Dana Goldberg (3:17)

Ugh.

Alison Gill (3:17)

It's just. It's so frustrating. And this is what Trump wants. He just had one of his spokespersons endorse this fully on Fox News. So he backs this. He loves it. Also, I'm going to talk later in the show with Chris Geidner. He's the author of the Law Dork newsletter. We're going to discuss shenanigans in the Fifth Circuit Court. Dana, you know, remember we talked about how the Northern District of Texas is not going to listen to the judicial conference rules about judge shopping? Well, now they're trying to claw cases back that have been transferred out because of jurisdictional issues. They're trying to bring them all back to the 5th Circuit to give them to, you know, give them a path to the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous. What's going on. So Chris Geithner is going to spell all that out for us. And we have a ton of other news to get to. But first, we have some quick hits.

Chris Geidner (4:04)

And to make a long story short,

Alison Gill (4:06)

first up, Jack Smith has filed his brief in the immunity case before the Supreme Court. We know oral arguments there are April 25, and he's arguing that everything charged in the Trump case arose from actions of Donald Trump as a candidate, not as president. So even if there's some sort of presidential immunity for certain things, they don't apply to him and they don't apply to what he did. None of this is how. This isn't how any of this works. He also explains that if the court should gut the obstruction statute 1512 in another case called Fisher, that would not impact the charges against Donald Trump. And I've said that quite consistently, of course. Andy and I are going to go over this on this weekend's Jack podcast and also just breaking. And we're going to cover this on the Jack podcast, too. Remember how Judge Eileen Cannon wanted to release witness lists and their testimony? Yeah. And Jack Smith filed a motion for reconsideration saying, this is manifestly unjust and you have made a clear error on the law. Well, she just came out with her ruling saying, well, you're stupid and I hate fucking beard, but okay, I'll apply your good cause a standard here. And I won't release the witness names. But as far as the witness statements, I'm going to release those. But you and Trump get together and decide what should be redacted so that we can't guess who those witnesses are based on their statements. It's just a mess, but she's kind of avoiding the 11th Circuit again with this ruling, this ambiguous ruling. And again, Andy. And I'll cover that on this weekend's Jack episode.

Dana Goldberg (5:34)

I would love to know who the Roxanne is in her ear because it is not her making these decisions. I do think there's someone in her ear this entire time.

Alison Gill (5:42)

Yeah. Most of it comes from Trump lawyers in open hearings. Like most of, like her weird jury instructions. That was an idea pitched by a Trump lawyer in that hearing on March 14th. And then she just puts out this order. Hey, could you write up some jury instructions based on some shit that I just made up? Like, it, it's, it's insane.

Dana Goldberg (6:01)

It is insane. Next quick hit. This is from the Department of Justice. They're refusing to send the audio tape of the interview between President Biden and Special Counsel her in that investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

Alison Gill (6:14)

Her.

Dana Goldberg (6:14)

Her said that there wasn't enough evidence to charge the president with the crime. And DOJ says that the House Republicans only want the audio for political purposes. Congress has the full transcript of the interview and DOJ says that should be enough.

Alison Gill (6:26)

And it should be. Also, the appellate court in New York has denied Donald Trump's motion to stay the election interference trial while he appeals his gag order in that lawsuit that he's filed against Judge Merchan. Now, jury selection still set to begin April 15th. And a friendly reminder, in case anyone forgot, this case originated with the Mueller investigation. So we're about to come full circle from the kitchen table days.

Dana Goldberg (6:50)

Oh, boy. All right. And last in this section, this is from the Hill, America's top TV networks. They plan to issue an open letter asking for President Joe Biden and Donald Trump to participate in a televised election debate. That's according to two sources with direct knowledge who spoke to the New York Times. They're clearly trying to beat the women's NCAA numbers of Iowa versus South Carolina. The Times obtained a draft version of the letter endorsed by abc, cbs, cnn, NBC and Fox News, which reads, and I quote, we the undersigned national news organizations. I'm not sure Fox News should be included in national news organizations. I just added that. But they urged the presumptive presidential nominees to publicly commit to participating in general election debates before November's election. That's according to the Times. The letter has yet to be finalized, and the networks are hoping to get other major news organizations to on.

Alison Gill (7:42)

I don't know how I feel about this.

Dana Goldberg (7:44)

I don't like it at all.

Alison Gill (7:45)

Normaly bias. It's normalizing the fact that Donald Trump is a candidate for president like a legit candidate? It's just like I'm, I don't think I feel good about it. And, and one last quick hit before we get to the Hot notes. This was just kind of breaking as, as we went into start recording. But that lady who stole Ashley Biden's diary and sold it to Project Veritas, she has been sentenced to one month in prison in Florida, one month for conspiracy and theft. And I frankly would like to know the average sentence for black and brown people who commit theft in Florida. And I bet it's more than a month.

Dana Goldberg (8:29)

I bet it's most of them losing their right to vote. It's more than a month. And I wonder about that. Does she lose her right to vote? Isn't she now if she's serving a month in jail?

Alison Gill (8:38)

I don't know. But the way that they framed the story was so sickening. They were like mother of three and you know, like she's a conspiratorial thief and she's trying to be the victim here. Anyway, very upsetting about that little what I consider a miscarriage of justice in our two tiered system of justice. But just wanted to throw that out there too. We'll probably cover that on next week's a clean one off 45. All right. We have more news to get to. And by the way, send your good news in. We I need it this week. Send it to us@dailybeanspot.com and click on contact. Thank you very much. All right. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right, Dana. First up from AZCentral, the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a 160-year-old abortion ban that could shutter abortion clinics in the state, saying the law that existed before Arizona even became a state could be enforced going forward. The ruling indicated the ban can only be prospectively enforced and the court stayed enforcement for 14 days. But it's already causing political earthquakes.

Chris Geidner (9:45)

Quote.

Alison Gill (9:45)

There really is no way to sugarcoat it. Today is a dark day for Arizona. That's Angela Flores, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona. The pre statehood law mandates two to five years in prison for anyone aiding in an abortion except if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Back then when they were using leeches and telling you you had ghosts in your blood and to do cocaine about it, that's what we're dealing with here.

Dana Goldberg (10:11)

Good Lord.

Alison Gill (10:12)

A law from the same era requiring at least a year in prison for a woman seeking an abortion was repealed in 2020. One, but this one goes into effect. Enforcement would mean the end of legal abortions in Arizona, though some providers say they will continue offering abortions, at least for the time being, likely through May, because of a prior court ruling. And the state's top Democrats have taken steps to thwart enforcement. Reproductive rights activists say it means Arizona women can expect potential health complications. And you know, we're going to talk about the prosecutors not prosecuting Maricopa county and the attorney general, but this is in no way not going to chill abortion care in Arizona. Do you know what I mean?

Dana Goldberg (10:52)

No, absolutely.

Alison Gill (10:53)

And that's the point. Just like, you know, you and I talk about all these anti trans and anti LGBTQ laws that are always overturned for being unconstitutional, but they've already done the job they set out to do.

Dana Goldberg (11:03)

Absolutely.

Alison Gill (11:04)

Now reminder, this is what Donald Trump wants. And that's according to his abortion announcement from earlier in the week. He said states should decide so he supports this near total ban on abortion based on the 160 year old law. And Attorney General Chris Mays has issued the following statement. She says this decision made by the Arizona Supreme Court is unconscionable, an affront to freedom. Make no mistake, by effectively striking down a law passed this century and replacing it with one from 160 years ago, the court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans. The Arizona Court of Appeals decision which the Supreme Court has struck down today was well reasoned and aligned with how courts harmonize different legislation. Today's decision to reimpose law, a law from a time when Arizona wasn't even a state, the Civil War was raging and women couldn't even vote, will go down in history as a stain on our state. This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom. And I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter of. And let me be completely clear, as long as I am attorney general, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state. I'm sorry, I'm choking up a little bit here. And Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs had this to say.

Governor Katie Hobbs (12:12)

Hello, Arizona. It's Governor Katie Hobbs. Like millions of women across Arizona, I am reeling from the Supreme Court's callous decision to uphold the 1864 total abortion ban. This archaic law, which was written by men 48 years before Arizona even became a state, threatens the lives of countless women and strips us of control over our bodies. Today seems like a dark day, but I assure Arizona women that the fight for our reproductive freedoms is far from over. I want to make it clear that my executive order protecting women and doctors from prosecution by extremist county attorneys still stands. We are taking immediate action to uphold your reproductive freedoms. I joined with legislative champions and abortion rights advocates to call for a repeal of this ban and guarantee access to contraception. And in the upcoming months, I will continue working with lawmakers to pass common sense legislation to make sure Arizonans can continue to receive the reproductive health care they need. I've personally experienced the anguish of losing a pregnancy and I know it's outrageous to have the government tell you that the best decision for your health or future could now be considered a crime. My message to Arizona women is this. I will not stop fighting until we have fully secured the right to reproductive health care in our state. I refuse to let radical extremists take control over women's bodies or tell my 22 year old daughter that she has less rights than I do did when I was her age.

Alison Gill (13:57)

Now, choice activists in Arizona have over 500,000 signatures to put abortion on the ballot in Arizona in November. Only 400,000 signatures are required, but they have until July 3rd to submit signatures. So now they have set a goal of doubling the number of signatures needed to put this referendum on the ballot. And by the way, if it makes it on the ballot, Dana, it only needs a simple majority to enshrine abortion protections into law.

Dana Goldberg (14:24)

That's a beautiful thing at the end. Thank you for Elise giving us some good news and a horrible, horrible ruling. And next up from the Associated Press, two conservative political operatives who orchestrated a robocall campaign to dissuade black people from voting in the 2020 election. They've agreed to pay up to $1.25 million under a settlement with New York State Attorney General Tish James. This is from Tuesday. The operatives, douchebags Jacob Wohl and Jack Berkman. We've covered them in depth. Were accused of making robocalls to phone numbers in predominantly black neighborhoods in Ohio, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois that told people they could be subjected to arrest, debt collection and force vaccination if they vote by mail. Quote, don't be finessed into giving your private information to the man. Stay safe and beware of vote by mail. That's what the automated recording told potential voters in lead up to the election. Wallen Berkman pleaded guilty to felony telecommunications fraud in Ohio in 2022. The pair were sued in New York in 2020 by a civil rights organization, the National Coalition on Black Civil Participation, along with people who received the calls in the state attorney general. Prosecutors have said the robocalls went out to about 85,000 people across the United States, including around 5,500 phone numbers with the New York area code, as officials were coordinating unprecedented mail voting campaigns because of the coronavirus pandemic. In the New York lawsuit, attorneys for Wohl and Berkman had argued the calls were protected by the First Amendment and said the effect didn't target specific ethnicities. The defense also said there was no evidence Wohl or Berkman were trying to discourage people from voting.

Alison Gill (16:11)

Wow.

Dana Goldberg (16:11)

Yeah. The consent decree orders Wol and Berkman to pay $1 million to the plaintiffs, with the sum increasing to 1.2 if the pair does not hand over at least $105,000 by the end of the year. The agreement does allow Wolen Berkman to reduce their total payment to about 400,000 if they meet a series of payment deadlines over the next several years. The settlement also requires Wallenberkman to notify the Attorney General's office before any lobbying or political campaigning in New York. And they will have to submit a copy of any future election related mass communication efforts to the plaintiff for review 30 days before the messaging reaches the public.

Alison Gill (16:49)

Good Lord. 85,000 calls they made. I think it's important to remind people that Donald Trump won in 2016 by about 88,000 votes across those same key swing states. Next up from Rob Weil at NBC. Shares of Trump Media have erased all their gains since they began trading under the ticker DJT last month. This. This is cheering me up now. The stock closed down more than 8% Monday at $37.17 after falling about 11% earlier in the day. It had traded above $79 a share on March 26, the day of its debut. But experts say it's hard to draw any firm conclusions about what the stock price's movement means. Really? Experts say that that's because so many available shares, about 12%, one of the highest ratios of any active stock listing, reflect traders bets that the stock will fail. That's a short sell. 12% are shorting it. That's Ihor Doozen whiskey or Doozenuski, a managing director and S3 partners, a data and predictor.

Dana Goldberg (17:51)

I like Doozen Whiskey, by the way.

Alison Gill (17:53)

Yeah. Dues and Whiskey analytics company. Yeah, we'll just call them that. It's called short selling. Right now, much of the trading activity surrounding the stock reflects investors attempts to position bets around whether it will continue to fall. While some traders are looking to make even more gains from continued price declines. Others may be looking to squeeze the short positions by betting that something will cause their share price to rise. Quote, this seems more like the gunfight at the OK Corral, with both sides waiting for the other to act first. That's what Duzaniewski said. As the stock's price has rocketed back and forth, former President Donald Trump, who owns a majority of the shares, has seen his net worth move in tandem, falling from a high of about 5.2 billion down to about 2.9 billion. But those figures are largely immaterial for Trump since he is contractually barred from selling or even borrowing against his shares for six months. In a post on Truth Social earlier this month, Trump called the company's business very solid and said criticism of his ability to reach a wide audience were lies. But according to the company filings, Trump media lost $58.2 million last year and did not report any user metric is doing better than Trump Media just put that. Meanwhile, the company's auditor issued a going concern notice for the business, saying it was not confident it'd be able to stay afloat. That auditor, B.F. borger CPAPC has itself been subject of a recent report about its effectiveness. For instance, it's banned in Canada. In a news release last week, CEO Devin Nunes, former US he's still the CEO. He gave up his spot in Congress to be a top of this company. He said he's confident about the future of the business. It must be because he's so good at business. I mean, you know that 65 square foot farm he runs in Fresno to be able to call himself a farmer on the ballot. So he's really good with businesses. News released last week, Devin Nunes says he's confident. He says we're excited to be operating as a public company and to have secured access to capital markets. Closing out the 2023 financials related to the merger, Truth Social today has no debt and over 200 million in the bank operating numerous possibilities for expans. So he's given you the 2023 close of year numbers, not what's happened over the last couple of weeks. Quote, we intend to take full advantage of these opportunities to make Truth Social the quintessential free speech platform for the American people. That's what Nunes said.

Dana Goldberg (20:25)

I love that. It's like when someone's like how do you weigh and you give them your driver's license weight. I feel like that's what Devin Nunes is doing with the numbers. Yeah, that's cool. All right. This last one's from the Associated Press. As much as this is going to be, there's nothing good about the story either way. It's just heavy and we need to do something about guns in our country. The first parents convicted in the US mass shooting. They were sentenced to at least 10 years in prison Tuesday as Michigan judge lamented missed opportunities that could have prevented their teenage son from possessing a gun and killing four students in 2021. Quote, these convictions are not about poor parenting. This is from Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews. That's what she said. She went on to say these convictions confirm repeated acts or lack of acts that could have halted an oncoming runaway train. The hearing in a crowded, tense courtroom was the climax of an extraordinary effort to make others besides the 15 year old attacker criminally responsible for a school shooting. Jennifer and James Crumbley. They did not know Ethan Crumbley had a handgun. He called it his beauty in a backpack, by the way, when he was dropped off at Oxford High School. But prosecutors convinced jurors that the parents still played a disastrous role in the violence. The Crumbleys were accused of not securing the newly purchased gun at home and acting indifferently to signs of Ethan's deteriorating mental health, especially when confronted with a chilling classroom drawing earlier that same day. The Crumbleys earlier this year were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Defense attorneys sought to keep the Crumbleys out of prison, noting that they have already spent nearly two and a half years in jail after failing to meet a $500,000 bond after their arrest, they will get credit for that jail time and become eligible for parole after serving 10 years in custody. If released from prison is denied, they could be held for up to 15 years. Five deputies in the suburban Detroit courtroom, they stood closely over the couple and more lined the walls. James Crumbley, 47, had been recorded in jail making threats toward McDonald before being sentenced. He stood and insisted he did not know his son was deeply troubled. During the trials, there was no testimony from specialists about Ethan's mental health. But the judge, over defense objections, actually allowed the jury to see excerpts from his journal, the boy's journal, quote, I have zero help for my mental problems and it's causing me to shoot up the school. This is what he wrote. He went on to say, I want help, but my parents don't listen to me, so I can't get any help. Relatives of the victims were not impressed by Crumbley's courtroom comments. I apologize if I misconounce this. Thank You. That makes a lot more sense. Beausoleil said they were portraying themselves as victims in this case. Quote, the remorse that they were showing has nothing to do with taking accountability for their actions. This is from Steve St. Juliana, the Father of Hannah. As he sat outside the courtroom, he said, I'm sure they were sad people lost their lives. I'm sure they're sad their son is in jail. Sad they're in jail. What's important is for them to recognize that they made mistakes. This is really interesting. You know, it's a precedent that's being set, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. It's just incredibly sad if parents have guns in the house and they are not securing them properly. And that's how your child. I mean, there was so much that failed this child as well. Yeah, but there. There needs to be some responsibility within that, and I don't want to see lives destroyed and families ruined, but we have to have some responsibility somewhere.

Alison Gill (24:07)

Agreed. Thank you very much, my friend, for reporting. For reporting on that. All right, we have to take a quick break. And after the break, I'm going to talk to Chris Geidner. He's the author of the Law Dork newsletter. You don't want to miss that discussion. And then we'll follow that up with the good news. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back after these messages.

Chris Geidner (24:24)

We'll be right back.

Brian Caram (24:28)

I'm Brian Caram, and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time. Join us as each week, Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth. We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram. Every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is Just Ask the Question where curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

Alison Gill (25:17)

Hey, everybody. Welcome back. You'll remember we reported recently that the Judicial Conference, which is made up of the chief justices and a couple of other judges of the circuit courts, they recently made new rules to avoid judge shopping, especially looking at the districts like North Texas, where the mifepressone case was filed and Judge Kaczmarek ended up with it on his docket. That district, however, has responded by saying, we're not gonna. We refuse to change the way that cases are assigned to judges as stipulated by the Judicial conference. And now I've just learned through this incredible newsletter, which I'm gonna share with you. We have the 5th Circuit Court doing everything they can to not only keep cases, but in their district, but claw them back when they have been correctly transferred out for jurisdiction. And our next guest has written extensively about this in his Law Dork newsletter. You can find that online. He's also the former BuzzFeed Supreme Court reporter. Please welcome Chris Geidner. Hi, Chris.

Chris Geidner (26:19)

Hello.

Alison Gill (26:20)

So did I get any of that wrong? Do I have kind of the right framing here?

Chris Geidner (26:24)

That is more or less what's going on. And I think sort of the only preliminary context I would add is that, like, we're also dealing with the fact that I've written before. This is sort of both a. A benefit and a burden to the Supreme Court, that you've got these really extreme district court judges that now know that they can go to the 5th Circuit, that they know is a really extreme court and will affirm a lot of what they're doing. And then the Supreme Court is in position of being able to look moderate at times by pulling back really, really extreme things that come out of the fifth Circuit, and then at other times, letting things go forward. And so it really is sort of like, at all levels, there's a little bit of gamesmanship going on here. And this is now a new level of gamesmanship that we're seeing relating to what. What is involving venue or motions to transfer. Under. Under the federal rules, when you file a case, you have to. You have to have a reason to file it somewhere. And there are rules that allow defendants to request judges to change where that case is being filed. Now, normally. And we. We've talked about this a lot. I'm sure you've talked about it with people about. Like, in the mifepristone case, like, they. They, like, formed this group right before they filed the lawsuit and happened to form it. Base it in Texas. And that was sort of their justification for bringing it to Kazmark.

Alison Gill (28:17)

Right. There's a. There's a dentist in Amarillo who could possibly have a sad feeling in the future about something that probably will never come across. His dental chair. Yes.

Chris Geidner (28:27)

Yeah. We might call it bullshit, but it's sort of like, okay, like, you're gaming the system, but you're gaming the system. It is the system, and it puts

Alison Gill (28:38)

an undue burden on. On scotus, Right, to even have to hear these ridiculous cases.

Chris Geidner (28:42)

But what we've got here is that situations where there are two lawsuits that we're going to talk about where the situation on the ground in Texas was so ridiculous that in both cases the government asked for the case to be transferred to a more appropriate venue. The first case is a National Labor Relations Board case. They were investigating everybody's favorite, elon Musk and SpaceX for some happenings relating to labor practices. And the division in California that, that investigates this, brought this, this charge and wanted to bring a proceeding against SpaceX. And SpaceX then sued in Texas because they have some people there, not the people involved in this, this NLRB challenge, but just they do have some employees in, in Texas. The NLRB said no, that, that's ridiculous. This should be in California. The district court judge agreed and that should have been the end of it. It should have gone to California Central District of California where the NLRB was. But then SpaceX went up to the Fifth Circuit and they said, no, we want you to, to take this back to, to order the judge to do otherwise.

Alison Gill (30:21)

Now did they do that through like a rid of mandamus or.

Chris Geidner (30:25)

This was, in both of these cases, what you had was going up and asking for a writ of mandamus, which is an extraordinary, literally the, the, the legal phrase, that's not something that, that we're saying to, to overstate it, it is referred to as an extraordinary writ. Because if you think about what it is, it is another judge, another court ordering a court to take an action, not, not hearing a case deciding on the law that this is wrong, like in a normal appellate proceeding. This is, this is that, that's about the cake. Mandamus is about a court ordering a judge to do something. And that's what they asked for here. Now at the same time we have this other case in which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau passed a rule limiting credit card late fees. Now, as you, I and anyone with a brain might realize, that was all happening in D.C. the CFPB is in D.C. the, the Biden administration, people who care about this and work on it are in D.C. and notably the Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers association are located in D.C. but the Fifth Circuit won. They, however, found a local Chamber of commerce in Texas to be the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging this national credit card late fee roll. And they brought this case in the Northern District of Texas. Now there's actually a bunch of behind the scenes ridiculousness that happened in this before we even get to the mandamus 5th Circuit that I hadn't even known when I started covering the case and didn't Realize until over the weekend. But there, there's a judge who, who you. You've probably heard of before. Judge Reed o'. Connor. He's one of these small division judges who gets cases because they tried to get him. He, he's issued a lot of anti LGBTQ rulings. He, he's been very, very vehemently opposed to or supportive of any challenges to the Affordable Care Act. He's a known figure on the right. We'll just say he was not even the first judge to get this case. The case was initially assigned to a senior judge judge on March 7th. Now that, that March 7th is important. He rejected the case. He said, I'm senior status. I don't want a big case like this. Can you reassign it to an active district judge? Fine. That happens. It was assigned to Reed o'.

Alison Gill (33:39)

Connor.

Chris Geidner (33:39)

He starts taking action in the case. He granted a request for expedited consideration the next day on March 8th. So he's taken the, the, the local chambers case seriously. He really cares about this case. He takes some, some procedural like he grants admissions of pro hoc parties who don't, because again, there's all these.

Alison Gill (34:05)

Nobody's from there, so they need a local sponsor.

Chris Geidner (34:09)

So he's granting admission so they can practice. He grants some. There are some amicus briefs filed that he authorizes. Then a week later, he files a one sentence order saying, oh, oops, I'm recused. I, I'm not. I, I'm not in this case. He doesn't tell us why, but he, he recuses himself from the case. So it gets reassigned on March 14th. So we're already a week into this case and he's issued at least one substantive ruling. It gets reassigned to Judge Pittman, who is a conservative who has issued some Covid rulings, some other rulings that definitely make clear to all of us watching this is no bleeding heart. He gets the case. He gets it on a Thursday. The 14th is a Thursday. He has the weekend to look at it. And right away on Monday, he issues an order saying, hey, I. He has the word weary in the order, which he says that he is weary to present this, but he has questions about venue and whether the case should be filed here. And he asks for briefing. And he says, or if the defendants want to file a motion for venue transfer, do that. Notably, in all of the criticism of this action from here on out, they never talk about that first part of it that he called for briefing. They just say he asked for them to file a motion. That's not what happened? That's just not what happened. If you look at Pittman's order, he says, I got this case. They also don't talk about the fact that he just got the case. He basically says, I got this case. I looked at the filings, I looked at your motion for a preliminary injunction. I have questions about venue. Can you brief it by a certain date or if the defendants want to file a motion for venue transfer, I will take that under advisement. Understandably, when you get a judge saying that.

Alison Gill (36:21)

So let me see if I get this right. Are there people on the right saying that the judge improperly asked for a motion? They just basically say, because this happens

Chris Geidner (36:34)

all the time, focus on the fact that he's sua spontane, which means on his own motion, asked for this.

Alison Gill (36:40)

And yes, judges do that all the time.

Chris Geidner (36:43)

One, judges do it all the time. But two, they, they ignore the fact that this, this wasn't, it's not like he had been with the case for a week and a half at that point. He had been with the case for four days, like.

Alison Gill (36:57)

Right.

Chris Geidner (36:58)

And so any, in any event, what happens is he gets this briefing, this request for venue transfer, and he grants it. Just like the, the Obama appointee who heard the other case over the SpaceX challenge to the NLRB's rule, both of these cases get transferred. The SpaceX case gets transferred to the Central District of California and the, the, the chambers challenge to the credit card roll, the CFPB credit card rule gets transferred to the District of Columbia. Now, at the same time, these are on different timelines. So I, I don't want to, I want to just simplify it by just saying both of those things happened. The Fifth Circuit issues in order in the SpaceX case. Not, not to the Central District of California, they're not being that ridiculous.

Alison Gill (38:02)

But, but to the district judge who

Chris Geidner (38:04)

transferred it out, district judge who transferred it out saying, bring it back, bring it back, ask for it back. And that judge in, in, in a normal circumstance, if you weren't dealing with the fifth Circuit, they're, they're under comedy. C O M I T Y. Not comedy, but comedy. The judge basically said, if you give me a request, I'll send it back. Like, just send me, send me a request, I'll send it back. So that happened. So it went back to the Central District. But it's important to understand that what the fifth Circuit did there was they asked for it back so that they could have jurisdiction to consider the mandamus request. They weren't ruling on the mandamus request, they basically, they, they acknowledged the fact, like, it's not our case, this is in Cal, this is in California now. So if you want us to consider this, which we want to consider it, get the case back so that we can consider it. They got the case back and then on a 2:1 vote they, they decided that there was not mandamus. They denied Mandamus and well, that's good. But then Judge Elrod dissented and within a few hours of them denying mandamus, at which point the district court judge should have been able to transfer it back to California. The fifth Circuit, a random judge, we don't know who, withheld the mandate state, which is basically the, the, the, the formal transfer of a case back to the district court. And so because of that, that was basically telling the district court, don't transfer it back to California. And then two days later, Texas asked for en banc review, which means the full 5th Circuit should review whether or not this mandamus should be granted. This is absurd. This is not the sort of thing that happens in any normal situation. The, the, the full court considering whether a case should be transferred where none of the activities that are being challenged actually happened within Texas or the fifth Circuit. Like, like. But now that case has basically been on hold while this briefing on whether to take it en banc is happening. The court hasn't even said whether they're going to consider it en banc. Do you think that the SpaceX case.

Alison Gill (40:54)

Stay on the SpaceX case here for a second before we go over to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Do you think that they brought the case back to consider Mandamus like cover to keep it in their district or.

Chris Geidner (41:08)

Well, I mean they want to clear that some judges want, I mean. Well here's what it is. I mean the, the, the lawyers for SpaceX are anti labor lawyers. This is a, at Morgan Lewis. This is a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the nlrb and they want a fifth Circuit ruling. There have been a handful of these challenges brought again by Amazon, Trader Joe's, SpaceX and one other place this year, the SpaceX one was the first. And basically the way that I look at it is they don't care if they lose all of the other ones. They want a circuit split because that forces the Supreme Court to take the case. So they don't care if all of the other cases are in places they're going to lose. They want this one case, this SpaceX case, to be in the 5th Circuit so that they can win. And then there's a circuit split and the Supreme Court needs to take it. So that's the lawyers. And then I presume that there are going to be some people, some Judges on the 5th Circuit en banc, and apparently Judge Elrod, who want this case to. To be before their court. And whether it's because they want to strike down the nlrb, whether it's because they don't like. Like the fact that the LRB is trying to get it back in the liberal Ninth Circuit, or whether it's for some other reason. Whatever their reason is, they've basically put this case on hold from a very ordinary district court judge's order to transfer a case to the place where the action is happening. And the case has just been on hold since then.

Alison Gill (42:56)

It's almost like they've hijacked it. We only have a couple minutes left. Is there a similar kind of backstory with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case?

Chris Geidner (43:03)

Yeah, with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau thing, the end result was the opposite for now on Mandamus. They actually granted mandamus on a 2:1 vote on Friday night. Two Trump appointees, Judge Willett and Judge Andy Oldham. And Judge Willett wrote, and he basically said because of the fact that the CFPB had been effectively denied their preliminary injunction because the District Court Judge Pittman hadn't ruled on it, that they were able to appeal and that their appeal had deprived Pittman of jurisdiction to later rule on the transfer order.

Alison Gill (43:56)

That's, you know, here we are wringing our hands about whether Jack Smith should go to the 11th Circuit with a Ridda mandamus to order Eileen Cannon to stop being an idiot.

Chris Geidner (44:06)

Well, this is.

Alison Gill (44:07)

But it blows my mind.

Chris Geidner (44:09)

I mean, and this is a situation where. Remember the dates that we were talking about for Pittman? I mean, this all happened on March 25th. That they went to the Fifth Circuit after he only got the case on the 14th. 14th, and that was going in. And that that means that he had it for 11 days, four of which were weekends.

Alison Gill (44:29)

Boy, they're extraordinarily fast.

Chris Geidner (44:31)

And they went to the 5th and

Alison Gill (44:32)

they want to keep things.

Chris Geidner (44:33)

Asked for mandamus and they granted it.

Alison Gill (44:36)

Oh, my God.

Chris Geidner (44:37)

The real question now is the case was transferred by Pittman to D.C. district Court, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson got it. And in his dissent at the Fifth Circuit, Judge Higginson basically said, well, we'll see if the D.C. court gives it the attention. It's this Mandamus opinion, the attention it's due. So the question now is Whether she gives the case back. It was transferred to her by a district court, and she has it.

Alison Gill (45:12)

Yeah. I don't think she would have to give it back. I'm kind of reminded of the Alexander Smirnoff arrest in Nevada being transferred over to California, and then they asked for another hearing in Nevada, and the California judge is like, nah, bro, this is mine.

Chris Geidner (45:27)

Yeah, there. There have been. There have been some other fights. There was a fight between. It was the 5th Circuit, between the 5th Circuit and a New Jersey court previously over venue and transfer. So, I mean, it's not that these fights are new, but it's the. The way that they're happening. It's the fact that this happens in two ideological cases where there was a. An apparent attempt at using the Fifth Circuit's extremism as an advantage for why they filed the case there. Which makes it, as I wrote at Lott Orca, all the more concerning that the Fifth Circuit seems to be going out of its way to keep these cases from being transferred outside of its jurisdiction.

Dana Goldberg (46:16)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (46:16)

And to pave a road to get to the Supreme Court, which would probably never happen in these other jurisdictions. And, you know, we end up with something like the mifepress don't case in front of D.C. exactly. By people who have absolutely no standing or, you know, to file this case or any jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas. Well, I mean, they. I guess they went ahead and established it technically. But to get these kinds of labor cases and financial protection cases up to the Supreme Court, where we know we have a 6, 3 conservative majority that's been going after labor, and with the $8 cap on credit card fees for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we know they've stopped student debt relief. And they're more prone to those sorts of decisions, ideological decisions. With this conservative Supreme Court, the challenge is getting it up to the Supreme Court and through the fifth Circuit, they have a much easier path to do that. And I think that that's probably why they're clawing these back and trying to keep them under their purview. But I would not know any of this, and it would make no sense to me if I didn't subscribe to Law Dork with Chris Geidner. Follow Chris Geidner on Twitter and all social media. I assume you're everywhere.

Dana Goldberg (47:34)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (47:34)

And it really is, like, in my back pocket. I only have a few sub stacks. Joyce Vance, Steve Vladek, and Chris Geidner Lawdork really, to help break these things down and explain them to me in a way that I can easily understand. So I appreciate you coming on the show today and sharing this information with us.

Chris Geidner (47:51)

Thanks so much everybody.

Alison Gill (47:53)

We have a lot of good news. Stick around, we'll be right back.

Rainy Day Rabbit Holes Host (47:56)

History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the Rabbit Hole.

Alison Gill (48:31)

MSW Media. Everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news everyone.

Chris Geidner (48:46)

Then good news.

Alison Gill (48:53)

And if you have any good news confessions, corrections. You want to play what the mutt? Find the cat opine on the bovine. What the hell is in that shell? Or just what the shell cat Me if you can. What the heckwine? What the fark is in your ark? We guess the animal. You can send us a picture or a drawing or just send us a description of an animal and we'll try to guess what it is. Anything at all like that. If you have a thesis or dissertation titles, you can send that to us. If you have student debt relief stories Dana, I was on a wonderful call with White House Digital Communications team today and they are eager to get everybody's student debt relief stories. I will send them in if you want to include your email address so they can reach out to you possibly let us know and we'll include those as well. And thank you for sending those into us because they've had a huge impact on actually a lot of what what this administration is doing. So you are making a difference just by sharing your stories. And as I've long said, right. Storytelling is such an important part of the media and you know, shout out to a small business in your area adoptable pet in your area. I think we got the kitty adopted. We found somebody that oh that's wonderful. Yeah, I think we got found a new forever home for one of these kitties. Send us that adoptable pet in your area. Anything at all you want to send to us. Send it to@dailybeanspod.com and click on Contact. First up from Elliot no pronouns. Dana said that Satanists are involved in the fight for abortion rights and AG said right, Church of Satan. But it's the satanic temple that is the more modern, less sex, culty, incarnation, fighting this fight. Tenet three of the Satanic Temple is one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone, and there is an abortion ritual in many places. Only members of the Jewish faith and the Satanic temple have the religious protection. Obviously members of the Satanic temple people don't actually worship Satan, so thank you for that correction, Elliot. I appreciate that.

Dana Goldberg (50:52)

Absolutely. This next one's from Sean. No pronouns given. I was so happy to hear you include the note about animal content on social media. The cucumbers and banana videos with cats. This is a topic that I've been campaigning about since 2016, and the issue only continues to get worse, not only for cats, but many domesticated animals, and even worse to extremely vulnerable endangered animals. A group of colleagues and I just gave a presentation about this very issue at south by Southwest. Awesome, Sean. There's going to be a link to that in our show Notes so people can listen to it.

Alison Gill (51:22)

Oh sweet Shawn, thank you for advocating for this. I'm glad you're out there doing that. Next up from Anonymous, she and her thank you Beans Queens. Your humor, research and perspective has been keeping me calm and informed since the kitchen table days. With all the talk of cats and bananas and cucumbers and snakes, I just had to enter a submission of my own. Our cat Cricket adored pole beans. Those are the extra long ones. She would bat them around, pick them up in her mouth and carry them around the house and talked to them in a cute little voice she reserved for her favorite things. From the picture included, you could see she was quite comfortable and not at all afraid of her little green veggie friend. We rescued Cricket when she was just a baby with a developmental defect called pectus excavatum. I know that one. That's the Flat Chested Funnel Chested Kitten syndrome. Her chest cavity incorrectly developed wide and flat, with a deep indentation at the bottom of the front of her rib cage that looked like a dark, funny hole. They told us. Not much was known about the fairly rare condition and she might live six weeks, six months, six years, but she would likely have respiratory, cardiac or digestive problems due to the deformity, and we named her Cricket because she could barely get a sound out and her meow sounded like a little chirp. We put her on probiotics, vitamins, enzymes, and an amazing and expensive food that was literally called feline caviar. She was a little frail waif when we got her, weighing in at about half a pound and got up to £3 by the time she was three months old. She was an adorable and affectionate kitty and brought us so much Joy for over 11 years. We just had to put her down last summer due to seizures and we miss her dearly. You can probably easily guess her breed. Yes, that is a purebred ragdoll. Last pick includes our other cat, Jasper, a gray tabby rescue. Oh. Oh, sweet, beautiful baby. 11 years. Wonderful. Thank you for taking care of that special needs kitty.

Dana Goldberg (53:12)

Absolutely. All right, Ag. We are. This is from. We are a Blue dots in a sea of red. She and her pronouns on both of them. My life partner received student debt relief from the Biden administration. She originally went to college to become a lawyer and she worked for a few years as a public defender and then as an immigration attorney. After working in the field for several years, she made the decision to become a schoolteacher. We live in a small rural community in a state that pays teachers, one of the lowest rates in the nation. Until very recently, she was making less than $30,000 a year. We received notification recently that her $45,000 in student loans had been completely forgiven. I can't even tell you the relief that this was to learn we had been deferring the loan payments for years because she is in public service. But there was always the worry that deferment program would cease to exist and we would end up having to make payments that we couldn't afford. We are also a lesbian couple flying under the radar due to the very real concern that she would be fired if the school district finds out she is LGBTQ plus. This year will be our 12th anniversary, so taking one big stressor out of our lives is such a huge blessing. Thank you, President Biden. Listen, Blue dots in a sea of red. I love this submission. I don't think enough people out there realize when we got marriage equality, it didn't fix everything. And I think some people don't realize. I think it's still 26 states. You can get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday for getting married on Saturday. If they don't agree with who you married. If you've got a picture up of your wife, your husband, your significant other, you can get fired. In all of those states, there are no overriding protections. This is what we are still fighting for. The noise is so loud because. Because obviously our trans communities under attack, our non binary communities under attack. I have heard people in the House of Representatives say that they are coming for marriage equality, but people do not realize still that in so many places this exact situation can happen and so people have to stay closeted and they can't be out in public. And I just give you so much love and respect and I am so glad there's a little bit of collateral beauty and all of this bullshit that your loan payments were. They're gone. $45,000. It's a year and a half. A year and a half of a teacher's salary, which is insanity, by the way. But you have that and you don't have to worry about it anymore. I love it. And happy 12th anniversary to the two of you.

Alison Gill (55:45)

Yeah. And thanks so much for doing for, for your service as a school teacher.

Dana Goldberg (55:50)

Absolutely.

Alison Gill (55:51)

In a rural red area. I feel better about what those kids are learning. So thank you. Next up from Patrick from Michigan. Pronouns he and him hello. Friendly voices in my ear. Every once in a while we need to celebrate a light bulb going on in someone. Here's my recent story. My mother in law is very religious. I'm not sure if she's evangelical, but if she's not, she's close. She's very, very right wing, but mostly because of the friends and media she listens to. We have an agreement not to publicly comment on each other's Facebook posts, but rather than discuss differences in person when the need arises, that's what so that makes sense. I don't often do this to keep a bit of family harmony, so I carefully quote, unquote, pick my battles. When the news of more Biden student loan forgiveness came out, she posted on Facebook, I paid my student loans. My kids paid their student loans. Now we have Democrats trying to give everyone a free ride. I know enough about the Bible that I knew I could talk to her about this. So I made the call. After some chit chat I brought up the post. I read your Facebook post. Do you know there are many people who have been paying on their student loans for 10 or 20 years and still owe more than they borrowed thanks to your show. Had a couple of real life examples to give her her after a pause. Well they signed the contract. They shoulda. They should be better at math. Me ignoring the dig mom which I rarely call her and knew it would get her attention. It's usury. Democrats are fighting against usury. The Bible is against usury. Why are you so pro usury? I'm not. Then we agree predatory lending is a bad thing. Yes, I can agree to that. I wrapped up the call and did a happy dance. Might be a small victory, but it was a sweet one. Did you know that if you imagine a face on the middle pad between a cat's toe Beans. It looks like a teddy bear. Isn't that awesome?

Dana Goldberg (57:44)

What a sweet end to this mission. I know, right?

Alison Gill (57:47)

Thank you, Patrick. That's incredible. That's an incredible way to have that discussion. And thank you for modeling it for us.

Dana Goldberg (57:54)

Absolutely. All right, this one's from Anonymous. No pronouns given. This one says I second the listener on the adult diaper thing. I get that poop can be funny, but I wince every time I hear it used as a put down. My beloved spouse of 30 years is incontinent. After a battle with cancer and many surgeries. We work every day to overcome his shame and embarrassment over it. We treat it merely as one other thing we have to do. Make no big deal. Then we hear the put downs. It's not just you guys. You really are among the most mild and thoughtful. You are also great at getting the word out and modeling being kind to each other. I am in tears as I write this. I just had to say something. Sending love to you Anonymous. We are getting the message loud and clear and we are doing our best to honor our listeners requests.

Alison Gill (58:40)

Absolutely. Thank you for sending that in. Next up from Anonymous Pronoun she and her Greetings Queens of the Beans. As someone who identifies as a kinkster and works in health care, I definitely have some thoughts on those poor people who end up in the ER with something stuck in their bums. In the kink world we have an acronym, RACK R A C K which stands for Risk Aware Consensual Kink. This is a reminder to Please be aware of the risks of any activity you wish to engage in. Do your research folks. Do not engage in any type of play without learning how to do it so that you can mitigate any risks or harm to yourself or your partner. Partner or partners. And when it comes to safety and toys for your bum, please remember no flared base. Gone without a trace. Also, my last hospital, the pathologist had a box in his lab with all the stuff pulled out of people's bums. It was quite the collection, love. And thanks to the entire beans team and family family for bringing a little light into this dark world. Thank you Anonymous for that submission. Remember, no flared bass. Gone without a trace. We now have a rhyme that we can remember for sake.

Dana Goldberg (59:46)

I love it. This one's from Ren. No pronouns given. Love the pot as always, still huge fan and love laughing along with you all on April 9th's episode the Cat's Bananas. I heard the feedback Dana read from Ms. Nelson and it echoed a lot of my feelings from my original email. Like them, I've echoed similar sentiments about the name calling, the nickname, and some of the other antics they mentioned as well. And I wanted to send a follow up to my original email saying that I've also seen a noticeable improvement since my original feedback from October. While there's still room for improvement, when is there not? I did want to make sure you heard that the efforts you have made so far have been noticed and appreciated. Additionally, you do so much amazing work in the world and truly make this country a better place to live in for all of us, including the Ruth Uglicans who can live how they want to already, even if they ultimately want to force everyone to live that way, which is wrong and not what this nation was founded to be. I'm looking forward to seeing you live again in San Francisco. We'll probably show up at the meet and greet to shake your hand as I did some prior years back, and thank you in person. Please keep up the great work, continue listening to the feedback as you've done all along and know that your fans both support and love you, the pod, the community and the work you're doing to truly make America what it should be for everybody. PodTax is haiku. Haku. Yeah, I think haku. Haku, emphasizing the first syllable. There we go. And I met him and his owner at the Cherry Blossom Festival in Seattle last week, posing for pictures in the tree. Oh my God, this kitty's beautiful. The little fella isn't mine, as I don't have. I can't have pets in my apartment, but was submitting with permission and blessings from Linda and George, who got him a month ago. He's six months old and he's little keta puppy.

Alison Gill (61:29)

Look at this baby.

Dana Goldberg (61:30)

Gorgeous dog.

Alison Gill (61:32)

Yeah. And so are the cherry blossoms.

Dana Goldberg (61:34)

Oh, yeah, the magnolia. The cherry blossoms are blooming everywhere. The magnolia trees all over New York City are stunning. And then there's also these white blossoms. Those might also be cherry blossoms, but I think the cherry obviously has some pink in them. There's white blossoms all over the city. It's just that time spring is blooming. It was 73 degrees in New York. It's going to drop to 59 tomorrow. But it was a lovely day.

Alison Gill (61:59)

Yeah.

Dana Goldberg (62:00)

Go home. Whether you're drunk.

Alison Gill (62:02)

We've got the jacarandas about to bloom all over San Diego, which I love. They're like a beautiful lavender color.

Dana Goldberg (62:07)

Oh, they're so pretty.

Alison Gill (62:09)

Absolutely. And Ren, thanks. Thanks for noticing because we do, you know, we do our best. We make our efforts. And I appreciate that. And I, you know, I just. As much as I appreciate everyone's constructive criticism and feedback. So keep it coming always. And thank you for the kind words. Do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here today, my friend?

Dana Goldberg (62:31)

No, I do not.

Alison Gill (62:32)

All right, well, we'll be back in your ears tomorrow. Also, there's a new episode of cleanup on aisle 45 out today you don't want to miss. We go over that whole Bond fiasco with Hanky. And congrats to Rachel Maddow's Monday night show with that deep dive into this guy's past businesses.

Chris Geidner (62:50)

Love it.

Alison Gill (62:51)

All of his. Awful. Awful. He was. He was posing as a florist and calling active duty service members saying that they were going to get free flowers delivered to them from secret admirers and to get their address and then come and illegally repossess their cars after.

Dana Goldberg (63:07)

It's insane.

Alison Gill (63:08)

Yeah, just a complete asshole. He's had to pay $50 million in restitution for that. Then he was under investigation by the sec. And then Trump gets in and poof, investigation goes away. And then Trump gets a couple hundred million dollars in loans from this guy. So I hope that this bond is rejected and they tell him to fuck off. And I hope that there are criminal fraud charges filed for trying to defraud the court on this bond.

Dana Goldberg (63:31)

I really amazing.

Alison Gill (63:33)

I mean, this is. These guys. I'm fucking sick of this shit. Anyway, please send in your good news dailybeanspod.com click on contact before I go off on another rant. And we'll be back in your ears tomorrow. Until then, please take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Take care of the planet. Take care of your mental health. Health. Take care of your family. Vote blue over Q.

Dana Goldberg (63:50)

And please take all your family with you.

Alison Gill (63:52)

All of them. I've been AG and I've been dg and them's the beans.

Chris Geidner (63:56)

Refried beans. I like refried beans.