Blake Lively’s OFFENSIVE Fees Demand, Threat from Brian Hooker Resurfaces, and the UK’s Horrific Rape Gangs, with Jade Warwick

by my co-host and friend, Marc Garigos, criminal defense attorney to the stars.

“Let's start with the Blake Liveley case, this is like a vampire movie where the thing”

will not friggin die. It sets the bat. I'm going to tell you something, Matt, and I hate to interrupt you, but I want for those who might turn away saying, "I'm not interested in true crime." I turned in, I wanted to see draft kings, or I wanted to prediction markets.

I'm going to give you a lock in the prediction markets. So, I'm going to set this up, Matt, because-- Yeah, it's a good boy. So, for those who haven't fallen in the case, you already know, for those who are kind on the periphery, there were two lawsuits in this.

There was her lawsuit against Jason Belldoney, and Jason Belldoney countersude her. Blake Liveley settled in her case, and now the last housekeeping matter is attorney's fees for his case, which was dismissed by the court under what's known in California is

an anti-slap motion, and Blake Liveley is now demanding $8 million.

So that's our-- That's a set up. That's a set up. Thanks. So, those who are in the weeds, there is a section in California, it's called 47.1.

Part of the settlement agreement was that they would carve out, and they left for judge Lyman to decide whether or not to assess damages and attorney's fees for Blake Liveley's lawyers winning the anti-slap. The judge already ruled, they're not getting damages, they're not getting triple damages, they're not getting punitive damages.

But he left for another day, and that day has already started to come, the determination of whether they get their attorney's fees. Now mind you, there was all kinds of scorched earth litigation on both sides, and so when he did that, he--the hidden being judge Lyman. In fact, I was Matt this talking regrettable and sister in this morning, you know, Greta,

and Greta used to practice as a criminal defense lawyer in Washington DC, we were talking about judge Lyman's dad, Arthur Lyman, who was a legal legend, and the idea that his son, who was already telegraphed kind of his impatience with his litigation in a lot of ways, that they then came in and he said, "Okay, let me see your fees bill.

You and I did another show," and we laughingly said, "They've requested $8 million."

And I said, "It would not surprise me in the least if Judge Lyman slashed that to $80,000. And do you disagree the idea of doing an anti-slap and asking for $8 million in this case?"

“Oh, I mean, at what point do you just burn all credibility with a federal judge, Mark?”

I mean, $8 million, I mean, this is something that this was a--there was a former sponsor. Of course, the facts would have to be inserted. This is already on somebody's computer, I guarantee it, and they probably spent maybe a week or two working on that before submitting it to a federal judge. How do you justify $8 million in that, Mark?

Like, I don't. I--so it looks like what they did was rather than parse it out for how much time was spent opposing the--what's called the--the counter--what you described and what-- accurately is the counter-motion of the counter-su, and doing it by way of an anti-slap. No, they just throw in everything, and they claim it's $8 million.

I have--and I said this to you, Matt, and I looked last night, you when I talked about this yesterday. I don't think I have ever seen any anti-slap fees award in the state of California that has broken a half a million dollars. The idea that you would have the unmitigated goal to submit a bill to a federal judge was already expressed some misgivings about whether or not this is a violation of free

speech, and has already said, and you've already stipulated there is no appeal. So back to my original statement, if this becomes a question on the prediction markets, I'm going to give you a little unsolicited advice.

You can always kick back some to me when you win the money.

“You should take the over and under anything under anything under a million bucks, and I don't”

know what the odds are that they give you. Take it and run, because this judge is that. I'm telling you right now, save the tape.

So what do you think happens after that Mark? If she gets awarded a dollar or they planning a big victory flag in that, I mean, it seems like it's, they're going to declare a victory in your amount of what it is. I'm sorry, Matt.

You've never practiced in Big Law, and I have something with the old expression.

Some of my big best friends are in Big Law. Big Law calculation is, this judge is going to see 8 million. Although he's going to come in and say it's worth about 50 cents, and they're hoping the judge as they, you know, they really underestimate the intelligence of this judge. I mean, they figure you'll never go broke under estimating the intelligence of a Southern

District judge. But the fact remains, they think the midpoint is 4 million bucks or 3.5 million bucks, that the mind goes there, and that that's the midpoint. And therefore he'll, the proverbial, salamonic cut the baby in half. That's also not going to happen.

No way, right? That's the middle ground fallacy, right?

“The truth is not lying in the middle, almost ever, right?”

It's, in this case, mind you, the judge also is a sentient being. He's got neurons firing. He knows, at a certain point, that there's insurance companies that are standing behind this. I don't know if lividly lawyers are thinking, okay, there's a tower of insurance.

We know what the insurance coverage is. Maybe there's a 5 million policy or a 5 million retention, and maybe there's a 2.5 million layer over that on the tower, or maybe there's 5 million over that. And so we're going to try and leverage the insurance companies to maybe settle this. There's some, I just don't, it's incomprehensible to me to your point.

And you are, you are articulated, a lot quicker. Why would you burn your credibility at this point? Yeah, I mean, maybe they just figured they got nothing to lose.

They're never going to appear in front of this guy again.

I don't know. Neither of us have ever practiced law that way. A lot of people do, right? They ask for some outrageous number that they know, even close to what's right, and hope that the judge splits the baby, and they get 10 times more than they're really entitled

to. Right. I had this experience last week that I was in a mediation about a month ago, and it went nowhere. The world's worst mediator who will remain nameless.

So it turned out because I was too reasonable coming out of the box, because I was through it, the big firm on the other side, they interpreted that as, oh, he doesn't think much of his case. I mean, it's just, it just, that's the thinking.

“It's, oh, if you don't ask for 9 or 10 figures, you must not think much of your case.”

As opposed to, no, I don't want to see it all day, going in increments back and forth of $100,000. It is so different from our world, Mark, and I've had, I have sat in a couple of mediation towards like that, and it's like the real mediation that doesn't even start until you're about six hours into it, and you start, and you start talking real numbers, and I talked

to a buddy of mine who's also a former DA, who I know you've dealt with over the years, and it's Ed Flores, great guys, he's got his name in to go to the bench, Ed says that he walks after an hour, every mediation he will leave, as soon as they start that, because it's going to take you four hours before you even talk about realistic numbers, and it makes no sense to me, I don't get it, but they all seem to do it, right?

And these guys, doing this in the playclively case, I think it's a huge mistake, if I'm the judge in that, you recognize it exactly for what it is, like he said, and I stick them with maybe 50 grand less than what I would've otherwise just for coming in demanding eight million bucks. That's me, this judge, maybe more judicious than I would be, but I would be, if I was

him, I'd be so over this at this point, and he knows exactly what's going on in us,

“more than we do, and they're going to get, I think they're going to get substantially less”

than what they want, and to be honest, I kind of hope they do. So, what you do, you immediately, if you understand what they are, the shenanigans that they are pulling here, it really is offensive, because the law is clear in anti-slap. You don't get all of your fees for time immemorial, the judge is supposed to, and you're supposed to parse out what the fees, what the costs are, that pertain to defending that

counter motion. You don't get, it's not like, oh, I just won the lottery, and I get to pay for my entire litigation.

So, that's the first offensive thing.

Then, to go back and forth with the judge, basically putting yourself into a box here, where you're saying to him, okay, we want you to give punitive damages, no, we're not

We want you to give damages, judge says no, I'm not going to do that.

And now you're just going to throw 8 million up there, what do they think their clients

are so stupid that the clients are going to say, oh, you asked for 8 million, it must

“be the judge's fault that you didn't get the 8 million?”

Yeah, you know, this is one of those things, I keep thinking that she and her ego have been driving this litigation, but you see, some of the legal moves in this, and I don't want to criticize lawyers, I don't know, but it makes you wonder, it makes you wonder, they're just, how much of it is her and how much of it is just some, some loyering for lack of a better word that just makes me scratch my head, I don't know, there are certain

times, look, there are certain maxims that lawyers should adhere to. One is, you don't slam an client, and a lot of lawyers find that hard to do. The client sums you out, and you're a biter about her, the client doesn't pay you when you have to withdraw.

“The natural kind of human reaction is to, to denigrate, and that's against your”

number one. Number two is this idea that you just do whatever the client tells you to do, and you kind of suspend any judgment. That is that client's higher a lawyer, and you know what, I've had it happen. You may have to tell a client, no, I'm not going to do that in the client may fire you, that's, that's fine. Understand your, your advice, your stock and trade is your time and advice. So why are you going to outsource that to

just let the client do it? And as I always tell the client, if you were having brain surgery,

would you want to stop, say, hey, take me out of the anesthesia right now, and then tell the brain surgeon what to do, I, it makes no sense. You either do your due diligence going in, find out who your lawyer is, either trust their judgment, understand that they've got a plan and a strategy, and you buy into it and listen to them, or you just find another

“lawyer who will, and I think, unfortunately, is what happened. When lawyers just do whatever”

the client wants, and it ends up in disaster, there's another case, and too bad I can't articulate it, because it would denigrate an ex-client of mine, but I know for a fact that the lawyer was doing what the client wanted, and it ended in disaster. And it's unfortunate, but you see it, right? Well, with a list celebrities, especially, and probably nobody's defended more of them than you have mark over the years. I think they live in these little

bubbles where nobody ever tells them no, right? They're just, they, they're so use that, but as a lawyer, I've got a, I put a provision in my retainer where I can fire them if they refuse to fall and vice, and I've done that. It's a great cause. I love it. Yeah, it's like your judgment

and decision making is what got you into this mess in the first place. We're going to use

my objective thinking to get you out of it. You don't get to keep making horrible decisions, and I don't know. I'd love to be a fly in the wall for some of these conversations that that must be going back and forth, but I don't know this case. I don't know why I want to be just soon. I want to be a fly in the wall in the chambers of Judge Lyman as he's talking with his clerks. I want to hear what, you know, the southern district is a place in and of it's own.

And I, I can't imagine. I, like I said, I've said before to you. I don't know this particular judge. I only know his paternal roots, but the idea, if you've read his orders in this case or his opinions or the transcripts, the idea that this is where that after all of a base, a year of scoreship litigation, that this is your final coup to go out with kind of typewriter keys blazing in terms of your or your Cleo-building blazing makes. He's over it. He's over it. Yeah, he's over it.

So let's, let's comment real quick on this Brian Hooker thing. This is the guy with the yacht that everybody's been reading about that in the Bahamas who's investigated by the Bahamian authorities after his wife disappeared. He came in with kind of a crazy story. And just recently, court documents from his ex-wife were made public where he had a temporary straining order issued against him where she articulated all kinds of different threats that he had made

allegedly during the course of the relationship. Or he basically said, you know me an accident may happen to you. That's all in court documents. But she actually passed away a couple of years ago. This is really interesting Mark and I wanted to ask you about this anyway. In California for the viewer, we have a thing called 1109 evidence evidence code section 1109 that allows other

As a homicide prosecutor, that's the kind of stuff that you want to see if there's background

on this. And you've got a missing woman, especially in a no body case, that can be gold. But Mark can even lay the foundation if she's if she's dead. There's no there's this is interesting for for the legal kind of crosscards. As you know for 1109 and then before 1109 the standard 1101 which in California at least is a common scheme bodice upper and die, whatever you want to call it. The thing that would resonate or game

traction that a prosecutor, in my opinion, I'd love to hear it where you think. And then a judge would

wrestle with is you may die from an accident. And then why? Because now you've got the claim of the

defenses. It was an accident. You know, oops, she thought up the boat. And look, you know, 20 what was this? 21 years ago? 25 years ago when this happened? That is the counterweight to the fact that it would seem to be probative or at least go towards a common scheme. But as my old man used to say I don't know how many times you've seen. If it's old enough to drink or it's old enough to vote, it shouldn't come in. So I can't tell you the number of times. And this one is both old enough to

“drink old enough to vote. And if it were a mail, it would have a fully formed brain, because I think”

it's 25 years old. So I wonder if, yeah, so again for the viewer, it's evidence code section 352, where a judge is supposed to analyze that and consider the probative value versus prejudicial effect. The prejudicial effect of that would be through the roof. The probative value for something that is 21 years old, yeah, you might, they might just keep that out. That's something that's some federal prosecutor and vision is sitting in a room right now trying to figure out if they

got a shot of getting that sort of evidence in. But what's also interesting is it makes you wonder what else is out there, right? Like what else is in his background? Because we call them thumpers, Mark, like the guys that you got chocours, you got thumpers, you got guys that seem to specialize in different forms of domestic abuse and they, they don't really, they don't really differentiate very much from relationship to relationship. You can get five different women who don't know

each other and never mad. And when you interview them in the course of investigation,

the guy will have engaged in the same thing over and over again. And he is uncanny.

“How is the same pattern? Yeah, it really is. But I don't know. I think, I think I'm with you on”

that. 21 years is a long time, especially when you have these other evidentiary complications. Like she's dead. I don't know if you could even lay the foundation for the complaints. Apparently there's two kids that are still alive. But they, I mean, they're adults now. But there were vague allegations of abuse of the children. So maybe they can get it in. They can get something in. If there's an eyewitness to some sort of domestic violence, but that's not any of the court documents specific.

Right. They haven't put that in. And if it was abuse of the kids, my guess is a judge leans towards exclusion. If the kids were witnesses, recipient witnesses, to the abuse of presumably their mother or the the woman who is now passed away, then the judge is going to be on the fence. And it really becomes, is it a signature? Does it really, does it really give you or supply something that you wouldn't have otherwise? And can you somehow either sanitize

the prejudicial effect or minimize the prejudicial effect? Because to your point, it doesn't get much more prejudicial. Now, this is going to be really interesting to see how this takes on. It looks like they're taking their time and analyzing it, they're continuing to work up probably all the equipment they can and her Apple Watch and all the other stuff we've heard about. So we will continue

“to cover this case. I think it's really interesting. So next, we are joined by Jade Warwick.”

Jade is a British American political commentator and host of the Warwick report. And she joins us to discuss this independent rape gang inquiry out of the UK. This is really, really interesting. It's a huge deal in the UK right now. But American audiences aren't, I think, as tuned in. So please stay with us and we're going to come back with, I think, a very, very interesting guest.

host of the Warwick report, Jade Warwick. Welcome, Jade. First, I was going to be

telling us about ourselves yourself. But I want you to know, this is our second week that Matt has got us on an international tour. And I'm very happy about this because there's so many

“domestic cases we obsess with. And so I think the hooker case got him to be”

and I'm not saying about a prostitute, but the name of the suspect is hooker. But bringing you in to give us a little bit of the Warwick perspective, welcome. And thank you for joining us. I thank you so much for having me. I've been listening to you guys for a while now. So this is, this is really interesting, guys. So for our audience, I want to kind of do a broad overview here. There's a phenomenon. I can't call it anything else happening in the UK right

now with this UK rape gang report that is unlike anything I've ever seen before. So Mark and I both have long backgrounds in sexual assault in courtroom and California. My whole background is especially with our clients. Yeah, I spent four years in sexual assault before I went to homicide

“and half of the cases I did in homicide were sex related. And I just submitted to”

transcript of my second book, which is the analyzing serial killers from a sexual assault perspective.

So I started reading about this, Jade, and I was absolutely blown away. Almost nobody is talking about this here in the US. My grandmother's from Leeds, too, which is Yorkshire. I know you're from Wales, but I got some roots in the UK. And of course, the rest of my genes are all Irish. What in God's name is happening in your, I guess, former country, your UK, you're here now in the US, right? But what is going on with these grooming gangs and the rape gangs? Give us an overview.

Overview. Well, yeah, thank you so much for having me and just a little background. I'm Jade Warwick. I'm a British American commentator. I left the UK about 10 years ago actually

to do with the rape gang inquiry, because I got attacked physically, not sexually, by a group of

these men. And when I went to the police, they told me I shouldn't have been in that area because it's a no-go zone. And the perpetrators are protected by what they call sharia law as an asylum seeker. And so I was just pushed away and I felt like my own country had abandoned me. So I sought after freedom and the right to protect myself and so I ended up in America. And unfortunately, we're seeing systemic racism within the United Kingdom. And the perpetrators are mostly

Pakistani brits. So whenever a victim would go to the police, they'd say, "Well, you're being Islamaphobic or racist, so we don't want to hear your claim." So Richie Suznak, I'm sorry, Suznak, he's the former prime minister of the UK before pure starmor. He said after he came into power and they started looking into this phenomenon of rakeings that political correctness had essentially failed the victims. And just to give our audience an idea in this rape gang's report that's recently

been released, what are the numbers that they're talking about as far as the number of victims that have been subjected to this? So a conservative valuation is 250,000, but many people who are involved in the legal and policing system believe that it is far more. And statistically, is it one out of three sexual assaults actually get reported? So we're probably looking at a much higher number. So what are the interesting, yes, we're going to say, I got introduced to this

in the most backwards way. There's a recent movie that is out in the trailer is kind of gone viral with somebody who is a vigilante, a lot of a... - Pigeon T. Sussan. - Pigeon T. Sussan. - Bile character. Yeah. Yeah. Can you disc... And that was out of Germany, but if I'm not mistaken. But this apparently, I mean, can you give a little color as to what actually we're talking about, because I did a deep dive on it after I saw that, because I was... I said, this can't be right,

this can't be true, and then I'll let you articulate it. - No, of course. And thank you for bringing that up. Yeah, without Elon Musk buying X, most people wouldn't even have heard of the movie,

“and he made it free for, I think, 48 hours. The movie touches upon real cases, true stories,”

and the failures in Europe. I believe that Europe is crumbling due to this mass migration and saw in assaults on women. So the movie, I think the scene you're talking about,

by now, but spoiler alert, he's a vigilante. He goes and kills everyone. - Yes, I'm pretty good.

“- Yeah, spoiler alert, he calls or has the people call over every member of the gang,”

and it does not end well for the gang, but it's astonishing. I, it's catnip, I suppose, and it kind of, it's titillating in a weird sense, but it does get your attention and it did get you thinking to your point. - Yeah, you know, it's a judge. Sorry, Jake, go ahead. - No, you got him. - Yeah, so there's a judge that Mark and I both appeared in front of many times, especially me, his name's Greg Jones. He's a former public defender, lifelong Democrat, and one of the best

people I know actually, fantastic judge. And he used to say, whenever you mix politics with

prosecutorial power, you have a toxic cocktail every single time. So this is, this is one of those things. One of my big interests in this is that, you know, when we're talking about politics, when, and the protection of children, and a lot of these, or a lot of these victims are 12, between 12 and 16, this really should be above politics, it should be above ideology, it's the state's responsibility to protect, especially our children. And when you have this,

the systematic organized sexual abuse of children, I don't think we've seen anything like this in the U.S. Mark, how are we like it to be, to Jake's point, I'd love to hear it. Jake, can you speak to the Sharia law aspect of this? Because there was some bubbling up of this in Texas a couple

“of years ago, and I think this is for a legal anomaly, legal audience, it's interest thing.”

- Yes, of course. And I do have to correct you, unfortunately, some of the victims were as young as 11, and in other cases, which are related to this report, they were even younger. So, it's just horrific to think about, and yes, it shouldn't be political, it should be based on morals. Morals being, we should not be assaulting children, I don't know why that's so difficult for the British government to comprehend. But in Sharia law, I mean, the basis of it is Mohammed

and Ayisha were a couple, and you know, she was considerably underage, and he wed her and concentrated it around those same ages. So, you know, the Islamic scholars, they like to say, well, it's part of our religion, you know, if she has met sexual maturity, we should be able to

“marry her, and this happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, places in the Middle East, that are governed”

by Sharia law. - Yeah, and you know, this is not something that's new, Matt's heard me talk about the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, and the Ottoman Turks back in 1915 through 1923, this was a kind of a method or an operation of subjugation, and it's awful, and the idea that 12-year-olds and 11-year-olds are being, and it's not, so you understand, this is not just in the main situation where somebody gets married off, I mean, that's horrible enough.

A lot of these are violent, just a horrific attacks, I mean, that are that are kind of sadistically in the most awful terms, possible, to what they do to these people. It's just awful. - Well, it's also, one of the things I read is that a lot of these victims, Jade, it appears that they're in a central, we would call foster care, or they're in state homes, and they're, you know, sex crimes, as Mark and I have seen over and over again, they tend to prey on the most vulnerable

victims always, and it seems like a really high proportion of these children are in state care.

Is it, is there where you've seen? - Yes, that's correct, and of course, you know, these evil people are going to target children that don't have a strong family system or a, you know, support system around them, so these kids, and I can speak from experience because I had to go into some sort of like foster care in my teenage years, um, they are abandoned by the system, you know, you have like weekly check-ins, everything good, yeah, cool, but that's about it, and even if you

bring up a problem, nothing really gets addressed. - So what's the deal? People are reporting it, and they don't, they're, they're leaving the, they're not getting into the, the cultural aspect of it, um, like system, systemically, what can be done differently? What are these reports pointing towards, as far as addressing this problem on such a huge scale? - Well, so you had the

authority that, you know, heard the claims from these victims, but instead of reporting them,

and acting on them, the fear of racism, accusation, Trump, they're willingness to actually help the children, so in the UK we have several laws that will criminalize free speech, and will criminalize hate speech, and if something is considered Islamophobic or offensive to Muslims or Middle Eastern as, you know, you can actually go to jail, you can go to prison for that. - Yeah, it's mind-boggling, you know, Europe does have this, you know, I mentioned the Armenian genocide, France for a while,

criminalized the denial of the genocide, as much as I like that theoretically, it's also,

“it's important if you're a free speech absolutist, and this problem is shows the real harm”

that it does, because Jayda, if I'm not mistaken, as I understand it, even the accusation is push back

again, you can't even make the accusation without it being framed as racist, sexist, or anti-anti-Muslim, and that, to me, is just mind-boggling, that's like the opposite of the me-two era in some ways, it's kind of a, it's a perversion, and it's speech that where where speech has supplanted what the act is and the act is evil, and it makes zero sense. - And by the way, if Mark and I, if we could be jailed for offending people, I don't think I would have made it. - I wouldn't have gotten that if it's

not going to go to Mark. - I wouldn't have gotten that if it's great, but, but to Jayda's point, Jayda, you know, you've told some stories from based on what I saw, can you give a couple examples

“of some of these real life situations where have you interviewed the people and their experience?”

- Yeah, so I mean, I was definitely one of the victims to a smaller extent, but I had spoken to several girls in my school, in our high school, and we very much feared walking home a specific way, even though it was the shorter way back to our homes, because we would go through an area which was considered a no-go zone, and it was where the government was housing migrants, especially from men or countries, which is Middle Eastern, North African, and I know of one girl who was sexually

assaulted, and she doesn't want to talk about it even to this day, and that's, I respect that, but it's unfortunate, yeah. - Have you gone online to address something like that? Like, if you live in the UK, still, Jayda, and you actually, you wrote something or did a podcast within the UK, where you say some of these things, you criticise a group, you say there's a cultural element that, of course, could be offensive to any religious group, are you actually in fear that you might

you might run a foul of criminal law? - No, of course, I'm sure there are several laws that criminalize speech, and I've broken almost all of them being in America, and I do risk prison time if I go back to the United Kingdom, so I haven't actually seen my family in many years now, due to me speaking out from America, they would not treat me as an American citizen, you know,

with my first amendment protections, they would treat me as a British national, so I would potentially

go to prison for a very long time. Tommy Robinson also was jailed several times when he was reporting on the initial trials of the grooming gangs. - Yeah, you just, let's just write a thing this up. One of these guys got convicted, he's 74 years old, and so this is not like, this is not a conspiracy theory or a viewer. A lot of these have been adjudicated, there's been these grooming gangs, these organized sexual abuse groups. One of these guys got out, he's got

Pakistani and British citizenship, his British citizenship was taken away in 2012, Jade, you probably know what I'm talking about. He just got released, his victims are all saying that are worried about about their own safety, and they won't deport him back to his country of origin, even though he's

“no longer a British citizen, but if you go home, you're actually there, there is, well, you have to”

worry about being arrested because of some of the things that you've said in the United States, is that right? - Yes, under the labor government here in charge of the United Kingdom right now, speech is a far more serious crime than actual violence, which the e-blows my mind, and for your American listeners, the conservative party in the United Kingdom is still very left-wing, so conservators and laborers are on the left side of the spectrum, and then you have reform and

has power. - And then, and you articulated exactly a lot better than I did, the idea that speech

“is worse than action is something that for a lot of us is incomprehensible, but that's exactly”

what you're describing. - Wasn't there some comedian, Jade, if I'm not mistaken, that took some shots for himself at a gun range, and in the gun range. - Oh, so that's UK? - No, no, no, you said for stories, yes, so the comedian is Graham Lennahin, he was arrested at London Heathrow for three offensive ex posts, and he was the writer of Father Ted, a very funny man, but he's an Irish citizen that was posting from the United States, so he wasn't even a Brit in the United Kingdom, completely separate,

but he got arrested upon landing, and then the firearm incident you were talking about was

forgive me, I forgot his name, but if for his 50th birthday he came to Florida and did the most American thing you can do, go to a range, and he fired some firearms, had a great time, posted a picture

“on Facebook, upon arrival in the United Kingdom, found out that he had broken some laws because he had”

offended people by posting a firearm, and for years following that, he has been harassed by the government, he has been harassed by police, members of his family were called in for questioning, even though they weren't there, but posting an image of a firearm was considered offensive. - It's like, this is so unbelievable from an American mindset, so this guy, I didn't know that the comedian was Irish, so he and not like from Northern Ireland, it actually the Republic of Ireland,

is all right, so he's a foreign national, just like Marker I would be, so you said, I should tell my travel plans to the UK, we actually be arrested in the UK, I guess we could, right, for saying the wrong thing, or saying something offensive, and Marker-- - It depends. - To stay out of politics, we talk about crime and legal matters, but you know, all things lead to politics eventually, and there's certainly crossover with Americans

to actually run the risk of being arrested in the UK. - So it depends on if your case has been broad to contest, which is the British law, it's not really a law, but it's where they consider if your case actually is hate speech, and then they'll do a full investigation into your online profile, they'll see what you said, they will consider it to be grossly offensive or not, and go from there. For example, I think I have 14 cases or something ridiculous like that that's gotlandy odd,

because a lot of my videos got millions of views where I said some things that were rather offensive to Brits and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, even though it was factually accurate, it was rather offensive. - Well, Jade, I'm not trying to add a 15th case, but what kind of things opens

“a case in the UK? Would you have to say to open a case? - So let's say, for example, you make a video,”

and you say, "I think due to Bachabarzi and Muslim men wanting to cover women, I think that they're

gay." That becomes hate speech, and let's say your video hits a million views, which might

went way over that. Muslims in the United Kingdom can be like, "That was offensive. Let's contact contest and basically make a referral, and then you get investigated, and let's say that you announce that you're going to the UK if those victims then report to contest that you're coming, they could stop you at the border." - Wow, wow, wow, so full circle, this has come back that fear of making offensive statements has led to kind of either the intentional or unintentional

suppression of marking the cultural aspects or the organized nature of some of these sex crimes, and it seems like it's gotten out of control. I have a lot to learn about this. I am so happy that you joined us, and we would love to have you back on it. I'd love to have you back on, Jade, just to talk about, we don't have to talk about this. I'd love to talk about some of the juicy true crime cases that I've read about from the UK. I mean, UK is like the, it's almost like

the Florida of Europe in my country, so many juicy murder cases and crazy stuff, so we'd love to have you back. Thank you so much for joining us. - Thanks, Jade. - Thank you so much for having me. - Thanks. - Where can the audience see you, Jade? - Yeah, on all social, I am the Warwick report,

Next up, Matt and I go into one of our tales from In the Well, which usually is kind of an arversion of can you top this, so stay tuned. - Welcome back to In the Well. It is story time, Mark, can you give one? - Well, on the break, we were talking to Natasha about my nickname for you, which is sex king, and you could take that one way or another, that there used to be a DA here in LA that I used to call this sex queen, because she was the prosecutor, prosecutor all the sex crimes,

and you were clearly an orange county, and it reminded me that story about the older, when Jade was talking, it reminded me of the guy, and I've mentioned this before, and I swear it was out of your unit, and I remember him in a wheelchair in the Fullerton courthouse, and one of the women in your unit was prosecuting him, and he had either been castrated, or he was paralyzed or something, and I actually asked her, I said, "Why are you doing this?" and she said, "Because from

above the neck, he still is much of a pervert as he always was," and something to that effect,

“and I think you remember this guy. - No, I remember seeing that guy in department five,”

came in at a wheelchair, and I can't remember if it was Rebecca that had her beck a high line, but so it could have been, it could have been. - One of my colleagues, and I talked about this one in my book, Mark, and you know this guy, Ted Burnett, and I might have mentioned this on the show, but let me tell this one again, so my end of my first week in sexual assault, after my first case load, and I had about 40 cases on there, and I read through those, and I thought that there

could be nothing left in the world of human depravity after reading through those 40 files, and four years later, when I rotated out into homicide, I realized I just scratched the surface of

human weirdness, but at the end of my first week, I went over to a buddy of my name, Ted Burnett,

and I'm like, "Ted, what's the deal with these guys?" And he hit me with that line, he said, "Because you are in the world of greenworms and the brain." He said, "These guys, they have greenworms and the brain. Nobody knows how the greenworms get in. Nobody knows sure shit how to get the green worms out, but as long as they continue to draw breath, the greenworms are going to make them want to continue to sexual abuse people." And that philosophy really, it's interesting, because he's not

wrong. The questions, how much of a danger they continue to pose, and even a guy on a wheelchair, I guess, from Rebecca's perspective, still posed a danger, and I don't remember the facts of that case.

Neither do I except that I was always struck by her comment that from the neck-up he was still a danger

in the end. Yeah, and you know, these sex cases are, they really are on a spectrum, right? You got, you can have that weird 18-year-old who grabs the butts and boobs of his two 13-year-old cousins

“in the back room at Thanksgiving, and that is technically that is a multiple victim molest, right?”

But that's not the same thing as that predatory guy waiting in bathrooms or jumping out of bushes, yet the same laws could theoretically apply to that guy, and that guy technically mark could be open to multiple victim life enhancement, and you've seen those cases before. So if I were, you look at it with a rational mind, and you think the laws about to come down too hard on this guy, and that does happen. But then of course, you know, it's designed for the real predators that are out there,

and this, I'm really glad she came on with us because it's, what's happening in the UK is absolutely blowing my mind. I got a lot more to educate myself on, but this is one that hopefully we can come back and I can continue to get your thoughts on it. I couldn't agree with you more because I, the video that I mentioned, which was a clip from the movie, and it was obviously designed to kind of get your attention, or draw it into it. And I thought I was being bait and

switched at first, but a little bit of research, and it turned out that there is a legitimate issue here, and I can't just reflexively dismiss it as kind of, you know, a Charles Bronson 2.0 or 3.0. So yeah, well, and it's also striking a chord, right? Like that early 70s, reason why the mechanic in deathwish, and, you know, the dirty hairy movies were so popular early 70s, it was striking

“an emotional chord with people, and I think that movie, and for those who haven't, haven't heard of it,”

I love that Mark brought it up. It's called Citizen vigilante, and it has gone absolutely viral,

Apparently, but he's out there canceling people left and right, so I guess. Yeah, well, I downloaded

“that. I haven't watched that yet, but, okay, so I will spoil it up. Yeah, it does spoil it for me.”

She started too, so I try to cover my ears. All right, so thanks. Thank you so much to our guest,

Jade Warwick. Thanks to my co-host Mark Herigos, as always, and thanks to all of you, sincerely,

“for tuning in into the well, and I hope everybody has a fantastic fourth of July weekend.”

Yeah, you too, Matt. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Bye, bye.