Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:01]
Steve Guru
This is America's Voice live. And welcome to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Guru. The pulse of the people.
- [00:07]
John Uhleberg
We need somebody that's going to hear.
- [00:09]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
The people's voice, the truth the mainstream won't touch.
- [00:13]
Steve Guru
This guy is by definition a globalist.
- [00:16]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
And the stories that matter.
- [00:17]
Steve Guru
Ralph's own Ben Berkwam right up over this hill.
- [00:20]
Judge
Got alone cartel.
- [00:21]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
I see him. I see him.
- [00:22]
Eyewitness or Protester
I see him.
- [00:26]
Steve Guru
Live. Breaking news right now here on Real America's Voice. Unfiltered. These people are domestic terrorists and unapologetic. We're here to take a stand for God and country. Does feel good. America's Voice Live starts now. And welcome to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Gru. Today is Friday, thankfully, 16th of January, year of our Lord 2026. Let's get into today's top stories. As always, thank you for joining us all here on A Real America's Voice. We appreciate you being here. Clashes in Minneapolis have continued into today after a second ice involved shooting sparked more unrest. Demonstrators remain in the streets confronting federal agents and ongoing protests that have now stretched across the city. I'll discuss that with an expert today. Also turning point, USA frontlines delivering breaking news on the ground, reporting from violent protests featuring raw footage and uncensored coverage exposing the tactics used to convert Americans to to Islam. I'll bring on the investigative reporter behind that story, discuss as well. Then later, I'll grab the mailbag and read some of the emails that you, the people have sent directly to me right here on live tv. Is your name on the list? You have to wait and find out. Looks like we've got some good ones today. All that and more, including Tyler Robinson, is going to be in a Utah courtroom today where arguments will be made to disqualify the prosecutors, as well as President Trump's participation in the Southern Boulevard dedication ceremony. So stay tuned for all of the latest. But first, we start with Iran. The cry of freedom is in every human soul, as evidenced in the nation of Iran, where they're willing to die rather than live oppressed any longer. Where they're willing to stand up to bullets and batons with empty hands and scream for freedom. Give me liberty or give me death. It's not just an American ideal, it's a human one. The people are taking to the streets, trying to be part of something bigger than themselves, even if it cost them their lives. And the cost has been high so far. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, according to some estimates, have been killed as the Islamic regime has cracked down viciously on these protests. It's hard to know just how costly this fight has been because the Islamic regime has cut all access to the Internet. Only a few with access to Starlink have been able to get any word out at all in the last couple of days. When the Internet is cut, the violence happens in silence. We are being targeted because this regime fears truth, visibility and unity, of course, being seen, saving lives, which is what Elon Musk has been trying to do by making Starlink available there for free. He's trying to help these people. But the Internet can only do so much against a regime that is dead set on retaining its power, no matter the cost and the number of human lives. This is the kind of evil we're dealing with. This is viral footage coming out of Iran. It's the Islamic regime's military storming a hospital just to get to protesters who survived the initial crackdown. Can you believe this? These murderers tear gassed, tear gassed the place, fired live weapons, smashed down doors, and dragged out the wounded protesters who were trying to survive. Staff and patients were beaten with batons in the process. This is the kind of evil that we cannot even fathom here in the United States. This is the kind of evil that, that all social justice warriors should be up in arms about, but of course they're not. Where are all the Free Palestine protesters? Where are all the rallies and the signs and the chants and the cheers? Where are the Iranian flags in the streets? Nowhere to be found. And you know why? You know why Pro Palestinians can't get behind freeing Iran? Because the same ideology that enslaved Iran is the one they're standing behind in their support for Palestine. The left is more passionate about standing up for Islam than they are about actual human rights violations being committed by the Islamic regime. Listen, just how brutal this group is, by the way? Here it is.
- [04:19]
Eyewitness or Protester
I know I've got the parents of friends and family in Iran. You know, they come to your house, shoot you in the head, throw your body in a ditch, and then they present the families with an invoice that you have to pay something like $5,000 to release the body. And part of the invoice includes bullets that we use to, to kill your loved ones. So you're paying even for the bullets. We are out in numbers.
- [04:39]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
It's, it's, it's.
- [04:41]
Eyewitness or Protester
The atmosphere is incredible. People are not going to stop because they're at that stage in their lives where it's better to, you know, this is their words, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
- [04:52]
Steve Guru
It certainly is. We're going to take a moment here and move out to Utah, where Tyler Robinson is in court for a hearing where they're trying to disqualify the prosecution team.
- [05:01]
Judge
Let's take that live place on the record the potential consequences of any willful violation of the court's December 23, 2025 standing decorum order under Utah code section 78B6.310. If the court finds a person guilty of contempt, the court may impose a fine of up to $1,000. Order incarceration in the county jail for up to 30 days or both. Any alleged violation will be carefully evaluated and the court will impose only those sanctions which are appropriate and proportional under the circumstances. The court will make specific findings on the record before imposing any sanction. In addition, the court may impose the following remedial measures if warranted. First, immediate suspension of video transmission of the hearing with proceedings continuing on audio only basis for the proceeding where the violation occurred and disqualification, if necessary and narrowly tailored of the news organization that filled that filed the request in order for electronic media coverage of court proceedings for the hearing in which the violation occurred. From providing pool camera operator services. In this matter, where the court determines that such a measure is required to ensure compliance with a standing decorum order and to protect the rights of the parties, Council will be allowed to provide their input before the court makes any final determination regarding sanctions. I want to emphasize that these measures are not intended to have a chilling effect on open and transparent courts or on responsible news gathering, and the court remains fully committed to the presumption of open proceedings under applicable rules. Rather, they're intended to protect the constitutional rights of all parties while preserving the integrity, openness and fairness of these proceedings. Third, at this time, I wish to address the camera operator. Mr. Ulberg, if you wouldn't mind coming forward and standing at the lectrum. And could you state your name for the record?
- [07:28]
John Uhleberg
John uhleberg.
- [07:30]
Judge
Thank you. Mr. Uhleberg, it's not my intention to cause you any embarrassment or discomfort. I simply want to ensure that the guidelines for today's proceedings are clear. Mr. Ulberg, during today's hearing, what is your primary role?
- [07:46]
John Uhleberg
To provide video coverage of the proceedings for the public.
- [07:51]
Judge
All right. Have you read the December 23, 2025 standing decorum order?
- [07:56]
John Uhleberg
Yes, sir.
- [07:57]
Judge
Do you understand the guidelines as they relate to your responsibilities today?
- [08:02]
John Uhleberg
I do.
- [08:03]
Judge
Do you need any additional time to review the December 23, 2025 Standing Decorum Order or any time to reposition the camera to ensure full compliance with those guidelines?
- [08:16]
John Uhleberg
Do I need more time? I'm sorry, was that the question?
- [08:18]
Judge
Do you need more time to review the decorum order? And I'll pause there because that was a compound question. Sorry about that.
- [08:25]
John Uhleberg
No, I am, I am. I have read it. I fully understand it. I'm good to go.
- [08:29]
Judge
All right, to the second part. Do you need any additional time to reposition the camera to ensure full compliance with those guidelines?
- [08:36]
John Uhleberg
No, I think we're in a good position now.
- [08:38]
Judge
All right. Mr. Udleberg, do you anticipate any difficulties complying with the December 23rd, 2025 standing decorum order?
- [08:45]
John Uhleberg
I do not anticipate any problems.
- [08:47]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
All right.
- [08:48]
Judge
And is there anything that the court can clarify to assist you?
- [08:52]
John Uhleberg
No, I think we're good to go, sir.
- [08:54]
Judge
All right, thank you, Mr. Yulberg. Thank you. Before I let you go, I'll turn to counsel based off the questions asked. Turn to you if you have any input or questions.
- [09:02]
Prosecutor (Mr. Gray or Ryan Casey)
Nothing from the state. Thank you, you, Honor.
- [09:06]
Judge
All right. All right. And the court, I appreciate your cooperation, and it's my hope that we all do our very best today together.
- [09:16]
John Uhleberg
Absolutely.
- [09:16]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Thank you.
- [09:18]
Judge
And finally, before we turn to the issue, the motion before the court to the state, could you please provide a brief update on the status of discovery disclosure?
- [09:31]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Yes.
- [09:31]
Prosecutor (Mr. Gray or Ryan Casey)
Your honor, we don't. I don't have the percentage of materials that we have that have been disclosed, but I think we're above 90% at this point. There still is discovery coming in. There are reports and so forth coming in from various entities. So I think we're moving expeditiously towards completing at least this initial batch of discovery. Of course, discovery will be ongoing probably for the duration of the proceeding, but we have provided nearly all of what we have to today.
- [10:04]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
All right.
- [10:04]
Judge
And to defense, any input?
- [10:07]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Not at this time, your honor.
- [10:08]
Judge
Thank you, Ms. Nestor. All right. Thank you, council, for your patience. As the court covered those preliminary issues, let's turn to the defense's motion to disqualify the Utah county attorney's office. Ms. Nest or. Sorry, Mr. Novak.
- [10:24]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
That's fine, your honor. That's okay. We actually have some preliminary things we want to discuss with respect to the posture of this motion. And I also think at some point, the court needs to decide at what stage the hearing on this motion remains open and becomes closed. So I'm going to keep bear that in mind in terms of my preliminary statements, if I may. When we filed this motion to disqualify, and when I say we, I mean Mr. Robinson's. Counsel. We fully expected that what the Utah county attorneys would do.
- [11:22]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Is refer the.
- [11:25]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
Motion to the Attorney General's office so that the Utah county attorneys are not in the position of representing their own interests as potentially conflicted attorneys and a potentially conflicted office and representing the state's interest in the prosecution. We heard informally from the state's attorneys that they were preparing a response and when it would be provided. And then what we received, and again, I'm bearing in mind that we're in a open hearing at the moment, was a brief where I'm going to say the unsworn representations of two attorneys from that office are basically integrated into points and authorities. We don't have affidavits from Mr. Gray or from the other attorney. We have argument. We noted in our reply that we were surprised. That's in footnote two at page four. That the Utah county attorneys were representing themselves in connection with a motion alleging that they have a conflict of interest and that the state was not being represented through the Attorney General's office. We did some further research on this, and, you know, we have some case law that we can provide the court. I suspect that the court is very familiar with the fact, just from its own experience, that in appropriate circumstances, the Attorney General's office can either one, represent the state in what was a county prosecution with respect to a disqualification motion so that the boundaries are clear, or if there's an ultimate finding or conclusion that there's a conflict of interest, take over the prosecution or assign it to another county. So we're very concerned that we're getting off on the wrong foot, if I can use that metaphor, because we have. Officers of the court who are both representing their own interests in continuing to be the prosecutors in this case and representing the state in a situation where there should be what I would call, at least temporarily, conflict counsel. I'm not sure that's the term the Attorney General uses. Representing the state's interests. There's a Supreme Court decision which is called State v. Jimenez J, I, M, E, N E, Z, which I can provide a citation for. There are subsequent cases, but it's pretty clear that this is the type of a case. I'm not saying that Jimenez compels that action, but it seems to me to strongly suggest that where there is a showing, I'm not sure what the. What the threshold showing is. I don't want to say it's a prima facie showing or a reasonable concern, but where there's a showing that there very well may be a conflict of interest that hasn't been handled by a particular state attorney's county attorney's office, that what's in the interest of the litigation of the public, of the parties is for the Attorney General to step in. And the citation for State view Jimenez, if I may, is 588 p. Second 707. Of course, I can provide the court with the Utah citation as well. This court actually has the authority under that case, State Vimes, to direct the Attorney General to step in, not for the entire case at this stage. That's not what we're saying is necessary because that requires a finding of a conflict of interest, but to step in or to designate somebody to step in for the purposes of litigating that motion.
- [16:08]
Judge
Okay.
- [16:11]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
And so we're very concerned that even going forward with an evidentiary hearing where members of the Utah County Attorney's office are both litigating as representatives of the state in a prosecution and essentially defending their own propriety of proceeding in this prosecution is problematic as far as being prepared. We're, of course prepared to go forward with an evidentiary hearing, but we think that it's improvident. And we think that what the court should do if the Utah county attorneys. Have not or don't, if given the opportunity, do this on their own, is that the court should designate the Attorney General's office for the purpose of litigating this motion. The court might ask, hypothetically, the question, has the Utah County Attorney's office conferred with the Attorney General about this particular question? And we are not in the dark because, as Ms. Nestor will tell the court, as an officer of the court, she's spoken with the Attorney General's office, and they have not been consulted about this. Okay. So this is a motion to disqualify county attorney's office based on what we believe is a material significant conflict of interest that it's clear they haven't even tried to address by way of a screening, which of course is a term of art, because their position is no screening was necessary. We're not even here to discuss whether the way in which a particular attorney was screened off was adequate. Their position as their own advocates is we've already decided no screening is necessary. So we've been told by the attorney general's office Ms. Nestor can represent to the court exactly what she was told, but basically that there has not been consultation. And While that is Mr. Gray's prerogative, we think it's wrong, and we think that this court needs to exercise its authority to intervene and Say in this case, for this kind of emotion.
- [18:39]
Steve Guru
The.
- [18:40]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
Court needs to hear from a representative of the state who does not even appear to have a conflict of interest. So that's our preliminary statement about these issues. And again, I hope I've avoided saying anything that should have been said in a closed hearing. I think I was pretty good about that. So that's where we are before we even get into the litigation of it. And I don't want to be formalistic, and I'm certainly not trying to be confrontational, but I think actually what the court, what we think the court should do is the court should strike the Utah county attorney's response to our motion and direct the attorney General to take up the responsibility for responding to our motion in whichever way clearly non conflicted attorneys representing the state think they should, how it should be responded to. And if I've muddled, I always say this, your honor, if I've muddled anything or confused anything, please say so and I'll try to clarify.
- [19:53]
Judge
Thank you. I do have some questions for you as it relates to this. I wish to consider all the authority that you wish to cite to. I mean, obviously you came into this hearing knowing that this is something you're going to present, and this court wants to be efficient with time, but thorough and not jumping to conclusions. Can you give me all the authority that you wish for me to consider in considering your request today?
- [20:23]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
Yes. And I think what we could also do, which maybe would be more helpful to the court, is that we could file a short brief on this particular issue. Because I will acknowledge that while we were surprised that the brief was filed by the same lawyers who are alleged to have this conflict of interest, it took us a little bit of time to. And we wanted to get that filed in time for today's hearing because the court set the hearing. It took us a little bit of time to think through these issues. So there are Utah authorities, there are authorities from other jurisdictions. There are also ABA guidelines on the prosecutors executorial function, which we think strongly suggest that there should have been what I'll just call a referral to the Attorney General's office for this particular motion. I can stand here and I can give the court case names and numbers and sections from the ABA standards. But it was not our goal to, of course, put the court on the spot and require the court to, you know, go back into chambers, think about it first, you know, some pressured period of time and come back out and make a decision. So if it would benefit the court for us to file something. And I don't mean in a month, I mean very soon, so that the court has thoughtfully presented points and authorities. We're happy, we're happy to do that. As far as I know, the only people who've traveled out of town from this hearing are Mr. Burt and myself. So I'm thinking about the convenience of witnesses and the court and council. It's important that we, that we do this in a way where the court has the opportunity to make a thoughtful reason decision, as your honor always says. So that's, that would be our proposal, is that if the court is open to receiving authorities, that we recess this hearing for, you know, whatever, whatever meets the court's schedule, whether it's a week or two weeks or a few days, and we can provide the court with something and we'll come back. But we, we do think this is a serious issue because I think the question of who litigates this issue on behalf of the state is in itself wrapped up in this conflict. And we want everybody to get this right.
- [22:50]
Judge
Thank you.
- [22:50]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Once.
- [22:51]
Judge
My question for you is, knowing this, why didn't you file a motion prior to today's hearing knowing that this, the court would be in this position based off your request to prepare the court, prepare opposing parties, and to be efficient in our use of time? I'm trying to understand, I understand what you're saying and I understand that things evolve, but I'm trying to understand why that wasn't filed in advance of the hearing to put the court on notice, the very minimum, and just to allow the court to do what the court does.
- [23:23]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
I hear what the court's saying and I think we can take responsibility for not sufficiently presenting the authorities that we think compel what I've just suggested should happen. We noted in our reply brief that the county attorney should not be representing themselves. And that's probably an inadequate message to the court. But we did file a motion to disqualify. And inherent in a motion to disqualify based on the conflict of interest we, we anticipated would be that the state attorneys would seek representation from a clearly non conflicted appropriate prosecutor authority, which as I've done further research and Mr. Burt and Ms. Visser and Ms. Nestor and I have all done for the research, literally up until earlier this morning. We think it's pretty clear that this court has the authority to make that. I'm going to call it a referral. I think it's an order referring it to the attorney general. If the state, if the Utah county attorneys choose not to do so. And the additional information which we did receive today, I'll just tell you that, was that there had not been any communication between the county attorneys and the Attorney General's office concerning this issue. So I'll fall on my sword if the court thinks I should be sanctioned for not bringing this up sooner. I. I hear that. I hear the court, but we are. We're juggling many aspects of this case all at the same time, some of which the court is aware of, some of which the court probably is not aware of, but the court can imagine.
- [25:20]
Judge
No, and I appreciate that it's not the intent to sanction you. I understand that issues come up and there's a lot going on. And so it's. The court appreciates your candor and representation today. These items can evolve. And so the court is not finding fault with you. It's just hoping that as it requires a lot of time and resources for you and for fellow attorneys and for the opposing party and for other parties, we just might want to make sure we make the best use of our time when. When we're together.
- [25:57]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
I hear everything the court is saying. I take it to heart. I understand what the court's saying. And we are cognizant of the time that the court devotes to preparation for these hearings. And so that's all I can really say, sir.
- [26:18]
Judge
And also for Mr. Robinson himself and the victim of representative Ms. Kirk as well.
- [26:24]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
We.
- [26:25]
Judge
We just want to do our best. And I understand, and I'm not finding fault with you, sir, or. Or your team. It's. We've all been in court. We all know what happens. So I understand. I'll turn to the state. Oh, and I'm sorry. Is there anything further that you wish to.
- [26:40]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
No.
- [26:40]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
Like, I could provide the court with more citations, but I'm just wondering if that's really the best way to give the court a list of verbal citations. I think with all consideration for. And we probably have. Yeah. With all consideration for the fact that the court wants to be thorough and careful. And we do as well. We don't want to shoot from the hip, but I think that we just decided that this was something that we needed to bring to the court's attention in a much more fulsome way once we understood not only the way this was developing, but, you know, frankly, the way the Utah Supreme Court, the ABA guidelines, courts of appeals subsequent to State Fee Jimenez. And, you know, the information that we received today from the Attorney General's office, which isn't a secret. It's just we had a conversation and we learned that there hadn't been any consultation. If there had been consultation and the attorney general had said, no, we think you're good to go, then that would be different. And that's what we learned this morning.
- [27:52]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
All right.
- [27:52]
Judge
Well, I'll go ahead and take those authorities right now. If you'd like to list them. Court is ready.
- [27:57]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
So the second one would be State v. Robertson, and that is also a Utah case. 886p.2nd 85. There's the ABA prosecution standards. I would refer the court to section 3.1.7 and 3.2.5 and those are, I think, the places to start.
- [28:22]
Judge
Is there any Utah rule on point that addresses this issue?
- [28:27]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
So the case of State Venezuela's, which I referred to, which is the Supreme Court, does actually cite a of state statute.
- [28:33]
Judge
Okay.
- [28:33]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Okay.
- [28:35]
Judge
Anything further that you wish for this court to consider at this point in the proceeding as it relates to this issue?
- [28:41]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
No. And depending upon the statements of council, we may, we may have some response if the court permits it, of course.
- [28:46]
Judge
Thank you. Turning to the state, Mr. Gray?
- [28:55]
Mr. Gray (Prosecutor)
Your Honor, I'm not sure why this is coming before us today. If it was such a surprise to them more than a week ago, I don't know why they wouldn't at least notify the court. I too represent the state. I'm an elected official, constitutionally elected to represent the state. Where does this end? I don't know these cases, I'm very interested to see whether or not they refer to trials. I know that the attorney, the Utah Attorney General's office, they've done the same thing that we have in Rule 11 motions where one counsel on the team cross exam or examines their boss, in fact, on the matter. So I just think this is ambush and another stalling tactic to delay these proceedings. There's no reason that they could not have at least filed the motion and asked for time to brief it. And where does it end? Do we get to respond to their motion to have the Attorney General's office respond, or does the Attorney General's office have to respond to that one too? I'm not. Well, anyway, I've stated my it should have been done far earlier if that was their case, if that was their claim. If I could just turn the time over to Ryan Casey has something else.
- [30:46]
Judge
Thank you, Mr. Gray.
- [30:48]
Prosecutor (Mr. Gray or Ryan Casey)
And excuse me. You know, this is, we're tag teaming this somewhat because it's a surprise to us as it is to the court. But in the five minutes I've had to Read Robertson and Jimenez, which could have been provided to me before this hearing. It looks like those cases don't stand for conflict of interest cases. They're actually, does the Attorney General's office have authority to prosecute cases that occur within a prosecution, district or county attorney's jurisdiction? And the answer is yes. It's not about taking conflicts. From the few minutes I've had to read those cases, I do want to state, This is, of course, the first time this has been raised to us. The defense has known that we, we were going to respond to this motion for some time. We requested an extension for our filing deadline back in December. The defense agreed to that extension. Our reply was filed January 5th. The defendant's reply was filed thereafter. And in that reply, the tone of that reply mentions that they thought that perhaps a special prosecutor would be appointed to handle the conflict case. But in the alternative says, we'll be able to. We want to subpoena witnesses to establish the facts that are laid out in the state's opposition motion or memorandum. And that was what we understood was going to happen today. You have a family member of a prosecutor who has been subpoenaed. An affidavit has been supplied to the court. We believe that affidavit is adequate, but it wasn't adequate from the defense perspective. So they subpoenaed that person. Prosecutors have been subpoenaed for today's hearing. We have two investigators that have been subpoenaed for today's hearing. And we are ready to go. Your Honor, I think that the motion or the request the defense has made assumes that a conflict does exist and that there's an inability of the party who has been accused of a conflict to defend themselves. And I just don't think that that's true. If there is a conflict, which is the question that this court is to decide, the case will be referred. Until that conflict has been established, the case is properly in the jurisdiction, in the jurisdiction that has statutory authority over that offense. And until that conflict has been established, the Utah County Attorney's Office has this case and can defend its involvement in this case. I got just a moment to review my notes and see if there's other points we want to make on this.
- [33:28]
Judge
Of course.
- [33:39]
Prosecutor (Mr. Gray or Ryan Casey)
There is one other point I wanted to make, which is the idea that the case would be referred, that. That alleging a conflict would cause a special prosecutor to be appointed. That really assumes that there is a conflict. And until that conflict has been established, there is no duty for the case to be referred to another Jurisdiction or another special prosecutor to handle. And it raises some of the issues that have been brought up in some of the case law regarding creating or alleging conflicts. There's a lot of case law that talks about how move cases from one prosecutor's authority to find a more lenient prosecutor, find a more favorable prosecuting authority that's not going to seek, for example, in this case, the death penalty. And there's a lot of case law that talks about you can't call opposing counsel as a witness in a case unless they're absolutely necessary. And the reason is because it can be a forum shopping effort. And we're concerned with that same kind of motivation or tactic that could be used in this case or other cases like it. Anytime you as opposing counsel, you don't like the offer you're getting, the way the prosecution is being handled, you allege a conflict of interest, and all of a sudden the county attorney's office has to spend $10,000 to hire a special prosecutor just to handle the that one issue, regardless of whether or not it's supported or whether or not a conflict exists. That's a concern we have, your honor, we're ready to go forward today. We think the evidence that will be presented today will illuminate the issues adequate that your honor can make a decision about whether or not a conflict exists. And we don't need to delay this proceeding any further. We're confident the court will see the facts as they are and be able to make that determination.
- [35:34]
Judge
Mr. McBride. So the motion has been made by defense to continue this hearing to allow the filing of a motion addressing more fully this issue. And to that request, what is the state's reply?
- [35:49]
Prosecutor (Mr. Gray or Ryan Casey)
We object to that motion to continue or to strike. We ask the court to go forward today. Day we think the motion is untimely. The court has or the prosecution has subpoenaed witnesses. And every delay that happens, the witnesses that we have, we have now family members of the prosecution being subpoenaed. These people are ready to move forward and get this out of the way. The longer we delay this, the more anxiety that this procedure has.
- [36:20]
Judge
All right, thank you. Mr. McBride to defense. Any response?
- [36:24]
Defense Attorney (Mr. Burt or Mr. Novak)
Yes, your honor. Thank you. First, I want to say this is not about seeking a lenient prosecutor. This is not about tactics at all. And it was actually. The county attorney's office who informed us back in October that there was a family member of a prosecutor who was present at utah valley university at the Charlie Kirk rally and experienced and witnessed certain things. We didn't make this up out of whole cloth. We didn't grab onto some piece of discovery and say, ah, a wedge, a tactic. The Utah county attorney's office informed us in late October that we needed to know about this. And we informed them, fine. That's your position. It's not a conflict of interest. We think it is, and we intend to litigate it. So it's not a tactic. It's not something that we've made up out of whole cloth because, like I said, we found a needle in a haystack. It's something that they properly brought to our attention. But we firmly believe that the law supports the conclusion that that particular prosecutor should have been screened off. There's good case law and screening, which we did fully cite in our briefs in a timely way. And there was no effort to screen off that prosecutor. And that has now created a problem for the whole office that is not made up out of whole cloth. And like I said, it's not about tactics or lenience or delay. This isn't delaying anything, at least on our part. The other thing that I want to point out is to simply that until this court decides there's a conflict of interest, Somebody else shouldn't be handling. This issue is circular because by that point in time, you've already. The court would have already allowed the conflicted attorneys to represent the state in a hearing on their potential conflict. So I actually think the way you avoid that circular argument and the sort of harm that arises if the court were to find that there is a conflict is to. At least temporarily have the attorney general's office handle this. Yes, Mr. Gray is an elected official, but that doesn't mean that his office doesn't have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interests arise. A judicial officer decides to become a prosecutor. A prosecutor decides to become a judicial officer. That's actually where most of the case law comes from. As your honor knows, a defense attorney changes careers and becomes a prosecutor. There has to be a screening. The case law is very clear that the screening has to be adequate. There's been no screening here because Mr. Gray decided. Decided. We don't think there's a conflict of interest. And what we're saying is it's not a needle in a haystack. It's not a tactic, it's not a fiction. It's not a, you know, a thin read. The evidence that the court has suggests, number one, that there's a very good possibility that as a legal matter, there's a conflict of interest. That's why we need to have an evidentiary hearing because the court doesn't have all the facts. And number two, that the Utah county attorney's office, because they decided early on, without consulting with anybody, that they didn't have a conflict of interest, didn't put any screening mechanisms in place. And so I understand that they want to defend the decisions that they've made. But the question is, shouldn't the state be represented by somebody else in the course of this court resolving whether those decisions were right? Because to quote the law and to quote the ethics, the Utah county attorney's office is now serving two masters. I don't like that word, but that's the word in the. In the doctrine. They're representing themselves and they're representing the state of Utah, and that's why the attorney general or somebody else designated by the attorney general should be representing them in this matter. And I do want to say one more thing, if I may, your honor, and I appreciate the court's patience. I think that the way we raise this issue in our reply brief is not as accommodating to just letting it go as counsel suggests. What we said. Is we asked, the question is whether it is even appropriate for the UCAO to litigate this issue on its own behalf. While the UCAO may have provided this court with the information that it has deemed relevant to this issue, the scope of the disclosures and litigation of this motion should have been assigned to another state agency, such as the attorney general. We didn't suggest that this court should appoint a special prosecutor for all purposes or that the filing of this motion means that the Utah county attorney's office is automatically disqualified from the litigation. That's the point of the motion, is whether they had a conflict of interest, and if they did, whether they handled it. And it's our position correctly, and it's our position that the answer is yes and no. So I understand there are witnesses here. People are ready to go. We think that. The court should either accept briefing or agree with us that the referral is appropriate. And I want to cite, if I may, the citation by the supreme court in Jimenez. So this is 588p. Second, it's 707, but this is at. 708. This is the statute quoted by the supreme Court. If at any time, after investigation by and a finding and a recommendation from the district judge involved, that the county attorney in any county is unable to satisfactorily and adequately perform his duties in prosecuting a criminal case without additional legal assistance, the attorney general shall provide such assistance. That's very broad. What that means in this case is it's inappropriate for the Utah County Attorney's office to represent itself when it is also representing the state. And that in for this motion, this court has the discretion, we would say, respectfully, the obligation to designate the attorney general to represent the state.
- [44:10]
Steve Guru
All right, we leave the Utah courtroom. We go to Donald Trump making comments in Florida at the Southern Boulevard dedication ceremony. Here's the president.
- [44:19]
Ms. Nestor (Defense Counsel)
Really nice. That looks very nice that you're carrying. That's it. That's beautiful. Thank you. Wow. That's the real deal. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. All top people in this room, really amazing people. And we have a lot of media back there. We appreciate that you're here. We very much appreciate that you're here. See, I'm being nice today to the media. I think I have. But a very special thanks to State Representative Meg Weinberger. The job she's doing is amazing, and she's going to do very well politically. I used to tell her, I don't know, that's a tough race. That's a tough race, but go do it. And she did it and she won. And a lot of people didn't think she was going to be able to win beating people that were doing it for a long time. You weren't doing it for a long time, but you've become a veteran very fast and you've done very well. Congratulations. We appreciate it. They call it magomeg. And now. And now when you have that, you can never lose a race. You can't lose. People just didn't understand that you can't lose a race. Right with that. Thank you, darling. Where's your husband, by the way? Where is he? Eric, My arm handy. Well, great job. Thank you very much for that reference. That was a very important reference. Thank you, Eric, very much. And speaking of Eric, I have Eric Trump right here, who's a great guy. He's a great young guy, and he's done a fantastic job. When I'm away, I don't know, I look at. I see things happening all over the world and him, the whole family has been so terrific, but Eric has been right there at the front, and I appreciate it very much. He's a great boy. We love that boy. We love that boy. Thank you, honey. Appreciate it. And I'm thrilled to be back in my home state of Florida and this truly incredible privilege. I moved down here. I love New York, but it was just. It just worked that way. And, you know, we won. We won Florida so much. And by so big. And it's been. And it continues, just continues. We even have Club 47 here. Look at these representatives. Used to be Club 45. Then they said, I think we're going to change it to Club 47. And we're having a good time. Let me tell you, we're doing really. We're doing a job for our country. We're saving our country. Because if they would have gotten in, this country would have been a place known as Venezuela on steroids. It would have been in big trouble. So we did. We did a job. And so many of the people, Gina, so many of the people in the room, they helped so much. It's incredible. So I'm tremendously honored that the main boulevard from Palm Beach International Airport to the beautiful Mar a Lago is being renamed in my honor. That's a very important stretch. A lot of people. A lot of important people. And I don't care if they're important or not, but important and not important people travel on that road. But I love the people of Florida. I love the entire Palm beach area. I've been here for a long time. And I want to thank you all for being here. I'll remember this amazing gesture for the rest of my life. And in particular, Meg and Eric and all of the people that work so hard for this. I also want to thank a man who's amazing. He's an administrator. He's one of the most talented people in the country at what he does. Joe Abruzzo. He's here someplace. Joe. What a talented guy. There's nobody better in the whole country at what he does. And what he does is not easy. But everybody respects him and everybody listens to him. And he's got great values, but he's got a great sense of design and everything else that you need. You need a lot of capability in that job, and you have every bit of it. Thank you, Joe, very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. And who is that young lady? Thank you very much. Fantastic. It's good to have you both. Let me also express my gratitude to all of the members of the Florida House, many of you whom I've gotten to know over the years. And the Senate, incredible people. I mean, literally incredible people who united behind the legislation granting me this great honor, including the speaker of the House, Danny Perez, who I think has a hell of a future. I don't know what you're doing, Danny, but what a future. Wow. Because he has an unlimited political future. But whatever you choose, I'm behind you 100%. You know that. Danny, thank you for a great job. Great job. And state Senator President Ben Albritton. I want to thank you, Ben. Good job you're doing. You're doing. Everybody's respected in this group. You know, they get a lot. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human down in Florida, although I can't say that's necessarily always the case. I guess you probably have a couple of people that you maybe not as friendly with, but you are great people. Ben, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Along with state Representatives Danny Nix, Chuck Brannon, Chip LaMarca, Mike Redondo, Juan Carlos Perras, and State Senator Debbie Mayfield. Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we're also pleased to be joined by many distinguished guests, including Congressman, a friend of mine for a long time, Brian Mast. Thank you, Brian. What a great guy. People love that guy. And another friend of mine and somebody. I mean, you talk about attorney generals. There's no better attorney general than this one. He better win this race, because I think he's going to. We're. I'm 407 and 0, and I gave him my strongest endorsement. And James Uthmeyer. So where is James? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're doing good. How are the polls doing? Pretty good. It's a blowout, but let's not say that. Let's say you're winning by one or losing by one. Doesn't make any difference. Get them out to vote. Right. It was an honor to endorse you and congratulations. Doing a great job. And I want to thank Ron, too, because Ron has been really behind us with Meg and everybody else, and we did have his back in 100%, and I appreciate it, and it's a great honor. Thank you very much. See you. Florida Agricultural Commissioner Wilton Simpson, who I've been with for a long time. Right. I've been with him for a long time, and I appreciate it. Thanks, Wilton. Appreciate it very much. Executive Director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Dave Kerner, who had so much to do with this. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Mayor of Palm Beach, Danielle Moore. She's a terrific woman. Where is Danielle? Thank you, Danielle. We're working on a little project. Nice, beautiful, clean, crisp water. Right. And she's leading it. And she's incredible. Just like her mother was incredible and is. Oh, where's Mom? I want to see Mom. Oh, there's. You look good. You look very good. I haven't seen a former mayor of Palm beach and Highly respected. Who's respected more, you or your mother? I don't know. It's pretty close, right? Pretty close. She says mom is respected more. That's good. A daughter better say that, right. Thank you, darling. Appreciate it. That's great. Thank you. Danielle, glad you told me she was here. Former Mayor Leslie Smith is here, who's great and a very formally, very good golfer. I think she's still a good golfer. Leslie. Where's Leslie? Leslie. Thank you very much, Leslie. Thank you. Thank you, darling. I appreciate it. We've known each other for a long time. Incredible people. And the members of the Palm Beach Town Council are here. Thank you all very much. You do a great job. You love the town. I love the town, too. I had a lot of choice on towns, and I said, this is the town I want to be in. So we all love it. And. And it's an honor to have saved Mar? A Lago. You know, most of these great houses went down. They went down rapidly. And they were subdivided into 25 homes, et cetera, et cetera. And I'll tell you what, this was an honor. But they like me because I saved the house. Somebody said they like me because you're a great president, but they like you more because I saved Mar? A Lago. Saving Mar? A Lago was, to them, more important. Thank you very much. I like you. Thank you very much. Mayor of Palm beach county, who I endorse, by the way, Sarah Baxter. Sarah. Hi, Sarah. Congratulations, Sarah. So we're at 407 and. Oh, we have to make sure that you're going to. But I think it's going to work out very well. Congratulations. You had so many people that said, you got to be with there. I said, I am. I am. So good luck with the election. I know it's going to work out very well. Thank you. Good luck. The members of the County Commission and the West Palm Beach City Commission, who are unbelievable people. They love the area. They just. They work hard and they're good. Where. Where are you? Can you raise your hands a little bit? Great, great, great, great, great. Thank you. Thank you. Great job you're doing. You know, we're all working together at this place. We have. We're working on a little water project, and if we can get the water perfect, that will be great. Mary, you're heading it up from this part of the world. And I know they're working in West Palm beach in the area, and we'll see whether it's desalinization or filtering. There's a couple of different ways we can do it. But whatever we can do, I think it would be great. We're working along with West Palm beach also, so. So thank you. And thank you. Mayor Dan Newland is here and Gina Louden is here and Linda Soch is here, and Larry and Sue Snowden are here. Thank you, Larry and Sue. Thank you. And basically just sort of like everybody is here. And it's really something special. We're pleased to be in the same legislation as it renames another section of Southern Boulevard and a very nice section indeed. I know it well. In honor of three brave motorcycle deputies from the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office who were killed last year in a horrific accident. Horrible. It was a horrible situation. But I saw a lot of. I saw so much love. I saw everybody in this room was there. Plus plus plus at our we had a ceremony in honor of these three incredible people. Corporal Louise Paez Jr. Who is just Luis Paez, was somebody was loved and respected by so many people. They all said thank you for being there in honor of her. And Deputy Sheriff Ralph Butch Waller Jr. And Deputy Sheriff Ignacio Dan Diaz. The three of them, what happened to them? This was unbelievable. Their ceremony was one of the most beautiful and saddest ceremonies that I've ever attended. But I was deeply honored to be there. On May 1, I bestowed the honor of first ever. These were medals that were worked on by my son Eric, very hard. We had a great jeweler. Can I say the name of the jeweler? Tiffany. And they came up with a really incredible medal and it's called the Medals of Sacrifice. And they did a beautiful job. And it was really led by Eric Trump. So I want to thank you, Eric, too. Thank you. And unfortunately, when events, certain events happen like that, and they do happen. They do happen. They shouldn't happen, but they do happen. We're going to do the medal ceremony and it's going to be something special. So today we pay tribute to them and to those, to the loved ones. Some of their family members are here. We love their family members. What they went through. Those deputies will live in our hearts forever. And Florida will remember them always with the PBSO Motorman Highway. PBSO Motorman Highway. It's a great, beautiful thing. I'm going to see it every time I go up that road. Today's dedication ceremony for President Donald J. Trump Boulevard is special meaning to me because I've always had the unique bond with the great state of Florida. We had tremendous success here. I've been part of the community for more than 40 years. We won big here in Florida all three times. We set every record every time. And in 2024, we swept 61 of 67 Florida counties. Nobody has ever done that. And carried the state by almost 2 million votes, which is the record. And then I was followed also from the governor's standpoint, with Ron, who did fantastically also. And we really. We've turned this state. There are a few Democrats in this room. I don't want to get into this, but we've turned the state extraordinarily red, I would say. Wouldn't you say? You'll find out. You're going to see. But over the past 12 months, Florida's Trust and confidence has really paid off because. Because he made a correct choice. One year ago, we were, I say it. Dead country. The king of Saudi Arabia. I was over in Saudi Arabia getting money for the. For the country. He put up $2 trillion, gave us. I'd like to invest in the United States. $2 trillion. It's a lot of money. And then I went to Qatar. Two trillion dollars. And I went to the United Arab Emirates. Mohammed. Two trillion dollars. So took in six trillion. That's why we have 18, because we got six from three countries. That helps. Right, Laura? Is that right? Hi, Laura. Boy, you are something. What spirit you have. Laura. Laura Loomer. Thank you, honey, for being here. I appreciate it. Geez, you know, she can be a little nasty, but to me, she's always nice, so that's all about it. I want her to stay that way, too. But I was over there, and he looked at me, the king of Saudi Arabia, he said, you know, I can't believe it. This was a few months ago. Took back all that money for the country. He said, I can't believe this is happening, because one year ago, you were a dead country, and now you're the hottest country in the world. And I use that quote all over. And it's true. We were a dead country. And now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world. We're taking in more income than any country. We're doing better than any country. The stock market is doing better than anyone's ever seen before. We have the best stock market we've ever seen. 401 s are doing better than they've ever done before. They're up 78% in many cases. But starting on day one, we fully secured our southern boulevard and stopped the. And think of it as we were securing southern Boulevard, making Florida great. We're also securing a thing called the Southern border and making that great, and we stopped the invasion of our country. So Florida has been ahead of our time. Florida was ahead. It led the way, but we stopped the. This was an invasion on our border. And, you know, I don't know if this is correct, because it can't be correct. It's too good. But for the last eight months, there have been no people that came into our country illegally. Now, I don't know if that's possible. How do you go from 25 million people? This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.