[Music] [Music] Heat. Hey, [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Good evening everybody. Thanks for being here. I'm Nate Eaton. I'm Erica Eaton. And as you can tell, we are in uh Idaho right now. No, we are in Cabo San Lucas on the beach. This is going to be the most interesting courtroom insider we've ever done. We don't know. We can't judge if anybody gets buck wild back there. I know. We have no idea. We're We're on the beach. Erica is so smart. She was able to strap my phone to our umbrella uh holder so that we're in the shade. But we wanted to give you a beautiful view. Lean on for a minute. This is where we've been this week. And we've had a great time. Yesterday we rode camels and ATVs. What else have we done? We've eaten tacos. Tacos. really good tacos. We've walked a lot. We've seen a lot of cool shops and murals and things, right? And we had a real issue, a really stressful issue before we even got here that we'll tell you about at the end of this video. Um, on Sunday, we got word that our hotel reservation was messed up beyond anything. And so, we had to scramble less than 12 hours before our flight to find a new place to stay. And it was kind of exciting on Mother's Day. That was our whole Mother's Day. Hi. Oh, no thanks. Thank you. Yeah, but we have people that might interrupt us. Just bear with us. Um, all right. But we have to talk about Lorie Valadel because she was in court today and it was interesting. We watched it here on the beach and don't worry, it's the only work I've done. Right. That's pretty true. Mostly mostly true. Yeah. I've been able to not work. Uh but you know, we had to watch Lorie Valow Debbell and we wanted to bring you along with us here on the beach and talk about what happened. Um so what this hearing was is a pre-trial hearing because her trial is scheduled to begin jury selection at the end of the month and then her actual trial will begin June 2nd on Monday. So this was kind of like the last hearing to make sure everybody was ready. And what do you think of it? I don't think Lori is ready if that's the question. It it was interesting. I um have commented to Nate several times how patient the judge has been. Um I don't know if you want to go into that first. Yeah, why don't we leave with that about Lori basically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to to for him to recuse himself. She said that he has shown a bias toward her. This was after he went through several motions. Uh but this was probably the most fiery part of the hearing. So we're going to uh play that for you right now. This is what happened at the end of the hearing after several motions were discussed after the judge had granted one of her motions. She asked for more time to meet with her legal team during lunch and the breaks of the trial. And the judge said that's okay. He was going to allow that to happen. They worked with the sheriff's office. The sheriff didn't oppose to it. Didn't oppose it. And so he did grant one of her motions today. But here's what happened when Lori asked the judge about giving her about recusing himself. Your honor. Yes. I would have to ask that you would recuse yourself from the obvious personal bias that you have against me and send us to master calendar for this scheduling of a trial. And what personal bias is that? Um, a lot obviously the personal bias that you're showing right now and that you've shown on the FTR several times during the trial. Okay. Well, I don't have any personal bias. All right. I've overaccommodated you on when you have to disclose things. In fact, your expert should be summarily precluded today, and I haven't done that. All right. So, you denied every single one of my motions since for a year and a half that I've been here. Every single one of my motions has been denied. And have any of those motions not have merit? You've denied every single motion. I think I was here this morning about 15 minutes ago when I granted your motion to meet with your attorneys over the lunch hour. I have granted other motions of yours. Okay. That's the first motion that you've ever granted. Well, in my file motions that have a legal basis and I might grant them. So, you're saying none of my motions have had merit? Not Not many. No. And none of the motions that my first team you you denied everyone in my first team's motions. You denied every one of my second team's motions and now you denied every one of my motions until today. I haven't denied every one of your motions. Every single one of their motions was denied. Every single one of the second team's emotions were denied and all mine. So, you didn't come into this with any bias against me in the first place? Again, file a motion that has legal merit. Okay. And none of my attorneys ever filed a motion with any real merit? They filed a motion on your behalf, the first team, to preclude media coverage, and I issued my ruling according to the law. All right. They filed a motion to have you dressed out uh not in jail clothes during hearings like this. Okay. That was not based in law. I denied that motion. So I've ruled on the motions as required by law without any kind of a conclusion of law in them. Just denied, denied, denied, denied. Does that not show a bias and a prejudice against one single person? All right. Are you done? Are you not going to recuse yourself? No, I'm denying your motion. Anything else? So, that was an interesting moment. Yes, it was. Yeah. Uh, it'll be interesting if Lori has that type of an attitude during the trial. I guess we'll see cuz we see different Lories, it seems, at different trials. Uh, so the judge denied that. Some other issues that were talked about are witnesses. I want to go through the state plans to call or what they've said is they plan to call or refer to the course of testimony or in documents. So it's I'm reading it is they're not necessarily going to call these 22 people, but they could or they're going to refer to them or documents they have written. So you want to start with Gilbert Police there, hun? Gilbert Police Department. We've got Jason Biggs, David Fraer, something like that. Tammy, he made me do this on purpose. Black Chick. She hasn't seen this list. Nolan McDermott, Ryan Pillar, Maryanne Rob, Patrick Young, all Gilbert police officers, some are retired now. Yes, Tammy is a retired crime scene specialist. And some issue was brought up today during the trial about Lori wanted more information about something that happened. All we know is it's sealed. So, we don't know much about that testimony, if they'll even call her or refer to her. Chandler Police, we have Nathan Duncan, who was the case agent in the last trial. He will be called as a witness or could be called. Mesa police Vanessa Vanessa I'm sorry Milky Milky. Yeah. Lisa Perry, Emmy Lynn Sepinoso and they're all forensic scientists except Miss Sapinoso is a retired forensic scientist. Phoenix police, we have Kyle Mueller, Kyle Mueller, he's a forensic scientist. Department of Public Safety, we have Thomas Olsac. He's an expert. Uh Rexburg police, Ray Hermesio. We're gonna hear from Rexburg police detective Ray Hermesio. You know, you've met Ray Hermes. I have met Ray. Lovely man. He was not called as a test as a witness in the last trial, although he did come for a day or two uh to be there from the FBI. Nicholas Balance. He's an expert. He's also an undercover guy. And they talked about that today in the in the hearing that he is the one witness who will not be shown. You'll be able to hear his voice, but the media, we cannot show his face. that happened also in Idaho. You were able to hear his testimony, but we could not uh see his actual face cuz he does undercover work from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, Thomas Miller. And now we have a list of civilians and the victim, Brandon Budro, he will testify in this trial. Uh but we also have some other people. Robert Anthony Abbottco, Elizabeth Jane Collins, Timothy Zayn Dlo, Lynette Mendoza, Dan Moss. Yes. Are those familiar people to you? No, I don't I no Brandon. Besides, I don't recall these other people. Um, so we'll see if they get called, but definitely a whole new list of witnesses here compared to the other trial and the trial in Idaho. And you guys know way more than me, especially Nate. Why would a DEA officer be called? That's really I don't know. That's an interesting Drug Enforcement Administration. Maybe drugs are going to be brought into this. They tried to drug in before. That's never been said, right? No, they haven't said that before. That's all speculation. I'm not a reporter, but maybe they have. Maybe that will come in or I just wondered. Or it's possible he responded to the call. Maybe they did some tests. Um yeah, that that'll be interesting why the DEA expert needs to come in. We know the FBI Nick Balance will have a PowerPoint he did in Idaho like kind of showing the movements of of um that that day around that time. And next week, what we're going to do, at least before the trial, I want to go back and break down that surveillance video from the Rexburg storage unit. Remember, we got in there, we've got into the unit, and there was movements of Lori and Alex and Chad going to and from that storage unit. In fact, they removed the tire from the back of the Jeep. And then Alex drove to Arizona that night. And then the next day is when Brandon was apparently shot at. And then he turned right back around and drove to Idaho. And then they put the tire back on. They removed a seat out of that Jeep, too. At least that's what the video showed. We'll break that all down next week. You'll have to watch Courtroom Insider. Sadly, we won't be here. Yeah, we'll be back in a studio. And then Arizona. Uh here's what the here. Okay, so we're talking about witnesses. We haven't seen Lorie Valow's witness list, at least publicly yet, at least by the at the time we're taping this. But she did bring up a few of her witnesses that she wants to call, including Melanie Gibb and Zulma. Here's how that exchange went today with the judge saying, "What relevance do they have?" And Lor's response. Motion for no restraints in trial dated May 6th. I I don't know in your motion. I don't know where you get the idea that the sheriff's office recommendation ever was that you have no restraints at all. Their minimum recommendation was that you wear a rack below. Well, I have it right here and I copied it verbatim. Yeah. You said what it said was my recommended minimum requirements as listed above and those were to wear a rack belt. It said or the recommendation of MCSO was that they could have a unarmed detention officer and an armed deputy sheriff. if I was to not have any restraints. Right. But that wasn't their recommendation. I've received uh the defendants's motion. I've received nonparty Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan's response on the MCSO security justifications. I was my understanding is that is was his recommendation. Your honor, Joseph Vhill for the sheriff's office. If you have any questions. Oh, okay. Uh well, I'm I'll deny the motion from the defendant. The same conditions will be set that we had in the first trial. That being you wear the rack belt, no leg brace. There was one incident during the trial where you asked to take a break because a strap was hanging down behind your jacket. Uh we did that. We rectified the situation. And there's no indic there's been no indication whatsoever that the jury noticed the rack bell or um anything like that. So I think those conditions are appropriate and will remain for the second trial. Your honor, the jury was not pulled to see if they noticed anything either. Was that correct? Right. There was no request for that. All right. So, next we have the state's uh pre-trial statement indicate there was some witness scheduling issues. If we get the jury sat on the 30th and impanled on the 30th, the last Friday in May, and we have our opening statements and begin testimony and evidence Monday, June 2nd, you indicated that the state indicated you would run out of witnesses either Wednesday or sometime Thursday. Correct. That are available that week. Yes. Right. And then you so we'll definitely go dark on Friday the 6th. I had initially indicated we would be in trial on that day, but if we don't can't have any witnesses here, we'll be dark on that day and we'll indicate that for screening purposes for the jurors. I think we'll still indicate that we'll be in trial on the 5th and we'll have to play that by ear. Maybe we will be dark, maybe we won't. But as far as when you resume on the 9th, you said you thought you would have three witnesses left at that point. Correct. Do you do you have an anticipation? Are those witnesses witnesses that would each take a whole day or I I think it's possible I could finish that day. So ultimately what I'm getting at is trying to drill down the schedule and screening for the jury. Do we not need to screen them for the week of the 23rd? I obviously I just received the defendants's uh 15.2 that lists two different expert witnesses. Um I did request that they actually comply with rule 15.2 and give me any information about any of these experts. They've also listed other witnesses. So because of that um I would still screen them for the other week. Well, maybe we should um address that. Does is there still no report from Lonnie Dworin? that the states received? I have received nothing. Right. Do you have some sort of expert report you were disclosing? We will, your honor. Yes. When Well, when is that going to be? Because it's way past due. So, we the state did receive the affidavit from Lonnie explaining the things, which is why they turned over late discovery in the middle of trial. So, we did have that. Um he's working on a few things for us as well now and I will get with him as soon as possible and get that report to you as soon as possible. All right. Well um it's depending on what's in that report. It is likely to be precluded at this point. But u keep an open mind on that and I guess we'll wait and see. Let's talk about I for the purposes of scheduling. your honor. And just there's there's one other person that I Googled. I'm gonna ask her about the other witnesses. Um I received your supplemental witness list I think yesterday. Um you have in addition to Mr. Dorin, you have Weaver Barkman. Again, Detective Moffett, Jeffrey White, Melanie Gibb, and Zulma Pastanis. Pastanius. Zulma Pastenis. Okay. Um, was Detective Moffett also involved in this case? He was involved with the case agent of this case while he was the case agent of the other case. Correct. Okay. So, he may or may not have he may have relevant information. Again, I guess that's a wait and see. What about who's Weaver Barkman? So, he's a ballistics expert. Is that an expert? So that's an expert. Do you have an expert report that's been disclosed? Not yet, your honor. We're working on it. And your honor, since I have not noticed a ballistics expert, that's a big problem because if I get something, then I would have to do that. So the defendants's again extremely late violation of all rules of criminal procedure. Um is a problem. It is a problem. Um who's Jeffrey White? My investigator. Oh, okay. Um, and do you have an idea of in what capacity you think he would be called? Well, we had made a request from the state for the car door and the window that the bullet supposedly hit and we were going to have him inspect that as well. We have recently found out that those two things do not exist. So, I'm I'm not sure what they're going to be putting up as far as ballistics in their case and chief. So, I was trying to have someone who could be able to look at whatever reports they're trying to put up and rebut anything that they're saying. Is Mr. White an expert in that area? Mr. Weaver? No, I said Jeffrey White. He's my investigator. Right. That's who I was asking who has relevant information. What's Mr. White's relevant information for? Why might he be called as in to trial because he's interviewing the witnesses as well? The defense witnesses. So was some sort of extrinsic impeachment if they correct. What about Melanie Gibb? So Melanie Gibbons and Luna Pestinas were both initially noticed in the states 15.1. Um they have not noticed them again. I don't know if they can still call them if they're on their list, but have you they have relevant information to this case? Have they been presented for an interview by the state? They've both been interviewed multiple times by the state. I mean not by police officers. I mean by either a prosecutor or someone in her office for in preparation for trial in this case. Yeah. In in either case, not that I'm aware of. Have they been subpoenaed? The subpoenas are out. What relevant information would they have? They have relevant information to Brandon Bjo. Okay. And around that time, what was the nature of that relevant information? It will come apparent if they have to get up and testify on it. I will only call them if I need them. Be procluded if you can't give me some minimal what relevant information they have. Just saying that they're relevant doesn't make them relevant. Okay. Yes. And is this procedure that I have to say what each of my witnesses are relevant ahead of time and give my whole case and chief over to the state? It is. That's how it works. That's the rules of law. Stop interrupting me. Yes, that is the rule of law. That's just what the state does. They tell you what relevant information each witness has. So, my answer is yes. So, if you can't tell me what relevant information they have, they'll be procluded. They both have had dealings with Brandon Bjo and Alex Cox. So, okay. So, does someone uh you know that was a server for them at a restaurant. It doesn't make them have relevant information as to this case. Anyone who came into contact with Mr. Bedro or Mr. Cox had some interaction with them at some point in their lifetime does not make them a relevant witness. So what is their relevance? The state had them on their witness list and you're saying they're not relevant. Apparently not. Are you calling them? No, I they're not on my police interview. However many people they interview because they're working on the case, they don't know who has relevant information, who doesn't have relevant information. All the people that they interview don't end up being relevant. So, because they're listed in a police report somewhere doesn't necessarily make them relevant. Okay? their relevance lies and if I have to rebut something that the states puts on in their case and chief. They're just called in case they need them. They're subpoenaed in case I need them. All right. It sounds like they don't have relevant information. However, I'll include these names on the witness potential witness list for screening the jurors if the jurors have any knowledge of any of these witnesses out of an abundance of caution. Um, that's really the purposes for today is the w the questionnaire that goes out to the jurors. So, I will include these witnesses again, uh, Mr. Dwarkin, Mr. Barkman, if they're expert witnesses that haven't been haven't provided any sort of report or expert witness testimony, they're likely to be precluded as witnesses, but I'll include them on the witness list. So, that was her response to witnesses. Now, in her last trial, of course, we didn't hear from one witness, right? She just rested. In her first trial in Idaho, we didn't hear from one witness. She just rested. What do you think's going to happen at this one? I think the same thing's going to happen. I don't think that Melanie would have a nice thing to say about Lori, and I don't think she'd want to take that chance calling her on the stand. So, I'm not really sure what she intends to do for this trial, but and the chance is that you not only would have Lorie question her, but the prosecution would then cross-examine. Yes. And Melanie did speak in the Idaho trial. So did Zumma. But also, it sounds like Lor's expert witness might not even be admitted. So then who's left other than Lorie herself? I I'm thinking at this point, you're right, that there might not be a defense. Again, I could be wrong. I hope there is one. Well, the issue seems to be timeliness for Lori and getting things ready when she's supposed to. And so she has stunted herself many times over, just not doing the necessary work to get people approved for court, to get subpoenas issued, to get subpoenas issued, to get people knowing when they're going to testify. And the thing with this is uh the judge has told her if you're not ready, you can continue this trial and be ready when you have witnesses ready, when they can show up and testify. And she all along has said she wants a speedy trial. And that's why she's not really ready or or at least they're not. And I would I would imagine her defense council would say that, too. Um all right. So there there's what we know about the witnesses. We'll see what develops there. We do know that the state has said it's going to take them 7 to 10 days, but based on what Trina K said today, the trial is going to go Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. That first week, Friday, the judge originally wanted to have court, but Trina K is saying that that by then they should be through all their witnesses except three. And those three cannot come on that Friday. So, they're going to come on the following Monday. So, there will be no court that first Friday. Possibly no court that Thursday if they go through the witnesses fast, which we're kind of hoping cuz Elliot has pre uh kindergarten graduation. Yes. That Thursday. But, uh regardless, then it sounds like Trina K the following Monday and Tuesday could be done even on that Monday. So, you could have five trial days and then Lorie Valow Del could do whatever she's going to do, do closing arguments. This trial could be done in two weeks. Hello. Uh, this is what the statement that Trina Kay wants read to the jury. The state alleges that in the days leading up to and including October 2nd, 2019, Lorie Valow Del and her brother, Alexander Cox, conspired to commit first-degree murder of Brandon Budrogue. The state further alleges that Lorie Valow's co-conspirator, Alex Cox, drove a jeep that belonged to Lorie Valow from Rexburg, Idaho to Gilbert, Arizona. The state alleges that on the morning of October 2nd, 2019, Alex Cox shot at Brandon Budro from the Jeep as Brandon was returning to his house at I'll the address. Brandon Budro was not injured. Now, um that's what she wants read to the jury. Lori had an issue today by even having her name on the jury form. So, the judge explained that what's going to happen is these juror e questionnaires are going to go out to potential jurors in Arizona and they are going to read these forms. If they recognize Lorie Valow's name or they've watched the news or courtroom insider or whatever, they need to notify that. Well, Lorie doesn't even want her name on there and says that the names of defendants are never on juror forms, which isn't accurate. But here's how bad exchange went with the judge. So, I'll finalize that questionnaire. It's pretty much done and it's pretty much the same as the last one except for the names of the witnesses, the specific allegations. And then I removed the question about viewing medical examiner uh autopsy type photos um because that's not needed in this case. But I'll give I'll send you guys out a copy. Actually, I could probably finish it in the next couple minutes and print out a copy so you have it before you leave here today. That questionnaire I need to get with the jury office. I think we were talking about sending it out the 22nd and cutting it off the 28th or 27th and then we'll meet again on the 29th in this courtroom to go over the responses. That'll be at 100 pm on the 29th. Your honor, in light of the juror misconduct or the alleged juror misconduct, h I have to object to us having so much information go out about my personal information in that jury questionnaire. Do you not think that was a problem? What what personal information? The the state versus Lorie Del. It's the name of the case. Yeah. You don't put that on anyone else's question. I don't know one other person that's ever had that questionnaire ever put out with their name on it. They just don't do it. Do it in every trial I've done. Then the people are just going to Google it and then we're going to have the same exact problem we had getting a jury for that case. We're going to have the same exact problem. Are you done? Are you just going to keep Okay. How do we screen for if people have heard about you if we don't include your name? Do you have a response to that? I'm just saying you gave him the name and they're just going to Google it. They're instructed not to Google it. All right. And if you'll recall when we had all the jurors come in in person, one of the first questions I asked them in the afternoon was, "Who has looked up this case since you filled out the questionnaire?" And we had two or three people raise their hand and those people were excused. So, I have to include your name to screen out for the people that have that know about your case. And we released about a hundred jurors last time because of their answers to that. If we don't include your name, that's a hundred extra jurors we have to go through in person and ask if they know you. And in fact, that increases the risk of tainting the rest of the jury pool. If we have someone stand up and say, "Yeah, I know about her case in Idaho where blah blah blah." in front of the rest of the jurors. That'll burn the whole panel. We'll have to start over. So, I'm gonna include your name in the questionnaire. I don't think there was any other personal information or background information about you in that questionnaire other than your name. So, was there any other issues you had with the questionnaire? No, your honor. So Lor's name's going to be on there and if you've heard of her and you get a form, you need to notify that and uh let that happen. So uh let me see if there's anything else in the filing that the state had. No. Oh, the state actually uh moved to strike their intent to use the defendants's other acts, which is interesting because they said they wanted to bring in her other acts from Idaho, like the fact her convictions and even Charles Valow. Sounds like they don't even need to they don't want to admit that anymore. So they may just solely focus on this particular case. That probably I would imagine might be for an appellet reason to just stick to this one because the more you bring in, the more chances there are at appeals and whatnot. So yeah, that's what we have now. Any other takeaways from today's hearing? Um, no. The dynamics were interesting between the judge and Lorie today, I thought. Um, I'm just interested about all of the things we don't know yet about this trial. I feel like obviously with the other cases because we have somebody who was deceased, there are like physical evidence things. I don't feel like we've heard a ton of the physical evidence of this trial yet and what will happen and obviously someone that's a witness to the actual ongoings of what was going on. Yeah. A victim. That's a great point because this is the trial I feel out of all of them has kind of been in the background like because the others have been so there's been murders actual murders and now we haven't learned we don't know a lot about this one. I mean we know that Brandon was shot out when he was coming home from the gym. We know that it was Alex most it was Alex in that Jeep, but what was going on ahead of that with text messages and and emails and whatnot? That'll be interesting. And you mentioned the drug angle. Will that come out? Yeah. Um, the other thing that many of you are asking right now, why isn't Melanie Palowski a witness? I'm asking that, too. Melanie Budro, that's a great question. Um, she wasn't mentioned by either the state or the defense. And I I don't know. Why hasn't she been charged? That's been another huge question many of you have had there. Obviously, in the prosecution's eyes, I guess she still could get charged. I should clear clarify. I don't have any inside information other than they probably feel they don't they don't have enough. They didn't charge Chad either. And they they felt that the reason they didn't charge Chad and his fingerprints were all over this too. And the reason they didn't charge him is because they said they didn't feel that they had enough to get a conviction on him 100%. Lorie's kind of at the center of all of this. They must feel that they have enough to get a conviction on her with Charles and Brandon. They already did on Charles. So yeah, Melanie nothing. And I hope I hope to talk to Melanie one day about all of this um on the record so that you know you you all can hear from her. But yeah, that's that's that's a big question. Another question many of you have had. We're not going to take your questions tonight. By the time you watch this, we're going to be on a pirate ship enjoying dinner out there. Not a pirate ship. A ship with pirates. It is a pirate ship. I mean, it is a pirate ship, but we're not going to be like at our own will. We're getting on the pirate ship. We're doing kids excursions. Yes, we are. So, here was our dilemma. There was one, it's a sunset cruise. One of them had all you could drink alcohol, we don't drink, and appetizers, and so we'd be surrounded by a bunch of drunk people, which can be fun. Or two, it's a whole dinner with chicken and ribs and drinks and pirates and kids. Can't beat that. We left our kids behind to get away from them. So, at least we don't have to like watch our own kids. So, anyway, by the time it's a joy to watch our kids. That's what he is. Big shout out. No, thank you. Big shout out to my parents who have been watching our kids this week. Um, so I was saying all that because we can't take your questions live, but a question that many of you have emailed is, "How do you watch Lor's first trial in Idaho?" The answer is you can't. There were no cameras in that trial. But what you can do is listen to it. We have it all on our YouTube channel, East Idaho News. Every day at the end of each day, we requested the audio. We downloaded all of it. You can go back. you can watch or listen to each day. And we labeled them by day. Day 1, day 2, day three, day four. It was much longer than 7 days. It was like 6 weeks. So, if that's how you want to find it, you can. If you want to watch Chad's, you can also do that. We have all those on our channel. There was actual video from the court. And then Lor's past one you can also watch, too. Um, we have all of those labeled, but that's how you can find them. If we were law in crime, we would AI animate the trial for you with the audio footage, but sadly we cannot. Yeah, we were just watching the the Diddy trial that's happening right now. I don't know if you're watching that. If you are, let me know in the comments. Law and crime is actually taking AI and creating moments from that hearing, from that trial, and you can um you can actually watch it, and it's AI. And we watched a clip the other day. What' you think? I did. He looked real. I mean, it it looked very um you can tell it's AIish, but in a dramatized sense if you were watching like a Lifetime reenactment, I thought it was close. Yeah. No one had like 17 fingers in it like a normal AI videos. And they said they have human there actual court transcripts and they have AI read the what the people are saying. It it was it was a little surreal, but I could see how people might get into it. So anyway, um that that you can find all those videos and audios there along with every courtroom insider we've ever done from day one. Several of you have emailed and been like you're watching them all to get caught up on this trial. So there's that. As far as the schedule ahead, I'll be taking I'll I'll be in Arizona again uh right after Memorial Day. Be there that week leading up to it. The jury selection will begin later that week. We'll do courtroom insider live from there. I think I might be taking another Teton Toyota car. So, oh, look at this. I wonder if they'll put him in the camera. What's this? Oh, no thank you. But if you could see what's happening. Yeah, he's going to walk by behind it. See, there you go. Two lizards. You never know what's going to happen. We are prime spots because we're sitting underneath an umbrella right by a main beach entrofare. So, a jeweler just set up a bunch of jewelry. No thanks. No thank you. Um, and we already got hit up by the massage people, which was nice. The bracelets are coming out. Thank you. We have the um iguanas. No, thank you. We're on live. All right. Um, we So, well, the courtrooms deciders start there. There was one or two other questions, but I don't remember if I remember. What I do want to talk about for a minute, we're going to switch gears here to give you a warning. We have a warning, a vacation warning for when you book through something like Price Line or Booking. I don't know about Expedia. We've used them before, never had an issue. But boy, did we have an issue with this trip? Yes, we did. Do you want to start with a few weeks ago when we found the deal? So, a few weeks ago, we had booked uh a package deal for flights in a hotel and it was and it was great, but then um we decided to switch hotels because we didn't want a party atmosphere and the review said if you like puke by the pool, stay here. So, we swapped out. So, this was on Price Line. We booked a flight in a in a hotel all together all-inclusive resort, really good price, but we could cancel the resort. So, we cancelled it because we found a really good deal on another place. And it was um Are we naming these places? Maybe we'll name it in a minute. I don't know. It was four nights at a 4 and a half star resort for total fees and everything around $350, which already had me thinking something is going to go ary with this. This can't be right. But it's also like one of those vacation club things that I thought maybe they just plunk the prices down to fill the rooms at a time share type resort close to the date. We only booked this a couple weeks before. Yeah, we decided to do this like two weeks ago. Really? It was kind of a we we had this week planned for another trip with some friends, but then they ended up not being able to go. So, my parents were already coming up, so we're like, let's just go somewhere. We looked at New York, which was more expensive than here. Pretty much everywhere was more expensive than Cabo. So, we booked this other resort and it and it said all fees, everything included, resort fees, whatever, um were included in this price or that we would pay like $100 when we got there or something. Yeah. So, we were really excited and we could cancel until May 1st. Something just flew into my eye. May 1st comes and goes. No issue. Sunday, Mother's Day. We flew out Monday morning at 5:00 a.m. Sunday afternoon cooking dinner for my mom, for Erica, and a Mexico number calls. I'm like, "Okay." So, I pick up the phone, and the lady on the other line was very polite. Her name was I'm not going to say her name, but she was from the resort, the new resort that we booked. And she said, "I want to let you know that the the price that you paid online is not the price you will pay here. When you come here, you will be paying more." There was an error. And I said, "How much of an error?" And she said, "You will be paying," she told me the amount in pesos, but it was $1,800 American money versus 300. I said, "You're kidding me, right? This is a scam." She's like, "It's not a scam. I'll hang up and you can call me back if you want just to see that it's real." So, I'm like talking to her like, "Well, we leave tomorrow." Like, what are we supposed to do? And imagine if we had like our kids with us, right? It would have been even more. It was the two of us. So, we're like frantically pulling up other deals or trying to find a place and we couldn't find any really, right? Like in that price range. Everything had gone up cuz it was the night before. Yeah. The night before. So it wasn't last minute deals. So she she we went back and forth and she said the lowest she could go was 900, which I will say is not a bad price for a week. It wasn't all inclusive, but there were other places that you could get a better deal earlier on than that. Sure. And she told me she was calling as a courtesy, which it was. She said, "I didn't want you to show up to the resort and be caught off guard." Because so many other people this has happened to. when you show up to the resort and you're caught off guard and um you need to um you need to pay the extra money. So, I'm like, "Well, let me call you back. We'll see what's going to happen here maybe if we're going to go with you." So, then we get we get looking and we're like, "Maybe should we just do the $900 one." Well, then I pull up the reservation and it said free cancellation until May 1st. Well, this was May like 14th or May? No, May 10th. We're going to time warp. So I'm like, we they where are we gonna have to pay for this? And the other thing, so I call Price Line. Priceel Line says, "This isn't done through us. This was done through Booking.com." I'm like, "Well, I booked through Priceeline and they said, "Well, yeah, but we worked through Booking cuz we couldn't fulfill it. You need to talk to the Booking.com people." So I then they transfer me to booking. I wait on hold forever. booking comes on and she's like, "Well, no, no, no. They have to honor this price. If they don't honor this price, then we'll help you, but you need to go to the hotel or we're going to call the hotel and see." She puts me on hold. She calls the hotel. They don't answer. She gets back on the line with me. She's like, "They have to honor this price. Go there. They'll honor it. Not a big deal." I'm like, "All right, they have to honor it. Hang up the phone." I'm like, then we got talking. And we're like, "Well, what happens if they don't honor it and we get there?" So then you call Hilton. Oh, I just said the name. It was the Hilton Cabo Azul. Cabo Azul Vacation Club in Cabo San Lucas. Warning. Oh, and not only that, we go online and what do we see on But you can still book it for the same exact price, $350 on Expedia, on Price Line, all on all the sites. So we're like, well, wait, if we rebook it, are we going to have the same issue? So you call Hilton and I call Hilton and they basically say, "This is a booking problem. This is not our problem. You need to contact them. There's nothing I can do for you." Which he was very spicy to me. This was not the local resort, right? This was the 800 number. This was this was just the helpline. Very spicy telling me, "Ma'am, I know how to do my job and I'm telling you there's nothing that I can do." Good day. Not a good experience. So then I call Booking.com back. The lady answers. I go through this all with her again and the phone gets disconnected as she puts me on hold. She then emails me and says, "Sorry, we got disconnected. The hotel has to honor your reservation." And I'm like, "They've told us they're not they're not going to honor it." And this is now hours into This is like 5 or 6:00 at night, the day before, like less than 12 hours. I call Booking.com back again. The guy answers. He says, "How can I help you?" I said, "I really hope you can help me. Here's the problem." And he's like, "No, sir. What needs to happen is you need to go to the hotel and they have to honor it. If they don't honor it, call us and then they have 45 minutes to respond to us. And if they don't respond to us within 45 minutes, we will then help you find another place." And I said, "Let's just No, we don't. Not only we will help you, we will email you something and we will give you suggestions." Suggestions and a small stipend for the inconvenience. But he didn't tell us that it was a small stipen. He just said, "We'll email you and and give you some money to help you find another place." I said, "Can you please just call the resort now so we don't have to do this all again tomorrow when we get into town and who knows if cell phones are going to work?" So, um, he puts me on hold for a long time, like 30 minutes. He comes back on the line and he says, "We called the hotel. They could not find your reservation. So, we have cancelled it and we're going to email you with some options. So, they email me and they have four options. And they said if we booked one of those, we got over a,000 pesos, but it was 67 American extra above what we paid to help accommodate us to find something new. Less than 12 hours before we're supposed to leave for Mexico, right? They'd refund us. They wouldn't like give us the credit for the 300 plus the 67. It was just here's $67. Good luck. So, fortunately, they got it cancelled. Fortunately, we have a friend who works for Marriott who was able to get us a friend and family rate at another hotel which is near where we're at now. And basically, when you book through those booking.com, priceeline.com, be very careful. They say that the taxes and fees are included, but especially when you're going somewhere like there, it never hurts to make sure, right? Espec we've learned that now. And we've used Price Line before and haven't and we've booked Expedia Vacation Mexico all-inclusive things and we've never had an issue like that, right? But those third party sites, I'm sure many of you have had issues. Just a warning to be careful. Fortunately, it worked out. I'm glad we found this place. Thanks to our friend who was able to get us a friend and family rate because or a friend rate because that has that really kind of saved us. Otherwise, we'd be paying so much more. So, we're here for a few more days and we're going to head out to the Pirates. Anyway, and eat tacos. Eat lots of tacos. I'm getting hungry. I'm almost burned. Okay, I didn't get under there. Thanks so much for watching. Here's where you can find me. I'm on Instagram. We're posting fun vacation photos on Facebook and Instagram. Nate eaten reporter. N Eaton on Instagram. Follow us on YouTube and um me and the Eatens and East Idaho News. And we'll stay up to date. We have to throw out the mattress one more time. So, so many of you know about a mattress. We got our mattress from Twinkle Beds right before we left. It's incredible. It's comfortable with some pillows. They're doing the Memorial Day sale starting this Friday. You get 30% off plus 10% off everything. And they're throwing in, I think, three pillows, including one that wraps around your head. It like covers your head and wraps around so it muffles your ears, which is at our house, but we have not seen it. We haven't seen it yet. It's there. Use the promo code night. N I t n it t n a t e. You get 30% off everything on their website, plus an additional 10% and those free pillows starting Friday through the end of the month. Big thanks to Twinkle Beds. Thank you. I hope you guys have a wonderful day and we're going to go enjoy our vacation. Yes. Thanks for watching. Bye-bye.