BREAKING: She Tried To Escape! The FBI Uncovers New Video Evidence Showing How Shanquella Was Set Up

[00:00:02]There is a recent problem you all need to see. The woman accused of beating Shanquella Robinson on camera just tried to escape the lawsuit. She filed a motion to dismiss claiming she was never properly served and that the statute of limitations had expired. And two weeks ago a judge in Mecklenburg County looked at her motion and said no, denied. Imani Green stays in the case. The woman who changed her name from Da'Janae Jackson to Imani Green. The woman with a femicide warrant from Mexico that has never been executed. The woman who filed a self-defense claim saying Shanquella was belligerent and assumed the risk.

[00:00:41]That woman just lost her attempt to walk away from the only legal process that is still holding her accountable for what happened inside that villa. And she is not the only one trying to escape because four of the six people who were in that villa with Shanquella Robinson have filed motions to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit. And their argument is the same. They want the case moved to Mexico. They want to be called bystanders and they want an American court to say this is not our problem. Do you think six American citizens should be allowed to fly to another country, be present while another American citizen is beaten and left to die, fly home, lie to the dead woman's mother, and then tell a court in their own country that the case should be tried in a foreign country where the family cannot afford to fight? Do you think that is justice?

[00:01:27]Let us know in the comments right now.

[00:01:28]Because I have not shown you the legal arguments they are making and why every single one of them falls apart when you look at what actually happened. I have not shown you what the family's attorney said outside the courthouse that should be the only response the system needs and I have not shown you what is happening on July 22nd that could determine whether this case moves forward or gets frozen. Keep watching. I will show you everything. If you are new here, welcome. This is a community where we talk about cases like this around the clock. We follow the evidence. We do not stop and we do not look away when the people responsible for a woman's death use the legal system to avoid accountability. Whether you're watching this from around Europe or any part of the world, let us know in the comments.

[00:02:12]Comment your location. If you found this video through criminal psychology communities, through true crime communities, through crime networks, through legal analysis communities, through women's safety communities, through black community channels, through HBCU communities, through Court TV communities, through Dateline communities, or if it was just suggested to you, subscribe and share this video right now. If you have been following this community, you already know what to do. Share this video. Suggest it to others. Create more awareness because you are in the right place. We cover cases where the evidence goes deeper than the headline. I went through every court filing, every motion to dismiss, every legal response. What nobody has put together until now is how the coordinated venue strategy, the bystander claims, the denied motion, and the July 22nd hearing all connect to reveal six people who are not fighting for justice in Mexico. They are fighting to make sure justice does not happen anywhere. As I promised I would show you step by step. Here is the breaking development first because what happened on June 1st, 2026 is the first time the legal system said no to one of the Cabo Six. On June 1st, 2026, Mecklenburg County Judge Matt Osmond denied Imani Green's motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit. Her argument was that she was not properly served and that the statute of limitations had expired. The judge reviewed her filing and rejected both claims. Imani Green remains a defendant in the case and here is why this denial matters more than any other development in the lawsuit so far because Imani Green is not a peripheral figure in this case. She is the person the viral video shows attacking Shanquella Robinson. She is the person Mexican authorities issued a femicide warrant for. She is the person who changed her name from Daeja Jackson to Imani Green after the death. And she is the person who filed a self-defense claim in the civil lawsuit calling Shanquella belligerent and arguing the dead woman assumed the risk of being beaten by her own friend. Every person watching this, a woman who is seen on video punching and kicking an unconscious woman who is naked on the floor tried to tell a court that the case against her should be thrown out on a technicality. Not because she is innocent, not because the evidence is wrong, because she claims she was not properly served with papers. And the judge [snorts] said no, you are staying in this case. And here is the detail about Imani Green's filing that has not received enough attention because in her self-defense claim she used a legal phrase that should disturb every person watching this. She said Shanquella Robinson assumed the risk. Assumed the risk. A 25-year-old woman who went on a vacation with people she considered friends assumed the risk of being beaten unconscious by one of those friends. Ask yourself what that phrase means when applied to a friendship because assumed the risk is a legal doctrine used in sports injuries, in skydiving, in contact activities where physical harm is a known possibility that participants agree to. Imani Green is arguing that going on a vacation with friends is the same category of activity as skydiving.

[00:05:36]That by getting on that plane and going to Cabo, Shanquella agreed to whatever might happen to her inside the villa.

[00:05:43]That is not a legal argument. That is an insult to a dead woman. And the judge looked at Imani Green's filing and said, "No. Ask yourself what it means that Imani Green's first strategy was not to defend herself on the facts. It was to argue that the lawsuit did not reach her correctly because a person who believes they are innocent fights the case. A person who knows what the evidence shows tries to escape the process entirely."

[00:06:10]And here is what makes this denial even more powerful because Imani Green's motion was the only motion to dismiss that was based on procedural grounds rather than venue. Every other defendant argued Mexico. Imani Green argued the papers were wrong, and the judge shut that door, which means the only legal arguments left for any of the Cabo 6 are the venue arguments, Mexico. And those arguments have problems that the family's attorney has already exposed.

[00:06:38]And here is what Imani Green's denial means for every other defendant in this case because Green tried the most aggressive escape strategy possible. She did not argue venue. She did not argue Mexico. She argued the case should not exist against her at all, improper service, statute of limitations. Two procedural arguments that if successful would have removed her from the lawsuit entirely. The judge rejected both. And the message that sends to Hyatt, Donovan, Dyer, Cook, and Wiggins is clear. The court is not going to let you escape on technicalities. If you want to fight this case, you are going to have to fight it on the facts. And the facts include a viral video, a broken neck, zero alcohol in the autopsy, a doctor who was refused, and 6 hours of silence.

[00:07:24]Every person watching this, the strongest escape attempt by the person with the most to lose has been denied.

[00:07:31]Imani Green, the woman on the video, the one with the femicide warrant, could not get out. And if she could not get out, the four defendants arguing venue have even less ground to stand on because their argument is not that the case should not exist. Their argument is that it should exist somewhere else, somewhere the family cannot reach them.

[00:07:50]Type I am still here in the comments because the venue battle is the most important legal fight in this case right now. And what the defendants are arguing and why it does not hold up is something every person watching this needs to understand. Now, I need to show you the legal arguments the defendants are making because four of the six have filed motions to dismiss using the same strategy. And when you see the arguments side by side, the coordination becomes impossible to ignore. Here is what the defendants are arguing and I am going to go through each one because each one has a problem. Argument number one, the death occurred in Mexico, not North Carolina. Therefore, Mexican courts should handle the case. That is factually true. Shanquella Robinson died in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, but here is the problem with that argument. The defendants are not in Mexico. They are in North Carolina, all six of them. They flew home. They returned to Charlotte.

[00:08:48]They went to Salamondra Robinson's house and lied to her face and then they hired lawyers in North Carolina to argue that the case should be tried in Mexico.

[00:08:59]Ask here yourself whether the defendants would voluntarily travel to Mexico to face this case if the judge agreed to move it there because Mexican authorities already issued a femicide warrant against Imani Green that has never been executed. The defendants have not cooperated with Mexican investigators and the family's attorneys have pointed out that the defendants refuse to cooperate with Mexican authorities. So, they want the case in Mexico while simultaneously refusing to participate in Mexico's investigation. That is not a legal position. That is a strategy designed to ensure the case is tried nowhere. Argument number two, key witnesses are in Mexico. Medical personnel who treated Shanquella, hotel staff, Mexican law enforcement, the coroner. And these witnesses cannot be compelled to testify in American courts.

[00:09:51]That is technically accurate. American courts cannot subpoena witnesses in another country. But here is what the defendants are not telling the court.

[00:10:00]The most important witnesses in this case are not in Mexico. They are in North Carolina. The six people who were inside that villa are all in North Carolina. Salamondra Robinson is in North Carolina. The family members who were told alcohol poisoning are in North Carolina. The evidence of the cover-up, the lie, the deleted social media accounts, the coordinated bystander strategy, all of that happened in North Carolina. And here is the deeper problem. The defendants are arguing that they need Mexican witnesses to present a fair defense. But every single one of them has filed a motion calling themselves a bystander who never touched anyone. If they are bystanders who did nothing, what exactly do they need the Mexican doctor to testify about? What do they need the hotel staff to confirm?

[00:10:47]Because a bystander does not need a defense built on foreign witnesses. A bystander says I was not involved and moves on. The fact that they need Mexican witnesses to defend themselves tells you their defense requires more than the word bystander. Every person watching this who has ever been in a courtroom when a defendant argues that the case should be moved to a location where the plaintiff cannot afford to litigate, that is not about fairness.

[00:11:11]That is about access. The Robinson family cannot afford to hire Mexican lawyers, travel to Mexico, navigate a foreign legal system in a different language, and compel testimony from witnesses in a country with different rules. The defendants know this. Their attorneys know this. And the motion to move the case to Mexico is not about where justice is best served. It is about where justice is least likely to reach them. But I have not shown you argument number three yet, because this is the one that the family's attorney demolished outside the courthouse.

[00:11:42]Argument number three, Mexican law should apply, not North Carolina law.

[00:11:47]And here is the family's attorney's response. Because Sue Ann Robinson, the attorney representing Salamandra Robinson, stood outside the Mecklenburg County Courthouse and said something that every person watching this needs to hear. She said a United States citizen should not be allowed to go overseas, harm another United States citizen, and come back to the United States and essentially say that they are off base, that they are not going to be held liable. Every person watching this, read that statement again, because it is the most concise destruction of the Mexico venue argument that exists. Six American citizens flew to Mexico. One American citizen died. The six flew home to North Carolina. And now they are arguing that North Carolina courts cannot hold them accountable because the death happened in Mexico. Sue Ann Robinson also argued that forcing the family to litigate in Mexico would impose unreasonable financial burdens, language barriers, and would require navigating a completely different legal system. She pointed out that all parties are American citizens. All parties reside in North Carolina. And the conduct that the lawsuit addresses, the cover-up, the lie to Salamandra, the deleted accounts, the coordinated bystander strategy, all of that happened on American soil. The family's legal position is simple. The defendants fled back to North Carolina to evade prosecution. The cover-up continued in North Carolina. The family lives in North Carolina. The defendants live in North Carolina. And North Carolina is where this case belongs. And here is why the cover-up is the detail that destroys the Mexico venue argument entirely. Because the defendants are arguing that the case belongs in Mexico because the death happened in Mexico, but the lawsuit is not only about the death. It is about everything that happened after and everything that happened after happened in North Carolina. The group flew home to North Carolina. They went to Salamandra Robinson's home in North Carolina. They told her the alcohol poisoning lie in North Carolina. They deleted their social media accounts from North Carolina. They coordinated their stories from North Carolina. And when the lawsuit was filed, they hired North Carolina lawyers to argue that the case should be in Mexico. The wrongful death claim is about the death, but the conspiracy claim is about the cover-up.

[00:14:09]The negligence claim is about the failure to act. The emotional distress claim is about what they did to a mother in her own living room when they looked her in the face and lied. And all of that happened in North Carolina. Every person watching this who understands what conspiracy means legally.

[00:14:27]Conspiracy does not require that every act happen in one location. It requires that the defendants agreed to conceal information and that they carried out that agreement. The agreement was formed in Mexico. The concealment was carried out in North Carolina. And the effects of that concealment, the lie Salamandra believed, the funeral she planned for an alcohol poisoning death that never happened, all of that landed in North Carolina. The case belongs in North Carolina because the defendants brought the cover-up to North Carolina. They do not get to leave the crime in Mexico and bring the cover-up home and then argue that the home court cannot touch them.

[00:15:05]But I have not shown you the bystander argument yet because argument number four is the one that should make every person watching this question whether the defendants coordinated their legal strategy the same way they coordinated the cover-up. Argument number four, they claim to be bystanders with no allegation that they participated in the fight or touched anyone. And here is why the word bystander is the most dishonest word in this entire lawsuit because a bystander is a person who happens to be present at an event they had no part in.

[00:15:38]A bystander is the stranger on the sidewalk who witnesses an accident. A bystander has no connection to what happened. These were not strangers on a sidewalk. They traveled together. They stayed in the same villa. They were in the same room. They witnessed the same events. Six hours passed between the attack and the first call for medical help. A doctor said hospital and the group said no. The concierge asked where they wanted transport to and the first answer was dinner. They flew home a day early. They went to Salamandra's house and told her alcohol poisoning. The autopsy found zero alcohol in Shanquella's system. Ask yourself whether six bystanders wait six hours to call for help, whether six bystanders refuse a doctor's recommendation for a hospital, whether six bystanders request dinner reservations after a friend dies, whether six bystanders tell a mother the same lie, whether six bystanders delete their social media accounts at the same time, and whether six bystanders file the same motion using the same word in the same court because bystanders do not do those things. Participants do and the coordination of the legal strategy across four defendants using the same argument tells you the coordination did not start in a lawyer's office. It started in that villa and it has not stopped since. Every person watching this, if all six are bystanders who committed the crime because someone beat Shanquella Robinson, someone broke her neck, someone left her unconscious for six hours, someone refused the doctor, someone told the mother alcohol poisoning, and if every single one of them is a bystander, then the crime committed itself and that is not how crimes work. And here is what the bystander strategy means for every domestic violence case in the United States. Because if six people can witness a woman being beaten, watch her deteriorate for hours, refuse medical treatment, lie to her mother, and then call themselves bystanders in court, the legal definition of bystander has lost all meaning. Every domestic violence advocate watching this, every prosecutor, every judge, the word bystander in this lawsuit is being used to create a category of non-responsibility that did not exist before this case. A category where you can be present for the violence, present for the medical delay, present for the cover-up, present for the lie, and still claim you were not involved because you did not throw the punch. But domestic violence law has evolved precisely because of this kind of argument.

[00:18:12]Because the person who holds the door shut while someone is beaten is not a bystander. The person who refuses to call 911 while someone is dying is not a bystander. The person who tells the victim's family a false story to prevent investigation is not a bystander. And the person who files a coordinated legal motion using the same word as every other person in the room is not acting independently. They are acting together, the way they acted together in that villa, the way they acted together when they flew home, the way they acted together when they told Salamandra alcohol poisoning. The coordination has never stopped. It started in Cabo, it continued in Charlotte, and it is continuing right now in a Mecklenburg County Courthouse. And here is the question that the family's legal team has raised that no defendant has been able to answer. If all six are bystanders, where is the accountability for the attack that the video shows?

[00:19:08]Where is the accountability for the broken neck that the Mexican autopsy documented. Where is the accountability for the 6 hours without medical treatment? Where is the accountability for the lie to Salamondra? Because someone in that villa is responsible.

[00:19:23]The video shows an attack. The autopsy shows a broken neck. The doctor was refused. The mother was lied to. Six people were present and all six say they did nothing. That means one of two things. Either one or more of them are lying about being bystanders or all six stood in a room and watched a woman die and genuinely believe that watching a woman die makes them innocent. Every person watching this, if you were in a room and your friend was being beaten and you did nothing for 6 hours and she died and you told her mother she drank too much and you flew home and deleted your social media and then hired a lawyer to call you a bystander, would you believe that word described what you did? Because the Robinson family does not believe it. The Mexican authorities who issued the femicide warrant do not believe it. And on July 22nd, a judge in Mecklenburg County will decide whether the American legal system believes it either. Now, I need to show you what is happening on July 22nd because the hearing that is 5 weeks away could determine whether this case moves forward or gets frozen. As I promised, I would show you the most important date in this case. Here is what July 22nd means. On July 22nd, 2026 at the Mecklenburg County Courthouse in Charlotte, a judge will hear Kalil Cook's motion to stay the case. A stay means freezing all proceedings.

[00:20:45]Everything stops. Discovery stops.

[00:20:47]Deposition stops. The case goes into a legal deep freeze while the venue question is resolved. Kalil Cook's attorneys are citing a Supreme Court case called Sinicum International versus Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, which establishes a doctrine called forum non conveniens.

[00:21:05]That legal term means an inconvenient forum. The argument is that the American court is not the convenient place for this case and that a Mexican court would be better suited. And here is what forum non convenience means in plain language for every person watching this who is not a lawyer because the legal term sounds neutral. It sounds like a reasonable question about which court is better equipped to handle a case, but in practice when defendants use forum non convenience to move a case to a foreign country, they are using the legal system to create a barrier that the plaintiff cannot cross. Think about what it would take for Salamondra Robinson to litigate this case in Mexico. She would need Mexican attorneys. She would need to travel to Mexico repeatedly. She would need interpreters for every proceeding.

[00:21:51]She would need to navigate a completely different legal system with different rules, different standards of evidence, and different procedural requirements.

[00:21:59]She would need to fund all of this while grieving a daughter who has been dead for 3 and 1/2 years. The defendants know the Robinson family cannot do that.

[00:22:08]Their attorneys know the Robinson family cannot do that. Forum non convenience is not about convenience. It is about access. And when you file a motion to move a case to a jurisdiction where the plaintiff cannot afford to follow, you are not seeking a more appropriate venue. You are seeking the end of the case. Every person watching this who has ever felt like the legal system is designed to protect people with money from people without it. This is what that looks like in real time. Six defendants with lawyers filing motions in a language the system respects. One mother with an attorney fighting to keep the case in the only court she can access. And a legal doctrine with a Latin name that translates to we would like this to go away. And here is what a stay would mean for Salamondra Robinson because if the case is frozen, Salamondra is back to waiting. Again, she waited for the FBI investigation that produced no charges. She waited for the Mexican warrant that was never executed. She waited for the federal lawsuit that was dismissed. And now the last legal pathway that is still moving forward could be frozen by a motion filed by one of the people who was inside the villa when her daughter died.

[00:23:19]Every person watching this who has ever felt like the system keeps finding new ways to delay justice for people who cannot afford to wait. That is what July 22nd represents. Another delay, another motion, another hearing, another chance for the people who were in that villa to push the accountability further away from the families who have been waiting for three and a half years. And here is what three and a half years of waiting looks like for Salamondra Robinson.

[00:23:47]Because every legal pathway she has pursued has been closed or delayed by someone other than herself. She waited for the FBI three years. They said insufficient evidence, door closed. She waited for the Mexican femicide warrant to be executed three and a half years.

[00:24:04]It has never been executed, door closed.

[00:24:07]She filed a federal lawsuit against the FBI and State Department for investigative failures. The federal claims were dismissed, door closed. She filed the wrongful death lawsuit against all six. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, motions to move the case to Mexico, motions to stay the proceedings, motions to freeze everything. Every door Salamondra Robinson has walked through, someone on the other side has tried to shut it. And the civil case in Mecklenburg County is the last door that is still open. Every mother watching this, every parent who has ever fought the system for their child, Salamondra Robinson has been fighting for three and a half years. She has been told no by the FBI. She has been told no by the federal court. She has been told to wait by Mexico. And now the people who were in the villa with her daughter are asking a state court judge to freeze the last legal process that could hold any of them accountable. And here is the detail about Salamondra that never gets enough attention. Because when the group returned from Cabo, Khalil Cook and Dayjanae Jackson went to Salamondra's home. They brought Shanquella's belongings. They offered their condolences. And they told Salamondra that her daughter died of alcohol poisoning. A mother who had just lost her child was told a story by the people who were there when her child died. And the story was a lie. The autopsy found zero alcohol in Shanquella's system.

[00:25:38]Zero. The cause of death was a severe spinal cord injury consistent with blunt force trauma to the neck. Every mother watching this, imagine the people who were with your daughter when she died coming to your home, sitting in your living room, looking you in the face, and telling you a lie about how she died, and you believe them because why would you not? They were her friends.

[00:26:00]They were there. They came to your home to tell you what happened. And you grieved the version of events they gave you until a death certificate from Mexico arrives weeks later and tells you a completely different story. That is what was done to Salamondra Robinson in North Carolina, in her own home, by the people who are now arguing that the case belongs in Mexico. The lie was delivered in North Carolina. The grief was experienced in North Carolina. And the truth was discovered in North Carolina when the Mexican death certificate arrived. That is what July 22nd means for Salamondra Robinson. Not a hearing, not a legal proceeding, a mother's last chance to make someone answer for what happened to her daughter. And six people with lawyers are trying to take that chance away. And here is what the family's attorney has argued in response to the stay motion. Robinson's attorney say North Carolina is the proper place because the parties are from the state and several events connected to the case happened here including the spread of the viral video. They also argue that the defendants refused to cooperate with Mexican authorities making the argument that Mexico is a better venue deeply contradictory. You cannot argue that the case belongs in Mexico while simultaneously refusing to participate in Mexico's investigation. And I need every person watching this to understand the contradiction because the defendants are telling a North Carolina judge that Mexico is the better venue, that Mexican witnesses are essential, that Mexican law should apply. But when Mexican authorities investigated the death and issued a femicide warrant, the defendants did not cooperate. They did not provide statements to Mexican investigators. They did not submit to questioning. They did not assist the investigation in any way. They want the case in Mexico where they have never cooperated. They do not want the case in North Carolina where they can be compelled to cooperate. That tells you everything about what this motion is really about. It is not about finding the best venue for justice. It is about finding the venue where justice is least likely to find them. Ask [clears throat] yourself what happens if the judge grants the stay and the case eventually moves to Mexico. The defendants will not travel to Mexico to participate. They will not cooperate with Mexican proceedings. They will not submit to Mexican jurisdiction. They will argue in Mexico the same thing they are arguing in North Carolina that the case does not belong there either and the case will die in the gap between two countries exactly where the defendants want it.

[00:28:32]That is the strategy. Not Mexico, not North Carolina, nowhere. That is where they want this case to be tried, nowhere. And here is what three and a half years without a single arrest means for every person watching this who believes in the justice system because Shanquella Robinson died on October 29th, 2022. A viral video showed her being beaten. A Mexican autopsy found a broken neck. Mexican authorities classified her death as a femicide and issued an arrest warrant. The FBI opened an investigation and in three and a half years, not a single person has been arrested. Not in Mexico, not in the United States, not anywhere. Every person watching this, a woman was beaten on camera. She died. The autopsy confirmed violent death. A warrant was issued and nobody has been arrested. The FBI said insufficient evidence. Mexico's warrant has never been executed and the six people who were in the villa are in their homes in North Carolina right now, living their lives, hiring lawyers, filing motions, and calling themselves bystanders while Salamondra Robinson buries her daughter's memory deeper every year because the system keeps finding new ways to say not yet, not here, not now. That is what July 22nd represents. Not just a hearing about venue, a hearing about whether the American legal system will be the one place in three and a half years that says enough. You were there. You answer for it. Here, now, in front of a judge in your own country. Every fact, one breath. June 1st, 2026. Mecklenburg County Judge Matt Osmond, Imani Green's motion to dismiss denied. Improper service claim rejected. Statute of limitations claim rejected. She stays in the case. The woman on the viral video, the femicide warrant, the name change from Dejanay Jackson, the self-defense claim, Shanquella was belligerent, assumed the risk. All of it still in front of a court. Four of six filed motions to dismiss. Allyssa Hyatt, Winter Donovan, Malik Dyer, Khalil Cook.

[00:30:45]Same argument, Mexico jurisdiction, same word, bystander, same strategy, move it, dismiss it, freeze it, make it go away.

[00:30:54]The death occurred in Mexico, true, but all six defendants are in North Carolina. Key witnesses in Mexico, true, but the most important witnesses are the six people in the villa and they are all in North Carolina. Mexican law should apply. Sue Ann Robinson, a United States citizen, should not be allowed to go overseas, harm another citizen, and come back and say they are not liable.

[00:31:19]Financial barriers, language barriers, different legal system. The family cannot afford to litigate in Mexico. The defendants know this. Bystanders who wait six hours, bystanders who refuse the doctor, bystanders who request dinner, bystanders who tell a mother alcohol poisoning, bystanders who delete their accounts, bystanders who file the same motion. If all six are bystanders who committed the crime, July 22nd, 2026, Mecklenburg County Courthouse, Khalil Cook, motion to stay, forum non conveniens, freeze the case, freeze the discovery, freeze the depositions, freeze the accountability. Salamandra Robinson has been waiting three and a half years. The FBI said insufficient evidence. Mexico's warrant was never executed. The federal lawsuit was dismissed. The civil case is the last door open, and July 22nd will determine whether that door stays open or gets frozen shut. And now I need to show you what all of this adds up to when Emani Green's denial and the four venue motions and the July 22nd hearing and the bystander strategy are placed beside each other. Because after three and a half years of closed doors, one door is still open. And what happens on July 22nd will determine whether it stays that way. Type justice in the comments because Shanquella Robinson's mother has spent three and a half years fighting through every legal door the system has.

[00:32:49]The FBI closed its door. Mexico's warrant was never executed. The federal lawsuit was dismissed. And now the last door that is still open is the civil case in Mecklenburg County. And on July 22nd, the people who were inside the villa when Shanquella died are going to ask a judge to freeze that door shut.

[00:33:09]Every person watching this, if you believe that six American citizens should answer for what happened to another American citizen in an American courtroom, share this video because every share tells the system that the community is watching. Every share tells the defendants that the word bystander is not going to protect them. And every share tells Salamondra Robinson that she is not fighting alone because here is what the community has done for this case that the legal system has not. The community kept Shanquella's name alive when the FBI went quiet. The community demanded answers when Mexico's warrant was not executed. The community watched every filing and every motion and every court date and refused to let this case disappear into the gap between two countries where the defendants wanted to die. Every person watching this who has shared a video about Shanquella Robinson, who has commented on a post about the Cabo six, who has told someone about this case who had not heard of it, you are the reason this case is still in front of a judge because the legal system responds to attention. Courts move faster when the public is watching.

[00:34:16]Motions are scrutinized more carefully when communities are paying attention.

[00:34:20]And the defendants know that every person watching this video is a person who will not let this case disappear.

[00:34:27]July 22nd, Mecklenburg County Courthouse, the community will be watching and the judge will know it. If you want every development the moment it breaks, subscribe and turn on the bell because the July 22nd hearing is 5 weeks away. The Imani Green denial is fresh, the venue battle is active, and the question of whether six people who flew to Mexico with Shanquella Robinson and came home without her will ever answer for it in an American courtroom is about to be decided. We will be here for all of it. This video covers developments in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Salamondra Robinson against the six individuals who traveled with Shanquella Robinson to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in October 2022.

[00:35:14]Shanquella Robinson died on October 29th, 2022. Her death was classified as violent by Mexican authorities. No criminal charges have been filed in the United States. A femicide warrant issued by Mexico has not been executed. All defendants deny wrongdoing. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. All information is drawn from court filings in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, WCNC Charlotte, Queen City News, WBTV, WSOC, and confirmed legal reporting. If you or someone you know is going through a difficult time, help is available by calling or texting 988.