court has substituted for what was in there because they weren't complete. Correct.

[00:06:40]>> Correct. I think that relates to the other motion, however, but yes, that's correct. So, in your um there's an email in there as well that >> you say there will be a future production.

[00:06:53]>> That's the update I have for you.

[00:06:54]>> Is it all produced?

[00:06:55]>> Yes.

[00:06:56]>> Do you agree?

[00:06:57]>> Um to be clear, uh I can't give you a definitive yes or no, your honor. Um >> when did you get it?

[00:07:03]>> Well, to the court's probably dismay, we were actually in a deposition this morning, which is nice to report. And uh >> that wouldn't cause dismay.

[00:07:11]>> Yeah, I I wasn't sure. I knew he might cause shock. I didn't know if dismay would come along with it. But um that that being said, uh attorney fell, my colleague, and I were in attendance for this morning's deposition. Um and attorney Diller is unavailable at the moment. There was a I received an email on or about uh 11:24 a.m. this morning from Miss Reed's council acknowledging that a production to our supplemental request had been made. Um, >> oh, so that's why he can't tell the court definitively, yes, it has been complied with. Rosenberg did his his best in advance of this hearing on June 17th. June 17th in the morning, he supplemented, he provided everything that allegedly the plaintiffs requested and then he allegedly provided everything that he had to comply with their request for production of documents. They probably have not had time to review it. That's why Buck is like, I can't tell you definitively, your honor, that yes, we have received it. I know we received something. We haven't had a chance to review it because we've been in a deposition this morning and here we are now in the afternoon. So, I I just don't have and Diller is not available. So, he has not been around. So, maybe nobody has had a chance to really like put eyes on the documents just yet. And they'll be able to report to the court at a later date whether or not that request has actually been complied with by Rosenberg and Karen Reed's team. Have you been injured in an accident? Have you been hurt by a doctor? Have you suffered from a dog bite? Have you lost a loved one due to someone else's negligence? Call us.

[00:08:46]1844774 hurt. Get a trial lawyer to get you the most money you deserve.

[00:08:51]>> Completion of today's deposition. I got in the car and came here.

[00:08:54]>> Let's not waste any more time.

[00:08:56]>> All right. You don't know. You just got it. You just sent it.

[00:09:00]>> Our team? Yes.

[00:09:01]>> Your team?

[00:09:02]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:09:02]>> Well, that's we'll use the collective.

[00:09:04]>> All right. That's fair. Yes.

[00:09:06]>> All right. So, let's move on. We're done with that for now.

[00:09:10]>> All right.

[00:09:11]>> Not on that.

[00:09:11]>> Anyone need to be heard any further?

[00:09:13]>> Um, >> not at this time.

[00:09:17]>> Do you need to be heard any further? No, your honor, not on that motion. Okay.

[00:09:20]So, let's go to the next motion.

[00:09:26]>> That's the motion.

[00:09:30]>> Compelling, Mr. Attorney Tony Rosenberg.

[00:09:35]And I guess to all the attorneys in this case and nonparties that are involved in the case, the pleadings I'm getting in this case and I'm sure that I will get in the McCabe case are replete with arguments presented as facts, which isn't really helpful to me.

[00:09:58]>> Okay. All right. Let me translate. You guys are arguing instead of presenting facts. It's kind of hard, your honor, when the facts are the argument. So, what he's talking about, I imagine in part at least, is who was at the house, who was not at the house, who's the murderer, who's not the murderer, who's accused, who's not accused. He's like, "Look, I I can't sift through your facts anymore because half of you on on the plaintiff side are saying Karen Reed is the guilty party and she's the culpable blah blah blah." And then everyone on the defense side are saying, "No, no, no, no, no. It's the house defendants and the nonp parties to this case, not the O'Keefe's, obviously, because they weren't at 34 Fair View except for John." So, and Jon is not with us. he can't speak for himself or have a lawyer speak through him, I guess. So, you got this dichotomy, this this disbalance in the factual pattern, in the fact pattern. And so, the judge is like, "Look, you're presenting me with argument. I need you guys to present me with facts. So, stop arguing in the fact portion of your briefs." Which is kind of funny. It's I don't know if it's possible. I I don't know if it's possible. And there's a lot more background in these submissions than I really need to decide the issues. So, I'm going to ask all of you in the pleadings that you file, at least with me, just write what I need to know in order to decide the issue and stop pandering to social media. OH, shots fired. Oh my god.

[00:11:51]Focus on the issues and the issues alone and stop pandering to us, says the judge. I see what you're doing. Sorry, this is so funny. I know what you're doing. I see you. I see you guys. You are drafting documents with the anticipation that they will be read online because everybody knows they will be hello or listened to. Hello. And he's putting down the gavvel. Stop pandering to social media. Just get me what I need to know. Not to everyone else in the world. Don't worry. Mr. Foreman will translate it for you. You don't have to worry about that. Mr. Foreman speaks legal speak. He'll translate it to civilian speak. Don't forget to like this video. Come this is gold. Oh my god. The judge gets like really angry about that. That is amazing. I his face his face says it all. I'm sorry. This is so good.

[00:12:52]>> All right. So now let's get on to your motion.

[00:12:57]>> I have a question on with respect to your motion that you wrote.

[00:13:01]>> Can I just make one quick comment, your honor? No. Our memo our memo I agree with you but our memo of law is nine pages long and it has a page and a half of argument so we're not pandering to anyone and we don't intend you raised it so let's talk about let's go to page three of your motion. All right and top page we don't have to restate the words but end of the first sentence to the end of the second excuse me end of the first line not to the end of the second line. All right. Now, how old was that individual when they went to the wedding?

[00:13:39]>> I I don't know, your honor, but >> So, is it really You don't know. So, is it really What if he was a ring bearer?

[00:13:44]Is that really relevant to the issue? I have to decide.

[00:13:47]>> Absolutely it is. Because >> if if a young child in ring bearer had a wedding, okay, go to the line above there. Okay. The words in quotes.

[00:13:57]Whose words are those? because there's no reference, no citation to it, which makes it totally not helpful to me.

[00:14:04]>> Understood, your honor. And that point is taken. However, >> who was it? Do you know that's >> I believe it's her defense council.

[00:14:14]>> Her defense council. You're citing a statement in quotes from your client's defense council. How is that relevant or appropriate, especially without citation?

[00:14:26]If I could take the first question first and then I'll answer your second question. The first question, there's a significant relevance objection to Colin Albert being deposed or producing any documents in this case. You see it throughout the lengthy opposition.

[00:14:40]>> I think the opposition is to producing any documents. I >> I would disagree with that, your honor, and I'm happy to explain why, but but there's a significant relevant objection overall to Colin Albert being a deponent. is a relevant suggestion, but I don't think facts or claims facts like that are really relevant. They're nothing but attempts to sensationalize certain things. So, >> okay. So, the judge is taking umbrage with the way Rosenberg and his team have been drafting and filing these motions.

[00:15:09]Specifically, uh there's a quote from Karen Reed's I think defense council or or the defendants's defense council. I don't remember exactly which document that they're talking about right now. Um because we went over the Colin Albert motion. I don't remember quote specifically off the top of my head. Un I mean maybe nothing drew my attention to it. That's why I can't remember it off the top of my head. I definitely don't recall any ring bearer conversations in that motion. So they might be talking about some other portion somewhere. I could be wrong. I could be wrong. I do apologize. I don't have it in front of me so I couldn't tell you. But the judge is really upset over the fact that Rosenberg and his team like I said are including like these these jabs if you will and without citation to for the court to the judge you know so he has no idea where it comes from now he has to ask questions for clarification so it appears to the judge that it is only put in there to sensationalize the case to pander to the YouTube and the social media the Aiden cares and the Larry Foremans and everybody else on on the internet world so that we can cover it and enjoy it and have fun reading it uh for you guys. At the end of the day, it's for you, the audience, right? So, the judge is just not happy with that. Uh it sounds like he's been watching uh some of our videos. I wonder which ones specifically. I am curious. However, notwithstanding that, Rosenberg is insisting that is nothing to do with social media. This is just us filing a motion to the court to make sure that the judge, you understand what's happening, what we're talking about, and it's relevant for these reasons. And Rosenberg is trying to answer, but the judge just is not letting him answer.

[00:16:50]So, there's the chewing out part.

[00:16:51]>> Let's go on to the real >> Let's go on to the real issues in the >> Your honor, if you're going to point out that something is irrelevant, I'd like to please just very quickly address why I disagree with you.

[00:17:01]>> I've read I've read everything. I know why you think it's relevant. Well, it's relevant because they don't want to produce anything and they're trying to minimize the involvement. You're trying to do the opposite thing. I understand.

[00:17:12]>> But you just told me you don't think it's relevant. I think I have the right to tell you why I disagree.

[00:17:16]>> We all have right.

[00:17:18]>> It's not your honor. It's a significant point.

[00:17:22]>> Let's move. Let's move on.

[00:17:23]>> Well, how is the relationship?

[00:17:25]>> Okay. Now, now I'm getting a little upset. I'm not going to lie. I I don't understand. I I get that this judge just wants to keep moving forward, but for some reason he has a habit of calling someone out. And he's done it to Diller.

[00:17:38]He's done it to Rosenberg multiple times. He'll just call you out and then deprive you of the opportunity to respond. He just wants to call you out.

[00:17:46]He doesn't want you to answer for your crimes. He just wants to call you out.

[00:17:50]Like, what's the purpose of that? What is the point of that? What do you gain from that, judge? I don't understand. I know you guys are going to go in the comments and say, "Oh, this guy's biased and blah blah like by keyboard warriors." Don't. Please don't. Okay, trust me when I say this. I want to figure him out. I don't think he's biased at all. I actually think he's very neutral, as neutral as can be. I think he's just frustrated. He is frustrated because he feels like the medium that these motions are being written for are not him. They are us. I mean, can you blame him? If I was in his shoes with such a highly publicized case that the whole world is watching, I think I would be upset, too. So, I I understand his frustration. I understand where he's coming from, but I think he needs to reel it in just a little bit.

[00:18:38]He needs to keep his emotions in check.

[00:18:41]You know what I mean? Because if he's going to call out an attorney and and he just contradicted himself within a 30-second span, a 40-second span, he said, "I believe that you are pandering to social media. This is not relevant.

[00:18:55]Can I respond? No, no, no. I know why you put it in there. You put it in there because D. So, I get why you put it in there. But you just said you don't know why I put it in there. That I panned the social media. Can I at least have an No, you may not answer. Okay. This is getting intense.

[00:19:08]>> How is the relationship between >> We're either going to move on. We're going to end the hearing.

[00:19:13]>> I I Okay. Well, your honor, I would note for the record, I'd like to address the point that you just made made of referring to something as irrelevant, which I think is actually highly relevant. If you're not going to allow me to explain that in two sentences, >> you don't know how old the person was at the time they attended the wedding.

[00:19:28]>> Correct.

[00:19:28]>> Okay.

[00:19:29]>> But that doesn't impact the relevance.

[00:19:31]The relevance is the relationship between the families. That's the relevance. And that's the only reason it's referenced there. I don't think the fact that the families were close enough to attend weddings together is irrelevant to whether Mr. Albert is relevant to this case. But I'm happy to move on to your your your other question. I think I I don't know if you actually if you need an answer, but I take your point about quotation marks without a citation and the uh the effectiveness of including prior statements of council pleadings. We'll keep that in mind.

[00:20:03]>> Not helpful.

[00:20:04]>> Understood.

[00:20:05]>> So now let's go on to >> Okay. So there you go. Was that so hard?

[00:20:09]He explained himself. He said, "I will fix it in the future. Anytime we include co quotations, we are going to site to whoever it is that we took the quotations from." Okay. done. I apologize for this mishap. It won't happen again. And now now now everybody's on the same page. And uh the the relationship between the families and Colin Albert is highly relevant.

[00:20:28]That's why I included we included the the ring bearer in our motion. Honestly, for some reason, I don't remember. I don't remember that quote. But again, maybe I just gleaned over it as I was reading. So I do apologize. I I'm normally very good about like relevant, pertinent facts. I just was just not expecting this, I suppose. And in my brain, it just kind of got filed away in the back of my head somewhere. So anyway, moving on.

[00:20:48]>> Question. I have a follow. What happened to you?

[00:20:53]>> Your office, your you, not you individual, >> collective view.

[00:20:57]>> Your collective you, >> yes, >> issued a notice of deposition on February 11th, 2026 for a deposition over 2 months later on April 29th. Correct.

[00:21:09]>> Correct. And you a subpoena was issued on April 15th.

[00:21:15]>> Correct. uh thereabouts.

[00:21:18]>> No. Well, that's the date.

[00:21:19]>> Okay. Continue. Yes.

[00:21:21]>> Compelling production of documents 12 days later on April 27th and the subpoena was not served for 6 days.

[00:21:32]>> Would you agree with that?

[00:21:34]>> If that's what it says, I don't dispute the >> Okay.

[00:21:37]>> the general point you're making. So my first question is, is there a reason that you would wait 2 months after issuing a notice of deposition to issue the subpoena?

[00:21:47]>> Well, there were a lot of moving pieces schedulewise, as you're aware, your honor.

[00:21:52]>> No, the notice of deposition set the date of the deposition.

[00:21:56]>> Understood. But obviously those changed.

[00:21:58]>> Why do you wait 2 months, less than two weeks, closer to 12 days to issue the subpoena and not serve it for 6 days?

[00:22:08]Well, the service is dependent on the process server. I don't have an answer for you why it took six days.

[00:22:14]>> No, it's not. The service is dependent upon the constable or whomever you've hired to do it.

[00:22:19]>> That's what he's >> correct, your honor, but they're the ones that go out and try to find the process server or the constable. That's the same thing. I don't understand what the judge is getting at. So, basically, he's asking, you know, you initially drafted and scheduled the deposition on February 11th. Why did you wait two months to serve Colin? And why did it take six days to actually get him served with the subpoena six days before the deposition was actually set to begin?

[00:22:44]That's what's upsetting the judge.

[00:22:46]That's what he's chewing Rosenberg out on.

[00:22:48]>> Until 2 weeks before the deposition.

[00:22:50]Understood, your honor. And I don't I don't disagree with you. But but but when that issue was raised in no form did anyone on our team say to Colin Albert's council, you have to get us those documents in the 8 days because that's what the subpoena says. the moment.

[00:23:07]>> That's what the document says. And let I'm going to remind you of the provisions of rule 45, which says a party or attorney, okay, responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. This is a nonparty.

[00:23:31]served a subpoena asking for four years worth of information to be served in a very short period of time. And that I don't think that's complying with either the words or the spirit of rule 45.

[00:23:45]>> So rule 45 is the rule for depositions in Massachusetts. And that rule the judge is explicitly explaining to Rosenberg. You basically gave this kid 6 days to produce four years worth of documents and that is not fair. So he's siding with the O'Keefe, with the plaintiffs in this particular moment.

[00:24:02]>> And that's why, your honor, I I don't have a problem with that. And that's why the when that issue was raised because it to there was a lot going on in the case and it took longer to serve than than probably we would have wanted it to. And so, your honor, when council raised that and said exactly what you just said. You've only given us nine days to appear and uh eight days to produce whatever whatever the specific numbers are, we said, "We understand that. We will we are going to work with you on negotiating and conferring on the scope of the subpoena. And secondly, because of the time limit, we we are going to reschedu the deposition so that we can resolve this this document production issue, including when a production would be made before the deposition so that Mr. Albert doesn't have to come back twice. So I I'm not I'm not fighting you on that, your honor. I I agree. And when it was raised by Mr. Albert's council, they didn't get push back on that on the timing. And so I'm not defending that. it it was an oversight I think and I would prefer that it had been served 30 days before it >> with all due respect to someone that's represented by three law firms and at least 10 attorneys it's hard to envision that it was an oversight that the deposition of a nonparty deposition subpoena doesn't go out until >> and now now now I I'm sorry I I have to object I understand where the judge is coming from he clearly is very experienced. He's very knowledgeable about the law. He is a stickler about the rules, which I also love. Uh he is poignant. He is articulate. He is intelligent. He is stern. I will give him all the credit in the world. But now he is practicing from the bench.

[00:25:48]February 11th was when originally they drafted the documents that they were going to subpoena Colin for one reason or another. Oversight oversight. It doesn't matter. Unfortunately, I don't really think it's the judge's business as far as how and when and where they went about subpoenaing calling and the documents. So, if it came in April, well, okay. So, maybe somebody dropped the ball. Maybe it was assigned to an associate. I'm sorry if you're working for Rosenberg and it was you and I'm calling you out. I apologize, but I kind of have to. Somebody somebody screwed the pooch a little bit. You know what I'm saying? They were supposed to make sure that the documents arrive in Collins possession and they they forgot.

[00:26:31]And so they were like, "All right, six days before the deposition. Finally, he's got the subpoena. No problem.

[00:26:36]Listen, we'll just reschedule." They cancelled the deposition. Remember, Diller said that in his motion that they uh that Rosenberg canled the April 29th deposition. And he's saying, "We didn't even push back on it. We weren't going to go, "Oh, I don't care. You will produce four years worth of documents in the next six days. how about we just we'll push it out. It's fine, you know, don't worry about it kind of thing. And the judge is just not having it. He's like, you need to be more organized. You guys are you have three firms. God knows how many lawyers. One time I think there were like 10 lawyers sitting in in his courtroom in the early onset of the O'Keefe case when uh we started watching these I think back in January or something like that, maybe February. He had like 10 lawyers sitting. So he knows there are a lot of lawyers working on this and he's like, "How is it possible that three law firms, 10 lawyers, and you dropped the ball like this?" Okay, you have a right to be upset, but I'm sorry. I don't think that's your business. That's okay. So the the law firms are making strategic decisions.

[00:27:34]Sometimes it boils down to pure strategy. Sometimes somebody just maybe screwed up. How can you be upset over that? I don't understand. I mean, okay, he has the right to be upset, but I just don't get it. I don't understand it. It makes no sense to me. shortly before the deposition in two months after the notice of deposition. Your >> honor, frankly, there's no basis for that. It's there's nothing intentional that has been done here. I agree with you. It should have been done sooner and and I apologize that it was not done sooner and when it was raised by council.

[00:28:02]>> What do you want him to say? Let's turn back the clock, your honor. Let's go back to February and we will fix it. So, this issue will never have happened in a parallel universe. Like, what do you what what DO YOU DO? WELL, HOW DO YOU ANSWER that question to a judge?

[00:28:16]>> There was no push back on that. And I think if you ask council, they will confirm that there was no push back on the time.

[00:28:22]>> Let's skip down ways to April and and May. And am I correct that your officer knew of Mr. Alb's availability and unavailability in the month of June?

[00:28:37]You made aware of it. when >> were you made aware of it by entering touch >> when at what point eventually on I believe May 20th the email is is an exhibit >> May 20th so >> and May 20th just just to be clear the the explanation that we received was between now May 20th and June 2nd Mr. Albert is available we propose I believe it was May 27th and May 28th after that point Mr. Albert will be unavailable indefinitely >> without an explanation. Frankly, the first explanation that we received was in the was in the motion or in the opposition to the motion.

[00:29:15]>> So yes, >> I know you call into question the manner in which Mr. Allet's deposition was noticed by the plaintiff and not argue that. But am I correct? They had notice of that deposition.

[00:29:31]Were we aware that the plaintiff's plan to proceed with their deposition? Yes.

[00:29:35]>> Yes. And even with even if the notice may have been deficient, there's your reference in your pleadings, you or your team, like you like to refer to it made an intentional decision not to appear.

[00:29:52]>> Okay. So, this is big right now. The judge is like, "All right, do you had the May 27th, May 28th dates?" Well, before that, the judge is like, "Well, were you made aware of dates that Colin is going to be available?" So, between April 20, whatever, like, let's call it the 23rd when Colin finally received the subpoena all the way to May 20th. So, over a 4-w week span, there's been no communication whatsoever, it seems like.

[00:30:18]Then, fast forward to May 20th, and May 20th to June 2nd is the window that they're saying Colin is available. After that, he's not available ever again.

[00:30:26]Gone. Bye-bye, Sayanara. So, we have 12 days to depose him. Being aware that the lead council, I think it's Waters, is not available on May 27th and May 28th to depose Colin, they proposed, let's do it May 27th or May 28th in the sneaky snake- like way that they do. And so, obviously, nobody showed up from Karen Reed's team because they told him those are the only days we're not available.

[00:30:50]And they intentionally, Colin Albert's Laura Tuxberry intentionally scheduled it for that those two dates. And now the judge is asking a very important question. Here it is again.

[00:31:01]>> Like to refer to it made an intentional decision not to appear without coming to the court at all. So first of all, >> that's a yes or no question.

[00:31:13]>> Well, I don't think it is a yes or no question, your honor. We were aware. We were aware and we didn't file a motion.

[00:31:19]But again, I'd like to address why that is. If you're going to raise the issue, may I may I address that? I know why you didn't because you claimed you wrote about it. Why you didn't? It's in there.

[00:31:28]I read it.

[00:31:29]>> Well, if you're asking about it at the hearing, I'd like to address the point.

[00:31:33]So, what happened was we served the subpoena. As you say, we have a team of lawyers. Different lawyers are taking different depositions. The lawyer that's taking the deposition drafts, serves, and prepare the subpoena and prepares for the deposition. We did all of that.

[00:31:48]We complied with the rules with your exception about date and and timing is taken well taken and it won't happen in the future. However, otherwise the subpoena was fully compliant with the rules and the rules require us to be able to take the deposition. We didn't say it has to happen on this exact date.

[00:32:05]What we said was we will reschedu it to another date. the the recipient of a deposition subpoena doesn't get to choose when the deposition happens by playing games like were played here and are laid out in our papers.

[00:32:20]>> Rosenberg is pointing out the fact that they never scheduled this deposition.

[00:32:25]They're the ones asking for this deposition and then Collins lawyer was like, "Well, I'll pick the date and time for you and that's not in compliance with the rules." That's a brilliant argument >> that Mr. Albert's council was notified in this back and forth in the emails that are attached to the motion papers that the the attorney who was prepared to take Colin Albert's deposition was going to be away on two particular days that they had proposed that one of those days 6 days later is the one that the plaintiffs chose. So the the attorney who had prepared was not available as was told to Mr. Colin uh Mr. Albert's counsel. The notice as you referred to was issued in direct violation of rule 30B1. So we provided notice to all parties that we believed that that deposition could not go forward pursuant to that notice and we continue to believe that. But if the question is did we come file a motion for protective order? No, because we don't believe we needed to.

[00:33:21]>> Okay. Attorney.

[00:33:23]>> Yes, sir.

[00:33:24]>> When is Mr. Allen going to be produced for deposition?

[00:33:27]>> Okay. Um well he he appeared for that deposition on the 28th month and then he is >> thank the ground we agree you accepted a deposition subpoena.

[00:33:37]>> He was served deposition subpoena for April 29th >> and you talked about taking it on didn't go for when did he going to be available?

[00:33:44]>> He I at this point in time your honor I'm not sure it'll be sometime in the fall. It'll be sometime in the fall.

[00:33:49]He's got 10 >> We're all caught up. We're all caught up. If you don't know what happens next go back to yesterday's video. That's when we covered this moment forward when the judge says, "I don't care uh that he's not available until the fall. You will make him available.

[00:34:05]That was the the the good stuff. Now we get to see the good stuff on Rosenberg's side." I know somebody on X, by the way, don't forget to like this video, com subscribe to the channel, was complaining. I remember they're like, "Oh, so you you left where Tuxberry gets chewed out. Uh Mr. YouTubers and Miz YouTubers, but you did not talk about Rosenberg getting chewed out. Well, now we have. If we had received it from the get-go, this wouldn't have happened due to no fault of our own. Thank you CBS.

[00:34:34]And now, thank you to the trial channel for providing us the full context. We would have covered the entire hearing.

[00:34:40]We're not trying to play hide the ball here. Actually, if anybody's playing hide the ball, it's pliff's council and Tuxberry and the team in the defamation case. We are all about transparency because we have the truth on our side.

[00:34:52]We have the facts on our side. We're not afraid of either of those. You are the ones who are playing games and then trying to like like it's so childish.

[00:35:02]But it's funny. It's funny to watch because it's like, well, we've taken another arrow out of your quiver. And you're like, damn it. You know, we'll get you next time. I don't see any more of those Proctor defenders, by the way.

[00:35:13]Where where did you all go? There were so many people like go Proctor. He's our favorite. He's a uh Yeah, it's kind of hard now, isn't it?

[00:35:23]It's hard to defend a racist, homophobe, anti-semite. Yes, I know. Anyway, sorry, rant over. What I'm trying to say is, folks, I am really looking forward to seeing how Judge Gildia is going to continue with this case because it looks like he has had enough. It It's coming to a head. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if he's going to be like, "You know what? No more cameras in the courtroom. We're you're done." I mean, it's it's a very very very harsh ruling to make and he's going to have to, you know, justify sealing at least maybe not from the public, but at least from the cameras, for example, would be like one possible option for him. But it's very easy to appeal and usually very easy to win on appeal uh very quickly. you you just file like a a rid of prohibition or a rate of mandamus. I forget which one it is specifically for this type of uh situation. And I remember there was one case recently, it was somewhere I think in Utah that the judge was like no cameras and they appealed that ruling and within like two months they got a new judge and the court said cameras are going to be allowed or something like that. So, it's very hard to just deprive the people of their first amendment right to see what's happening, free speech and all, you know, free press, etc. I I don't think the judge is going to go that far, honestly. But he wants the lawyers to stop quote unquote pandering to social media, which I don't think they are. I think that they're legitimately arguing their issues. It's a very, very personal case. It's a very sensitive case. It's not just black and white like in many civil cases. All of these civil cases, the defamation Karen Reed's federal case against the house defendants, the house defendants case against Karen in the Oh, the defamation, sorry, I already said that. The O'Keefe case against Karen. Like every single one of these is contested because Karen is the innocent party in all of these.

[00:37:19]Now, I know this is not guilt or innocence. These are all civil cases.

[00:37:22]So, she's not liable, right? She is innocent criminally and she's not liable civily. But the criminal stuff is done.

[00:37:28]The civil stuff is going on. We are in I I hate to use this, but unfortunately it's true. We're in season three, right?

[00:37:35]2024, criminal trial number one was season 1. 2025 was criminal trial number two. That was season 2. Now we're on the civil stuff. This is season three. And by God, we are probably going to go into season 4 in 2027. I don't want to. I'd much rather go and start talking about something else. I want this woman to stop being tormented, but I can't because it's still ongoing. So folks, um like I said, uh there are going to be two episodes today. This one that you're watching and in about two and a halfish hours, two hours and maybe 15 minutes, you are going to get um another episode on this channel. And that's going to be the schedule moving forward. Doesn't matter if it's the weekend, doesn't matter if it's the weekday. Monday through Sunday, 400 pm Eastern, 1 p.m.

[00:38:23]Pacific, 700 p.m. Eastern, 400 p p.m.

[00:38:25]Pacific. every day. We are back, baby, to our old summer schedule because there is so much content. There is so much to cover. I don't even know where to begin.

[00:38:39]So, folks, I hope you all enjoyed it. I hope you all learned something. I'm really looking forward to seeing you in a couple of hours and I will see you all in the next video. Bye, everybody.