Karen Freeman (6:05)

Hello. How are you doing?

Michael Popak (6:07)

I'm doing great. I have a, it's not a good, it's not a great, it's an okay reason. I was having dinner with Dina Dahl and her husband.

Karen Freeman (6:14)

Nice. How are they doing?

Michael Popak (6:15)

They're doing great. They flew to Miami. We joined, my wife and I and Francesca, our daughter, joined them and we met Greg and Dina Dahl in Miami. And then of course, we got hit with Miami traffic coming back. So I thank the audience for hanging in there with us and. But we've rolled up our shirt sleeves. We got a lot to talk about. Gary, you want to, you want to. Let's do tariffs, right? I framed it to open. You know what happened? 9:37 in the morning, Donald Trump says, great time to buy. At 1:30 or so, he announces 90 day, 90 day stay. $4 trillion floods back into the market, benefiting who knows who. But let's, let's get your opinion.

Karen Freeman (6:53)

Look, I mean, it was pretty clear to me when Elon Musk, who seems to be out from Doge, felt he could go openly to war with Peter Navarro and talk about who's credited with being the architect of these, of these tariffs, basically going to war with him publicly on X, calling him all kinds of names and a moron and doesn't know anything. And Peter Navarro going back against Elon Musk and essentially calling the tariffs a really bad idea. It was pretty clear at that point that something was about to change because Elon Musk, although he might no longer be part of Doge, I think is pretty clear he's still part of Trump's inner circle and something was afoot. So I wasn't surprised when Trump reversed course. But I think that normally what would happen in, in something like this is the Department of Justice or a prosecutor would follow the money and see if there's anyone who benefited from, from this. But there's really nothing you can do about it. Right. Because the Department of Justice is controlled by Donald Trump. So nobody's going to investigate whether there's any inside insider trading that, that I can think of, unless the local prosecutor's office does it? But I just don't see any way that anyone would be held accountable. I don't see the SEC looking into whether or not someone benef, whether again not just insider trading, but you're not allowed to impact the markets. And again if this was anybody else there'd be an investigation. But it's the President of the United States. He controls the executive branch and any of these agencies, whether it's an administrative agency, a regulatory agency or the Department of Justice all work for him. So of course we know they're not going to look into that. So he can do whatever he wants. You can thank the Supreme Court for that. In Trump versus the United States.

Michael Popak (8:43)

Right. Roberts gave him license to, to commit larceny. He gave the, that's how that we knew that we, we talked about it. It's not, we managed expectations. We said this was going to be the lesson that Donald Trump learned from having one criminal immunity from prosecution from this administration before he was, was elected president again and that he was going to operate that way. We were going to see the greatest grift in the history of, pardon me, in the history of our America. That's exactly what we're watching. No self respecting honest public servant President of the United States would stand in front of the American people and sell stock and benefit his friends. No, you know, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, he's out shilling for Tesla stock, which is a violation of a number of statutes. But who's going to investigate it? The House, the Senate, the executive branch? Stop me if you've, if you, if you, if the wheel lands on something that'll actually act. Which is why generally the public watching this in action and the, and watching the pendulum swing so far in the wrong direction self corrects at the midterms and says you know what, we got to get the other party, one or both of the other branches because, or at least the, the two chambers of, of the House and the it because we got to hold Donald Trump accountable because nobody else is holding him accountable. I mean, I mean I, I, I think I did a hot take on it and I'm sure it's up on, on Midas as well. But you've got the Representative Horford who's, who's cross examining as part of his job in Congress of providing oversight. The Steve Horsford is Rep. Is, is cross examining Jamie Greer. By the way, anybody watching and listening to Jamie Greer that thinks he's the head of the tariff and tarification policy of Donald Trump. Seriously, I mean I wouldn't let that guy wash my windows if I was stopped at a traffic light, let alone run my tariff policy. He's obviously, you know, he's sort of a, a paper, not even a tiger. He's just, he's just a figurehead. And while he was giving his testimony, was right around 1:00 when Trump announced that he was going to pause for 90 days, obviously taking a page out of. Two days ago there was a rumor, sounds like now it was a leak that they had to quickly deny at the rapid response team for Donald Trump fake news because he wasn't ready yet. But somehow it leaked that he was thinking about exactly what he did today, a 90 day pause. And that made the markets really happy and they, they recovered $2 trillion worth of their lost value on that, on that rumor. Then Donald Trump issued a fake news social media tweet and it went into the crapper again. But he has eyes, he saw what happened. And so he decided, wow, the fake news could make it 2 trillion. Let's see what I can do. So he announces it, this guy's there. It led Horsford, Representative Horsford, to say, and I quote, so the trade representative for Trump hasn't spoken to the President of the United States about a global reordering of trade, that he just announced it on a tweet. What, wtf? Who is in charge here? This is amateur hour. I love the fact that WTF ended up in the Congressional Record and all, all, all Greer, Jamie Greer had to say was, well, he was the, he was elected President of the United States. I'm not going to reveal the things that we talked about. He says, you, you, we gave you questions to answer. You need to answer those questions here. And so follow the money. I'm sure over the next several days, organizations, including ones that are with us on legal af, like Court Accountability Action, are going to figure out who is benefited by the $4 trillion recovery or with a T today among Donald Trump's friends. And we'll, we'll come back to it and we'll report on it. But it's, we're just watching, you know, the, you know, the, so many firsts with Donald Trump, right? First to be twice impeached, first to be criminally multiply indicted, first to be convicted, first president to be a convicted felon. And so of course he's doing these things as well. And that's why, transitioning for a minute to Judge McFadden, who was a Trump appointee, qualified Trump appointee in D.C. he issued finally his order about the Associated Press. Now let me frame that and turn it over to Karen, Associated Press. Through its wire service services, one half of the world's population. I mean, that's even better. That's better than McDonald's. I mean, two and a half, whatever billion people get their news in some way from the Associated Press. And they are, according to the judge, hemorrhaging money because they've been banned and barred from doing their job and getting access to the precedent in the White House. And I was a little troubled when the temporary restraining order was denied. We were like, oh, I thought it was because they moved too, too late because you got to move kind of quick on a tri. And I was like, what are they waiting for? And I was like, all right, well, let's just wait to see what happens at preliminary injunction time. And now we've got the order from. From. From Trump's own judge. Not a. Not a liberal, not a Marxist, not a corrupt person. Trevor McFadden, Karen, what did you make of the order and what do you think it means for at least some of the judges on the D.C. court?

Karen Freeman (14:27)

Yeah, so, I mean, look, let's just back up for a minute and talk about what's happening here. So the press has a First Amendment right to be present and to report on things. And the press has as much of First Amendment right as anybody else has. And so that is something that if you're going to make rules that infringes on someone's constitutional rights, that has the highest scrutiny by the courts, meaning you can't just do things. Right, you have to have really good reasons. So let's just again have a little mini breakout session on the First Amendment. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Okay, so it goes on after that, but it specifically lists the press in there. And so I think that's an important thing to remind everybody. And it really protects the right of individuals and organizations to publish information and opinions without any government censorship or control. So Trump essentially barred the Associated Press from physically covering events while he let other reporters in. And traditionally, the AP always had a front row seat. They were always asked the first question, partly because what they're known for is neutrality. They are the ones. They don't really have a point of view and never really have. They're neutral. And then everybody else gets news. Smaller news organizations, local news organizations or international news organizations will. Will take the information and will frame it from their point of view. Right? It could be right, it could be left. It could be for some other perspective, it could be for some other reason. But that's what the Associated Press is. It's a, it's a tremendous service to the press at large. And so what happened here. And so, so again, they're known to be neutral. They are not known to be left wing or anti Trump or anything like that. But what they decided to do was not rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and Trump decided to block them from having access to those live briefings. And so really what this judge said in a really sharply worded opinion, I have to say for any judge, let alone a Trump appointee, was basically, you're not allowed to give a viewpoint based denial. It has to be content neutral. And those are sort of terms of art when you're talking about First Amendment and free speech. And Trump was trying to say, oh, we're just not giving them extra special access. But that's not what they were asking for. They weren't asking for extra special access. What they were really asking for is just a level playing field. So if you are letting other reporters in, then they have to be let into. They weren't asking for, like reporters don't get to be in the, you know, in the Situation Room or the Oval Office or you don't have a right to that. Unless, of course, you're inviting the press into that to Air Force One, to all the places that you see pool reporters go. And if you're doing that, you have to let them in too. And you certainly can't bar them from for reasons because you don't like the content of what they're reporting. So, for example, he's not allowed to say, I'm only allowing Fox News and Newsmax and places like that. He has to allow everyone in if he's going to allow them in. I also thought it was interesting and I didn't realize this, that the iconic photograph where after, after Trump was shot and he raises his fist in the air and he has blood coming down his face with the flag in the background, that was taken from an AP photographer, right? Like the AP kind of gives him good and bad. You know, they're just neutral, they just report things and so that he would go after them really says a lot. But the judge was, I think he said some pretty good, some pretty good wording in there. He said things like, under the First Amendment, if the government opens the door to some journalists, be it in the Oval Office, the East Room or elsewhere, it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. So and Trump, you know, the Trump officials were very explicit and brazen. They don't even protectually try to pretend that it's anything else. They say why they did it, which helps, it helps judges kind of say, look, you're not allowed to do what you're saying you're going to do. And so it was a pretty strongly worded decision by Judge McFadden. And basically he said, you know, that the order said you shall immediately rescind your viewpoint denial to the Associated Press and any other other viewpoint related journalists and gave a stay of a few days so that if they want to appeal this decision, he can go and appeal it. I think this is one that even the Supreme Court is going to say you're not allowed to do that. I mean, it's one of the first things I learned in con law in first year of law school. Right. It's, you know, you really have to be, have to be content neutral when you're infringing on someone's First Amendment rights.

Michael Popak (20:06)

Yeah, absolutely. I thought McFadden. I'm going to read a couple of things from McFadden. I thought McFadden slyly took a shot at Donald Trump, even though he was appointed by Donald Trump on page 14 of his order in talking about the historical underpinnings of the First Amendment. So important, freedom of the press. We know it well here on the Midas Touch Network as an independent entity. People see the difference in our approach and viewpoint because we're not beholden to corporate overlords or, or others. You know, we're, we're beholden to our own conscience when we write. But, but who does this sound like? I don't think he just pulled this one out of Roger's thesaurus or, or book of quotations. Here's what he wrote on page 14 and talking about the First Amendment and the Federalists who helped, you know, who wrote in order to promote the Constitution. He said, he said the pseudonymic writer, Philadelphian somebody writing under a pseudonym, for instance, stressed that the free press was, quote, the scourge of tyrants, oppressors, villains and bloodsuckers. The bulwark of freedom that caused the haughtiest lordling to tremble. An inestimable jewel that places the poorest citizen on a level with the richest demagogue. Who are the rich demagogues, tyrants, oppressors and bloodsuckers? In this story, I don't think that was by accident. Even though he was a Trumper, he later talked about the First Amendment and the importance of the press this way. On page 16, he said these immediate and forceful backlashes to attacks on the press underscore how Americans understood the First Amendment. In the early centuries. They saw this foremost protection as safeguarding their natural right to heap honest criticism upon the government without fear of official reprisal. That's what we do every day right here. We're trying to heap honest criticism without fear, although we have a little fear, a fear of reprisal. I just thought the structure of his memo, his memorandum opinion was interesting, too. No Democrat would have thought to write it this way. But he started with almost like, don't bash me. I'm, I'm not stopping you from doing the following six or seven things. But you've gone too far, Trump, with brazenly breaching the First Amendment by punishing Associated Press, particularly because they won't adopt your, your Gulf of America and their style book. You said they're neutral. I agree with you. Except Susie Weil, the chief of staff, she said no, they've weaponized their style book. I've never. They've weaponized their dictionary. I really don't understand what that means or how people think of the Associated Press. I think of them as having almost no point of view, let alone a point of view. But this is how he starts it, Karen. It's very interesting. He says, about two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico. It's almost laughable at how simplistically he puts it, the Gulf of America, period. It's almost cutting in its criticism. The Associated Press did not follow suit for that editorial choice. The White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues, seeking a preliminary injunction and joining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint. And then he says, today the court grants that relief. But this injunction does not. Now he's given the list of things that he's not doing. Does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president in a non public space. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists they want to sit down with for interviews and which questions they answer. And it certainly doesn't prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. You can still all do that. But Then he, then he hits it with exactly the way you, you let off or you, you mentioned just recently. No, the court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists, be it the Oval Office, the East Room or elsewhere, it cannot then shut the doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. I just think the whole structure, there is power in the structure of it. And almost as, almost like a satirical, a satire of this administration baked into. They're going to be studying Trevor McFadden here and what he was really trying to accomplish and what I haven't heard, and if people found it, put it in. Our chat tonight is Donald Trump immediately bashing Trevor McFadden, his own judge, calling him a liberal Marxist, criminal, corrupt, fascist, left wing. Nothing. Nothing. So the only part I want to leave it on right here is that McFadden did stay the order, meaning it's in place. They're back in the game. Except he stayed his order until 13 April, giving Trump time to go to the D.C. court of Appeals on his way to the United States Supreme Court. And then we're going to have to see. You and I are going to spend a considerable amount of time talking about the Supreme Court the second half of this show today and what they're doing and why. It's so hard to predict what they're going to do. But when it comes to First Amendment, except for Alito and Gorsuch, I think most of them are protective of the First Amendment. What do you think?

Karen Freeman (25:41)

I think so, too. I mean, the First Amendment is one of those, it's like not all amendments are created equal. Not the whole Constitution is not necessarily created equal. The First Amendment is just something, there's such a body of law protecting it. It's one of those rights that we all hold near and dear to our hearts. So I agree with you. That doesn't mean he can't make a lot of mischief and make a lot of hay for people, which is what he does when he doesn't like the way people are doing certain things. I mean, hot off the presses tonight. Lawyers who work for the Department of Justice aren't allowed to attend anything or be a part of the American Bar Association. That's huge. Again, the American Bar Association, a neutral body. That is a way of. I've taught there. I've learned from them, I've lectured. There's just ways of lawyers getting together and learning from one another. It's not partisan. Again, there's no point of view. But he has a way of really bullying people to try to get his way. And I see this as. It just appears that they act first and then think later. You know, there's no kind of the way. The way we've all been taught to. To behave. And when I was in government for many years, what we would do is, is we would have an idea, and then we would study the legality of it, and we would look and see the pros and the cons. And is it. Is it something that you're allowed to do as a lawyer? And if you're not, you don't. I mean, that's just the way it is. That doesn't seem to be a concern necessarily for this, for the people who are. Who are doing these things to them. It's like we're barring the aap and we'll see where it goes, and they'll fight after that. It's really about. I think it's about flexing your political muscles and your political might. That's what it seems like, because it's so clearly lawless.

Michael Popak (27:39)

Yeah. They just fired Mr. Rouveni, who is. We're going to talk about it after our break. Who was the head of immigration litigation for the Department of Justice because his crime that he was canned by Todd Blanche, he told the truth. He told the truth in his filings. He told the truth in a federal court. He complied with his. His obligations of duty of candor to the tribunal. You're not allowed to lie, even though you have to be a zealous advocate. That's where it ends. And he took. He told the truth to Judge Zinnis in Maryland. He said Armando Abrego Garcia was the subject of a order by an immigration judge not to be removed to El Salvador. That the Immigration Customs and Enforcement ICE knew about that order. And despite that order and that federal order, the fact that he was a green card holder hadn't done anything wrong. They shackled him and threw him on a plane without notice and due process and put him to die in El Salvador in a jail, which is not okay. And Judge Zenis ordered him to return. And when the transcript came out and Todd Blanche saw it, it lit his hair on fire. And he decided he needed to fire Raveni because Raveni answered the judge's question honestly. And he said that he should not have been deported, he should not have been removed. It was a violation of the order. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it with my client, the Department of Justice, and Trump. I have not gotten Satisfactory answers. I would like 24 hours to continue to talk to them. And that confession, that honesty not only killed the government's position because it had the added benefit of being true, but got the guy fired by Todd Blanche. What world do we live in, Karen, where lawyers who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and to comply with the rules of professional conduct and responsibility are fired for doing their job because they told the truth?

Karen Freeman (29:38)

It's really unbelievable to me. I, I, I can't even believe that that's what happens. It was not just him, but I think it was his supervisor, too, was also fired. It's just unbelievable to me.

Michael Popak (29:48)

Yeah, well, the ultimate supervisor is, is Drew Ensen, who we're going to talk about, who was arguing at the same time, around the same time in front of Judge Boasberg. We'll talk about the Judge Boasberg case and how it looks like he's probably lost jurisdiction. I don't think he's going to be able to find the Trump administration in contempt related to his orders to ground the planes and stop them from going to El Salvador based on a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. We're going to interpret, Karen and me, the JGG ruling that just came out and what they found. In terms of what is habeas corpus, I can't think of a better person to talk about it than a former state prosecutor like Karen Free McNiffelow. We're going to talk about habeas corpus, what it means, why Washington was decided to be not the right venue for this. And we'll tie it together with another case that's pending about a break about Armando Abrego Garcia. So sort of like twins, two peas in the pod. And what one ruling may mean for Mr. Abrego Garcia's future and his ability to, to live and, and what kind of rule of law or other type of constitutional republic we live in or do we live in a place where a person can be kidnapped and sent to a dark cell in El Salvador, never be heard from again, even when his Fifth Amendment due process rights have been violated? Is that the world that we live in? We'll, we'll talk about all of those things and a lot of different issues around immigration that are going on right now. When we're back from our first break. Breaks are important to this show. One, you know, the podcast hosts need them. Secondly, it is a way for the show to not have outside investors, not have a corporate overlord that dictates our editorial decisions. We don't have a Jeff Bezos we don't have an Elon Musk. We don't, we don't have whoever owns the LA Times. We don't have any of that. We have you. You know, it's like, you know there's like one sport team that, that's out there, it was the Celtics. That's only owned by the public except for the majority owner. We're like that. You know, you support us by way of subscriptions, by way of Patreon, by way of substack, by way of for Legal AF, the Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF MTN, leaving comments, rating us, reviewing us. This is all part of that ecosystem of support that we need. And then we've got, you know, the way to pay the bills. Let's be frank. We've, we've got sponsors that Jordy Meisellis does an amazing job curating, embedding. We reject most of the sponsors that want to be on here. They have to commit to being pro democracy, not ask us to change our content. I've never spoken and I jumped onto some of these phone calls. I've never spoken to a sponsor where they've ever said anything other than we love you, the group and we love your audience. Not, not like, but get you to tone it down on Trump. Like first of all we, that would be like a click off, like the box would go dark in the zoom, like click. So that's a good thing. So again, if you have the disposable income, I'm not telling you to buy things you can't afford and you think these are interesting. We do. So here's a word from our sponsors. Sol is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Sol specializes in delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out of Office Gummies were designed to provide a mild relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. The out of Office gummies come in four different strengths so you can find the perfect dose for your vibe. Choose from a gentle microdose, perfect buzz, a noticeable high or a fully lit experience. With wellness at the forefront, you can feel good about what you're putting in your body. All of Sol's products are made from organically farmed USA grown hemp and are vegan, gluten free and low in sugar. And if you like their out of Office gummies, you gotta try their new out of Office beverage. A refreshing, alcohol free alternative, perfect for summer sipping. Plus, Sol has so many other amazing wellness products with or without thc, including a variety of gummies and capsules that can improve sleep, stress, pain, focus, bloating, and more. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Right now, Sol is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. Go to getsol.com and use the code legalaf. That's getsoul.com promo code legal af for 30% off. Well, if you're like me and you love to travel, you know the struggle of trying to pack the perfect pair of shoes. Something that's stylish and comfortable and durable enough for all kinds of adventures. Well, let me tell you about Vessi, my ultimate travel essential. Whether I'm wandering through a new city, I'm hiking a mountain trail, or out for a spontaneous outing, my Vessi weekend sneakers always have my back. They're waterproof, so no need to worry about those unexpected puddles or sudden downpour. I stay dry no matter the weather. What I love about Vessi is how lightweight they are. I can wear them all day and they never slow me down. They're sleek enough for a casual day out, but sturdy enough for outdoor adventures, making them the perfect versatile shoe for all kinds of travel. Plus, they're made from sustainable material, so I feel good about my impact on the environment while I explore. Durable? Absolutely. These sneakers handle all kinds of terrains, from city streets to rocky trails. No need for multiple pairs of shoes in your bag. Vessi does it all, and with a sleek design that pairs with just about any outfit, you'll look great while you're on the move. Pack smarter and travel better with Vessi. Visit vessi.com legalaf now for 15% off your first pair at checkout and start exploring with confidence. Say yes to spontaneous trips and rainy day adventures with Vessi. Travel smart with Vessi shoes@vessi.com LegalAF to stay comfortable and get an instant 15% off your first purchase at checkout. And we are back. Thank you, Sol and Vessi. And of course, another way to support all we do is to come on over to the Legal AF YouTube channel. Legal afmtn. Hit the hit the free subscribe button. We've got. It's going to be soon. A dozen contributors who are there along with me. We've got Court Accountability Action, Alex Aronson, Lisa Graves, Mike Sachs, who I think just announced he's running for Congress today. We've got Shan Wu, got Dina Dahl, we've got me. We got Melba Pearson, Dave Aronberg, Karen when she's not busy being A lawyer. I've got another kind of major coup which I'm going to announce in about a month. I can't do it yet, but it's the place to go to hang out at the corner of law and politics. Legal AFMTN all right, let's get back to the United States Supreme Court. Three different rulings, all in favor of Donald Trump for different reasons in the last eight or 10 days. We'll do it kind of in reverse chronological order. Karen? Well, the first one or the last one is the order, I guess the second last one is the order about Judge Boasberg and whether he was right or wrong to certify a class of people who were impacted by Donald Trump's phony war proclamation. Proclamation of war to tell the world we're at war with Venezuela, that we're at war with an enemy combatants of Venezuela. The form of the trend Aragua band of narco, drug dealer, terrorist, gang members, whatever they are, and in order to deport them, remove them and deport them without notice to El Salvador, to Judge Boasberg, this was this. This did not sound in habeas corpus, meaning an individual right for a prisoner to come before a court, a federal court, and be heard about whether they've been falsely imprisoned or some other aspect of punishment. So you're looking at like thousands of individual writs of habeas corpus. Rather, it could be a class action with an Administrative Procedures act declaration about whether Donald Trump was right or wrong to declare war and whether he was using the administrative, the Alien Enemies act, rightly or wrongly or not. And so he issued his injunction, temporary restraining order. He was about to go to preliminary injunction. We were in the final final hours of his temporary restraining order. In the meantime, he was also getting to the bottom as to whether the Trump administration willfully violated his order and continued to send planes to El Salvador when he had grounded them effectively by order. He done a whole hour long cross examination of Drew Ensign, the lawyer for the Department of Justice on that one. And he was just, I mean, I'm sure the order had been written finding the Trump administration in contempt. Except we went up to the D.C. court of Appeals. Two to one decision. It affirms what Boasberg does. Now we're off at the United States Supreme Court and they just issued their ruling, which pissed most people off. It's a per curiam, cowardly unsigned. We know it's five to four. We know who the five are. It's Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the others. I'm Sorry, six to three. I said five to four. Well, wait a minute. Was it five? That one was five to four. I think, I think, I think, yes, it was five to four. Amy Coney Barrett joining with the liberal wing, if you will, the Democratic wing of the Supreme Court. That one was five to four. Why don't you pick up from the Supreme Court and then we can tie that together with Abrego Garcia.

Karen Freeman (39:33)

Yeah, I mean, you know, it's funny. I've noticed it's a, it's like girls versus boys on the Supreme Court. You know, that's where it seems to be breaking off a lot. You know, Nami Coney Barrett siding with the, with the women in a lot of these five to four decisions. But so I'm just going to pick up on something you asked, which is habeas corpus. What's habeas corpus? And habeas corpus is essentially a legal order requiring a person or an institution holding someone in custody to produce that person before a court to determine whether the detention is lawful. And it's something that is used in my world a lot since I primarily practice criminal law. And that's what you bring, is a habeas corpus petition. It's like the corpus, meaning the body, the physical body of the person that you bring before the court to say, is his detention or her detention lawful or unlawful? What's happening here is this kind of, it's this procedural thing that's bubbling up in the context of deportation. And the Supreme Court is essentially saying that anyone wants to challenge these deportations has to do it one by one. They have to bring a habeas corpus petition in the location where the body is being held. So that's, for example, one of the things that they were criticizing the Judge Boasberg for because he was in Washington, D.C. they're saying, no, you have to bring this in Texas, where the individual is physically being held. Now, why is that a big deal? It's a big deal for two reasons. Number one, because if you do this one with the volume that they're going to be deporting people, there's no way, without any process, right? This is what they're doing. They're literally, normally you have due process. Normally these people get hearings and you get to have some kind of due process also afforded by the Constitution. By the way, that's a legal term that was located in the United States constitution in the 14th amendment, that people are, are required actually, or they have a right to due process or process in the law. And what's Happening is what they're doing is, what Trump is doing is they're basically deporting first, ask questions later. It's much harder when you're sitting in a jail in El Salvador to bring a legal action because you don't have access to a lawyer. It's almost impossible. That's one issue. The other issue is if you have to do it one by one, these are thousands of people. Court system will be crushed under the weight of thousands of petitions. So that's why people are trying to bring these as groups. And the third issue with this is if it gets sent down to Texas where the body is being held. Texas and the fifth Circuit is known as one of the most conservative districts who I think will likely vote in favor of Trump. Now, all of these cases are all involving different people and we're going to talk about, about Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is an administrative error is what they're calling this unfortunate situation. But, but many of the other individuals are actually gang members, right? Some of the most violent gang members. And you know, look, I have to say as a, as a career prosecutor and someone who was a prosecutor for, for many decades, the worst people I've ever encountered in my life are these violent gang members. I mean, if people are genuinely part of MS.13 and trend, I don't know how they pronounce it, TDA, they are some of the most vicious, violent individuals that you'll ever meet in your life, responsible for the worst, most heinous crimes. And certainly they should not be in this country. And I have no issue with removing them from this country or not allowing them to be here to begin with. But what I don't agree with is that they're not afforded anymore process and we shouldn't be afraid of giving them process. It's not difficult to prove these things. It's not difficult to go through the proper procedures. And everybody is, I think is entitled to that. And as a democracy, I think we should all want that. Even for the worst people. They should have process and trust the process that the process will work. When you don't give process, you have things like administrative errors, which is what happened to Mr. Abrego Garcia, which I'll turn it over to you to talk about. Poock.

Michael Popak (44:06)

Okay, great. No, I, I agree with you. And to be clear, Abrego Garcia, based on the record, is not what you just described. He is a green card holding person, never accused of a crime, married to an American citizen with a 5 year old child who they picked him up in front of the five year old child. He's checked in regularly with whoever he had to check in with. And he's had an order to prevent his removal, an amnesty type order in his pocket since 2019. He hasn't committed a crime in El Salvador. He hasn't committed a crime in America. The only crime he committed, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whereas the law firm Quinn Emanuel shout out to them who took the case, said he is, he is a case of 1, of 1. There is no one like him. Where the government has also confessed, although they're trying to scramble backwards on that. The government has originally confessed because it was true that he should not have been removed to El Salvador, especially without, without due process. I mean, the record from the immigration process demonstrates that Abrego Garcia's family owns a successful business in El Salvador. That they were being shaken down by the MS.13 gang, that as part of the shakedown they basically kidnapped Abrego Garcia and forced him to be in the, in the gang leader of the gang. He was actually a pawn of their attempts to try to shake down his parents. And that led an immigration lawyer to order him never to be sent back to El Salvador. The Quinn Emanuel firm did a good job, I thought, in briefing this to the United States Supreme Court, including after their decision on what we just talked about the JG case coming from Boseberg. And they said, well, this is interesting, a little known fact that gets lost in the reporting. Brego Garcia was not removed pursuant to the Alien Enemies act as confessed by the government. He was removed under other powers of the presidency. There's a number of ways that a president can deport people or a Secretary of State can order their removal. He happened to have not been under the Alien Enemies Act. So their first position was you're ruling on the Alien Enemies act about due process and Fifth Amendment and all of that where you basically let 250 people who are already in El Salvador rot there. Does it apply to him because he's not part of the Alien Enemies Act? Even if he was, if you distill the essence of your ruling, he needed fifth Amendment due process and notice he was not given it. And I like the cases that they. I read the brief that Quinn filed. I like the cases that they cited because to refute the Trump administration's argument, the straw man argument that, oh, the position of Abrego Garcia's lawyers is to try to make a federal judge into the president of El Salvador or to usurp the power of a president to conduct foreign policy or delicate foreign relations, and to or it's out. It's outrageous and unprecedented to be ordered to return somebody who's been accidentally, inadvertently sent in a Kafkaesque way to another country. And the reality of that is that's a lie. There's a series of cases, including in the Fourth, in the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, where he lived up to the Supreme Court, that say that a federal judge certainly has the power to order the return from a foreign country, somebody who's been deported in violation of our Constitution or immigration law. In fact, they cite one case in particular, Karen, in which the person was removed and sent to El Salvador happened to be the same country. And after he was already sent to El Salvador, a US Immigration judge ruled that he should not have been sent to El Salvador and gave him the same type of protective amnesty order that Abrego Garcia got. And the judge was able and affirmed on appeal to order the guy's return, even though when he was sent, he was not subject to that order. Abrego Garcia is even better than that in terms of his facts. His facts are he had it, the government knew it, the government didn't care, and they threw him on the plane anyway. So we're going to have to see, I think they thread the needle well, the lawyers for Abrego Garcia having gotten dealt that hand a day or so ago, which they had a deal with, and now they're just fighting with the Supreme Court about whether they get another chance to answer some of the arguments because the Trump administration is busy backpedaling about what Mr. Rouveni, their former lawyers, said in court and in filings because they don't like what he said. He's always inconsistent with the position of the Trump administration. What to lie? I don't really understand. It was an order that he not be removed. There's a fact that he was removed over it. Or as one judge, Judge thacker on the 4th Circuit said, which was the immediate intermediary court before this Supreme Court case. That's unconscionable, the position of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration. So we're going to see it's going to come fast and you and I are going to wake up in some world. It's either going to be the world where people like Abrego Garcia get due process and get notice and get their, their Fifth Amendment rights vindicated and are ordered to return in order to do that. And again, he's not going to be released into the general population. All the family is trying to do is get him back to Texas, Maryland. He can sit in a detention center while his lawyers fight it out with the government about whether he is MS.13 or he's not MS.13 based on the facts I just outlined. But he does it from here with lawyers here, maybe under a writ of habeas corpus based on the ruling, maybe not, whatever. But he certainly doesn't sit, and I mean in a jail where he could face certain death. I mean, and that, and that's the world you and I are going to have to explore with the United States Supreme Court. Anything else on Abrego Garcia for now? Karen?

Karen Freeman (49:53)

Yeah, I just didn't understand how I know that the Trump administration was saying they don't have the authority to order the return of somebody from El Salvador. They don't have jurisdiction. But aren't we paying, is it our taxpayer dollars actually paying El Salvador to hold our prisoners? I thought we have an agreement with them and I think that actually I'm sure if he picked up, if Trump picked up the phone, I think there probably wouldn't be an issue with, with bringing them back. Just like there's no issue with, with filling up the jails, right?

Michael Popak (50:25)

What? 1,000, 1,000%. Here's what Abrego Garcia's lawyer said about that point. The government's impossibility argument does not fare well or fares no better. The government contends that it's impossible to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return by the court imposed deadline. They then go through all the reasons, including the district court asking why can't the United States get Abrego Garcia back? I don't understand. They're paying for him to be there. The president of El Salvador, Bukele has said they're holding them at the, at the whim of the United States. Basically a delegated prison for the United States. We don't really understand. So one, they lay out the case law that a federal judge is empowered within his jurisdiction to order the return of somebody, even from countries like El Salvador, particularly from El Salvador. And then they do quote the $6 million figure which has all been admitted in terms of their ability to pull that, that string. There is no to your point. There is nobody other than the bullshit the Trump administration is peddling that believes that Donald Trump couldn't or Marco Rubio couldn't pick up the phone right now and get Abrego Garcia back. Nobody believes that when Kristi Noem is out doing whatever she was doing in front of those bare chested criminals in violation of the Geneva Convention with her little baseball cap, a little tight white shirt. You know, she could have also been asking for Abrego Garcia's return and threw him in the back of the plane she was on or in a, or in a transport plane. So let's see what the Supreme Court has a novel way of ignoring all of this. You know, in the JGG decision, they ignored the entirety of the 250 people that are rotting in the prison. They were just like, well, in the future it should be by writ of habeas corpus. They should get notice. It's limited what you can do with the Alien Enemies act, but you can argue about the constitutionality through writ of habeas corpus in the place where they reside. What about the 250 people in El Salvador? No federal court. What about that? Oh, no, no, no. Forget them. Ignore them. Ignore them. Ignore the record. This is the problem with the Supreme Court. Ignore those sticky, stubborn things called facts developed in the record and just create policy, just legislate, which is what they're doing before our very eyes in trying to help Donald Trump. Right? We got three wins for Donald Trump, all on technicalities. Let's turn to the one. Well, you know what, we're going to turn it, when we come back from another break, we're going to turn to the one about them overturning Judge Alsop's decision in San Francisco to reinstate 16,000 probationary employees. And how they did it is even more nefarious, even more unsavory. We'll talk about that and some other things related to immigration and the policies of Donald Trump. But first, we have another word from our sponsors. A perfect time before we go there. I know, I know our producers like I'm ready to go popa legal af the YouTube channel. Come on over to legal after YouTube channel, hit that subscribe button. You know, we are growing. We gained about 10,000 this week. That's all on you. I'm doing the content curating, but you're doing the watching, the enjoying, the commenting, the reviewing and the rest. And one of the things we need you to do is, boom. I mean, we get 300, 400, 500,000. We had almost 2 million views of all the work there in 48 hours. But we don't have 2 million subscribers. So I want more subscribers. So let's, let's take some time, if you will, and help us grow that pro democracy channel. And now a word from our pro democracy sponsors.

Karen Freeman (54:10)

If you're like me, you've noticed that getting older is full of little wake up calls. You start seeing more hair in the drain, your part looks wider and suddenly you're zooming in on old photos and wondering if your hair was always this thin. And that's why I'm really loving what One Skin is doing. Their OS1 peptide has been transforming our skin here at Legal AF for a while now. Now with their new scalp serum, OS1 hair is here to help us with hair loss, thinning and shedding something that is near and dear to my heart for sure. OS1 Hair is the first scalp serum powered by OneSkin's OS1 peptide which targets those aging cells called senescent cells. And it's scientifically proven to help your hair and your hair cells do what they're meant to do grow fuller, denser, healthier hair. So get to the root of hair loss and thinning with OS1 hair. You'll save 15 off on your first purchase with legal AF. That code @OnSkinCo. It's not dot com, it's dot co. I love it. Hair thinning is an issue that I have noticed and it is a great product that is a long time coming so I'm thrilled to have it. I love using it along with One Skin's skin cream that also targets senescent cells and also helps me stay and look younger. So this was all founded by an all woman led team of skin longevity scientists. One Skin is redefining aging with their proprietary OS1 peptide. So get get 15% off with code legal AF at OneSkin Co. That's 15% off OneSkin Co with code legal AF and after you purchase they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Thank you so much once again for everything.

Michael Popak (55:59)

Even if you think it's a bit overhyped. AI is suddenly everywhere from self driving cars to molecular medicine to business efficiency. If it's not in your industry yet, it's coming fast. But AI needs a lot of speed and computing power. So how do you compete without cost spiraling out of control? Time to upgrade to the next generation of the cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or oci. OCI is a blazing, fast and secure platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, plus all your AI and machine learning workloads. OCI costs 50% less for compute and 80% less for for networking, so you're saving a pile of money. Thousands of businesses have already upgraded to OCI including Vodafone, Thomson Reuters and Suno AI. Right now Oracle is offering to cut your current cloud bill in half if you move to OCI for new US customers with a minimum financial commitment. Offer ends March 31st. See if your company qualifies for this special offer@oracle.com legalaf that's oracle.com legalaf whoops. And we are. And we are back. Thank you for our pro democracy sponsors. We got Vessi, we got Soul, we got One Skin, we got Oracle. God, I cut that one so long ago it was in my old house. But we're back now and thank you for all of them. All right, let's round out. Let's get into the home stretch of the show. You know, three, three wins for this, for the Trump in all different ways. Al Sop, a judge in San Francisco and Brednar Berdar. Sorry, a judge in Maryland, kind of back to back, two weeks ago entered preliminary injunctions about rehiring all those Doge fired probationary under one year service workers in the federal workforce. They did it for different reasons. They kind of backed into the same place but for different reasons. Alsop said it was a violation of the Administrative Procedures act because it was arbitrary and capricious, because they fired people without notice and without warning and for no reason. They said it was performance based, but of course it couldn't be because they didn't review anybody's performance and they fired everybody, including people that had just gotten pats on the back like three weeks earlier or two weeks earlier. And so he put a stop to it and ordered their rehiring while he got to the bottom of the case at the same time, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit at the same, almost the same time, but for different reasons. Bredar issued it in favor of 19 states and about nine or 10 different agencies, including the Department of Defense. There's a lot of overlap between the two rulings. And ordered the rehiring because he found it violated federal law about a reduction in force. We call it a rif. When a company entity or government starts firing people, more than one, like, you know, one person, one person is a separation. You know, 10 people, five people, three people, thousand people, 10,000 people. That's a riff. That's a reduction in force. And there's rules in order to allow a people to be, you know, there's an act called the Warn W A R N Act, an acronym about warning people to give them time to prepare so they're not thrown out onto the cold streets and the unemployment rules without warning. Same for states because states run unemployment programs, not federal. And so they need to be ready for one 10, 10,000, 100,000 people hitting their unemployment roles. So he found it for that. So you had these two going on at the same time. They both, one got appealed to the 9th Circuit, Alsop got a firm, the other one got appealed to the 4th Circuit. We were waiting for a ruling. In the meantime, just to show the diagram here, the Alsop decision through the ninth Circuit got its way to the United States Supreme Court and they made a ruling about the preliminary injunction issued by Alsop. And then the 4th Circuit made a ruling about Berdar's case, all in the last 24 hours. Karen, why don't you take it from the Supreme Court? We'll bend our way Back to the 4th Circuit.

Karen Freeman (60:12)

Yes, the Supreme Court in a unsigned decision, it's six to three, basically gave, they ruled on technicality, they didn't really rule on the substance, and said that the group that brought the case does not have standing and essentially saying that it was okay to fire the probationary workers because they did not have standing. And so they lifted this ruling that, that was supposed to, that was supposed to rehire them and granted a stay pending appeal while they, while they go down and brief this issue. Right. So the two groups that sued there was a not for profit group and a labor union group. And standing is one of those things that you have to show as a plaintiff is that you have standing. And there's several things when you, when you bring an action that has nothing to do with the substance, like whether or not you're right or not of an action. If you're a plaintiff, you have to show, for example, that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. You have to show that there is venue, it's in the right location, and you have to show standing. And standing is essentially the term that is used. Is there a live case or controversy with an injury, with a cognizable injury. And they said there was no standing here in this matter with the group that brought this case and so sent it back down to review and interpret the substance of the law. So this is, you know, this is a win for the Trump administration temporarily because they don't have to be rehired. And, you know, this is going to wind its way back up there potentially, I think, but this is a temporary win for the Trump administration because they don't have to rehire them back. And it's just interesting to see how the Supreme Court is ruling in these matters. But Kopak, you're the employment expert, so I'd love to hear you kind of expand on this one in particular, a little bit more. You have a lot of incredible employees. Employment related experience. I'm only new to the employment litigation world, but, so I'd love to. I'd love for you to kind of do a little more of a deep dive on this for our audience, because there's no one I can think of who's more of an expert in this area than you.

Michael Popak (62:45)

Thank you very much. Yeah, I'll see what I can do. On this particular case, I mean, I was troubled by the ruling because I thought it was a weak exit ramp that they adopted in order on a technicality to avoid making a hard ruling and having a confrontation with the executive branch or Donald Trump. The case will continue. The case will continue at the 9th Circuit with a full appeal and with ALSOP with a fuller record, with these people unemployed and not being paid in the interim. And there's two groups that are involved in that case. One is these public interest groups, of which, you know, I think Norm Isen's group may be in there. And the other is like the union, the American Federation of Employees and all that, the largest labor union that represents federal workers. And they certainly have cognizable injury to have standing. And as you said, standing is a fundamental thing that judges will look at at the very beginning. Jurisdiction, standing and venue drive judges crazy. They'll use it as an excuse to stop a case, even if they find it very interesting, because they're trying to figure out whether there's a live case or controversy and whether there's a live case or controversy in their courtroom or in their courthouse as opposed to somewhere else. And if somebody doesn't have standing, the fear is you're not the right party because you're not injured. You're really seeking an advisory opinion which we don't hand out. But I don't think that applied to the, of course, the union members who just got fired. But the judge, the Supreme Court said that the preliminary injunction issued by ALSAP was not based on the union workers. It was based on the other group standing, which I think is not how they could have. They could have easily interpreted it as being there was a party with proper standing that would support the preliminary injunction. So I was sort of shocked that that's the route that they took. The liberal wing was also shocked because, like, why are we deciding standing now? Let that issue be fully briefed below. In the meantime, keep the status quo and have the people keep their job. That's on the ALSOP side, and that's the same Judge that we reported thought that the Trump administration had lied to him in the courtroom and said it and put them on the horns, you know, put their feet to the fire. Early on in the case, Judge Berdar, who's now been overTurned by the 4th Circuit, who read the tea leaves with the Supreme Court, he went, I thought even a more what's the word I'm looking for defensible position because it clearly violated the reduction in force law because there was no warning, there was no appropriate time for the states to prepare for the people coming onto the voter rolls. And therefore at least it should have been delayed which would, which is what the injunction would have done. But the fourth two to one didn't see it that way. So now those people are going to have to take it up to the United States Supreme Court who again, you know, I'd hate to see this, this jurisprudence being developed where Donald Trump just gets win after win after win at the United States Supreme Court, which is frankly exactly what he wanted when he placed Amy Coney Barrett as the, and, and Kavanaugh on as the, as the fifth and sixth vote. And, and, but the federal courts are doing their job. I mean the ones that are, that are handling these cases, I think their analysis is spot on. I think they're right. It's just the Supreme Court is just finding ways to reward the Trump administration's bad conduct. Not all the time, but he's 3 and 1 at the Supreme Court. The only with John Roberts creating the five and ordered that $2 billion worth of U.S. aid money be paid out to entities that had provided goods or services to usa you know, old debt and, but that was it. And ever since they got bashed, we haven't seen them side with Donald Trump since. And just to remind everybody, in order for the Democrats or the moderates or the free thinking people to win, we got to run the table. We need to bat a thousand. We need both Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts. Since we only have three natural votes in our, in our favor with Barrett, with Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. We need you got to count the five to have a, a winning, a winning hand at the Supreme Court. We need the other two. They, the MAGA only need about 500. They only need one of the two, just Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett. And that's why it makes this ever so difficult. We said it, people listened but not really so many people sat the election out. What I, what I say sat democracy out and left us with a Supreme Court, you know, and Donald Trump's ability to continue to. You think. You think this 6 to 3 is bad? Wait till it's 7 to 2. Wait till the some. But something happens, unfortunately, on the Democratic side, and Donald Trump gets to pick one of them, too. Then we're 2 cents. There were two generations away from making real change at the United States Supreme Court. And you see how important it is. Carol, what else is going on in the news or your life you want to talk to our audience about? We're at that point in the show.

Karen Freeman (68:04)

Yeah, exactly. I hear your dog barking in the.

Michael Popak (68:06)

Background, so I know it's the live tv, everybody.

Karen Freeman (68:10)

Yeah, I know. I see. Some of the comments are like, is that Popo's dog in the background? So what was your dog's name again? Lily.

Michael Popak (68:17)

Lily.

Karen Freeman (68:17)

Yeah, I remember that. I don't know.

Michael Popak (68:20)

Order, Collie, Labrador. As I tell people, with our move, everybody's thriving. My wife, my baby, and my dog are all. All thriving with the move. She's barking, I'm sure, for a treat or she needs to go out or something like that. Yeah, but. And you have Boogie. How's Boogie?

Karen Freeman (68:36)

I do, but he's the best. The best. We love. Boogie's the best. Billy is our other dog who escaped. She's a golden retriever. Somehow escaped our yard today. And some. A good Samaritan picked her up, brought her to the vet. Luckily, she's chipped to the vet.

Michael Popak (68:52)

That's so smart.

Karen Freeman (68:54)

Microchipped. And we got the phone call, so we're gonna, you know, we've had her for four or five years and nothing like this has ever happened before. So we'll figure it out. But yeah, these dogs are. They. They have your heart, your whole heart.

Michael Popak (69:07)

Oh, yeah.

Karen Freeman (69:10)

There are good people in the world who will pick up, you know, and do something like that. And. And we got her back right away.

Michael Popak (69:16)

So Lily. Lily stands on the shoulders of two other rescue dogs that went about 14 years apiece. Lucy. Gabby. When you and I met, and Gabby passed and then. And then Lily. But no, I mean, look, it's, you know, in this crazy, upside down, topsy turvy world, it's, you know, great to have family and loved ones and furry, furry friends and for sure, you know, we could all use a lick on the face. Right?

Karen Freeman (69:41)

Yeah. Well, I can't wait to come down to Florida.

Michael Popak (69:44)

Oh.

Karen Freeman (69:44)

Have dinner with you as well. So.

Michael Popak (69:46)

So great. Yes.

Karen Freeman (69:46)

Weather's so much better there than. Than this time of year than New York.

Michael Popak (69:50)

Dean and her husband were like, oh, my God, we love it. Here. Oh my God, we love it here. And I will see Dina. That's a good, good plug there. Dina will be with me on Friday on unprecedented, I think we posted on Saturday about the United States Supreme Court over on Legal AF Mtn. So we've reached the end of our show today, our midweek show. Karen Freeman, Nicknifolo and me, Michael Popak. Many ways to support us. Hit the free subscribe button at Midas Touch. Hit the free subscribe button over on Legal afmtn. Listen to us on a podcast. Midas Touch, number one podcast in, in the world. But a little known fact, same chart, legal af is in the top 10, I think, I think we just cracked the top 10. We got past Tucker Carlson, same chart. We just don't talk about it as much. But we're number 10 in the world because of you guys and we really do appreciate every one of you and the loving support that we have in this particular audience. So listen to the audio, watch the video, get other people to do the same thing. We've got the Patreon which is doing very well. Patreon.com legal af is another place to get some exclusive content you can't find at other places, including ad free versions of what we're doing here. And, and that's it, man. That's, that's the way you can, you can vote, vote where you are until you get to the midterms and then you got to vote then that's, there's no two ways about it. So until Saturday when Ben Mysellis and me will be back for another edition of Legal AF and all the hot takes that we do here on the Midas Touch Network and Legal af, it's Karen Freeman, Igniflo, Michael Popak shouting out to the Legal afers in the Midas mighty.