Welcome back. It's time for a quick bit clip. The full episode will be linked in the description,

but this is the quick bit clip to keep you in the loop for everything that's happening on the

live stream channel. Let's get into it. We are going to take a look at a federal lawsuit suing Judge

Canoni and others over the buffer zone created in the Karen Reed case.

This zone has expanded a little bit beyond what we saw in the first trial.

Will they come up with a response before the end of this trial?

We will see.

They should take it up on an expedited basis because the trial is underway now.

We have jury selection ongoing, and witnesses are going to start in the next few weeks at the most.

So the individuals that are suing are saying that their rights are being infringed by the buffer zone,

ordered by the court, and are asking for the federal court to tell the lower court no.

I went through the lawsuit against Judge Canoni, D.A. Morrissey, and others regarding the

First Amendment rights of protesters outside the Karen Reed trial. The arguments being that the

buffer zone is unconstitutional for enumerated reasons.

Because it is a prior restraint on speech, because it is protected speech, because it targets

just the Karen Reed case, the buffer zone order from the court doesn't say there can't be

anyone on bullhorns within the buffer zone.

It says you can't be demonstrating about the Karen Reed case on sound enhancing devices.

So there are some questions here, and this has been taken up to the federal court.

I still question whether or not individuals sought to intervene with the order in the second trial.

In their motion, they point out that they were denied the ability to intervene during the order in the second trial. In their motion, they point out that they

were denied the ability to intervene during the first trial when a buffer zone was established.

...