Loading summary
Transcript40 lines
- [00:02]
Ben
This episode is brought to you by Fox 1. Watch all 104 matches of the FIFA World cup live in 4K for just $19.99 a month with 3 days free. Build your own multi view, choose up to three streams and follow player spotlights. Stay on top of every moment with live stats, highlights and instant replays. The FIFA World cup, streaming live on Fox One, offers a subject to change. See fox.com for complete terms and conditions.
- [00:30]
Popak
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone Paying Big Wireless Way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.
- [00:43]
Ben
No judgments. But that's weird.
- [00:45]
Popak
Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:52]
Ben
of $45 per three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com I wrote a little song to remind you Choice hotels get you more of the experiences you value. The Cambria Hotel's got it all. A rooftop bar, have a ball.
- [01:12]
Popak
Cocktails up here feel just right.
- [01:15]
Ben
Ms. Cambria are amazing.
- [01:19]
Popak
All right.
- [01:21]
Ben
Bring a date, your teen or even your mom. Book direct@ChoiceHotels.com See you on the roof. This episode is brought to you by Google Health. Stop chasing someone else's definition of health. What matters is what's healthy for you. Google Health offers a new kind of coach built with Gemini for effortless tracking, sleep insights and holistic coaching tailored to you. Visit googlestore.com to learn more and start a new relationship with your health Requires Google Account, Google Health app, Internet and Google Health Premium subscription Features subject to change availability and results vary. Not intended for medical purposes, but works independently of Gemini Apps. Check responses for accuracy. Most travel programs make your company pay. With Enjin, it's the opposite. Enjin pays you back. Earn 1% back instantly on every hotel, every car. As your spend grows, you can tack Rewards up to 5% real cash redeemable on travel, redeemable as statement. Credit your money your way and free to start teams. Travel spend managed get started@enjin.com
- [02:31]
Popak
we've got a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal af. It's been a busy week and a busy week for Midas Touch hosts bringing accountability in the courts. That's right. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump regime to produce key records and a redaction or privilege log pursuant to the Epstein Transparency act in response to a major lawsuit filed by Midas Touch host Katie Fang. A true American hero and patriot. We'll talk about what this D.C. federal judge ruled its implications. The Trump regime is scrambling right now, changing lawyers in the case. We'll talk about what's going down. Another $10 billion lawsuit as well, filed by Donald Trump in his individual capacity, backfiring in his face. Which $10 billion lawsuit is this? Is this the one against the IRS and the Treasury Department? No, no, no. We'll get to that in a moment. This was another 10 billion do dollar lawsuit he brought while in office, but he brought in his individual capacity against the British Broadcasting Company against the BBC, saying that they hurt his feelings when they did an edit on a documentary about January 6th that really nobody watched anyway, which, get this implied that Donald Trump encouraged the insurrectionists to attack the Capitol building. And Trump says, that's caused me so much harm. And so the BBC said, okay, how much harm? 10 billion. Show us your bank records. To which Trump responded, no, no, no, no, no. The BBC said, okay, you don't want to show us your bank records. Show us your emails, text messages, any communications regarding Jason. Oh, Trump goes, no, no, no, no, no, I can't do that. And then Donald Trump says, but, but the judge is unfair. Let me disqualify the judge. And the judge is like, you can't disqualify me. The judge. Then the Trump regimes like, or Donald Trump and his individual capacities, like deadlines. What deadlines? Yeah, the BBC may have filed a motion to dismiss, but we're just not going to do any deadlines. To which the judge said, hello, like, you realize we're in a court. You filed this lawsuit. What are you doing? Yes, Donald Trump in litigation kind of looks like that so called great American fair where nobody's attending and a big MAGA person was just recently arrested. They're the only person, I think, who's attended this of engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct in front of the female gymnasts who were there. Everything that MAGA touches is grotesque and disgusting. But I guess we'll get into all of that. Another $10 billion lawsuit backfiring in Donald Trump's face, which he converted his $10 billion lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the IRS into a super pardon so we wouldn't have to pay taxes and would have to have all of the audits against him waived and then have a J6 slush fund. So a lawsuit was filed in Virginia, as you all know, and the Judge was like, okay, look, can you. Trump doj, you want to just do a declaration that says this slush fund doesn't exist? I'm happy to dismiss the case. Just put it in writing in my courtroom if you want me to believe that this issue is moot. Because, you know, yeah, certain Trump regime officials have now said, we're not going to do it yet. We're not moving forward with it for now. So the judge said, okay, put that in writing in my courtroom. Happy to dismiss the case. To which the Trump DOJ said, how dare you, judge? And they attacked the judge and they said, we're not submitting anything and you're violating our separation of powers. And the judge is like, Judge Brinkhama, Federal judge of it is like, okay, well, we're just going to keep the case going. What are you doing?
- [06:04]
Ben
Like, okay, you don't, you don't want
- [06:05]
Popak
to submit a basic declaration. Okay, let's keep the case going against you. Talk about that. And also, you know, I guess some of these issues that Donald Trump has in filing these frivolous cases and just everything that he does, which is utterly wrong and disastrous when you have basically a right wing fascist Supreme Court that's basically entirely rigged at this point and, you know, just votes for a completely dystopian America that makes the Handmaid's Tale show look like, you know, a utopia. We'll talk about some of these horrible Supreme Court rulings. We've got a lot to discuss. Let's bring in Popak. Popak, good to see you, my guy. You know, these intros, man, these intros. It's. Here we are, June 27, live 2026.
- [06:47]
Ben
And you, you know, you and I have been friends so long and so simpatico that sometimes when you do your intro, I just, like, grab popcorn. Just like, like, this is. But, but all kidding aside, and the way that we're jovial about it, the jocularity. Well, no, I see it the other way. I think it's encouraging and we don't want our audience to doom scroll when they don't have to. And you and I don't blow smoke or sunshine, but the, that things are going well for democracy and for the rule of law in courtrooms and that. So when there's a little bit of giddiness or a little bit of, a little bit of giddy up in our step and a little bit of a whistle on our lips, it's because we see that there are accountability and good things happening in courtrooms. It may not go all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. And that continues to frustrate our audience, as it should. And I think the Supreme Court is actually writing its own permission slip for its reformation, for its demise as the current Roberts Court. I think the more they if I get one more, if you and I have to report on one more 6 to 3 decision written by Sam Alito, taking away rights inconsistent with our patriotism and values about immigration, you know, I'm going to throw up. But it also calls for the need and puts a lot of focus and attention on reforming that Supreme Court through term limits and additional seats and some other interesting proposals that have come up with on a court that is not its composition, is not governed by the Constitution. Nowhere in there says there's nine people with a chief judge. That's all made up stuff that Congress does and Congress in the right hands. So that's the reason why some people say, popak, your enthusiasm for this story you're telling is so infectious. I want it to be because I really believe it. I'm not an act when things go wrong or awry, an appellate court decision or usually a Supreme Court decision, we'll be the first ones to tell you with honest commentary. But when things are going well, like we're going to get to it next, but not just landmark, it will be in textbooks. And it is now the blueprint for independent journalists having Katie Fang having broken the glass ceiling filing these types of lawsuits, withstanding the ruling by Judge Sullivan about Katie Feng having informational damage standing for Article 3 lawsuits, that is, and her as an independent journalist opens the floodgates for other journalists. It won't be the mainstream ones. It'll be us to file lawsuits and be the one to bring that case. That case is going to be taught in law schools. I already have it up on my legal AF substack. Katie Fang for the Pulitzer Prize for journalism over this. I'm not kidding. And so when things like that happen and judges like Williams will talk about in Miami and Brinkama in the Eastern District of Virginia and Boseberg and things that are happening there are and the former federal and state judges that are rallying like the calvary to their aid to give them comfort and support as federal judges, because they're out there, right? They're way out there on a limb. And Donald Trump and his Department of Justice and Todd Blanche are sawing away with buzz saws behind them. They need somebody underneath saying, jump, we got you. And that's former federal judges, former state judges who are making Their filings we'll talk about. That's this audience and this community every time. And I've done a lot of interviews. This, this particular week was an interview heavy Week for Legal AF YouTube channel. I had, you know, everybody from people who wrote biographies of the anti Trump president, President Taft, to attorneys general, you know, to senators, to Michael Ludig. And universally, they all say the same thing, regardless of what perspective they have. We can't do it alone. We need the American people to take to the streets literally to oppose this president, to support the rule of law, democracy and federal judges. And with that, and the federal judges who are writing these briefs and motions support. That's what we need at this critical moment in time. In my lifetime, there has been no more critical period in our democracy, existential threat and defining who we are as an American people. Right now, we either go left or we go right. I don't mean that politically. This is it. The fork is in the road and now is the time you don't want to look back and say, what did I do particularly to defend our democracy? Or you got to leave it all on the playing field. And that's what you and I, hopefully, with giving this honest reporting and commentary about these various legal stories, hopefully that's what we're encouraging our audience to do in our the community to do.
- [11:58]
Popak
Yeah, that's why I quit my practice of law. It's why you've devoted most of your life right now to building out legal af and you still are able to practice. But we'll talk about it, obviously, as we always do before the break, your practices, focusing on helping legal AF listeners and viewers with some of their legal issues that may arise. Which is why you said, I'm not going to fully bendu what you did. Because I still want to help our listeners and viewers because they've been saying, popak, we need you. We need your help. You know, and for me, if you go back to the type of law I practiced, you know, it was class actions against things like Fyre Festival or against massive Ponzi schemes. And I worked as a lawyer for an SEC receiver in some of the biggest Ponzi scheme cases in California where I saw this behavior. I went through terabytes of document production. I've personally prepared the privilege logs, the document productions, the motions. I've done the trials in these cases, whether it was going against these Ponzi scheme companies that were in receivership that the sec, you know, were filing against, or Fyre Festival, which has so many analogs to this great American fair thing that's going on right now, I'm like, fyre Festival looked better than what the hell I'm seeing right now in D.C. a quote that I gave in the Fyre Festival hulu documentary in 2018, which seems kind of prescient right now. Back then, when Trump was in office, I said, you know what? We're talking about Fyre Festival here, but there's a fire festival going on in the White House every day. And right now, we have that at a nuclear level. We have that in matters of war and peace. We have that in matters of Donald Trump literally doing 3,700 stock trades. We have Donald Trump launching strikes against Iran at 405 so that the markets could close. I mean, just pure and utter market manipulation that's being done while the American people are suffering. And what we hope to do here, because, you know, a lot of people say, hey, you guys talk a lot. You guys do the show, but can you also walk the walk? And I said, talking is important. Let's be clear, because there's a lot of disinformation silos out there that lie about everything and spread disinformation. So it's important to create a media environment that pushes back. And I think we've been able to do that. Not just what we do on Midas Touch, not just what we do on Legal af, but by working with Katie Fang, by working with Scott McFarland, by working with Aaron Parnises, by working with. I could go over all these other Mucklers and all these other creators building their platforms and in this kind of decentralized way, flooding the Zone with the truth is such a critical role. But then it's such an honor. And let me be very clear, all credit goes to Katie Fang. She brought this. She's the courageous one. And all of you as well, you know, who have worked with Katie, who have supported Katie's channel. And so for me, I'm just honored to be associated with Katie Fang on this network and to do anything I can to support the great work that she's done. Because this lawsuit that she brought is historic. And there were a lot of doubters when she brought this lawsuit about is she going to have standing? Can she really be the person to sue? The Epstein Transparency act was untested in terms of an outside person, brought a cause of action. She was the first to do it. There's no one else who. She led the way. And so we got this 48 page order. Popak, why don't you Talk about this order from Judge Emmett Sullivan in Washington, D.C. the categories that now need to be produced and why it's so important, this preliminary injunction having been granted. And you see the Trump regime scrambling. They've brought in Stanley Woodward on the case. They're now bringing in all their big guns as well, if you will, on this case. And so this now becomes the case. Katie Fang v. Todd Blanche. People will be reading about this in law school. People will be reading about this for generations. Talked about it.
- [15:59]
Ben
Pope, you know, you and I are, I've known Katie for 20 years. She and I, friends before we, before we were had any itch to be podcasters. We were just lawyers in Miami and we used to meet for coffee to talk about fundraising for judges and, and our careers. I'm older than Katie and, and all of that. But, you know, I've been a big follower of her. On I remember once, I was in Manhattan about four years ago before she joined Midas, and I was riding on the Hudson, the Hudson Parkway, and I saw a giant, when she was on mainstream, I saw a giant billboard with her face. And I, as I rode by in the car, I like took a video and I sent it to her and it gave her a big laugh. But I told her, you interviewed her. And so did I. I told her before she got on, I said, look, this Fang versus Blanche is not just about the confirmation hearing that's coming up on the 15th of July against Todd Blanche and things he's going to have to answer to. It's not just that. It is bigger than that. It is a Fang, you know, Fang v. Blanche being taught in law schools, being taught in First Amendment classes and constitutional classes. I think it is that big. And it has opened the door. It has opened the door and provided, it provided the blueprint and the permission because of the way Judge Sullivan wrote his 60 plus page decision about informational harm. Because the first thing a plaintiff has to prove, the first thing to get through the front door, not have it locked against them, is that they have in federal court. It's called Article 3 standing, Article 3 injury, Article 3 of the Constitution. In order to do that, you have to show you have some sort of harm to you that's sort of unique to you that allows you to sue about the thing. The thing here is it was there going to be anybody that's going to step forward and try to hold the Department of Justice and Todd Blanche accountable for violations of the Epstein Transparency act that were effectively acknowledged by the Trump administration. How many press conferences With Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. Did we have to. Did we have to watch where they said, oops, another 500 names of unredacted victims, while white men, who were the predators, their names and faces on draft indictments, on foreign language documents and photos of Donald Trump, they've been removed. They found a way to remove those. But of course, when it comes to the victims and others, they indiscriminately took the black tape off, which is the exact opposite, victimizing them all over again. And Katie and I watched as you did, as various strategies were used to try to get federal judges to whom the Trump administration had run for cover to take an interest and appoint a special master or review. We had Judge Berman and Judge Engelmeier in New York. We had Judge. Judge Rosenberg in South Florida. And they were. They had jurisdiction, but it was limited to the Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein prosecution. So when Ro Khanna and Tom Massie and others ran in to urge them to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire, to provide judicial oversight over the production of the Epstein files, which were being. This is when There was only 12,000 documents produced, let alone 3 million, which is still incomplete. The judges said, we respect the dignity of the victims, but we can't do anything about it. And each one of them walked away. And you and I and others sat around and said, who's going to come forward to be the plaintiff here? Is it going to be one of the survivors? I don't want to put it all on their shoulders. They're victimized already. You know, of the 1400 Epstein survivors, 25 have revealed themselves, which is their right. I don't expect them to carry the water on a case like that. Who's going to do it? And then came forward Katie Fang and Public Integrity Project, and I've had the lawyer Brendan Ballou from Public Integrity on as well to talk about their case. And they came up with a novel way to pick the lock to the front door of the courthouse to show informational economic harm to Katie. And to get around another issue. The Trump administration arguing there's no ability for anybody to sue if the Epstein Transparency act has been violated. You almost hear like an evil laugh at the end of that. No one can sue. There's no private right of action, is there? Well, when you're busy trying to tell the American public that something is done and over, like the production of the Epstein files, you, the Department of Justice, who has taken responsibility for it, you've just committed final agency action and That's a term of art under the Administrative Procedures Act. If you do final agency action, a court can provide oversight over whether you did it right or wrong. And a party who has injury, like Katie Fang, proved she can bring the suit. So she did not bring the suit under the about. She didn't bring the suit as a plaintiff under the Epstein Transparency Act. She brought it under the Administrative Procedures act arguing that she had informational harm and therefore final agency action of declaring. That's it. Because Todd Blanche announced we're not going to be translating any of the foreign language documents that we have in an international child sex trafficking ring. Okay. We're not. Also there's all These ones, these FBI reports about a woman when she was 13 who says she was sexually abused by Donald Trump. Yeah, we're covering those up too, and a bunch of other documents. And we're not going to provide the log listing all of the redactions so that, so that journalists and others can know about it, even though we said we were going to. So Katie said, look, I can't do my job. I got a job to do. This is what I do for a living. What I do for a. We all do. We all share her frustration. She says, I'm an independent commentator and reporter and I've spent a good portion of my career, especially in independent media, covering Epstein, you know, and, and she's interviewed survivors. She's gone to the library, you know, the Trump Memorial Library with Jeffrey Epstein. She's, she's done, you know, just like we have grabbed documents and done reporting and analysis because she's a practicing lawyer herself. And she said, I can't do it anymore. I'm getting spoon fed information that makes us complicit in, you know, how many times do we say we'd like to tell you more about the connection between Donald Trump and a child sex trafficking ring, but we're being blocked by the administration. And she said, I'm gonna file it. And her lawyers came up with her, this strategy to pick that lock. I've got injury because. Informational injury because I can't do my job and I've lost money as a result. Now, the reason she had to raise the money issue is not because she's seeking money. She's not. The lawsuit does not provide her money. The lawsuit, she has to argue that she's been damaged in doing her job and she would do more videos and I guess earn more money because she's got to show she's got that type of harm. And so that's why she had to raise it there. So with that, she. There's the briefing and now we got the judge's order. You know, all of our phones blew up at the, at the same time with Judge Sullivan. I had said, you got a great judge here. Judge Sullivan's a great judge for you. And he said in his ruling a couple of things that made new law. I think that an independent journalist who can't do her job because she's being denied documents that were ordered, produced under a statute in Congress and anything analogous to that can now run to court and sue them and sue the government, not under the Freedom of Information act, which is what the Trump administration said. She could just do a Freedom of Information act request and then we won't give you documents then either. And the judge says they're not coextensive. There's that Epstein Transparency act and there's also FOIA provisions, but they're not coextensive. And then Katie and her lawyers did the great thing right before the judge ruled, they filed a supplemental briefing, supplemental authority, and said, judge, here's what they did. When somebody did a FOIA request for these documents, they said, no, they're being released pursuant to the Epstein Transparency Act. So if you go to the Epstein Transparency act, they said, no, go to foia. If you go to foia, they say, no, go to the Epstein Transparency Act. That pissed off the judge. They never really responded to that. And when the thing that Todd Blanche has, that's a problem among many is that the judge also ruled that Blanche effectively conceded. Conceded all of the substantive legal points that Katie made about his, his violation of the Epstein Transparency act because he failed to respond, not adequately respond. He failed to respond to her legal arguments. He kept saying, she's the wrong. She doesn't have standing judge, she shouldn't be here. Why are we here? At the same time, you have to also say, but if we're here, I didn't do it. You can't, you can't just like ignore that part of your brief. And the judge said you literally blanch. Has conceded he violated the Epstein Transparency act by failing to produce a video. Apparently there's some. I hate to say it, but this is from the record, some sort of torture video, sex torture video that now has to be revealed because it was withheld the. The inner FBI interview notes of the woman who said she was 13 when she was sexually abused by Donald Trump. They gotta now translate all of the foreign language documents that should have been translated from the beginning. And they Gotta, they gotta do a log and there's some other by, by serial number by Bates number that they have to do that they have to do by date certain. And they don't get to use the 250th anniversary weekend to, to do their work. Oh no. The judge gave them until July 2nd. I think that was purposely chosen July 2nd. They have two choices. They either produce the documents that he's now ordered pursuant to Katie's injunction to be produced or they have to show cause why they can't do it. So there's one more step, sort of an order to show cause step. So they either have to answer it. Order to show cause, meaning the burden is on them to show why this should still be redacted, untranslated, not provided at this very late date. Understanding the judge already made factual and legal findings against Todd Blanche. This now folds right, Ben, right into all these things we're going to be talking about today. Fold into the cross examination of Todd Blanche on July 15th. I think it's going to take more than one day, by the way, for his confirmation hearing. And one last thing on that. I just interviewed Judge Ludig who's leading these 300 judges, state and federal, in making these fantastic filings that are having real results in the courtroom. And I said to him point blank, let me just ask you something, Judge. Is Todd Blanche fit to be the Attorney General of the United States? And he just looked at me and said, he, Michael, he's the most corrupt candidate we've ever had in 250 years. So the answer to that is no. He shouldn't be anywhere near the Attorney General's office. Let me just remind people, Judge Ludig by all rights should be the Chief justice of the United States right now instead of John Roberts. It was that close. It was down to two people. He's a Federalist, He's a Constitutionalist. He was a Republican and a conservative one at that. But you see where he stands now. He stands to protect the democracy and the rule of law.
- [28:03]
Popak
Everybody make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel, the Legal AF substack and the Legal AF podcast. Make sure you subscribe across all of those platforms. And please, if you can subscribe to our YouTube channel. Also, if you or somebody know has been injured in an auto accident, trucking accident, any type of accident at all, reach out to the Popoc firm. See if you have a case you or someone you know, 877 Popak AF or visit thepopoc firm.com they do catastrophic injury types of cases and so if you have a case, the consultation is free. Reach out. Also shout out to the Popoc YouTube channel and the Popoc substack. That Popak YouTube channel did 5.2 million views in 48 hours. That's a record for that channel, up to 1.15 million subscribers. Keep it growing, keep it growing. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show.
- [28:56]
Ben
Well, it's time for some life talk. Life insurance talk that is. You probably have it, but do you know how much you're paying for it? And for how much are you being covered? Odds are you pay too much for too little. And did you know if you receive life insurance through your job and you're unexpectedly laid off, you could suddenly be covered for nothing Scary to think about but simple to get right. Thanks to Select Quote where I'm headed to sort out my life insurance policy today. Unlike other one size fits all life insurance companies, select Quotes license agents work for you in as little as 15 minutes. They'll compare policies from top rated carriers to find you the best fit for your health and your budget and they work for you for free. Get the right life insurance for you for less and Save more than 50%@SelectQuote.com LegalAF Save more than 50% on term life insurance@SelectQuote.com LegalIF Today to get started, that's SelectQuote.com LegalAF Our next sponsor had a story that really resonated with me, especially with everything around metabolism and trying to approach it the right way. This podcast is sponsored by Veracity. Ali Egan, Verasity's founder, CEO and certified hormonal health coach. Experienced compromised metabolic health firsthand, including years of undiagnosed Hashimoto's an autoimmune disease that impacts the thyroid. She found functional medicine which focused on underlying root causes and helped her take her health back into her own hands. Verasity was created to give people access to holistic solutions and support optimal health. With their most popular product, Metabolism Ignite. You get an all natural caffeine free formula made with ingredients like lemon verbena, hibiscus extract, green coffee bean extract and magnesium. Clinical trials showed no negative side effects from the ingredients. I like that it's a simple doctor formulated option to support your metabolism. So learn from Ali and make the switch to veracity. Head to VerasityHealth Co and use code legalaf for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V E R A C I T Y Health Co for up to 65% off. And make sure you use my promo code, Legal af, so they know I sent you.
- [31:30]
Popak
Welcome back to Legal af and thank you to all of our sponsors. They help make this show possible. Support our sponsors. The discount codes for those sponsors are in the description below. $10 billion lawsuits. Popak, have you ever heard of 10? I mean, I've heard of $10 billion lawsuits where there may be 10 billion DOL damages if it's like massive company versus massive company, but a $10 billion lawsuit where a billionaire or like Donald Trump claims that his feelings are hurt and he repeatedly says, I'm $10 billion emotionally distressed. Could we all stipulate that if someone claims that somebody doing a documentary about them causes them $10 billion in emotionally distressed, that perhaps they don't have the emotional fortitude to be the leader of a country or the leader of anything but Donald Trump files $10 billion lawsuits. You made me upset. You made me upset. $10 billion lawsuit. I don't care what political party you're from. It's the biggest abuse of our legal process. It's whiny, it's pathetic. There have been multiple federal judges who have called Trump out for being a vexatious litigant, in essence, because he files all of these lawsuits for the headlines. And then here's my thing, too. You want to file your $10 billion lawsuit? You want a tough guy? Okay, file it. Then litigate the case. You know, as I noted at the outset, I was a litigator. I dealt with cases where there were terabytes of documents and you'd have to go through all of the stuff with teams of lawyers. And as Popak I'm sure will share with you, when he was an associate, he may not have had, not to date him or anything, but he may not have had all the electronic discovery tools I had. And he was probably a brooms of people with lie with millions of documents. That, that's, that's what we, that's what lawyers do, man. That's what these are cases, you know. So Trump files a $10 billion case. He wants his headline, but then he doesn't want to do the case. And it's really pathetic and it's frivolous and it's dangerous, and it's actually symbolic of everything he does. You can make the exact same parallels. You know, he goes on this catastrophic war with Netanyahu. You know, I'm going to invade Iran. Epic fury, Midnight hammer, this and that. Okay, well, guess what? Iran's fighting back Can I do social media post? Can I just say we're winning and their navy's in the bottom.
- [33:55]
Ben
No, no.
- [33:56]
Popak
You're in war now, buddy. You're in a war, okay? You're in a freaking war right now. And those bombs, those explosions, those deaths are real, buddy. You're in a litigation right now. You got to do it. You know, people, litigation's tough. You're going to miss deadlines, you're going to attack the judge. You're going to not turn over documents. Okay? You doing a $10 billion case, treat it with the severity and seriousness. This is what he does in all of his cases that he brings, especially in his individual capacity. And so we'll talk about two $10 billion cases. Think about that. We're talking about the President of the United States so emotionally out of touch with basic reality, apparently, that he needs to file a $10 billion lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company for some documentary that, no offense to the BBC that maybe a thousand people watched, you know, was some obscure documentary on J6 that, you know, that the BBC and because, you know, documentaries aren't, you know, necessarily hundreds of hours long, they did an edit where they put the beginning of his speech with the end portion of the speech to make it seem like it was one sentence of him encouraging January 6th insurrectionists to attack the Capitol when it was divided by other words, basically. And Trump's like, we caught you. That was unfair. And was like, well, didn't you still tell the January 6th insurrectionist to like, you know, go there? And was it the whole thing that you undermine the 2020 election? Aren't there lawsu about this? You know, anyway, so you're saying you didn't do these things. And so anyway, Trump tried to also, like, get around the fact that a defamation case like this would be hard to bring. So he files in federal court. This is like his trick because he thinks he's so tricky and smart, he, like brings it under. And POPAC will know more about this because he's a Florida lawyer, like, under, like Florida consumer statutes about, like, you
- [35:57]
Ben
know, unfair trade practices. Yeah.
- [36:00]
Popak
So this one, right? So this way the BBC unfair trade practices. This way BBC couldn't immediately file what's called an anti slap motion, which would then potentially bring sanctions and attorneys fees against Trump for filing the thing to begin with. In Florida, it's got pretty robust anti slap statutes which prevent you from filing these or bring you serious repercussions for filing, like, frivolous lawsuits that are meant to chill, like public speech and so, anyway, Trump files this $10 billion lawsuit. BBC We've been reporting about a little bit, but now things are really heating up. BBC files a motion to dismiss. They also propound lots of discovery, meaning they send requests. UK, you're claiming $10 billion. Show us your. The money that you've lost. We want to know, because it seems like you've made billions of dollars, you know, grifting in the White House. Where have you lost all of this money? Show us. And also, we want all of your communications regarding J6. You know, that was never turned over to the J6 committee or anybody else. So you sued us in your personal capacity. We want your cell phone records, we want your text messages, we want your financial records. Those would be the three categories of documents that you need in a case like this. So Trump says, you know what, BBC, here's what I'm going to do to you. We want your documents. Here's 450 discovery requests about BBC. And what BBC says, okay, we expect that that's litigation. Here you go. Here's 55,000 documents that are responsive. Here's our privilege log, where we log everything that we don't turn over if we assert a privilege. You've got our records. This is what you do in litigation. Now can we see yours? No. No. And then BBC files a motion to dismiss. You know, what Trump does doesn't file an opposition. And so the judge is like, you going to file an opposition there, buddy? You're in court. Should I just dismiss your case or should I sanction you? Or are you going to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss? Then Trump's lawyers go, sorry, he's just so busy being the president, he's got this war in Iran, and things are so difficult. Can we just continue this while we fight over discovery? And the judges now, like, having to decide, like, what do I do? They didn't even respond and file an opposition to, like, the motion to dismiss. And then the BBC is like, motion to compel. Turn over your records and documents. To which Trump's like, why would we do that? It's over broad. And then Trump does the ultimate Trump thing. And I'll throw it over to you, Popa, because isn't this just. Every one of his damn cases attacks the judge and says, judge, you need to disqualify yourself. And we shouldn't be able to even deal with any of these issues until you disqualify yourself because you're unfair to me. And the judge is like, denied. Okay, now what are we going to do with all of this stuff. Donald Popag, let me bring you in. And again, this is not, this is where I go ain't a Democrat thing, ain't a Republican thing. This is a grown up thing, okay? And I shouldn't even say that because kids behave better than this. They do their homework on time or else they get an F. You do your thing or you don't bring the thing. No one forced him to file this lawsuit. And it's stuff like this that just makes me so damn embarrassed right now that the country's being led by someone who's such an idiot and is so incompetent and can't make basic deadlines and just behaves this way. Sorry, Pop.
- [39:12]
Ben
All you, oh no, don't be sorry. I said in my, I did my reporting on this on illegal f YouTube channel. I said you can pick your courthouse, you can try to pick your judge, you can pick your lawsuit that you're going to file and the amount that you're going to demand. You can pick your defendant, but you can't pick your defendant's defenses and you can, you can't tell them what they can and cannot litigate over in a case for defamation. See, Donald Trump's lawyers want to make the case a very narrow one about a little 2 minute clip or a 10 minute clip where they the BBC edited the ellipse speech. An ellipse speech that was live streamed in its entirety by dozens and dozens of channels. Not ours, but you know, C Span to Fox showed the ellipse speech. BBC was doing a documentary and in the documentary about a relatively infamous speech, did some editing of it and Donald Trump didn't like the impression it left. It led people put him in a false light. It was defamatory, trying to make money by making it look like I led an insurrection and I didn't. Well, there's a couple of ways to defend yourself if you're been accused of defamation. One of them is to show that it's not defamatory because the gist, the thrust of what you've said, which here is not even what they've said, it's about what Donald Trump said and it's about their editing about it. The gist of the thrust is still truthful and accurate. And the other way to defend it is just directly right between the eyes truth. And they're going that route as well. And they've told Donald Trump in discovery and the court, we our defense in part is going to be the Donald Trump's an insurrectionist and that he led the insurrection and that. That is a. Because he wants me to only focus on the clip doesn't mean I get to abandon my defenses or he gets to dictate my defenses. And we need to prove the Gen 6 case literally in a courtroom. Donald Trump doesn't like it because he opened up Pandora's box and the toothpaste is all out of the tube and the train has left the station and all the milk is spilled. And now he doesn't know what to. Because their lawyers are not that bright. Because they. It's easy. Any monkey in a keyboard, okay, can type up a lawsuit and file it and put a giant number, all caps and bolded, you know, to get a shiny object for the mainstream media. 10 billion, 50 billion, 40 billion. Let me just a teachable moment. You don't have to put any dollar amount, and 99% of the time, you don't put any dollar amount in your, in your pleading. You only do it for the sensationalism of the press. You know, you just have to put the jurisdictional amount in controversy, which in a Federal Court is 75,000. They put the big numbers so that the press will run with it and distract from the lack of merit of the case. Okay? So they. Now we're in that period that I think people around the country and around the world enjoy from our politics, which is discovery. It's unlike a lot of different states, a lot, A lot of. A lot of different countries, civil code countries in particular. The judge does a lot of investigating, the judge does a lot of prosecuting, but we don't do that here. The judge is a neutral who allows the parties through the adversary process of being at each other's throats and in the document and informational exchange, to have the judge, or if there's a jury involved, the jury as a fact finder, find out what happened in the case and make a ruling and apply the law to those facts. That's different than in other countries. And here the BBC is saying, all right, we tried the apology route and that didn't work. We apologize for the clip. You didn't like the clip? We apologize. No. You want to sue us for $50 billion. Okay, here we go. Now in there, here's the complaining. This is Donald Trump. He's whining like a stuck president. Here's what he says about the 126 requests for production, 126 categories of documents that the BBC is seeking along in addition to the 47 subpoenas to third parties, including trying to get the Jan.6 committee's documents and Jack Smith's documents and financial documents from banks and from Donald Trump's organizations. And then a little something that doesn't get enough coverage, and I used it successfully in my career. 152 requests for admission, which are not technically discovery, but they also flip attorneys fees on their head. If you deny a request for admission that you should have admitted, the other side gets attorney's fees for having to prove that you lied or you didn't tell the truth in your request for admission. And here's how Donald Trump describes the document request and the attack that he's under of his own making. Page three. Plaintiff states that defendants are attempting to distort the allegations in the complaint in order to unnecessarily expand the scope of discovery into a sweeping inquiry into John 6th. Yeah. Post election challenges, government investigations, congressional productions, call logs, calendars, and unrelated litigation, thereby needlessly increasing the cost of the litigation. No, this is their defense. Then they go through the categories to try to prove to the court and us that they're being harassed. Listen to these documents, Ben. All documents and communications about your claim that you did not call for violent action on January 6th. All documents and communication you provided to the House Jan.6 Committee. All documents you provided to Homeland Security about Jan.6. To Special Special Counsel Jack Smith. About Jack Smith. To any federal, state or local agency about Jan.6. While you're at it, why don't you give us your call logs for the President of the United States from November 3rd to January 20th, 2021, along with your calendar schedules and daily diaries. And then as to the speech, give us everything you got about the speech, including drafts and your communications with any of the following people. Here we go. We could all do this together. Steve Bannon, Christina. Bob, a lawyer. Jeffrey Clark used to be a lawyer. John Eastman used to be a lawyer. Boris Epstein, a lawyer. Michael Flynn, Pardoned. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer, was a lawyer. Other others, Stephen Miller, Kelly Ward, Roger Stone. And they don't like that. And the other four, seven subpoenas, and they don't like the other. Their objection to interrogatories. You got requests to produce, which is documents and information, digital or otherwise. Interrogatories are questions and answers under oath. It's a question I get. You can do it in deposition, but you often take advantage of being able to ask questions under oath in interrogatories to get the answers. And here's the two they don't like from the Trump side. Identify all persons with whom you've communicated regarding any aspect of your January 6th stop the steal rally, including planning the event and discussions about the event after the fact. Identify all persons with whom you've communicated regarding your efforts to challenge or your disagreements with or the validity of the 2020 presidential election, including the certification on January 6th. They don't like all this stuff besides missing deadlines and asking for extensions. Because, judge, we're just a little shop in Coral Gables, Florida, and we've got a trial up in Palm beach county. Unrelated. We're not gonna. We need more time. What did they think when they filed the lawsuit? They're just gonna dust off one of their templates. Donald Trump called up the lawyer in Florida and said, hey, dust off another 50, $10 billion. The one I don't use the Michael Cohen model. No. Use the. Use the Washington Post model. No. All losing. They're all losers, you know, and he thought he was going to file in the Southern District of Florida. He'd get a judge that was on his side. But Judge Altman has already chastised that those lawyers a number of times for missing deadlines and failing to respond to things like motions to dismiss. And so, you know, this is the law of unintended consequences or just stupidity. I mean, you, you. Every time one of the. If you want people go back six years to when you and I started this. We would often say that Donald Trump, by filing as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, is entered a world of hurt. May not be at the moment he files it, but at some point, because he's going to have to sit for a deposition. If you're going to be a plaintiff, you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. You can't turn down a demand for a deposition under oath. In fact, you and I have often said, let's do those first. I'm not even sure I need documents. I mean, they don't need documents either, by the way. I would just be like, let's have a deposition of Donald Trump right now. There's enough in the public domain between the Jan6 committee and Jack Smith's report. I'm not sure other than they want to drive him crazy. I'm not sure they need it other than about his finances. Sit him. Sit down, Mr. Trump. Swear yourself in with the court reporter. What's your address? Where do you live? What's your title? What do you do? Let's turn to Jan6. Let's play the Ellipse speech in its entirety. Who'd you talk every Question they asked an interrogatory. You do it in depo. Boom, boom, boom. Right? You do it and you. And, and he can't go anywhere. And that is what we've said will be his undoing because we've seen him in depositions. They're terrible for him. This shambolic, dissembling, mumbling, attacking the lawyer. If it's a woman, it becomes a misogynist attack on the woman. Hell, he used the C word against Robby Kaplan in a deposition about E Jean Carroll in a sex abuse case where he literally spelled out C U n T on the way out of a deposition term. Okay, so he does not do well in his own depositions or in his own defense. Right. E Jean Carroll case for sex abuse. Case one, he doesn't testify 5.5 million. Case two, he testifies 183 million. I mean, $83 million. So that is the secret, secret strategy that defendants should use more against him. Get him in the chair fast, and you don't have to wait till the end of the case.
- [50:20]
Popak
You know, and the broader point to make when we cover something like this is this is how he runs everything into the ground. It's not just his litigation, it's his businesses. It's why so many of them went bankrupt, and it's what he's doing with the United States. The parallels here are so on point with rushing into a war, no plan, getting the headline, not actually following through, attacking this, attacking that, without any plan or objective. And when someone fights back, he then backs down inevitably. I can easily predict what happens in this lawsuit next. Happens in this lawsuit. Next is a judge will make an order. You've got to produce the records. Then BBC will do a deposition notice and notice his deposition as well. He won't produce the documents. He'll ask for extensions. He won't show up to the deposition. Eventually, the judge will do an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. He'll ask for an extension. He'll ask for an extension. He'll try to drag this into. By the way, parallel to this, we'll be going through 60 day periods of time in the memorandum of understanding where, you know, he'll violate the mou. He'll violate the mou. You know, these all take the same types of paths. It's, it's, it's his psychotic nature. They all go in this path. It's just obvious. And then eventually, finally the judge will say, all right, man, that's it. What are you going to do? Because I'm going to dismiss it on such and such a date. Trump and his lawyers will dismiss the case without prejudice. So they'll go, oh, it wasn't really dismissed. Then they'll attack the judge and say it was unfair. And then maybe they try to bring the case again in a different court or a different, you know, or, or we reserve the right to bring it again somewhere else. And it was very unfair. And this was a Democratic judge who hates it. It is very obvious where these things go. And you know, as I've said before, I mean, you know, if, if you have a vexatious, litigant, horrible person, they need to be dealt with by the legal system. They're. The big problem here is that this is, this guy is running the country. And we have to be, and I know you are for watching and listening to this, we have to respect ourselves and our families and our future generations and our time and meaning and existence and that of others as well. We have to appreciate that more by not having actual, and I'm not being hyperbolic, actual psychopathic losers running the country. J.D. vance would be significant, don't get me wrong, I despise JD he would be better than this guy. You know, anybody would be better. I mean, George W. Bush looks like a godsend compared to this guy. And I despise George W. Bush. You know, I mean, I'm talking about threshold doing things. And Trump is the worst person in the worst moment because exactly how he behaves in this case is how he behaves in everything in life. And it is a path towards bankruptcy and losing. And I don't, I don't want to be a loser. I know you don't want to be a loser, you know, and I'm sick and tired of people out there who have such hate in their heart that they're willing to be such a loser because the guy goes up there and says the most racist and vile thing. Just shut up, man. Care about yourself, care about your family, care about future generations. And this lawsuit to me is so emblematic of not a Democrat, Republican, of a loser thing, of loser behavior, of psychopathic behavior, of vexatious behavior, of bad faith behavior. Anyway, we'll take our last quick break of the show. A reminder, make sure you subscribe to Popox YouTube channel Legal AF. Just search Legal AF on YouTube. The channel just hit hit 5.2 million views every 48 hours. A big milestone there, 1.15 million subscribers. It's critical that when we get that legal AF YouTube channel to 2 million subscribers heading into 2027. So please make sure you subscribe the substack as well. Make sure you subscribe to Legal AF on the sub stack. And if you or somebody knows been injured in an auto accident and trucking accident, if you've been the victim sadly of a catastrophic incident or somebody else was catastrophically injured, that's the type of case that POPAC handles. Wrongful death, sexual assault, injuries that result in kind of long term permanent injuries. You know, we've had a lot of legal a efforts who have trusted POPAC with their case. So call 877 popac AF or visit the popoc firm.com they're available 24. 7. To take your call 877 popak AF or visit thepopocfirm.com when we come back, we're going to talk about some of these Supreme Court rulings and we'll talk about the other $10 billion, the other $10 billion case that's backfiring in Donald Trump's face, the petulant baby in the Oval Office or whatever you want to call that grotesque structure right now that he's destroyed in D.C. it's horrible. We'll be right back after our last quick break.
- [55:46]
Ben
We have an important message to share from our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. AU is highlighting a case involving federal workers caught in the crossfire. A multi faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution. Americans United received emails from multiple USDA employees saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation of church and state promised in the First Amendment. They are absolutely right. Government employees signed up to work for the usda, not attend Brooke Rollins's Sunday service. The Constitution draws a bright line between personal faith and government power. And this lawsuit says she trampled right over it. Well, the hits keep on coming from this administration and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. If you want to help, head to au.org legalaf to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. Americans United supporting everyone's right to live as they choose, so long as they don't harm others. That's au.org legalaf sure you've got weight loss goals, but hitting them isn't easy. That's where weight loss by HIMS comes in, offering access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the Wegovy pill at its lowest price ever and the WeGovy pen. With WeGovy at hims, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps regulate your appetite so you eat less. And it's the first and only GLP1 available in a pill, so no needles needed. Everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider to see if treatment is right for you and if prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door. No insurance necessary. Plus him supports you beyond medication with 24.7Care team messaging and personalized plans, including lifestyle tools like meal plans, recipes and fitness content to help you stay on track. Ready to reach your goals? Visit himss.com legalaf to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you that's H I M S.com legalaf hims.com legalaf based on advertised cash price for 30 days, supply of medication only, membership required, fee not included, and billed separately. Weight loss by HIMSS is not available in all 50 states. WeGovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk as to get started and learn more, including important safety information, weGovy, clinical study information and restrictions, visit HIMSS.com welcome
- [58:58]
Popak
back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of our sponsors for making this show possible. Support our Sponsors Discount codes are in the description below. Popak and Jordi spend a lot of time with those sponsors working on those discount codes and so we appreciate their support. Again, check them out. It's great stuff and helps the show. Let's get into it. Popak, why don't you jump in and talk about Judge Brinkama, the proceedings taking place in Virginia regarding this slush fund. $1.8 billion for the J6 insurrectionist. But also, let's not fall for the distraction aspect. That's important and disgusting. But also, it's the super pardon of Donald Trump having his own DOJ and Treasury Department and IRS give him full immunity from any audits or investigations into criminal tax evasion or whatever that dates back from the signing of the agreement, basically forever back in time, which could not just be hundreds of millions but potentially billions of dollars based on all the quid pro quos he's entered into. You know, with all of these foreign countries and crypto and all the stuff he's done since he's been in all the Office, which has just been absolutely vile and disgusting. And then you have, on a kind of parallel track, if you will, proceedings in Florida, which is where Trump originally filed the collusive lawsuit against his own government to try to get $10 billion of our taxpayer money, and then dismissed the case, lied to Judge Williams, who's the federal judge in that case, and didn't disclose that there was a settlement, but then used the case and the judge's initials in the settlement agreement. That was actually just a declaration of settlement that was signed only by Todd Blanche with a day later, the addendum, which was the super pardon, waiving all of Donald Trump's tax liability and tax immunity and giving him essentially tax immunity. And now the proceedings there, despite Trump dismissing it, are reinstituted after you mentioned some of those federal judges filed a brief to the, to the federal judge here, retired federal judges, to the current federal judge judge informing her of the fraud on the court taking place, to which, surprise, surprise, Donald Trump's lawyer's response has been to attack the judge, citing separation of powers. Judge, you can question us. How dare you even think about asking if we entered into a collusive settlement. Stay in your lane, federal judge. Great work, United States Supreme Court right wing fascists for totally undermining our rule of law. And it pains me as a law professor who teaches this, this to see how these rulings by the Supreme Court, which we'll talk about in a little bit, their most recent ones, they trickle down, obviously, and they create a situation that, you know, the rules are for the. There are other litigants, but not for, but not for me when it comes to Donald Trump who goes in there with his absolute immunity. And it reminds me when I was a kid and you had Game Genie, that's an old school reference to people who had the Nintendo. And you have invincibility cloak and you just go around the boards like you don't even have to follow any of the rules rules. But in this case, you're not winning Super Mario. You're destroying the United States of America on its 250th Popoc. Let's get into it, man.
- [62:13]
Ben
Many of the cases that you and I talked about today also have another context. They're going to be used against Todd Blanche because they indicate the corruption of the Department of Justice and the corruption of the nominee, not just being the prior former. I could think of many former private lawyers who then become honest civil and public servants, especially when they move into the Department of Justice. We've never had a case where the president has not only brought along his entire criminal defense team and given them all cushy top jobs in his administration and particularly the Department of Justice and if not there, in the judiciary, because he's been placing all of his criminal defense lawyers in these lifetime appointed federal judge positions. You know, one law firm alone in New York, Sullivan and Cromwell, which is where a number of these U.S. attorneys and the future Director of National Intelligence all come from. There's like three or four lawyers that work. It's like the only, it's the only big law firm in New York that was willing to take on Donald Trump's matters and look how they're reaping the benefits of it now. But top Blanche is going to have to answer for many of these cases that you and I have talked about today. And the position taking when Emmett Sullivan says, Judge Emmett Sullivan says in Katie Feng's case that the, that the Department of Justice's attorney general has conceded violations of the Epstein act in this case and enters a preliminary injunction. When Judge Williams in Miami, another judge in Miami who is seriously considering opening an evidentiary hearing, a trial, if you will, about whether Donald Trump, Trump and his lawyers and Todd Blanche and others in the Cabinet conspired to commit a fraud on the court about this IRS Jan6 fund that's in Miami. And you know, she just, just to touch on that for a minute and I know that judge really, really well. She just told 23 Democratic attorneys general who wanted to also file an amici brief, a friend of the court brief, about how unlawful what they observed was happening in that case is the judge said greatly appreciate the filing. I've got what I need. And what she says I got, I can translate that for you. I got what I need in terms of legal briefing from the 35 former federal judges is I've got the briefing. What I need is the facts and I haven't gotten them from the, from the Blanche side about whether a conspiracy to defraud my court occurred. The only way a judge can do fact finding is to hold an evidentiary hearing or trial and get Todd Blanche to testify. And if he doesn't do it, which is unlikely, that he will, he'd rather lose than testify. We've seen that time and time again. That'll be fair game for the Sheldon White Houses and the Cory Bookers and the Senator Blumenthal and the others on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have to cross examine Todd Blanche. Case in point, Judge Brinkama because the Jan6 Fund and Donald Trump and Blanch have been whipsawed between two federal judges. And when they say one thing in one court, it gets used against them in the other, usually because they're inconsistent in their position taking. But Judge Brinkoma, who's an Eastern District of Virginia judge, senior status judge, she made it quite simple. She said, all right, you want to get rid of the Jan6 fund. You want to say that the settlement agreement that created it is over basic, basic contract principles. See, a settlement agreement is a contract. It's analyzed under basic contract principles that Ben and I learned, even with the lack of technology apparently, that I had. Apparently I learned it, according to Ben, by candlelight. But in any event, I did have a computer. Ben Law School. But the contract principals say, all right, if parties to a contract want to amend, rescind, do what's called a novation of a contract, all the parties have to sign. Instead. We had Todd Blanche not only not put it in writing in the courtroom under oath, but not even put it in writing anywhere. They just want the judge, because one party to the agreement, he wasn't even really a party to the agreement, declared the agreement over the settlement agreement, and the fund is dead on arrival. That doesn't do it in a court of law, as Judge Brinkham has reminded them. You want to prove it to me? We're in a courtroom. Look around. See the wood paneling and the leather chairs? See my robe? We're in a courtroom. Don't point to me to social media posts or video clips or even congressional testimony. Put your money where your mouth is. And I want all the contracting parties, not just one that says unilaterally, I'm walking away from the contract. I want them all. If you want to do that, you'll never see me again. You'll never see me again in this case. I'll relinquish jurisdiction. I won't provide oversight. I won't continue to block the formation of the fund. Just give me an affidavit.
- [67:27]
Popak
That's all.
- [67:27]
Ben
She said, give it to me by this date, certified certain you'll never see me again, so. Or if you're not going to do that, that's okay, too. File your response in writing in this courtroom in July, and we'll put this case in a trial docket and the injunction stays in place. In the meantime, in fact, Sky Perryman for Democracy Forward, it's her group that brought the brink of a case. And I got sky for an interview on Monday over on Legal AF YouTube channel to update our audience about this. So instead of doing One or the other. Leave it to the Trump administration to come up with their own way. That's infinitely worse than if they just shut the F up, to paraphrase Robert De Niro, and didn't say anything. So instead they created a third way, a third piece of paper, a notice. Okay, let's read it. Judge, you can't tell us what to do. Separation of powers. It was all word salad. You know, without, with string, citation, without any citations. You can't command and compel three cabinet level people to give testimony in a courtroom. No, you just need to trust us. And the statement that was made by Todd Blanche and officers of the court. Reality is federal judges don't trust the Department of Justice, if not no longer give them the benefit of the doubt or the benefit of the presumption of regularity and believe that it's the old joke. How do you know when the Department of Justice is not telling the truth? When they're in court, their lips move when they speak. That's how you know. And so judges are not trusting them. So every judge you and I have reported on that is trying to fact find about the Trump administration requires filings and testimony, but they don't want to. So they usually blink and flinch and dismiss, but they don't have a choice here. So the judge said, all right, I see what you filed. I didn't tell you to file that, but you've chosen to, so let me hear. So here's my response. And she issued her order. In her order, she said, the more you tell me that you do not want to put this in writing under oath in my courtroom, the more I believe that you are reluctant and therefore you're just trying to get away from my jurisdiction by saying that you are reluctantly dismissing the January 6th fund or not going forward with it. And there's a doctrine in the law, the reluctant party doctrine or the voluntary cessation doctrine, which is sort of what it sounds like. You get caught doing something bad, you're in a lawsuit now, right? Bright lights are on you, okay? Can't go anywhere. And you go, I'll stop doing it. I'll stop doing that thing. But you're not really interested in stop doing it. You just want to get the judge to dismiss your case. And so even if you voluntarily stop, the bad thing doesn't mean the lawsuit is over. And that is that voluntary cessation doctrine or the reluctant. The reluctant party. And she points to clips of. To turn it back on him. Todd Blanche and clips of Donald Trump where Todd Blanche in his other testimony said, I think it's a great fund and it serves a good purpose, but we're not going forward with it. And Donald Trump saying out loud, I think it's a beautiful, everything's beautiful about an insurrection. I think it's a beautiful fund. I think we should go, I think we should go forward with it. And the judge says, right, you're only stopping the bad thing to get out from my jurisdiction. Which only reinforces my decision that I'm retaining jurisdiction. See you next month, gentlemen. With your filing, I'm not sure there's much they can do about on appeal at the moment. You know, all these eventual, these roads lead to the United States Supreme Court. But what I love about the brinkama Williams sort of call and response between the two federal judges is it putting so much pressure. And when you pressurize Trump and his department is beleaguered, gassed Department of Justice, you they say and do crazy shit that gets used against them. It's just so the more you and that that's what I love about our, our platform and our network and our channels is that we channeling the millions, you know, approaching 10 million if you combine the two channels of, of our audience and you we train it with a heavy artillery pressure pressurizing the Trump administration. Who knows full well who MIDAS is. Who knows full well who Legal AF is. It's not just judges that are watching us and, and, and concerned patriots. It's the administration and we are pressurizing them and they are making mistakes under pressure.
- [72:15]
Popak
You know, also what Legal af, I mean, I've talked about the growth of it. Everybody make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and Substack. But also, I mean being the kind of voice and the main network now for the Judge Ludig's promoting Katie Feng and the work that she's doing. The aclu, all of these groups pop. Why don't you give a shout out just so people know when we'll talk about to all these groups that are actually the ones litigating in court. Their main place of getting out information is Legal af. I mean talk to us about to some of the other people who constantly appear on Legal.
- [72:50]
Ben
That's the real fun part of the job that you and I do in the build of Legal af. I mean we could have just made it. Well, POPOC will do commentary all day long, but that's not, that was not our vision. Our vision was to be a trusted brand for the and so here, here are the groups that are regularly with us and even official collaborators with us. The 24 Democratic attorneys general regularly appear with us. Rob Bonta's interview is up right now with me from California. It's up on Legal, a YouTube channel today. And I often go to their conferences and hold panel discussions with them. Democracy Forward and Sky Perryman, who has over a hundred cases against the Trump, the Trump administration and is regularly winning. They're at almost a 90% winning percentage. Sky comes on to do exclusive briefing about cases like the brink of a case that we just discussed. The American Civil Liberties Union is a branded collaborator with us with their own playlist. And if it's not me or one of our others on the channel, like Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News, it's them doing their own reporting about their cases that are so, so important. So we got the American Civil Liberties Union. I regularly interviewed, you know, people and lawyers for the naacp and we're working, sort of working with them as well. We've got Court Accountability Action, which is a, along with True north, which is about rooting out federal corruption in the federal courts up to the United States Supreme Court. That's all they focus on civil. We got Court of history, our resident historians, Sidney Blumenthal who was in the White House, the Clinton White House, and Sean Will Lentz of Princeton University, who, I mean their guest list alone of journalists and politicians is unmatched on, on, on YouTube right now. Seriously, just their playlist is so enjoyable. I joke with them that they're like murders in the building, but, but history, politics and law. And so, so you have that, you got Dina Dahl is with me doing, doing shows. You've got Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News. I mean, I mean that is our regular contributor list. That's every day. That's how we can crank out 12 fresh videos every day.
- [75:01]
Popak
Because this is a generational project, right? We're talking about what's happening on a day to day. But really what we have to look and do is what pro democracy, law and order people were outflanked by this kind of right wing fascist movement that then found its final dagger in the heart of democracy in Project 2025. But it was a decades long generational project. We have to do that. We have to address short term, but then long term, because let's face it, we still have a right wing fascist Supreme Court right now that hates America, that hates this country and watches the Handmaid's Tale and says not extreme enough. We gotta go push further. How could we harm people Even more than what we see. Oh, let's. So let's give immunity to glyphosate. Let's, I mean, you take a look. I'll play us out with just these rulings that were just made this past week by the United States Supreme Court with mostly six to three or seven to two, but all right wing, you know, you know, pretty much right wing Supreme Court rulings. So you've got, you know, the Monsanto vs. Durnell case. The court ruled that Monsanto, that's Roundup
- [76:19]
Ben
Bear,
- [76:21]
Popak
is shielded from cancer victims suing over Roundup. Federal pesticide law blocks states from requiring cancer warnings on labels. You know, RFK kind of made his whole career over working with plaintiffs lawyers in states to sue Monsanto and Roundup. That's what, that's how rfk, you know, one, made a lot of money. But two, his whole MAHA thing was going after Monsanto. Well, the Trump regime, rfk, they did the amicus brief on the side of Monsanto, on the side of the corporations to allow for there to be immunity of glyphosate. And so now you can't sue them for causing cancer and from causing all of these things. And so federal law preempts state law right there. Wolford vs. Lopez, 6 to 3 decision. The court struck down Hawaii's law requiring permission to bring gun guns into private property that is open to the public, like stores, restaurants and hotels. Hawaii said, you know what, we have an issue with, you know, guns and gun violence. You know, we're for second amendment, but could we kind of keep it away or have a permission structure for bringing these on to stores, restaurants, hotels? Could we do that? The Supreme Court said no. People need to have their, their war weapons, not just, you know, concealed carry. I mean, they are, they're allowed to bring it into your rest. You can't say they can't bring it into restaurant stores and hotels. Well, that's kind of a problem for our tourism in Hawaii. You know, we're trying to, you know, pass laws.
- [77:59]
Ben
We don't care.
- [78:01]
Popak
Have you read the second Amendment? Yeah, I did. I mean it says a well regulated militia. Stop saying it says regulated. Yeah, it says regulated in it. There's commas. The commas mean it doesn't apply. Commas mean the words well regulated, militia, Russia don't mean things. And yes, trust us. Why? Because these right wing Supreme Court justices are sociopaths and they come up and make framework like we're strict textualists, except when the text contradicts them. We're states Rights. Until they want a fascist authoritarian. We're originalists. Until the original interpretations, they make up their framework to come up with these fascist rulings. Mullen verse al otolado. Asylum seekers stopped at the border return back in Mexico. The court says you haven't arrived in America yet when you arrive in America, so there's no right to apply for asylum. You turn around and even if you're about to be politically persecuted and killed, let it happen, folks, because you're not really in America and you can seek asylum. And then Mullen versus Doe, another right wing Supreme Court six to three decision. The right wing Supreme Court rules that the Trump administration can end temporary protected status for migrants fleeing violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria, and that courts cannot review the federal government's decisions regarding tps. And then I've heard some people say, well, what if there's a Democratic administration who wants to install tps? Well, then won't this right wing Supreme Court. Didn't they just screw themselves by saying that they can't even review what the administration does regarding tps? And my answer to you is no, this is a right wing. They'll find their sociopaths. They're crazy people. They come up with a framework that will contradict the framework. Nice. So trust me, if there's a Democratic president who then tries to say, okay, well, we're going to be compassionate, use your precedent in order to now assert these rules, then all of a sudden, all of these cases that the Supreme Court is now like, you know, saying, well, we'll agree to Donald Trump's interpretation of irreparable harm and we'll let the Trump policy stay in place. The Supreme Court will then accept those cases. Here's my prediction, and it's a grim one, but it's the reality on a fast track. If you have a Democratic president and then the Supreme Court will be like, okay, okay, we've seen what's taken place now. And now there's too much executive power. So now we're going to place limitations on the executive. When a Democratic president's doing it, it the same way. As I've said before in videos, isn't it interesting that right now I'm, I guess, happy, although we shouldn't have been in this catastrophic war in the first place, that the price of Brent crude is like 72 bucks, despite the fact that for all purposes, you know, the ceasefires bs, the MOU is bs. There's more, you know, military actions taking place. I looked under the Biden administration, you know, Like a random date in 2023 when Brent crude was at like $92. And I'm like, that's fascinating to me that the so called markets found there to be far much more uncertainty in 2023, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine in like mid to late twenties than right now when the literal Strait of Hormuz is basically has been shut down for months and months and months and we hit tank bottom. That's a fascinating thing right there because the markets think that it's gonna, that this will, that the Strait of Hormuz situation is going to be perfectly fine. And I go, look, all I know is things have escalated in the war between Ukraine, but to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what's going on there. I see more oil depots being blown up there every day. The Strait of Hormuza is closed. The Bab El Mandib Strait may soon be, you know, shut down if things escalate as well. I mean, that's been threatened, but yet, you know, it just seems to me obvious that, that to the extent, and I'll, I'll end it on this popoc and if you we, you know, I think it's a natural point to end this episode on in general though, is that to the extent there's been any positive things coming out of this Trump regime, it's that Trump is so blatantly corrupt that I think it's allowed us to kind of see the playbook and the road map. You know, it's like if the football coach for the opposing team showed you their play, their play cards or whatever it is, here are the plays. Like I get to see him in a clearer way. And I think that a lot of us go, oh, that's how you were doing it. That's how you were doing. That's how you were doing it. That's how you were doing it. You know, and how did we not see that before we knew it was going on? But it is fascinating to me that the guy who said, you know, we're going to be the ones to stop the cabal and the deep state and all of this, as always, it's always projection and they've revealed themselves, us. This is what's going on. This is what the Epstein class has done to us behind the scenes. And to me, you know, that's not even conspiratorial saying that. I think that's where we're at. Popak, any final words before we go other than to say great work with legal AF YouTube channel substack everybody subscribe there. Let's keep on fighting, man. What else do you Want to say? Pop obviously subscribe to his YouTube channel. Subscribe to the legal app Substack. If you are somebody who has been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, catastrophic injury, reach out to the Popoc firm 877 Popocf consultations free. The Popoc firm.com go there as well. If you prefer to send an email. POPOC where you want to go before we end the show?
- [83:25]
Ben
Yeah, I'm going to do it consistent with what you just said. Two things that I want people to take away from this episode. One is and to manage some expectations. We're going to get some rulings probably this week. Could be into the Fourth of July weekend, but I think it'll be this week.
- [83:40]
Popak
Week.
- [83:40]
Ben
From the United States Supreme Court, we're waiting on 14 more decisions, but particularly we're waiting on birthright citizenship. I believe that's going to be something that's going to be favorable. In other words, they're not going to allow Donald Trump to take away the right for somebody born in the United States to be an American citizen. Mail in ballots though. We're waiting on about what they're going to do there. We're waiting on Donald Trump's ability to fire at will agency heads within the executive branch and undermine the integrity or the independence. The Federal Reserve all left for the last week before these six MAGA cowards leave for their summer vacation. But I want people to think and use this next week in particular because we'll be, we'll be doing a show right in that next weekend. But plan now to do some sort of personal counter programming during to celebrate America, to celebrate the America that you love and the, and the values and, and the patriotic values that you admire that are missing from this current government. There's going to be plenty of ways to do appropriate counter programming to all of the propaganda that Donald Trump has has spewing out as he's captured America and its birthday celebration for its declaration of independence. Midas will be doing counter programming. Legal AF will be doing counter programming. And now is a good time as we gather ourselves in, start to believe we're here in July already, July 4th weekend as we get ready for the November elections. It used to be back in the day before you and I started doing what we're doing, Ben, that people would say nobody pays attention to politics during the summer. It's, it's after Labor Day those days are over. Now we have to use this time to renew our faith in our our democracy and our rule of law. Stay together as a community and a fellowship and use next weekend as a as a personal protest and counter programming not to America, but to the Trump regime and its attempt to hijack our values while they're in office.
- [85:50]
Popak
Thanks, everybody, for watching this week's episode of Legal AF. Thank you again. Subscribe to the YouTube channel Subscribe to our YouTube channel Subscribe to Legal AF YouTube channel subscribe to Legal, Legalayev substack and the Popoc Firm. Check them out as well. The links and stuff are in the description, so check that out. Don't be shy. For real, if you're somebody who has a case, reach out. Don't be shy. He's representing a lot of a lot of Legal app listeners and watchers. All right, have a great weekend, everybody. Let's keep on fighting. Stay strong. Stay positive. I know it's hard, but we're in this together. We're fighting back. We have not given up. We have only gone stronger as a community. And we'll keep on getting stronger as a community. Shout out Midas Mighty. Shout out Legal Answers.