Transcription
Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to recognize the amazing work exposing this conspiracy by this man Pabarat.
[Music] like you be strong to hold the powers of the sun. I show you how deep the rabbit hole go.
[Music] >> Hello, welcome to the revealing. I am your host Pavarati and I'm here to discuss the Idaho 4 case. And folks, get ready to have the lid blowed off the entire conspiracy around the Idaho 4 case and why they forced Brian Cobberger into a plea deal. In my humble opinion, I'm going to bring you some facts along with my humble opinion in this investigative reporting issue that will entail big powerful people that were all around this case. Reasons for those powerful people to try to make this thing go away. and the trail of breadcrumbs that's been left for us to follow over the last almost three years right up to this very day. We're going to combine reporting of recent events, past events, new unsealed court docks in the case and putting everything together. We're going to paint a picture that Picasso himself would have been pleased with. Hold on to your hats and buckle your belts because we don't want you to fly out of the ride as it goes through the loops. Let's roll. And also, let me send a special shout out to my guy Birdie. You will really enjoy this one. And also George Webb, Investigator, who does an excellent job. I think y'all will both appreciate this video. Let's do this.
Here's a recent article that some wonderful people have pointed my attention to and it's Boise Lawyer Disbard supplied meth to Aryan Knights prison gang and this article was released on October 21st, 2025 and it was by Nicole Blanchard of the Idaho Statesman. Now, you'll see here in the picture, it shows the Idaho Maximum Security Institution. And it goes on to say that Boise, a Boise attorney, resigned her law license and pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge after providing meth to a white supremacist client in a Kuna prison. Court documents and Idaho State Bar proceedings showed Courtney Peterson, formerly of Peterson Law Offices, resigned earlier this month from the Idaho State Bar in lieu of disciplinary proceedings. Her resignation came after she was charged in Idaho's US District Court in June with felony distribution of meth. According to the Idaho State Bar public notice, prison staff searched the cell of one of Peterson's clients. Aryan Knight's prison gang leader James Ramsay in September 2023 and found a cell phone containing evidence that confirmed she distributed drugs to the client while he was in the maximum security prison. Ramsay is the former leader of the Aryan Knights and was facing charges related to a racketeering scheme in which he and several codefendants smuggled meth into Idaho Department of Correction facilities. All 10 defendants in the case eventually pleaded guilty. The US Attorney's Office for the District of Idaho announced last year Peterson withdrew from representing Ramsay shortly after the cell phone was found at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution in 2023. Court records showed most documents related to Peterson's case are sealed, but judgment records showed she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison with credit for time served. The Idaho State Bar notice said Peterson must waive five years before she is eligible to reapply for admission, at which point she will have to prove that she is no longer unfit to practice law as determined by her resignation.
So what's interesting is to this very day we still have people being prosecuted surrounding the Aryan Knights. But what's even more interesting is the person that is in reference in this article, the leader, former leader of the Aryan Knights, James Ramsay, was being provided narcotics by his attorney. And who was prosecuting James Ramsay at the time that this attorney provided him with these narcotics? Well, as we've learned in the past because I have covered this that leader of the Air Knights prison gang pleads guilty to RICO conspiracy and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering. And this was for immediate release by the US Attorney's Office District of Idaho in Boise. And it goes on to say that James Ramsay, 43, formerly the overall leader of the Idaho prison gang, known as the Aryan Knights or AK, pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiracy to participate in racketeering enterprise under the federal RICO statute, the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act conspiracy and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon and aid or racketeering. US Attorney Josh Herurwitt announced today with Ramsay's guilty plea, all defendants in a 10-defendant RICO case charged in 2019 have now pleaded guilty. Sentencing for Ramsay is set for October 22nd, 2024. The defendant was a member of an enterprise called the Aryan Knights since at least 2007. The AK is a prison gang that operates within Idaho Department of Corrections prison facilities, but also outside of the IDOK facilities in the District of Idaho. And we have gone into extensive research about the OCD ETF run in Idaho by US attorney Joshwitt and his continued campaign to imprison members of the Aryan Knights. But that's just where it starts.
Imagine going back in time to November of 2022 when all of the news was focused on this tragedy near the University of Idaho. Four students brutally unalived in what I have exposed over time is most likely the result of a prison style hit done in part by Aryan prison gangs. And what was going on with the university at that time that would absolutely have this impacted in a way that they knew was going to be detrimental considering considering all the money that they had spent at that point. Prior to the news of the atrocity, all the focus in the state of Idaho surrounded Scott Green and his role as University of Idaho president and their role in trying to obtain the University of Phoenix. As you can see, in July of 2024, the debt that they had amassed in trying to obtain the University of Phoenix reached 14.2 million and counting. But you can bet the majority of that 14.2 million had already been amassed during the time of the atrocity on King Road. Now, over the course of trying to acquire the University of Phoenix, many roadblocks stood in the way of Scott Green and the University of Idaho completing this transaction. None larger than the media frenzy surrounding the Idaho 4 atrocity. Many law firms were retained by Green and the University of Idaho during this acquisition process. One of those firms was Holland and Hart located in Boise, Idaho. This is verified through several news articles, including this one, citing Green, an Idaho native whose university bio boasts of his years of experience working for Deloitte, Goldman Sachs, and in leadership in global law firms, seemed to sniff at Bowen's qualifications, noting that he had hired attorneys from two big firms, Holly Holly Troxel and Holland and Hart. Green said, "We rely on constitutional law experts." He added, "This is too important and too specialized an area to rely on a generalist." Another article exposes that a second prominent Idaho law firm, Holland and Hart, has received more than $46,000 so far this year. and perhaps for similar work backstopping the University of Idaho's legal position. Green has cited Holland and Hart's work in defending the Phoenix purchase. More legal bills in legal limbo. For the time being, the University of Idaho is shouldering the cost of defending the state board in court. specifically citing though Holland and Hart and their work in defending the University of Phoenix purchase. Might want to remember this for just a little bit.
Now, at the time of early April, we know that former US attorney Josh Herurwitt was out of nowhere assigned as a special prosecutor in the Brian Cobberger case. I at the time talked about a potential conflict of interest considering Josh Herurwit's role in fighting organizations like the AK, their potential involvement in the crime and him now being appointed as a prosecutor against Brian Cobberger. But those calls went unanswered at the time. We have an update in the case against the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students. Former special deputy prosecuting attorney Josh Herurwitt will appear as an attorney for the state in the trial for Brian Cobberger. That's according to court documents filed yesterday. Herwitt was sworn in as the US District Attorney for Idaho back in June of 2022. He finished his service as the state's top federal prosecutor back in February. Now, you may find it as strange as I do that a guy that spent his entire career prosecuting groups like the Aryan Knights and then the second that Trump is elected and he's no longer the US attorney, he immediately is brought into the Brian Cobberger unaliving case in April of 2025. And then just a few months later in July, a case that had been litigated for two and a half years and was going to trial suddenly went to a plea deal and the case was over and everything from then has tried to be hidden from us all. What happened to her after his successful closure of the Cobberger case? Well, you can see as of October 1st, 2025, Holland and Hart, the same law firm that was representing Scott Green and the University of Idaho in the acquisition of the University of Phoenix, has now named Joshwitt, former US attorney to commercial litigation practice. And Holland is Holland and Hart is pleased to announce that former US attorney for the District of Idaho Joshwitt has joined the firm as a partner in the Boise office. Josh brings exceptional federal prosecution experience and trial expertise to the firm's commercial litigation practice. So, not only did Josh Herurwit join Holland and Hart, but he was made a partner of the law firm.
Now, let's move on to these newly unsealed court documents in the Brian Cobberger case. And you'll see here, this newly unsealed document is the declaration of Joshua D. Herwitt that at the time was filed under seal. Now, if you paid attention to my reporting, they announced that, excuse me, Joshua Herurwitt was added to the prosecution team early April 2025. Notice in this document, it says comes now the undersigned special deputy prosecuting attorney for Latah County, Idaho. And as an officer of the court declares and represents the following in support of the state's motion for an examination of defendant pursuant to Idaho Code 18-207. For those of you that have followed me, you know we've been all over 18-207 and motion for extension of time to complete rebuttal penalty phase expert disclosures. Attached here too as exhibit S1 is an email chain between myself and counsel for the defendant with date ranges ranging from April 2nd, 2025 through April 7th, 2025. So I guess the very first day that was added to the case, he got right in there and started emailing Anne Taylor. We'll see the contents of some of those emails in this new unsealed document. Attached here too is exhibit S2 is an email chain between myself and counsel for defendant with dates ranging from April 10th through April 22nd. And then attached here too as exhibit S3 is the phase 2 expert report of Eileen Ryan disclosed by defendant as part of his penalty phase expert disclosures and the declaration of Jeffrey Louine PhD disclosed by defendant as part of his penalty phase expert disclosures. We won't get to see these declarations because they've blacked them out, but we can see the email communications between Herwitt and Anne Taylor. Let's see how that whole process went. And it starts with this email sent from Joshwitt to Anne Taylor on April 2nd, 2025 at 21:16 p.m. And it says, "Subject motion for examination pursuant to Idaho Code 18-207. Now, for those of you that remember 18-207, if the defense files for an expert to examine their client, then the prosecution can enact 18-207, which gives them the right for their expert to examine the client as well. It even goes as far as to determine how that how that um suspect or how that defendant, if he was found guilty, will be housed in the Idaho prison system after a conviction. But it says, "Counsel, given the defendant's expert disclosures, we intend to file a motion with the court for an order pursuant to Idaho Code 18-207 allowing the state to have its experts examine the defendant regarding his mental condition. Please let us know if you consent or object to this motion by Friday at noon Pacific so that we can promptly get our motion before the court." Thank you, Josh. Joshua D. Herwood, special prosecuting attorney. Latah County and Taylor responded on April 2nd later on that afternoon. Good evening. We are seeking additional information in aid of making a decision. Please advise of who your experts are when they want to examine Mr. Cobberger and the nature of any testing planned. If you have a written motion for us to consider, please send that for our review as well. And last, let us know your position on one of Mr. Cobberger's counsel being present for the examination. Thanks, Ann. So, Anne Taylor is just being very cordial with the new assigned prosecutor.
Then it goes on to April 3rd and this is from Josh back to Ann. Appreciate your quick response. We can provide the following in response to your questions. While we reserve the right to disclose additional experts, our expert is and then they name their expert. Nature of the examination. The examination would consist of comprehensive forensic psychological assessment which typically includes a clinical interview, mental status examination, review of relevant records and administration of standardized psychological instruments to assess cognitive functioning, personality structure and potential psychopathology. Now, we know that Anne Taylor had objected to anything to do with personality testing or testing around psychopathology because she knew that a prosecution expert would come to a conclusion, because that's what they always do, that Cobberger had psychopathic tendencies and then they would bring that up at trial, which would be completely damning to the defense and it says this person would be available at the end of April to conduct this his examination. We do object to the presence of counsel during the examination as counsel's presence could interfere with the validity and reliability of the assessment process. So right here he's throwing in that he does not want Brian Cobberger's counsel to be present during the examination because they would know if they were asking questions that Cobberger should not answer and they would be able to tip him off and they knew that so they didn't want her in there. In terms of the written motion we would rely on and then he cites the case law and Taylor responds on April 3rd. Good afternoon. Thank you for providing information for our consideration. We have had a chance to meet and discuss your request. We want to agree to the extent possible given the April 24th, 2025 deadline for state's mitigation rebuttal. So Ann Taylor is citing they have a deadline that they have to meet. Regarding the nature and scope of examination, our position is that testing within the scope of that done by our expert makes sense. And that's the way 18-207 is supposed to go. They can do any testing that the defense had done in rebuttal, but they cannot do additional testing. We object specifically to personality testing and any test outside of what's been of what's already been done. Along these lines, you will receive a pleading to clarify testing done by Dr. Orur. We recently learned two tests were not named in the list of tests but were referred to in the body of her January 23rd 2025 report. The tests are brief visual spatial memory test revised BVMTR and RE complex figure test and recognition trial. Will you provide us with a list of tests anticipated and leave out personality testing? Regarding counsel being present, there is case law precedent for counsel being present attached here for convenience. I personally have been present in past cases where clients sat for an evaluation with an expert for the state. The purpose of my presence is to ensure the case is not discussed during evaluation and examination and for client comfort. We're not claiming any right that would prevent Mr. Cobberger's evaluation, just a basis for counsel to be present. So, they're just asking to be present. In the past, clients have been more comfortable with my presence. I do not participate or offer information. In an effort to move this along, will you reconsider your position? We have reviewed the discovery request as it relates to our experts. We disagree that our disclosure was incomplete at the time of the filing. Your request for further information pursuant to Idaho criminal rule 16 is the first request for additional information. Understanding 16C2, we will obtain and provide testing data and results conducted by our experts as well as notes requested in your exhibit S1. While the rule allows 14 days, we are actively working to provide information as soon as possible. Again, because of the short time frame, our responses will likely come in more than one disclosure to prevent delay. We would like these supplemental discovery responses subject to protective order like we agreed with portions of our discovery. May we add responses under our existing protective order. Thanks, Ann.
Herwitt responds. Oh, wait a minute. and sends the next email at 1:37 on April 3rd. Good afternoon. Thank you for providing Oh, wait a minute. I just read this one. Okay, hang on. Next, Josh Herurwitt responds on April 4th, and we agree that you may provide your additional responses under the existing protective order. We will get back to you as soon as possible regarding the scope of the examination and whether we object to you being present. Thanks, Josh. Then on April 7th, he responds again. And thank you for your patience as we evaluated your concerns regarding our requested examination under 18-207. Our positions are as follows. First, our expert, whoever that expert is, intends to include personality assessments in order to perform an evaluation consistent with forensic standards for psychology. Such tests such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Personality Assessment Inventory or Million Clinical Multiaxle Inventory are standard tools in his field. Given that the defendant has opened the door to his mental condition and has identified specific diagnosis, the state is entitled to have its expert conduct complete evaluations to test those diagnosis. You would have the opportunity to object to the admissibility of the state's expert analysis, but we disagree that our expert's examination is limited by the parameters that the defense expert selected. Second, the expert also believes it is contrary to standard practice to have third-party counsel or otherwise present at an evaluation. I don't read the Santa Steven case as authority supporting your request to be present. While the court's order permitted counsel to be present in that case, that specific issue does not appear to have been litigated. And I found no other Idaho case in which the parties litigated whether counsel has a right to be present. Indeed, Idaho versus Payne suggests counsel need not be present. A defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel as opposed to the presence of counsel during a compelled mental examination. If I'm missing something in the case law, please let us know. Nevertheless, we are amenable to a procedure that would allow you to present in the same facility as your client, allowed you to be present in the same facility as your client to observe the examination in real time. Our preference would be to find a facility where you could be in a separate room to observe the examination through a two-way mirror or video feed. If that is not possible, we would agree to you being in the room but seated behind the defendant such that he cannot make eye contact with you. To be clear, we are not concerned that you would intentionally interfere with the examination. Rather, our expert believes that even the presence of a third party observer introduces a variable that can affect the reliability of testing and results. Please let us know if you will alter your positions. If not, we would intend to file a motion indicating that the defense does not object to an examination in principle, but that the parties disagree regarding its scope and whether defendant has a right to have his counsel present in the room. Thank you, Josh. So, he's he's waffling on the counsel present in the room and he's hammering home on wanting the personality test done.
Then on April 10th, Anne Taylor responds, "Good afternoon. This is what we intend to file for our first response. We can redact the doctor's name since he is not publicly disclosed if you prefer. If so, may we have a stipulation." Thanks, Ann. Herwitt responds. And we wanted to alert you that their expert is no longer able to work on this case. So to the extent she hasn't already, Dr. Orur does not need to provide him with her data. We'll be back in touch when we have engaged a new forensic psychologist in order to discuss the 18-207 mental evaluation. So at this point, Herwitt pulls a bait and switch. the doctor that he had had and agreed to all this stuff to at this point all of a sudden drops out. We got the reason for that. He dropped out because he did not want to force Brian Cobberger to do this without his attorney present. So, they got rid of him mid argument and brought in a new one. And Taylor on April 14th, thank you for letting us know. I'll make sure Dr. Or is aware and does not send testing data. I also want to update you that Mr. Cobberger requests I be present for the state's evaluation and understands I may be seated behind him. So the procedure you suggested works for us. So the procedure you suggested works for us.
Then on April 16th, Joshua Huritt responds to Anne Taylor. Anne, I wanted to respond to your email below to clarify that we are in the process of interviewing and retaining a new mental health expert and we do not yet know what their position will be, what their position will be as to your presence in the room. We hope to find a mutually agreeable arrangement. We'll reach back out when we have retained our experts. So he's bait and switching and now because of the bait and switch he's going to try to get his way. Then he follows up on April 17th and following up we have engaged Dr. Jason Gage as a prosecution expert. He'll conduct the 18-207 mental health examination of the defendant. Dr. Gage is ready to receive Dr. Or's testing data and notes. Here's the website for contact information. Once we've had the chance to talk further with Gage, he will be back in touch about setting up the examination. Then on April 22nd, Herwitt messages Taylor and we wanted to follow up again about the mental condition examination under 18-207. I have attached Dr. Gage's CV which was produced yesterday. We intend to file a motion with the court to seek an order for 18-207 examination and for an extension of time to make our rebuttal penalty phase expert disclosure so that Dr. Gage can complete the examination and prepare his report. In our motion, we will address Dr. Gage believes that personality testing is appropriate in his professional judgment. The scope of the exam would be consistent with that with what Dr. Christensen contemplated as was discussed previously. Dr. Gage's position is that counsel should not be present in the room. So, we will take that position. As an alternative, if court does not grant our request, we will request an arrangement in which counsel is in the room but seated behind the defendant out of his line of sight. From our prior communications, I understand that defendant opposes psychological testing and wants an attorney present in the room. If anything has changed, please let us know. Now he's digging in deep and responds on April 22nd. Hi Josh. We will object to personality testing. We'll object to being excluded from the room. We'll object to any extension of the time. Thank you for the update. Ann realized she's been played. Fires back with a "All right, it's a fight now."
Now in upcoming episodes, I'll let you know what happened from there because those docs have been unsealed now as well. But I couldn't go without reporting the obvious nature of the events surrounding this case. They bring in Joshwitt in April, forced into a plea deal. Come July. They brought in Josherwood as the hammer knowing that his expertise was in prosecuting the Aryan Knights. Who brought him in? Hm. Is it just a coincidence that the law firm that was working on behalf of Scott Green and the University of Idaho in the University of Phoenix litigation just happens to take Joshwood on as a partner now that this case has been put to bed. Was that his reward? You decide. Please like and subscribe to this channel. Post your comments, thoughts, criticisms. Till next time, Pavarati's out.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to recognize the amazing work exposing this conspiracy by this man Pavarati. going to