Loading summary
Transcript18 lines
- [00:01]
A
Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money because behind every headline is a bottom line, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now@bloomberg.com
- [00:28]
B
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for 15amonth plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [00:46]
C
Switch upfront payment of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available Taxes and fees Extra default terms at Mintmobile
- [01:00]
D
with the new Milo's Pro Rewards American express card. Earn 3 points per dollar spent on Lowe's qualifying purchases for the first six months after card account opening. Plus save 5% every day on eligible purchases at Lowe's and earn points on eligible purchases everywhere else. Amex is accepted. Card members get more at Lowe's subject to credit approval. 5% can't be combined with any other offer. Exclusions and restrictions apply. Points subject to loyalty terms@lowe's.com terms and credit reward terms at synchrony. Com MLPRA terms Visit Lowe's.com BusinessCredit what
- [01:29]
C
would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.
- [01:34]
B
Another pina colada?
- [01:36]
C
Yes, please open a new retail location with 36% more square feet.
- [01:40]
E
Fantastic.
- [01:41]
C
Hire 36% more help.
- [01:43]
B
You're hired and you're hired.
- [01:44]
C
Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other e commerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to shopify today@shopify.com setup and get a $1 trial shopify.com setup we got
- [01:58]
E
some breaking news and it's a bad day for Donald Trump. As a federal judge in Miami, Judge Williams has elected to reopen the Trump versus the Internal Revenue Service case that Donald Trump used as a facade, a charade in order to enter into a collusive settlement to set up the weaponization or anti weaponization fund. This is in response to just in the last 48 hours, 35 former federal judges led by Judge Michael Ludig and another judge from the Southern District of Florida, who's now retired Judge Ursula Ungaro, who implored Judge Williams and told her to her face in the filing that she had been had she had been deceived, that there had been collusive conduct, that the settlement was based on the deception of the court and that she should use her inherent authority to reopen the case and to evaluate whether sanctions should be issued and whether she should be making a declaration that the underlying lawsuit is phony and the result of complicity and deceit. And if that happens, what will happen next is then you've got all the lawsuits that are going on right now against the fund able to argue that a federal judge found that the underlying lawsuit was invalid. Therefore, the settlement was invalid. Therefore the Department of Justice's attorney general, Todd Blanche, did not have the power to enter into the lawsuit or dip into the judgment fund to set up another slush fund to pay off Donald Trump's cronies. It's a cascading domino effect, but it starts in the, in the courtroom of Judge Williams, who's now taking this thing seriously, as we wanted her to, with the filing by the 35 judges. I'll break it all down for you right here on the Midas Touch Network and on legal AF. Just two days ago, 35 judges led by Judge Ludig, including Judge Ngaro, former judges in the Southern District of Florida who know Judge Williams well, who served with Judge Williams, implored her to recognize that she had been had. Something we've been saying on Legal AF and Midas Touch since it happened, since Donald Trump decided that he was just going to use the federal court as an imprimatur or sheen in order to cover up for a collusive suit that doesn't really exist, to enter into a settlement to empower the Department of Justice to compromise a claim based on a lawsuit that's invalid. And the other thing that she's concerned about now that she's been briefed on it by the federal judges, is why did Donald Trump get a complete exoneration of his tax and audit liability exposure for the last 16 years, along with his family? Pardon me, as, as part of the settlement? Why? How so? 35 judges, said Judge we, even though we're strangers to the case, we can raise the issue of fraud on the court and deception because who else can do it? Under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we, any party can do it. Anybody can do it. A stranger to the case can do it. Because if Trump controlled his own lawyers, the IRS and the Department of Justice and all the players in the lawsuit who's going to raise the issue of fraud? Them? No, the 35 federal judges which are serving as amici or friends of the court to tell the court you've been had. And now she's pissed off and she's fired up. I'll read to you from the order right now. We've got the receipts here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal af. And then I'm going to play you a clip from one of the lawyers, Sky Perryman for Democracy Forward, that filed that case against the fund. And I asked her just in the last 24 hours during my interview with her whether this, this case in front of Judge Williams with the 35 judges will help her in arguing that this law, that the fund is the product birthed from an illegal, unconstitutional set of facts. And I, and you wait till you hear what she has to say. But let's get to the order which is posted on Legal AF substack. We'll put up on the screen as I read it as well. Let's start on page two or actually we can say on page three here, the non party movements, that's the 35 judges and advance grievous allegations that plaintiffs, that's the Trump side, voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that quote, was collusive from the start and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement. In other words, a smokescreen to cover up for the illegality of the settlement. They point to the fact that the settlement in question included a three paragraph addendum. Who can forget Todd Blanche's attempts on the 19th of May, after the settlement had already been announced, to try to amend it by himself, with nobody else involved, no other party involved, to say, oh yeah, yeah, we're going to expand the release to give the Trump family a pass on audit and tax liability for the last 16 years. Like what? How did that happen? And so the judge comments on it in paragraph two or footnote two on page three. She said this addendum, as the non party movements point out, may conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are limited to the immediate subject matter. In other words, has to be narrow. You can't say let's throw everything in, hey, let's give Donald Trump a pass on tax liability. That's not necessary. So that's the only thing the Department of Justice can do. She also noted in Footnote three about the public reporting, including what we did on Midas Touch and Legal af, that the Internal Revenue Service lawyers itself created a memo that said they should challenge. The Department of Justice should challenge Donald Trump's lawsuit on various grounds, including statute of limitations. That the statute of limitations had run, it was filed too late based on some facts. And that the court. There was no adversary party, that a president can't sue his own agencies, his own executive branch. And that was at the heart of what the judge was trying to get to the bottom of when Trump came along and quickly settled the case. See, he wanted the veneer, the imprimatur of an active lawsuit, right? So it can be settled. I said, you need a settlement in order for there to be. Or a lawsuit in order for there to be consideration for a settlement. No lawsuit, invalid, illegal, no proper settlement, and the whole fund falls apart. That's. That's the pin. That's the. The string or the thread of the sweater. You pull it, the whole thing fails. That was in front of Judge Williams. She looked around the room and said, I got too many people on one side of the table and not enough on the other. There's. There, there's no adversary party here. I'm worried. There's no adversary party. So I want all of the lawyers for the Department of Justice, IRS and Trump to write briefs that tell me separate briefs to tell me how there's a proper adversary proceeding here. How can Trump sue his own agencies, and how do I have jurisdiction over that? And then she said, well, I don't really believe you guys completely. This is my own. This is my own kibitzing commentary. So she appointed three friends of the court, former Judge Gleason, a former Solicitor General, and a top trial lawyer, and said, you write a brief to guide me independently as well. Well, that brief came in and said to the judge, effectively, you don't really have jurisdiction. Right. On top of that, before their deadline to file, Trump files a notice of. A notice of dismissal and says to the judge, to her face in the filing, oh, don't worry, don't worry. You have no jurisdiction over this. We're settling. We're not filing the settlement papers with you. Thank you for letting us use you in your courtroom. We're out of here. And the judge closed the case. And that led to commentators like me immediately saying, no, no, use your inherent authority. Keep the case open. Do a. Do a fact finding, do an order to show cause. Get all these people in the room at the same time and find out if You've been had because you've been used. And the federal court system should not be used like a cheap blanket. Okay? So that sat for a few days and then came to the rescue. The cavalry, the 35 federal former federal jud. And they said to her, you've been had, you've been deceived. Reopen the case, listen to our argument, use your powers and get to the bottom of what happened.
- [10:34]
F
Hey everybody, Ben Meiselis here from the Midas Touch Network. I wanted to let you know about my podcast partner Michael Popak's new law firm. It's called the Popak Firm. Michael Popak's pursuing his dream of starting his own law firm. Really based on the popular demand by all the Midas mighty and legal A effers who are approaching Michael Popak with their cases and saying, can you help us? And at that time, Popak was not able to. So he went out on his own. He started the Popoc firm where he is now handling catastrophic injury cases like car accident cases, trucking cases, malpractice cases, big negligence cases, wrongful death cases. So if you or someone you know have a case like this, the consultation with Popo's firm is free. Give him a call. See if you have a case, it's the Popoc firm.com thepopoc firm.com or you can call 877-popock-af-p o p o k a f so 1-877-p-o p o k a f give Michael Popak a call. And I'm really proud of you, Popak. Thanks for all the hard work you're putting in.
- [11:49]
E
Here's how the judge summarizes that on page one, she said the non party movements explain that although there is no settlement of record in this matter, public documents and announcements indicate that the dismissal was premised on a purported settlement between the parties. In turn, they submit that the settlement is a product of collusion and that settlement is a fraud on the court. So here's what she wants the Trump administration to do by a week from next Friday. Listen to these things. They have to answer and you tell me whether there's a rise in blood pressure and more smattering of ketchup going on at the White House over overnight. Ordered in a judge that by June 12, they plaintiffs, that's the Trump side, shall file a response to the motion. And that's really just Donald Trump. It's not the irs, not the Department of Justice, it's plaintiffs detailing their position, including they have to answer to the charges of collusion and whether the parties were truly adverse. This was the fundamental issue she wanted answered before. Do I have jurisdiction? Are you a phony lawsuit? That's one. Two. She wants them to answer the assertion in the 35 judges brief that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the party's deception of the court. Three, answer the question of whether the case should be reopened because the court was a victim of fraud and if the non movements want to file a brief, they can do theirs on June 19th. Wow. Now let me tell you what this means. Or better yet, let me tell you what one of the, one of the lawyers who's handling a case that was filed in the Eastern district of Virginia against the weaponization fund. This is what she had to say was when I asked her about Judge Williams case.
- [13:42]
G
Play the clip Course back in the Florida suit where we filed and you and I talked about this amicus brief that we filed on behalf of former government officials, both Republican and Democratic, a bipartisan group that outlined all the things the court could do, including appointing specific neutral amici to come in which the court was doing and was handling those, those briefs as you'll recall, said we don't think you have jurisdiction here. And immediately before the court could even act, the president seeks to dismiss his claim because he knew he was going to lose there. So yesterday, I think you're going to talk about this later today or earlier this week there was a filing on behalf of 35 judges back in that Florida case saying like take a look at this. This wasn't really valid. So this is the kind of thing that should be mired in litigation. It is mired in litigation, but it's also the kind of thing that every single American, you don't have to be a lawyer, you don't have to be a politician. This is just, this should be off limits. I mean this is rank corruption.
- [14:36]
E
All right. This is where you need to be for all things law and politics at that intersection here on Midas Touch. Come over to Legal AF, YouTube Chann channel and hit the free subscribe button so you can follow all my work, Michael Popak. And if you want to read the order for yourself along with all the briefs and everything else in the case, come to Legal AF substack, hit the free subscribe button and then become a paid member and you'll get the filings under Filings af. So until my next report, this is Michael.
- [15:03]
F
Want to stay plugged in, Become a subscriber to our substack@midasplus.com you'll get daily
- [15:08]
E
recaps from Ron Filikowski ad free episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available@midasplus.com.