Legal AF by MeidasTouch - DOJ Throttles Texas’ Abortion Ban, “Seditious Conspiracy,” Biden Vax Mandates, and More!

Episode Date: September 12, 2021

The top-rated weekly law and politics podcast -- LegalAF -- produced by Meidas Touch and anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, is back for another hard-hitting, thought-provoking yet entertaining look at the most compelling developments at the intersection of law and politics. At the top of the podcast, Ben and Popok honor the victims and first responders and their families on the 20th Anniversary of September 11th. Then, Ben and Popok explore and explode this week’s political litigation developments:  The DOJ bombshell/landmark suit of The United States of America v. the State of Texas, filed this week to find that the Texas abortion ban (SB8) “defiantly” violates: the US Constitution, a woman’s Constitutional-right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability, and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, and the Intergovernmental Immunity doctrine. Oath Keeper attorney and others possibly being charged by DOJ with Federal crime of “seditious conspiracy” concerning the January 6th attack on the Capitol. President Biden’s Vaccine Mandates for business and federal workers through OSHA, the 1905 SCOTUS precedent to support it, and the GQP predictable resistance to the new public health laws. Fulton County, Georgia’s District Attorney continued criminal investigation into Trump’s phone call on January 2nd to the Georgia Secretary of State to “find votes” and fraudulently overturn the election results, and possible crimes committed by Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsey Graham. A Florida Federal judge finding that Governor DeSantis’ “anti-protest” law passed in response to the BLM movement, violates the Constitution’s First Amendment protecting free speech and the right to peaceably assembly, and harks back to Jim Crow days and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. A federal civil suit filed against Prince Andrew under New York’s Child Victims Act brought by a plaintiff who alleges that as part of the Jeffrey Epstein web of depravity, she was raped by the Prince when she was a teenager, and a discussion of how her lawyers were finally able to serve him with the lawsuit in England. Special Easter Eggs Alert: Popok breaks out an egg timer to keep the show humming along, and we have our first sponsor! Please visit Policygenius.com right now and compare insurance quotes today! Reminder and Programming Note: All past episodes of Legal AF originally featured on the MeidasTouch podcast can now be found here.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's up, Midas, Mighty? What's up, Popokians? What's up, legal AFers and possibly Mycelesians? Welcome to the Midas Touch Legal AF podcast. If it's Saturday, it is legal AF, Ben Mycelis, and Michael Popak breaking down for you all the legal issues. As we record this episode, today we are recording on September 11th, our hearts go out to everybody who lost their lives to all of the family members who lost loved ones on that date that we will never forget. We are with you. I remember just briefly Popoq sharing my own story of growing up in Long Island, New York. I was a junior in high school at the time. I think we all remember where we were.

I remember the classroom I was in. I remember the principal calling names over the loudspeaker of individuals who had loved ones who worked in or around the tower. And you would hear the names of people being called and people didn't know if that was a father or a mother or an uncle or someone who had potentially lost their lives. My father was working in the city then, fortunately, he was fine, but wasn't able to hear from him from quite some time because

lots of the cell service was down at that time, a day I will never forget that forever changed history and a day that we can never forget as a country. Yeah, we can't move past that day. And as people may know, I have a personal connection. I worked at Canterfitch Gerald many years after the events of 9-11, but worked with people that were impacted directly and personally, emotionally, by 9-11. 658 employees of Canter Fitzgerald, it was the hardest hit company, were lost in a five-minute span 20 years ago. And there's not a day that goes by that that company doesn't think about those people,

the legacy, and the events of 9-11. I was coming out of a separate event last night that happened to be near ground zero, and I just was struck by the twin beams of light that are used as a commemoration, a memorial. I think they did it last year, but frankly, I really wasn't on the street much last year because of the pandemic, but I got to see it with a group of other people. And it is a moving and awe-inspiring celebration and commemoration of people that are lost, 3,000 people, 3,000 Americans and others died on 9, 11, 20 years ago.

Somebody tweeted, I'll just leave it at this, somebody tweeted in our feed, there's so much other loss in the world, including with COVID. Can't we move past 9, 11? And I thought that was a heartless, senseless posting. And the answer to that is no, and we should never forget what happened that day and the consequences of what happened to that day to impact our lives. So Ben, thanks for bringing that up today. I'm sorry to start the podcast on a dour moment, but I don't think we had any other choice given the day that we're recording the podcast. Correct. And that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also be focused on the travesties that are currently taking place. And of course, legal AF, the Midas touch podcast, other media, our followers, our supporters, you know, we all should definitely

talk about and hold people accountable for the travesty that's going on right now. And the mishandling, the disinfo that arose out of the Trump administration, you know, in the pandemic and so much other horrible things that are arising from the rise of this GQP fascist movement. But we must always reflect on

other moments as well in history. And so talking about the current news, the current legal news, let's get into it. And let's start by talking about the FBI seizing the phone of someone named Kelly Surrell. She was identified or is identified as a oath keeper lawyer. This is in connection with the FBI's seditious conspiracy investigation under 18 US code 2384, 2384, is a seditious conspiracy charge. As many people may recall, even though Kelly Sarell is identified in many articles in media as,

is the oath keeper lawyer, the role that she had in the January 6th insurrection, Popok was kind of more of like public relations. She was a speaker. She was very outspoken about spreading the big lie. She was there. She was there, but all on Jan 6th. And she was basically serving as the media liaison on behalf of the oath keepers. And so her phone was seized by the FBI. You know, she's,. She's expressed a great degree of outrage

that her information is being called through by law enforcement. I think it's worth reflecting on certain different obligations that arise when you're dealing with executing search warrants on a lawyer as opposed to, you know, just somebody else, but here, Popo, there's something slightly different because, yes, she is a lawyer, but that doesn't mean you can't execute search warrants. We've seen that with Rudy Giuliani, if you are actually engaged in the crime, and if the FBI has good faith basis or law enforcement has good faith basis

to get a warrant from a magistrate. But here also we have Kelly, Surrell, also kind of serving a different function which just because you wear the lawyer hat doesn't make you a lawyer for all purposes. For those that are watching the podcast, he then is literally wearing a lawyer for all purposes. For those that are what, listening to the podcast, he Ben is literally wearing a lawyer hat. I'm wearing a Georgetown law hat that I just tapped, but she was also not necessarily functioning

as a lawyer. What do you think about this Popeye? Yeah, it's, it's, I'm hoping I'm never going to hear about Kelly Sarell again unless she's prosecuted for this, this fantastic crime that I hope more and more of the Jan 6th insurrectionists are charged with, which is, as you mentioned, seditious conspiracy and to pull a misallion for a minute, to define it, it is when two or more people conspire to overthrow, put down, destroy by force, or oppose by force, the US government. And that is what the leaders of the insurrection, I hope are gonna ultimately be charged with, including the founder of the Oathkeepers

who is Stuart Rhodes, who she is, I don't know if she's more than the lawyer, but she certainly identified herself as the lawyer for Stuart Rhodes. And I'm going to refer our followers and listeners to a very good database that's being maintained by George Washington University, the program on extremism. And they have a database which is at extremism.gwu.edu where they are monitoring each of the 600 cases closely that have been brought, the charges that have been brought against each of

the 600 so far insurrectionists and the interesting headscratcher and I want to get your opinion on this is that not one of the 600 yet has been charged with seditious conspiracy. But what you want to talk a little bit about superseding indictments, and what do you think may be coming down the line with this particular subpoena being the signal? Yeah. So, you know, I was recently on a podcast, I'll plug it. We're also at Midas Touch Executive Producers, the Michael Cohen, Mayacopa podcast. And Cohen was very disappointed in Merrick Garland. You know, and I think a lot of

people, a lot of our supporters and followers and listeners are saying, when is Merrick Garland going to take action? Why is any charging people with sedition? You know, when I said, Merrick Garland though is, I agree to some extent. I would like to see, I think, a lot more aggressive action just because, you know, you just want to see the, you just want to see it visually that things are getting done and people are being held accountable. But Merrick Garland is very methodical. You need to dot all your eyes and cross all your teas because in cases like this, even type of graphical errors

that go into complaints can lead to mis Trials and not actually getting the results that you want. So what you do in these cases, you prioritize, who are the people we really want to make example of? Who are people that we want to make sure we hold accountable, but gather information from. And as you say, in a super seating indictment, literally meaning an indictment, which supersedes an amendment, if you will, to an existing indictment, you can add additional charges as information becomes available. And so the process that we see taking place here in this case is a information gathering process. The same way we've talked about discovery

and civil settings, there's discovery and criminal settings that are far more robust that you literally can get warrants and take people's stuff and take their phones in this case or take their hard in this case or take their hard drives and go through it. But I think what you're seeing here is the preparation of that that will be happening in the next six months.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. We're ready for a pop-okian prediction. I think this is a signal that at the very top in doing the triage that you talked about where they're going through, they're separating the really bad guys and then the bad guys and then the okay bad guys. The ones at the very top, like the Oathkeeper founder who organized and is found to have organized on social media

and all of these dark web communication platforms prior to and the day of and during planning and participating in and managing the insurrection, if you will. Those are the people that are going to ultimately be charged with some sort of conspiracy or seditious conspiracy. It truly came out of the restoration period in Civil War against these individuals. So I agree, we got to be patient here a little bit with with Merrick Garland, and they are dotting their eyes and crossing their teeth. I also read and doing the research for this particular issue that the then acting US attorney for Washington who was doing under Trump, if you will, who was doing the initial prosecutions and investigations. He got chastised professionally

and ethically because he went on some talk show and said he thought conspiracy was definitely going to be charged. And listen, he just, that's just a Freudian slip. They are going to charge it. It just he's not allowed to say it in advance as if he's prejudging the evidence that's being developed. And that guy actually got his knuckles wrapped for having said that. So look, I think we, people that are really, really interested in this,

there's a database that GW is, is, is handling. You and I will update this as it goes along, but I'd be shocked that if the next three to six months, there's not a handful of charges at the very top, the apex of this conspiracy, charges of seditious conspiracy, and other crimes that put people away for life. One thing to add to the legal lexicon of our listeners and viewers is a concept called a privilege review team or a taint team that's within the DOJ when search warrants are served on someone who may hold a privilege with potential clients in this case, an attorney client

privilege, what's supposed to happen. And I say supposed to because lots of criminal defense lawyers are very, look very suspiciously at the process, but that a separate team within the DOJ, or even in many cases, an outside, independent party appointed by the judge, a referee is what it's sometimes called, you know, will review the records to determine if certain documents are subject to an attorney client privilege or a privilege claim that the government can't review in the context of their and can't review in the context of their investigation efforts. And so here, I think it will depend, the utilization of a Tainte team,

depending on if she was acting in the course in scope of her employment. And just to believe it at this, remember, there's a federal magistrate who reviewed the search warrant application and the charges in there, including this seditious conspiracy charge or potential charge, and said, yeah, this lawyer's cell phone is going over to the government. I think they've met their burden. So there's a multiple gatekeepers. There's the

DOJ gatekeepers at the Taint team level that you mentioned. And then there's the ultimate one, which is a federal judge who is looking over these things to make sure, you know, and you contrast that with what Kellyanne tweeted. Is that her name? Kellyanne. Kellyanne. Kellyanne tweeted, and I'm not making this up, and I want to say it. She said, um, this should not have happened to me because it was quote on ethical as shit.

That's the defense. I'm not sure if that is going to be a good defense or something that I would ever put in my legal papers, but what else can we expect for someone who's affiliated with an organization that is a hateful white supremacist group that supports insurrection switching gears popo to the executive orders by President Biden, these vaccine requirement executive orders. I want to talk briefly about these vaccine requirements in the two executive orders, the reaction to it, the predictable reaction to it by your crazy GQP governors and officials who want children to die. Let's be blunt about it. That's what they want. They want to kill their populations. They want to kill children. They don't give a shit about people's lives. And then I want to talk about the legal precedence. And ultimately, Popak, I think

you and I agree. This is something that will make its way to through the federal court system. These GQP governors are likely going to sue, and it is an issue that will likely reach the Supreme Court at some point in time. But so far, the update is President Joe Biden this past week issued two executive orders, mandating vaccines for federal workers and contractors and announced new requirements for large employers and health care providers that he said would affect around 100 million workers, which is more than two thirds of the U.S. workforce.

So, Popok, with respect to federal workers and federal contractors, the president can basically make these requirements, a firm requirement, with respect to private employers that have a hundred or more workers that are within the workforce. Those have either a vaccine requirement or a weekly testing requirement. The response from GQP governors, the usual suspects like South Dakota Governor, Kristi Nome talks about how this is about freedom and the government's overstepping our authority. We're going to take action. You have Brian Kemp of Georgia saying, I will pursue every legal option available to stay in the state of

Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden administration. And then we have Arizona governor Doug Ducey issuing a statement saying that this is a dictatorial approach. It is wrong. It is un-American is what Governor Ducey said. Let's break down the law, Popeye. All right. Let's start it this way. Let's put it in the most simple terms.

You don't have the right to spread disease at the expense of your fellow American. And these governors who are allowing, let, just call it what it is, allowing their fellow citizens and their electorate to spread disease because they're pandering in order to get reelected is really unethical, disgusting, and immoral. That's where we start. In terms of the laws themselves, I'm going to flip it around. We talked about the power of the federal government through administrative agencies to in the case of the eviction ban to issue regulations. And the problem with the eviction ban, as we found out through the Supreme Court, and

you and I predicted, was that the agency that was given the authority or delegated the authority by the federal government, Biden administration was the CDC. And the problem is the CDC doesn't really have on its books in terms of laws or regulations from which it can draw from a statute that sort of fits eviction ban. It has infestation, it has public health crisis, it has, you know, extermination, it doesn't have rent eviction bands. OSHA does. OSHA has the power in the area of health and welfare

of workers to regulate in that area, both because it involves interstate commerce, which is where the federal power is often, often arise and we're gonna talk about that, even in the context of the new case filed by the Department of Justice against the Texas abortion ban. But so you start with, does it affect interstate commerce? It does. Is there an agency in the federal government that regulates in the area of worker safety and health? There is what is it called? OSHA. Great. And then you look on the books of OSHA

and you say, are there is there power that's been delegated by the federal government by Congress to OSHA in the area of public health and safety? There is. So he, I think he stands on firmly solid ground that even this Supreme Court will ultimately have to uphold to allow OSHA to regulate in the area of large companies, interstate commerce and public health and issue these vaccine requirements. And yes, for votes for pandering to their electorate so that they get reelected, the governors of these various states are going to say, we're going to challenge it. They know when their hearts are either going to lose and be they're killing their electorate. Hope, let's go back to 1905. Can we? Let's go back to 19. As long as you don't say I was

there, you were not there in 1905 as far as as far as I know. Justice, Justice Marshall Harlan writing for the Supreme Court at that time, Justice Harlan was a former Kentucky attorney general just to give you context on his background before going to the Supreme Court wrote an opinion in a case called Jacobson versus Massachusetts. And the Jacobson and Massachusetts case related to the smallpox outbreak and certain individuals in this case, I think it was a preacher who had moved here from Sweden, who basically said, I don't want to get vaccinated. And wait, we before you move move on smallpox had ravished the entire planet millions at by that point in 1904 1905 millions and millions of people had died from smallpox and

The ruling very clearly said that the vaccine requirements in this case I believe the vaccine requirement was a Massachusetts kind of state requirement, but that the vaccine requirements were allowed in this specific case. Let me read for you one of the central parts of this order in 1905. Quote, there is of course a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government. Harlan wrote, but it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members, the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty, may at times

under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such a restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand. I just want to pause there and truly reflect the beauty of that statement. There's a lot to unpack there, right? There is the constitutional promise, Pope, that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That's built in to the Constitution. That's at the core of the Constitution, but as Justice Harlan so eloquently puts in this opinion, it is equally true that in a well-ordered society charged with the duty of others

that we have to as individuals also respect the liberty of the country and the ability of people to live. It's one of those things where there's beauty in the law. There's beauty in that statement. But Popo, let me ask you this. Do you think that that precedent, do you think that that statement will be embraced by this current Supreme Court or will they lean on COVID

as something different or somehow distinguishable from smallpox? I would hope that the precedent of of Jacobson versus Massachusetts is the foundation upon which even this Supreme Court rules that mandatory vaccination is a power under the Constitution that states and federal government can use. The nuance here is that it's the federal government versus individual states. I don't think matters. I think if we're doing, by the way, if we're doing dueling guitars, there was another great quote in there that I liked.

Which you and I have done versions of, done riffs on without not really thinking about it for the last four or five podcasts. One person's liberty can't deprive another of his and you're depriving your fellow citizen of his or her liberty because they have the liberty to be free from infectious disease that you're spreading because of what you consider to be your liberty. And that was put also, I mean, I love reading, first of all, Harlan was known for those that are kind of groupies about the Supreme Court, go back in time. Not only was he named for the first, really, the first Chief Justice of the United States,

John Marshall, but he himself was known as an erasible member of the court who often wrote piercing descents. He wasn't often in the majority. He was here, but he wrote these amazing, eloquent descents that now have been cited in other cases. The Supreme Court today is going to have to run away from this precedent because if you re-closely the ruling, the underlying briefing that was done even as far back in 1905, almost the exact same arguments that the anti-vax movement, which these governors are now the

appointed heads of, their arguments are embedded and embodied in the arguments that were raised in 1905 and rejected. We have standing precedent of the Supreme Court on the issue of mandatory vaccination. I don't know what the problem is with these governors to have de-Santis, for instance, a former US attorney, an attorney say that there is no constitutional precedent. And this is an unconstitutional power grab by the President of the United States just shows how woeful he was as a lawyer. There's a great book that I would recommend to all popuckians and legal aeifers called the Great Decentre by Peter S. Canelo's who writes about Justice Harlan and some of his great

dissents. And also, if anyone wants to learn more about the case that we just discussed and the precedent surrounding vaccine requirements, there's a great article on Politico that Peter Canelo's wrote, which goes into more detail about that case. That was like our legal AF book club. I feel like the legal AF book club is going to be lit. Let me take us from 1905, let me take us back to the current moment. Let's go to Fulton County, Georgia, Popock,

where the criminal investigation into Trump, you remember that call, Popock, where the criminal investigation into Trump. You remember that call, Popock, to Ralphisburg, you know, find the votes. Can we just find the votes? Can we just find the votes so I can win Georgia? It's just looking back. It was just one horror shit show over, you know, after another and, you know, each day today to seeing these GQP governors with their response to the vaccine mandates and just the most basic things. The bottom has completely

dropped and the depths of depravity really have no depths and nothing surprises. But going back to or away or away as I like to say, they hit rock bottom and they're now starting to tick. But look, before you move, timeline, let's give it for our listeners and followers. January 2nd, Trump makes the phone call to Raffisberger, the secretary of state of Georgia, Gen 2, four days later, Gen 6, the attack on the Capitol. Okay, go ahead. And I was just going to also reflect that one of the reasons that the GQP probably loves fracking so much is because they're involved in fracking down to new depths of depravity. Just just put that out there. But Popoq, we hear that there's a criminal

investigation that is underway. We hear that there are steps being taken to interview Brad Raffensberger. Raffensberger, the Secretary of State confirmed to the Daily Beast this past week that Fulton County investigators have asked for documents. They're talking to people within the office. Raffensberger says that their office is cooperating. Raffensberger, by the way, is no fan of Donald Trump. But nonetheless, these GQPers are just so weird sometimes, Popoac, because you have people like Donald Trump who literally destroy their lives. But then you basically ask them. And we've had some, you know, people on the podcast

who, you know, seem to be kind of to the extent there are some fair-minded Republicans who may not fully be in rapture than that GQP label, who Donald Trump has literally attacked their family. And then you ask them a question like, what would you vote for him again? And they're like, well, you know, it's an interesting question. I'd have to, it's like, how could that not just be? I'm never going to vote for the guy who literally destroyed my life. And you're here with our elections. Well, how about the back flips that McCarthy has done where, where he stood the day after the Jan 6th insurrection and said that Trump was responsible, McConnell the same thing. And then three days after

that, he was, he was kissing Trump's butt at, at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Toad-A-Wala, Kevin McCarthy though, was a complete, is just a pathological, and he's a pathological one. He's a pathological one. He's a pathological one. But the wild pieces when I speak to like people who are like really smart, they go and they basically talk about how Trump is a criminal, how everything he did is unlawful, and they break it down so articulately. And I just throw out the question to him,

I go, well, would you vote for him? And they go, well, you know, I need a, it's really, but Popo, what do you think's going on here? Do you think that there is going to be more than just an investigation? Is there going to be criminal charges? Yeah. And we still have for our listeners and followers, just who are scoring at home, New

York, state and federal Eastern district, Southern District of New York, New York Attorney General, all continuing to investigate. They've already indicted to in the Trump organization. They've indicted the Trump organization. Now you've got Fulton County, Georgia, which is where Atlanta is, and you've got Fanny Willis, who's the district attorney there. She's not only doing the investigation herself as to whether the election was improperly interfered with from the phone call from Trump to Raffisberger. And we know Raffisbergerberger has been interviewed in the media. And he's, he has testified that he, I think under oath as well in an investigation that he believes he was being coerced and threatened and extorted by Trump during that phone call.

And that's the, that's the beginning. But it's not just Trump and, and the DA in Fulton County. She's also cooperating the media reports with the federal investigators about Jan 6th. So there's a linkage there between the DA in Georgia and the federal government prosecuting the case. And I've also read and researched that Lindsey Graham may be caught up in this because of phone calls that he made back to Georgia and statements that he made. And you're going to love this because I think might have touched on an amazing viral video about this. Rudy Giuliani, the day I think that he was passing gas and and dripping hair dye. When he was when he was in the state legislature of Georgia, giving giving testimony and trying to make a case that the election was fraudulent.

So they may all get, I mean, Rudy's, I mean, every day there's a new like Rudy Giuliani possible indictment. So we're going to monitor this closely. We'll see how far it's going to progress. But I think the DA is digging in and we'll see in the next three, six months if there's an actual indictment that comes out of it. Popokian prediction. I think that there, yes, between New York and Georgia, I stand on my prediction.

There will be a Trump indictment. I was hoping in 2021, I might have to push it to the first quarter of 2022. Updates, we have updates. Popokian, I'm not going to fully leave you off the hook there, because you're kind of moving the goal posts a little bit, you kind of hedging on New York versus you, I agree with you, there's going to be an indictment, but you did not answer the question directly. So you get a yellow card, that's such a proper use of the

Papokian yellow card for all of the viewers. This is when Papokian does something that is worthy of a penalty right there not answering the question directly is a valid use of the Papokian yellow card. As I say that, I just, as I say that, Michael, and I'm gonna use Michael if I'm a per card. As I say that, I just, as I say that, Michael, and I'm going to use Michael with a paper. Please. Just think of there are so many people, the vast majority of polling people love

when I do popoqian. But there are some real haters of it. It's the same guy. This is the same person. Michael, there are some emails that I don't even share with you. Oh, okay. Because they strike at my heart because I'm just trying to have a little fun here also as we go through some heavy legal topics. But Michael Popak, there are some people who don't like when I repeat Papoke and over and over again, but update. I might be one of them. But, but let me also, you're doing your yellow card. I'm going to show, I'm going to show those that are watching them.

I'll show them. You know, I'll tell you why. No, don't show them. And I'm explained to you why. I'll do it backwards. Yeah, do it backwards. I'll tell them at the end of it, why not to show them. It's a Vegas. It's a Vegas trick. And with the Vegas trick. All right. That's a good point. But I will say we spent an ordered amount of time on papotians and yellow cards. Yet I get grief that this show sometimes goes long. All right, we have updates. We have updates. Okay, Popak. The first update that I want to give is on SBA, the patently unconstitutional under existing constitutional precedent,

the Texas handmaids, bounty law that goes after childbearing persons, that attacks women, that turns neighbors into bounty hunters to report individuals who are seeking abortions, one of the most heinous, heinous laws. The week began, or last week began when this law was announced, Merrick Garland said that he was going to be taking action. He stayed at the issue to statement shortly thereafter,

saying the Department of Justice would, quote, protect those, seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services under the federal law, known the freedom of access to clinic entrances or face act. The DOJ followed up with a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas Austin division why you ask was it filed there. That's where the law was passed, jurisdiction. You know, they would, they sue where the law exists in Texas. This is filed in the federal court. This is a district court case, because it relates to federal issues. And here the supremacy clause, the idea that a state can't pass laws

that are counter to what the Constitution provides. And indeed, Popok, the lawsuit states from the outset. This is what the injunction, the injunction means that the DOJ is seeking to stop this from happening and declaratory relief asking the court to declare that this law is unconstitutional. Court declare this law, SBA is unconstitutional, and stop it. The case opens up, the lawsuit begins by saying, it has settled constitutional law

that a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability, citing Planned Parenthood V. Casey. The case we discussed last week, the 1992 case, accord Roe v. Wade, meaning that that then that case mentions Roe v. Wade, also another mention to Roe v. Wade. The initial case as Pope, discussed that establish this constitutional right to privacy and the right here for a woman's choice constitutionally. And this is what the law suites as. But Texas has done just that. It has enacted a statute banning nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks, months before a pregnancy is viable.

It goes on to say Texas enacted SB 8 in open defiance of the Constitution, the statute prohibits pre-viability abortions, even in cases of rape, sexual abuse, or incense. It also prohibits any effort to aid or indeed any intent to aid doctors who provide pre-viability abortions or the woman who exercise their right to seek what popok before you break in this down a little more. I do want to tell our listeners, you know, this is the way lawyers draft complaints is very important. You do not bury the lead in a lawsuit and going out and saying this is patently unconstitutional and here's why not talking about that in paragraphs, you know, 15 or 16 in the preliminary statement, be very preliminary and say what this case is about. Pope, I, I have a big love and big heart for this Merrick Garland filed department of justice. You know, United States of America versus the state of Texas. It is exactly what should have been filed at the exact right moment. You and I disagreed a little bit a couple of podcasts ago about the coming,, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, that's fine, but that's not going to get us to the heart of the constitutional matter and the open defiance to quote the complaint that Texas is exhibiting by SBA.

But here we have it front and center, first paragraph of the complaint, which was as heavy on law and citations as any brief that I've ever seen, just to make it clear for our podcast listeners and followers and watchers tonight. Complaints are generally allegations that are drafted. Factual allegations that are drafted attach to law that supports the counts or the claims in the back of the complaint. Occasionally you'll cite a case here and there. But when you're, this is more in the form of a brief complaint.

It's a complaint that cites every prevailing Supreme Court precedent for a woman's right to choose coupled with the federal government's right and the preemptive right and the supremacy right of the federal government and the US government over states front and center citation chapter and verse. So it's almost like they're opening brief in the appeal as well. So there's no guessing where the federal government is. And right, as you said, Ben, the foundation for this lawsuit are basically three cases of the US Supreme Court precedent on the books, well-established and settled that establish once and for all a woman's right to choose plan parenthood versus Casey in 1992.

Roe versus Wade in 1973 and whole women's health versus health stat in 2016 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the court and taken together, it gives the woman that right previability. Now, there's a fight over what is viability. And a lot of these states like Texas, Tennessee, which we'll talk about in a minute, Alabama and different Mississippi, which will be up in the docket for the Supreme Court in October, try to do what's called heart, heart beat cases, heart beat statutes, where as soon as there's a fetal heart beat,

whatever that means, that's when the woman's right to abortion stops. SBA tried to do an N run-around, the heartbeat issues, the medical issues by saying to remind our listeners, oh, the state's not doing anything. Oh, we're not enforcing the anti-abortion statute. Private citizens are going to do it, but they went too far, thank God, and it gave Merrick Garland's Department of Justice a way to argue very, very creatively. Did you notice, Ben, who, which department and division of the Department of Justice

signed that brief? Did you see that? Who did it, Popak? It's the federal programs branch of the Department of Justice. A branch that I didn't even know existed. And what the federal program lawyers for the Department of Justice do all day long is make sure that federal programs, whether the Department of Defense programs, whether they're a refugee resettlement, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, whatever federal program is out there is not violated and bring civil suits related to that. So why is that important? Because the hook for this lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice is that federal programs are being improperly

interfered with at the state level and the federal government reigns supreme in that area because you're not letting the federal government Texas properly do Medicaid and Medicare, which provides for pregnancy and abortion services. There's things related to refugee resettlement that goes to medicine, that goes to medical care that's allowed, the Department of Defense, and what's allowed there. And so they're basically saying commerce clause, all of these things touch commerce, because all the Texas women are now going out of the state to try to find abortions in the sister states. So that gives a federal a priority or federal prerogative. You can't as a state,

it's the foundation of our federal system. You as a state can't interfere with the operation of the federal government ever ever. So you're going so the supremacy clause is going to be implicated. And then you've got the protection of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied by the three precedents that you and I have talked about, which are being improperly interfered with with an obstacle to the exercise of constitutional rights by Texas women. He pulled it all together in a really eloquent 25 or 30 page relatively short complaint, which gets right to the heart of the matter, like a knife, like boom, with the case saw and the support. And if they're going to say, well, we didn't do it. Well, you did do it, state of Texas,

because not only are you empowering civilians to get bounties by bringing civil suits, but you're also in the, in the, this nefarious elements of the SB 8, say the following, certain people don't have standing in a court of law, including in federal court to raise constitutional issues. Think about that. A state is telling someone they, they are barred from the federal courthouse to argue about the constitutionality of the thing that they are victimized by. That is unconstitutional. And that's also baked into this lawsuit. Yeah, it's really brilliant. It's really an argument too.

That in addition to regardless of where you stand on the issue, and hopefully you don't stand on the issue of supporting a country that looks like the handmaids tail and you are on the right to choice, but you don't even have to get there. That's the genius of this complaint that you've basically removed federal courts from issues that touch upon federal law, which is another way to attack this Popeye.

Talk briefly about Tennessee, and then I wanna go on to speak a little bit about your state of Florida. Okay, and then just lastly on Texas, just so we do our lessons for legal AF law school. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution, Article six clause two is very simple and powerful. The Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, period and stop.

And that's what this case is about. Do we live in a federal democracy or do we not? Are we a confederation of states like back in the 1800s? We are not. And so the quicker this gets up through the appellate courts in Texas to the US Supreme Court for full briefing, the better. And hopefully on an emergency application, that is this time granted. So that women in Texas aren't denied the ability to have an abortion for a year or more while the Supreme Court gets around to a full briefing. And then Tennessee,

just this is not the only place where Bush is being considered. We've got the Mississippi case that the Supreme Court is going to do in October. We've got the Texas case. We've got South Dakota issuing all sorts of bands you and I will talk about against telemedicine and telehealth and plan B medicine. And now Tennessee, thank God, the sixth circuit, the sixth circuit court of appeal that governs Tennessee has ruled that Tennessee's heartbeat law, fetal heartbeat law to try to ban abortion is unconstitutional because it is an improper barrier

and obstacle to a woman's constitutional right to end her pregnancy prior to viability. Period and stop. So that case is going to parallel up and probably join with the cases that are already sitting at the US Supreme Court on this very, very important issue. Popok. Popok. If you say three popoks, it's like beat up juice. I was expecting like a what popok what I was going to say is that you're a genius. Popok, I really think your breakdowns are genius. And before speaking about governor, DeSantis, I want to talk about policy genius. If someone relies on your financial support, whether it's a child, an aging parent, or even a business partner, you need life insurance.

Policy genius makes it easy to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place. Why compare? You could say 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with policy genius. You could save $1300 or more per year on life insurance by using policy genius to compare policies. The licensed experts at policy genius work for you, not the insurance companies so you can trust them to help you navigate every step of the shopping and buying process. That kind of service has earned policy genius, thousands of five star reviews across Trust, Pilot, and Google.

And eligible applicants can get covered in as little as a week, thanks to an award-winning policy option that swaps the standard medical exam requirement for a simple phone call. This exclusive policy was recently rated number one by Forbes advisor higher than options from ladder, ethos, bestow. Let me tell you how it works. Getting started is easy. First, head to policygenius.com. That's policygenius.com. In minutes, you can work out how much life insurance coverage you need and compare personalized quotes to find your best price. When you're ready to apply, the policy genius team will handle the paperwork and scheduling

for free. Policy genius doesn't add on extra fees. Head to policygenius.com to get started right now. That is policygenius.com. When it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right. And it's nice to have sponsors, Popok, who share the Popokian genius like like policy genius. I want to talk now. I was at by the way, that was elegant and eloquent that transition. I appreciate it.

I want to go now, Popock, though, to the laws enacted in Florida, the law enacted in Florida, that seemed to criminalize the peaceful protests that were taking place in Florida. This was a law that Governor Death Santas championed in Florida. I want to be very careful with language because language is very important here and the headlines have read the following. Florida's anti-riot bill was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Thursday. day, right? Poe Pock, that framing of this as an anti riot bill. Nobody, it nobody likes riots. And so you would go, why would they declare an anti riot bill unconstitutional? Because it wasn't an anti riot bill. It was an anti black and brown people bill and an anti-peaceful protestor bill in the wake of the protest post-George Floyd, what what Governor DeSantis wanted to do was basically arrest everybody and basically

try to exercise powers, dictatorial style powers, and arrest people for associating in the protest, associating within a large group of people. And so look, with this law in its current form, Popok, you and me say, look, if someone is violent at a protest. If someone destroys property at a protest, that person should be held accountable. There's laws already on the books to handle that. Correct. And with this law, because it was written in a vague and ambiguous way, intentionally, the broad sweep of the law was, if you were at that protest where somebody did that because that person did that or because the government believed that somebody may, may be wanting to do that,

by your mere presence, peacefully at the protest, you could be arrested and charged under this riot. Or as the judge here, and I want to talk about the judge and a really eloquent to continue test, you could be arrested and charged under this riot bill. Or as the judge here, and I want to talk about the judge and a really eloquent, to continue the word of the day, opinion, 90 page opinion written by Mark Walker, a federal judge up in Pinellas, up in Tallahassee, federal Northern District of Florida. He said his example was, so you attend a peaceful protest against Phil in the blank. This happened to be BLM, but it could have been anything. And he actually started his opinion by talking about Rosa Parks and the Tallahassee busboy cats that went parallel to Rosa Parks in the 1950s and what that meant to the city

and race relations, which was a really an amazing way to kick off the entire opinion. But his example was you go to a peaceful protest, some people in it turn a little bit violent, tear, or not the police react or overreact and use tear gas, you're wiping your eyes from the tear gas and you help your fellow neighbor, protester and hand that person a bottle of water to pour into their eyes. You've committed a crime under this bill, under this act, this law, in Florida. But let me back up. And let's because our people are people of the follow us, I think like this kind of stuff.

Mark Walker, chief judge, Northern district of Florida, appointed by Obama. That's the judge that they pulled on this case. And in the very first paragraph, almost the first sentence of a 90-page decision was a recitation of Rosa Parks and the Tallahassee bus boycotts. And what would have happened to those people had this law been on the books. So if you're the government, if you're Florida, you've got to be slapping your forehead at this point when you open up that opinion. Because if that's how it's starting, you know it's not going to end well for you.

And in a very detailed, precise analysis under the injunction standard, which you and I've talked about in the past, because this was brought up on an injunction to enjoy the act, to stop the act from being, or the law from being enforced against people. So there's four things that have to be proof for the injunction that you're going to prevail on the merits, that's what we call likelihood of success on the merits, that there's a reputable harm, that there's an inadequate remedy at law, and that the policy issues tip in your favor,

public policy issues tip in your favor. And the judge went through and analyzed all this and looked at what DeSantis's people and DeSantis had submitted an opposition. And what they said was, and it got very, very detailed. I don't know if you saw it in the opinion, there's actually a sentence diagram submitted by both sides. Just to show you what you said earlier about grammar matters periods in commas and punctuation matter. Both sides submitted to the judge and they were reprinted in his order competing sentence diagrams of the four lines of the statute and what they

mean or what they could mean. The plaintiffs who were basically NAACP and other organizations were arguing that this was so vague that it was constitutionally vague and infirm. And under their first amendment right, not just of speech, but of peaceable assembly, which is a right under the constitution. It's in the very first amendment of the Constitution that you have the right to protest, you have the right to free speech, you have the right to assemble with your fellow protesters. That's the reason we left England. Number one, first amendment, okay, that that has been violated and that it has had what's called in the constitutional analysis doctrine, it had a chilling effect on their continued political speech.

And the judge cited, for instance, that this organization had submitted, these organizations had submitted affidavits that said because the law was on the books, they were no longer organizing peaceful protests. They were no longer going into the street to communicate their message on the, on the, at the public square. And you know what the Santhus's response was in his papers? Oh, I went on his face, I went on their Facebook pages. They're still doing some things. And look, they're celebrating Juneteenth. And here's a banner, which the judge shoved right up to Santhus's backside, a banner of children at a picnic celebrating

the upcoming first celebration of the federal holiday of Juneteenth in the end of slavery. And the judge slapped his own forehead and said, really, you're using the celebration of Juneteenth to say that your statute is not having a chilling effect on BLM protests that are lawful. No. So the judge believes that at the end of the day, this statute is not going to even through full trial is not going to pass constitutional mustard under the first amendment. And he has enjoined it from being used, which means lawful protesters can now go on the street. And it also means to pick up your point, Ben, the people that are mixed in within the BLM movement or other peaceful protests for other reasons, whether it be COVID or

or you name it, people can protest anything Afghanistan. It's all lawful under the First Amendment. But if people mix in there to try to do First Amendment, but if people mix in there to try to do to do mischief, to vandalize, those people should be pulled out and prosecuted separately because they're not lawful protesters. I'll give you an example. I stayed in New York. I live in New York. I lived in New York during the BLM protests and the unlawful looting that happened behind the scenes with the BLM movement as a cover. Those criminals who decided to break into Gucci and Louis Vuitton and Rolex because the

police were overwhelmed with the protesters and were caught flat-footed. And that allowed looting to happen much like the early 1970s during the blackout here, those people should be caught and prosecuted. That's not Peaceful Assembly. That's not First Amendment. You don't have a First Amendment right to steal somebody's Rolex out of the window, but there's laws on the books for that. And everything else should be aired on the side of allowing First Amendment expression and allowing peaceable assembly. And this law is anti-protest. It's not anti-riot to use your phrase.

It would be like in the 1960s, the headline would read, I guess, based on DeSantis, the headline would read protesters improperly interfere with water cannons being fired at them in Mississippi and Alabama, causing property damage. Is that what happened or were there protesters who were improperly beaten and had firehoses fired at them during the Jim Crow response to racial protests. You're absolutely right there, Popo. The scary thing is, though, for

Governor Death Santas, when he was responding to the judge's inquiries and talking about how he would use the law and giving a Juneteenth celebration as an example, at the very least, he was telling you what he wanted to use it for. I mean, in the sense of that's what's really scary there is that that's exactly how the law was going to be used. If there was a group of peaceful protesters and he didn't like their method of protest or just didn't like the group of people who were peacefully protesting, that group would fall under the broad reach of this statute because the law so was as it was framed was so all encompassing. There were just before you move on, there there already is or was and the judge spent a lot of time

analyzing this. There already is a riot definition on the books in Florida, which defines a riot as three or more people with common intent in a violent manner to the terror of the people and they breach the peace. That is lawful probably under, I mean, it has really been challenged. It's probably lawful under the First Amendment. But this new thing of willful participation in disorderly conduct, which is what the Florida legislature put on the books for DeSantis is vague and constitutionally affirmed and should be ripped off the books of Florida. Those were your updates, updates, updates. Popack, I want to close out the show, maybe close out the show,

maybe not close out the show, probably close out the show. Put it to our, put it to our, our Saturday night watchers. I want to talk Popak about the recent lawsuit that was filed in New York against Prince Andrew. The lawsuit alleges that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted Virginia Gaffari when she was 17 years old. Apologies if I'm mispronouncing her last name, but this is the allegation in connection with Jeff Reibstein in connection with his relationship with Prince Andrew, but that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted Virginia Gifferry. And what I wanna talk about here, Pope Pock is,

obviously the allegations here are incredibly serious. We're gonna follow what happens in this case, but I think it's worth, as we've talked about, a lot of heavy political topics, you know, to touch upon just one other area of the law here, because it's a good, I think, teaching point of a lot of things that are going on. Learning about the statute of limitations

because the conduct took place a long time ago, which was often a very frequent bar that prevented victims of sexual assault. So how was this case able to be filed in the first place? It also touches upon issues of service. Literally, how do you initiate the lawsuit? You have to take a document and you have to serve somebody with a summons that tells them they have to show up in court. There's a summons, there's a complaint. The summons says you got to show up. The complaint tells you what you're suing, what you're suing being sued for. But how do you serve somebody like Prince Andrew, who's won a prince, but who is in a foreign country and what a service they're like.

And I think we begin popo, though, by talking about child victims' acts that are being passed in New York, that are being passed across the country that are extending the statutes of limitations for victims of sexual assault. The Child Victims Act of 2019, which of limitations for victims of sexual assault. The Child Victims Act of 2019,

which was signed into effect by Governor Cuomo in New York changed the statute of limitations for suing and sexual assault related crimes, raising the age to 55 from 23, if someone was sexually abused as a minor under the age of 18. And in New York, it was also they added this other effect that doesn't really take place. So this other element that doesn't take place really in many other states that I've seen,

but it created a temporary period. I think it was a year, but it was extended during COVID-pop, in which people who were older than 55 could also sue for childhood abuse. As soon as the Child Victims Act was passed, I think in New York, alone there was about 9,000 or so kind of new cases that were filed for cases that were previously barred by individuals who were sexually abused or assaulted as minors who couldn't sue because

they were no longer 23, but who now were between the ages of 23 and 55. And for those over 55 for that one year period, Popoq, you live in New York. I mean, these laws are, we're seeing these laws in states across the country, but what can you tell us more and maybe touch upon the service issue? Yeah, great, thank you, Ben.

So yeah, it's one of the good things that Governor Cuomo did. He passed the Child Victims Act. And it did a few things. It took a statute of limitations that had been relatively short. And it extended it almost unlimitedly, meaning if you were a victim of a sex crime at any time in your life, even if the statute of limitations on the books at the time in your life, even if the Statue of Limitations on the books at the time had already run,

they lifted the Statue of Limitations, allowing you up to the age of 55 to file the suit. And then there was a last, as you mentioned, a last window of one year, which ultimately closed on August the 14th of this past year, on August 9th, five days earlier, Virginia Geofrey files the suit claiming as part of the Jeffrey Epstein deep dark conspiracy world of sexual predators and just Jizzelaine

Maxwell, who is his longtime friend and basically his Pimp, that one of the underage women who was trafficked and brought into prostitution through Jeffrey Epstein and Jizalane was Virginia. And when she was when she was in her teens and living in Palm Beach, Florida, now she's in her 40s and she would she would have been barred for bringing the suit but for the child's victim act. and one of the people that she says, you know, we know what happened to Jeffrey Epstein. But one of the Queen of England, and that on three or four occasions, she alleges Prince Andrew Rape Ter. And that had been sort of,

and I know you heard it too, Ben, that had been circulating. The whole Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew child prostitution issue have been circulating for a number of years. There's been Netflix documentaries on this, including one that came out last year. Other people like Harvard Law professors have been accused also by her of being involved in this former president. So been accused of being involved with it. But she hired a very good lawyer. She hired David Boyce. David Boyce had a problem

as you and I sometimes do. He had a lawsuit. He had a statute of limitations and he had to get it served. And in the States, if somebody's hiding the United States, there's ways to do what we call substitute service of process. You can leave it with somebody who's in their house, depending upon the statute, you can nail it to the front door. You can serve the secretary of state of that particular state. If the statute allows that overseas, it's harder and overseas behind royal protection and Windsor castle. It's, it's even harder. And there's two or three fundamental ways to do that. There are treaties between countries that allow for inter-country service of process. One of them is referred to as the Hague Convention because it was signed at the Hague. And it's really hard to do the Hague Convention to get service. You can do

it. It takes like a year. You got to hire somebody over there, a lawyer over there. You got to hire a service process server over there. And you got to do exactly what that country requires in terms of service of process, including personal service in this case, or whatever the country requires. So how did they get service on on Prince Andrew, because he's been according to the lawyers, been dodging service and hasn't been seen in public in months. They found out in doing their research that under even the law of England and Wales, which is what governs the UK, that you're allowed to do substitute service by serving somebody of a suitable age, if you will, as opposed to the person themselves. So they served the royal guard standing at Windsor

with the papers. I think that's going to be effective in proper service. And this lawsuits up and running, which means this prints, I don't know if he's going to have sovereign immunity. You and I need to look at this. I don't think he's going to have sovereign immunity to so raping a girl. I think he's going to have to stand and answer in a federal court here in New York about what, what, what claims to have happened she thinks he thinks that he claims that I've seen that the the interviews I I don't even remember the girl. That's my plummy British accent royal accent thing She supposedly has hard evidence

Documented evidence maybe photographs and there are photographs with her and him with him with him with his arm around her With with with her on his, with him, with his arm around her, with her on his lap. I've seen the photos. So he's going to have a hard time saying, I don't remember the girl. And then it's going to be up to a jury, ultimately, to decide whether she's telling the truth or he is. But this royal has just got dragged into court in New York federal. And Popak, one of the things that may be claimed and will follow in addition to the issue

of sovereign immunity is also a diplomatic immunity. I assume, Popak, I think that it would not prevail given the types of allegations here would be outside the course and scope of what a diplomat would do, but it doesn't mean that it's a good question. Is a royal a diplomat? You know, one a royal can appoint themselves as a diplomat, and I'll just share one brief war story for you. I was once in a case with somebody who was living in America, but was in a royal family, a broad, there was a civil litigation that was taking place. We were about one day from taking the deposition of the particular individual, and then they got the family to appoint this individual as a diplomat, which is basically going to the state department

and just putting you on the list of people who were diplomats. And so as we're walking in with our binders to take the deposition, they assert diplomatic immunity, you know, and I was thinking, no way, we're going and challenging this. And you know, the court said, he's a diplomat, nothing I can do In that case and so it's a personal case and pop up going back to the

Child victims act that we just spoke. It's worth noting to our listeners. That statute of limitations dates important It's important in your own state You may have just heard what pop and I said and you may realize that you are someone that you love or know or a friend or someone has a case who never thought they had a case. These are the types of cases that Popok and I handle. And if you have a case where you or someone you know was a victim of sexual assault, regardless of the years, although we have to be very focused on statutes of limitations, but especially as a minor, there are ways now in many situations for statute of limitations to be open depending on the age. These are the types of cases Popeyes and I handle, and so if this has happened, Popeyes and I handle. And so if this has happened, Popeyes and I, one thing people

know who send us emails is we do try to respond as much as we can. It's harder to respond to passing commentary, but we do our best. But if it's, we get a lot of those. But if you have a case like that, reach out to us. My email is benatmitistouch.com. That's ben at mitistouch.com, MEIDAS, TOUCH, and Popax email is mPOPOPOK at zplaw.com. That's mPOPOK at zplaw.com. And if you or anyone you know has been injured or harmed in any serious situation, whether it's the type of situations we discussed or other disputes or other accidents or incidents, reach out to us. Popeyes and I are practicing lawyers.

We do this podcast on the weekend. We love to share our knowledge with you, but we're practicing and in where courtrooms every day and we try to give you that perspective of being a real life lawyer and we try to look at these lenses through, we try to speak with you on this podcast as though you were in our office or you are a friend, but we try to break it down for you in that way. Popok. A great episode today. I didn't want you to show what you had in your hand,

but I'm okay with you showing it now. You wanna pull up the, you wanna pull up the, what you were gonna show? And we're gonna turn it around? I'm okay, you can turn it around now. Okay, so because we got all of 30. We gotta, well, he's certain, no, no.

We're 13. an hour 13, an hour and 13 minutes. So what I was, so Popok wanted to show all of y'all and he was going to get a yellow card. I'll just give him a yellow card before we close. So he gets his second yellow card of the day. But Popok was going to show that we were being very good with the time because our last episode was like two hours and everyone's stuck with it. And in fact, love the last one, but the suits that might as such. Wait, I totally agree. I, you know that in the Pupakian, this is how you invented it. The Pupakian world, I like discipline and I like organization and having things done on time.

And we got a little sloppy last episode, but we did a half an hour about SB 8 in Texas. And when I thought it was important, but the weird thing is, and we all agreed, it was Saturday night and it was going like really long. But then when the final numbers came in for people that watched and viewed and listened to the podcast, we actually beat on Facebook by a lot, the prior episode that was on time. So I can't figure it out. I think, I think here's what I, here's what I have learned, the Mid episode that was on time. So I can't figure it out. I think, I think here's what I, here's what I have learned, the Midas mighty and those that enjoy you and I talking

about important legal political issues on a weekly basis will go through firewalls for us and stay with us because they find it interesting. And I, up every Saturday, and you and I start talking about this during the week, really excited because a, I get to spend time with you, which you know I enjoy, b, it makes me really during the week and otherwise drill down on important legal issues so that they're at the tip of my tongue and the top of my head. And and see, we have a really enthusiastic audience of listeners that makes you and I strive to do this show, the best that we can possibly do it every week day in and day out. Make sure you tell your friends, family, if they're not popokians, if they're not legal

aaffors, I know the myceliasons, you know, we're doing our best to get into that pantheon of Papakianness, but we will get there. But tell them to take a listen to legal a f keep arch. And we have t shirts. Finally, yes, there was a big debate over the shirts legal a f merch. And now it doesn't just say legal analysis friends. The merch says legal AF podcast So we're we're we're getting there maybe in the future. It'll just say legal AF We'll see but I've had a great time with you today PoPock great breaking down all of those issues Again, you know as we close on September 11th We do want to reflect on that day,

make sure we never forget so many lives that were lost, so heartbreaking, and our hearts just go out with any of the family members to on this day, and of course, to everyone who lost their lives on that day. Popock, any final concluding thoughts? No, I want to leave it on that. That was a very poignant moment, so well said.

You got Popoq, you got Popoqian, you got Ben Mycelis. We appreciate you as always. The Midas Mighty remains undefeated. We will see you next time. If it's Saturday, it's Legal AF Live. If it's Sunday, it is Legal AF Live. If it's Sunday, it is Legal AF. We'll see you next week.