Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Hate Crimes, Hateful Rhetoric, and Racial Bias in Hiring & Redistricting

Episode Date: February 6, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting, thought-provoking look in “real time” at this week’s developments.  On this episode, Ben and Popok discuss: 1. A Federal Court’s rejection of convicted murderer Travis McMichael’s plea deal on federal hate crimes due to Ahmaud Arbery’s family objections, meaning he goes to trial this week facing another life sentence. 2. A black woman being convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison for trying to vote before her probation was over. 3. NFL coach Brian Flores, one of only 2 NFL Black head coaches, filing a class action suit against the NFL and some of its teams because of its racially-segregated “Plantation”-like system. 4. The Fulton County (GA) District Attorney fighting off racist attacks on her credibility as she moves closer to having a Special Grand Jury gather the evidence she needs to indict Trump for criminal interference in the election process. 5. A Federal Court’s overturning a Texas law preventing state contractors from exercising their First Amendment rights concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict. 6. The Ghislaine Maxwell Federal Judge deciding whether to unseal the defense’s motion for new trial on the basis that “Juror 50” failed to disclose that he had been a victim of sex abuse in the jury selection process. 7. State Supreme Courts protecting voting rights in redistricting in ways Federal Courts and SCOTUS have refused, giving victories to Democratic voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania so far. 8. Updates to the Jan6 Committee’s work including 3 more key cooperators. 9. Pence’s too little too late admission that Trump was wrong about Pence having the power to overturn an election, and the GQP’s latest Orwellian attempts to refrain the Jan6 Insurrectionist and attempted violent coup, as a mere “legitimate political discourse” And much more. Support the Show! Paint Your Life -- Right now Paint Your Life has a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting and FREE shipping, when you text the word "LEGAL" to 64-000. X-Chair -- Go to https://XChairLEGALAF.com now, for $100 off your order! X-Chair has a thirty-day guarantee of complete comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month. AG1 by Athletic Greens -- Athletic Greens is going to give you an immune supporting FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 free travel packs with your first purchase if you visit https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf today. Smith.AI -- Work uninterrupted, run your business with less stress, and get more leads from your marketing efforts. Save $100 when you sign up using promo code "LegalAF" at https://www.smith.ai Buy Legal AF Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Midas Touch Legal AF. If it's the weekend, you got Ben Myceles and Michael Popak, Dishing, the key legal cases, key legal issues in digestible ways. You can understand the number one legal podcast in Cypress in the mall devs in Micronesia, and one of the top podcasts legal in the world. Popo, we will soon be the top legal podcast in the world. Special shout out to Cyprus. Special shout out, Micronesia, but special shout out to the fact

that I am in New York as I am recording this. I have a flight in a little bit, but Michael Popeyes, we got to hang out in New York. Oh, that was fantastic. I wasn't sure I was going to happen and you made it happen. I know you were running from pillar to

post the whole time. You were here for clients and other things, other exciting things you're not ready to reveal. But the most exciting event that night was that you met me at a cigar bar that I'm a member of and we had a really great time together. And there is proof of life. There is a photo that reflects that which we'll put up tonight. But it might as well post the photo will have salty are incredible editor put the photo up right now for those who are watching it. And so, Popeye, I could reveal the news. And, you know, it'll tie into the Brian Flores versus NFL case we're going to talk about later. So as many of the listeners may know, I was the lawyer in the Colin Kaepernick versus the NFL case a few years ago.

I'm currently General Counsel of all of Colin Kaepernick's endeavors and General Counsel of Know Your Rights Camp and I'm Kaepernick's business partner across all of his endeavors. So we announced this week that Colin Kaepernick will, we've gone into production on his documentary. We announced our director Spike Lee, we have Jamel Hill. And so I got to spend some time in Brooklyn at Spike Lee Studios, 40 Acres

and Immule productions out in Brooklyn. We got to shoot a number of days out there and that was an incredible experience and the Brian Flores news broke. One other thing to mention to our listeners and then we'll get into the law. So Popak lives like the Manhattan life. Popaks at the restaurants, Popaks at the cigar bars like Popak is Mr. Manhattan. And so of course I met up with Popak and you'll see the photo. We met up at a cigar bar. I haven't had a cigar popuck and I don't even know how long and I'm reeling from the few puffs of the cigar that I have. The reason I'm wearing glasses is like I've had like an eye allergic reaction. I've got sniffles like my whole immune system has crashed. I thought you took to it like mother's milk, you were a champion. I somebody tweeted like don't expose bet. I love people's image of you versus me.

They're like, don't expose Ben to these faces. I'm like, I wasn't there alone. I mean, I know I had to cigar in my hand, but there was another one at the table. That's why I'm wearing these glasses. I have like my eyes have been teary. But anyway, let's get into the law. We got a number of issues to discuss today. When you're a political and legal discourse, that's our name.

I like it. In the Ahmed Arbery trial involving the murder of Ahmed Arbery, we talked about the state court where the three individuals who callously, in the most horrific situation, murdered Ahmed Arbery because he was jogging. They were sentenced to life in prison in the state court case, but there was a federal proceeding,

a civil rights criminal action brought that in the commission of the murder, Travis McMichael and the others violated Arbery's civil rights by murdering him out of racism, out of discrimination, that the killing was racially motivated. And so the feds came in to prosecute there. Now normally we think of that as a strong showing by the Department of Justice to buttress what is going on in the state court proceedings. But here Michael, the family was a little upset at the way the Department of Justice handled it is, is what they said. And the Department of Justice was attempting to enter into plea deals with Travis McMichael

and the others, which would have had them plead guilty, admit that the crime, the murder, was racially motivated. They would serve, basically, I think it would be 30 years for that crime, but they would serve the federal, federal, federal, penitentiary, right. And then they would serve out the rest of their prison time in the state court for the life in prison. But the family didn't like this. I'm an Arborist family. They were outraged, in fact, they pled to the judge. Please do not accept the plea agreement and the judge that we're not going to accept the plea agreement.

So, Popak, maybe walk us through this case and explain to legal AF first, too. Like, you could just, a judge can just reject a plea agreement and did the family really not know about what was taking place? There's so much to talk about an unpack for the legal AF law school classmates tonight on this one issue.

First you have what is the role of victims and their families in the sentencing and plea process and do they have a role? And the answer to that one is they do. Whether you're in the state court system, which varies by state to state what a state prosecutor has to do in reference to the family or the victims before entering into a plea deal. Along the continuum of consulting with the family or not consulting with the family, the murderers of Ahmed Arbery, with a federal judge, a judge, Lisa Godby would in Georgia. The requirement under the federal standard is that the family and the victims have a reasonable right to confer with the prosecutors as they negotiate their plea deal.

Doesn't mean they have veto power, but it does mean there's a reasonable right to confer. So when a plea deal is negotiated with the input of the victims or the families of the victims, if there's, of course, the seat as there is in this case, it then goes to the judge who has the right to accept or reject the plea deal. And on the reporting on this one, is that the judge was concerned really with two aspects of the plea deal and it ended up rejecting it,

meaning on Monday morning, Travis McMichael is going to trial again, and they're gonna be putting up, it's gonna be, we're gonna be following this one. It's going to be, you know, we're going to be following this one. Now he's decided since there's no deal, he might as well just roll the dice. He's going to be defending himself, pro se, which is odd. And there's all from the press reports, there's a whole group of text messages and emails and social media that established that he's a racist, that he uses the N word, that he uses inappropriate references to people of color and black people.

And this is all going up on the screen as evidence in the case by the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors, who are now going to go to trial on Monday against him to prove that it was a race-based hate crime that he committed when he committed the murder. Now, the judge was also concerned about a second thing, Ben. She was concerned that the plea deal as negotiated would have tied her hands to give only 30 years. Most, when you and I negotiate occasional plea deals, I do some white collar criminal work you do as well. We usually leave it to the discretion of the judge at the end. These are recommendations by the prosecutor

and the defense with the input of the families. But then at the end, you're really at the whim of the judge who's doing set and sing. Here, the judge had no discretion as the plea deal was negotiated. And she commented when she rejected it, one, I'm concerned that the victim's families are so vehemently against the steel.

And secondly, I'm not sure 30 years is high enough for the crimes that they're admitting to, so she had two concerns. Now, the family issue is interesting because the federal prosecutor, who's, you know, she's representing the US, she's representing the United States, believes she was doing her job

because she did consult, at least the testimony came out that way, with the victims' families during Zoom calls, and believe from their lawyers that she had buy-in for the plea deal. But as they got closer to the day of the hearing on this, the families sort of decided they were totally against it. And why are they totally against it, Ben? This is the interesting thing. It's

not because these people aren't going to serve lifetime without parole. The father and son are going to serve lifetime without parole immediately following. However long they spend in the federal can. It's that they get to go to a federal can for the first 30 years, which the families believe is a cushier environment than having to spend time in the local penitentiary. What did you think about that? Because we're not talking about these people go free. We're talking about where they spend 30 years of a 60 or 70 year sentence. What do you think about that?

I think it creates some real complications in a way because I don't know how you get around this, Popak. We want the federal government, I think we want the federal government to prosecute these claims, especially because with the variability of state outcomes, we don't know what's gonna happen. Like look at Kyle Rittenhouse and what would have happened

if the federal prosecutors in that situation brought federal crimes. You know, I think in that case, the victims' families would not be objecting to the federal government prosecuting and entering into plea deals that would sentence Kyle Rittenhouse, prison. And so I don't think the federal government prosecuting and entering into plea deals that would sentence Kyle written house Prison and so I don't think the federal prosecutors come in this with any ill intent

But what they're nervous about is that in states with pervasive histories of racism Will a jury of prosecutor a judge do the right things, you know in Kyle written house. We saw what that judge and judge, do the right things. You know, when Kyle Rittenhouse, we saw what that judge was doing, right? And the way that judge operated. So we think the federal process is a backstop. So we want to encourage these federal prosecutions, and ultimately, we do want to encourage these federal plea deals. I think this could just incentivize them from bringing civil rights cases like this. I just think it puts the federal prosecutors in a dilemma of what are they supposed to

do? Have the federal prosecutors not pursued a robust prosecution and tried to get the admission? I think people would have been outraged and said to the federal prosecutors, what are you doing at such a clear cut case? How are you not prosecuting this? And so it's just a very complicated situation. And ultimately, I think at the end of the day, the only way that because Travis McMichael and the others were found guilty in sentence to life,

I only think what the family is saying is, look, maybe just get these individuals to admit that they did it. Just the admission. Which they did it. Yeah, but maybe what you do is you don't even need the sentencing mechanism. Like for the family, there's these people have already been sentenced to life. So maybe just get them to sign a declaration and just this would be my solution.

Look, we're going to drop the federal charges because they're already sentenced to life and the family doesn't want them serving federal person. So let's just get these individuals to sign the declaration and we'll drop the federal charges because if they still pursue the federal charges and they win, they're still going to be a federal life. Double life. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. I think that there was a somebody screwed up in advising the family on this one. If the family's goal is to just put them on the stand to clear their son's name further, not that his name needs to be cleared, but to have it out there that this was which we all knew knew that this was race based in their murder of

their son or their family member. And they just want another day in court, another trial because we already had one. I guess that's one thing. But double life doesn't make it any, you know, it doesn't meet out more justice. These people are going to sit in a jail without possibility of parole. Only one of them, Roddy is going to have a possibility of parole when he's 80. But I just sort of missed it. It was like a swing and a miss for me. I think it's about the advice that's being given to the family. So they're going to get one, I guess, what they want. Another two weeks trial with Travis McMichael

and his father representing themselves, all the text messages going up about how racist they are. And then the judges, if they get convicted, the judge will sentence them to life imprisonment. And then the question will be, where do they start their life imprisonment? Do they start in the federal system or do they start in the state system? They have to start it somewhere. We will keep everybody posted on the updates there. I wanna talk Popoq about this unusual case

going on in Memphis, Tennessee. The headlines, of course, are black women sentenced to six years in prison over a voting error. This relates to an individual by the name of Pamela Moses, and she was sentenced to six years and one day in prison for trying to register to vote. Story gets a little more complicated than that when you look into the weeds,

but it's still incredibly outrageous. In 2015, Moses pled guilty to perjury and tampering with evidence in connection to allegations that she talked, that she stalked and harassed a local judge, which in and of itself seems to be a strange plea and a strange criminal prosecution in 2015. But that... What makes it strange, Ben?

What makes it strange is that she got prosecuted for the tampering with evidence part in connection with the allegations of a local judge. It sounds very politically driven. I mean, Pam Moses, the reason that this all came to the fore is that she decided to run for mayor in Memphis, Tennessee, and then people started looking at her record. But, you know, who knows what the relationship is with the judge, but she was charged with tampering of evidence and connection with stalking a judge. It's just a very

strange factual circumstance, I mean, in terms of what you played for, but tampering with evidence is one of a handful of felonies that would cause someone in Memphis, Tennessee to lose their voting rights. And what Pam Moses says is, I never knew that. Like I never even knew about that. And then when I went to register to vote, it was my view that the judge in my sentencing there had miscalculated the sentence. I double checked with probation. Probation gave me a certification that said,

I was ready, I able to vote and so I relied on that. There was an error in that process. What the prosecutors who prosecuted PAMO's is that is you've made that all up. You knew from the outset that you were still on probation from your tampering with evidence charge on the felony. And you basically knew that there was all this backlog in the probation office. So you just got them to sign off on something that they just thought they were signing like as a scrivener of like, just any type of document. And once they looked into it, you knew that

you were an off probation. And then you registered to vote. But I guess why I want to highlight this. I don't know what you think about it. Number one, but we talk about the January 6th prosecutions. We talk about people like the Oathkeeper terrorists. We talk about, you know, even some of the lesser sentences, like you and I, and all the legal aifers who have been on this journey with us, you know, know that the sentences are getting stiffer now for the Jan 6th insurrectionist terrorists, but still the high end of the sentences that we've talked about for the Jan 6th. 61 months, right, which is kind of right in, you know, even less than what she's has

to serve now for registering to vote, for attempting to register to the vote. And not only that, but you have the local prosecutor over there, Amy Wyrick. And she's issuing press releases, trumpeting this conviction and sentencing as like a home run for her office, registering to vote as a six and a half year prison sentence. A very sleepy, it's a very sleepy office. If she's trumpeting this is her big, her big pelt on the wall. Yeah. So, you know, the Pam Moses case reminds me and it really happened before you and I launched legal AF.

But we'll talk about it now. The one that I've always have been troubled with is the Crystal Mason case in which she attempted to cast a provisional ballot in Texas. She had been freed from prison for tax fraud, but she was still unsupervised release. The technicality she thought she could vote. She cast not even a real ballot then. If you remember, Crystal Mason cast a provisional ballot to be reviewed by the voting board, the board of elections of that particular precinct. She was sentenced to five years, and she's still sitting, well, she's actually out, she's out appealing, but even the second level highest Texas appeals court has affirmed her conviction. And she had much more, I think, good faith to believe that she could vote. It didn't really even vote.

So you have, and what's the common denominator between Crystal Mason and Pam Moses? They're both black and black women. The Pam Moses case is what is the discussing Mason and Moses. I think is the reason people are attracted to this show and attracted to what you and I do. Because analysis by Twitter and headlines doesn't work. I read a headline about Pam Moses case and it was like a, you know, like a, supposed to be a neutral headline. And it said, woman sentenced to six years for voting error. And I was like, wow, that sounds terrible. And then

people start comparing it to the Jans X insurrectionists who are at the mid-level now. Remember, the highest sentences will be the conspiracy and seditious conspiracy at the end of obstruction at the 20-year level. But they like to make that comparison. And I get it because this is a black woman and it looks to be a disparate sentence. And we've talked about disparate sentencing on racial lines in past podcasts. But when you dig deeper,

the judge did make a statement in her sentencing or in her conviction that she knowingly tried to register to vote. And he went further and said that he found, he made a finding of fact that Moses tricked the probation clerk to give her the form, saying she was off probation knowing that she wasn't. I don't know what the evidence was that was presented, but you know, that's a strong T for the judge to come out and say that that is the finding that he was making concerning her behavior. And then they link it back to the fact that she stalked the judge and pled guilty and was represented by counsel, pled guilty to a charge of tampering with evidence.

So on its face, on its surface, it looks bad. But when you and I dive in deeper, which is what you and I get, I don't want to say paid to do, what you and I volunteer to do every Saturday and the weekend, is to get deeper into the facts. I don't like the sentencing, I don't like the trumpeting, but I'm not sure that in reviewing the weight of the evidence as if we were a judge or a jury,

we would find something differently as it relates to Pam Moses. I'm still more concerned about Crystal Mason facing five years in a Texas prison because she cast a provisional ballot while she was out of jail, but on supervised release with a month or two to go. out of jail, but on supervised release with a month or two to go. I agree with you, Popak. I mean, also the 2015 conviction and plea was not the first for Pam Moses. I mean, I think there was one of the things the prosecutor pointed out was that there was about 15 or 16 other like criminal complaints against her, you know, and so that there was a significant history there. But, you know, I do think when you look at that sentence, there is a disparate

sentencing, but we wanted to give you more facts about that. Now, definitely want to delve into the NFL lawsuit. Everybody's been saying, Popeyes, Ben, you got to cover the NFL lawsuit. Everybody's been saying, Popeyes Ben, you got to cover the NFL lawsuit. And I think I'm going to go out and be an Olympian, Popeyes, because I think that in the past 50 years, the case that I litigated against the NFL, is objectively, however you look at it, probably one of the most significant, probably most written about and high profile one in Kaepernick V, the NFL.

And so I have experience in this space in a very, very, very unique way. I've also been a student of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement. I work with NFL players in navigating the various provisions of the CBA, injury grievances, non-injury grievance procedures, article 17 procedures within the CBA. So I come in this with a lot of background and I want to give you a deep analysis. Before doing

that though, I really want to talk about one of our partners. It's called paint your life. And what do you say, pop up? You're a teaser. Well, I lean in for the Flores analysis. That's okay. The the floor. Well, we're going to get you the the Flores analysis, but want to talk about paint your life because making new memories in a new world is so critical.

And I found the best way to hold on to those memories is by turning them into art that lasts forever from paintyourlife.com. Now that we can get out and travel and take vacations, of course, I recommend and urge everybody to do that. Vaxed, relaxed, boosted, mass-quaring, but we want to celebrate some of our favorite times by turning our new memories into art. And when I heard about paintyourlife.com, I thought, what a great idea for a gift for birthdays and anniversaries weddings, but I figured it must be expensive, but not so. And so I used paint, I used paint to your life. And I want you to, I stalled for a second

because I had salty put out the photo for those watching. Like, look at this photo that I made of myself, my partner Sochi, our two dogs, Taquito and Chiquito. They made this so quickly and like it really touches me, you know, because we take so many photos on our phones, you know, but like do we really ever like turn it into art? Like this looks like something you'd expect to be hanging in like the White House or something. I'm going to call you, your new nickname is 47. I'm gonna call you 47.

I mean, look at this painting. And for those, just who are listening, it's a painting of me and my partner, Sochi are two dogs. And it looks beautiful. Very regal. It was affordable. And so get professional handcrafted portraits

created for many photo at a truly affordable price. Or combine photos of people or places you love into one painting. Choose from a team of world-class artists and work with them until every detail is perfect. Use friendly platform. It's a user-friendly platform that makes it easy to order custom-made hand-painted portraits in less than five minutes. It's fast. You can receive your portrait in as little as two weeks. Send any picture of yourself, family, children, pets, whatever. And it will make the perfect birthday anniversary or wedding gift. We order that for Valentine's Day. It's meaningful, personal, and it's

something that will be cherished forever. Now at paintyourlife.com, there's no risk. If you don't love the painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed. And right now, as a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting. That's right. 20% off and free shipping to get this special offer, text the word legal, L-E-G-A-L to 64,000. That's legal to 64,000. It's very simple what you have to do now. Just go on your phone, text legal to 64,000. Type 64,000 on your phone, text legal.

Paint your life, celebrate the matter, celebrate the moments that matter the most. Message and data rates may apply. Terms apply available at paintyourlife.com. Slash terms. Again, text legal to 64,000. It would make a really heartwarming painting. What would mean that point? That photo would mean you. Mewarming painting. What would mean that point, that photo of me and you? Me and you. That would be, somebody's got to do it, maybe not for Valentine's Day, but somebody's got it to that painting. I may have to do it.

I think it would be incredible if you did it. You should do it at paint in your life. And don't we even forget about those Popaki and t-shirts, but we'll get to that a little bit later in the podcast telling you where you can get your popaki and t-shirt. So let's dive into this NFL lawsuit. So the lawsuit is filed by the former dolphins

head coach Brian Flores. He's suing the NFL. He says the league is run like a plantation. He filed a federal class action alleging discrimination of himself and other similarly situated class of black coaches. Um, he cites the statistics that well, right now in the NFL there's only one black coach is Mike Tomlinson Pittsburgh Steelers one out of 32 one out of 32. Um 70% plus of the players in the league are black 31 of the owners of the 32 are white. There's no black owner in the league, despite 70% of players being black. Brian Flores goes through the history of discrimination in the league. There are two pages dedicated to Colin Kaepernick, where Brian Flores says that Colin Kaepernick, who's a starting quarterback, who's a Super Bowl

Caled recorder back. He, Brian Flores says that because of Colin Kaepernick's political stance, despite being a Super Bowl Caleder quarterback, he's not gotten an opportunity to even interview for teams. How much of that complaint, let me ask you a question. How much of the complaint that Flores filed? Do you think came from the pleading that you had originally done with Kaepernick? You know, I don't think you have a Brian Flores lawsuit if Colin doesn't pave the way in this area. You know, did the lawsuits are different. We filed an article 17 collusion case because players are subject to a collective bargaining

agreement. So based on the league has an antitrust exemption, there's a union that represents the players, which is different than the coaches. And so because of that dynamic, there's a contract between the League and the NFL PA union. It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And that process sets forth a adjudication procedure of disputes.

So if we filed our case in federal court, the Kaepernick case, the NFL would have said, you're a union negotiated in arbitration, Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement, so you should be in the arbitration. Our case would have gotten dismissed, but this is filed in federal court because the coaches are not subject to the collective bargaining agreement.

Now he's filing a lawsuit against the team he worked for, the Miami dolphins, he had a winning record, by the way, in his last season. He was the first coach in about 10, as I followed Dolphins, you know, another adopted home state. He was the first coach in a long time that had two winning seasons. In fact, everybody, until he filed the lawsuit in the sports world, was shocked when the dolphins didn't retain him. Now with the evidence that's in the allegations that are in the complaint, I understand why he's no longer working for the Miami Dolphins because he has some bombshell allegations against the ownership there. But we were all shaking our head like how they fire

that guy. That guy had a good year. He won seven in a row. Yeah, and the allegation against the dolphins is that Flora's alleges the owner, Stephen Ross. Stephen Ross is a real estate developer. His company also owns equinoxes, but they basically have developed, what's that area of Manhattan that they basically literally like? Hudson Yards.

Yeah, Hudson Yards is like all Stephen Ross, but he's been a very successful developer before that. But he alleges that Stephen Flora has offered him $100,000 a game to lose the game's on purpose and to take the season so that the dolphins could get a better draft pick. He said that he complained about that. He also alleged that Steven Ross tried to get him to go on a yacht and try to have him conspire to tamper and to get other players and talent when there's anti tampering provisions. So he alleges that when he wouldn't go along with this unlawful conduct, that was one of the reasons that he was.

And interestingly, and I know you're going to dive into this case. While the NFL's PR machine has come out denying the headline in the lawsuit, which is the NFL, which I think comes from your original allegations, that the NFL is a racially segregated plantation, as if we were in the 1700s with white owners and black people being discriminated against. The NFL said, well, we reject that, but we're gonna look into more the allegation against Stephen Ross trying to bribe his coach to tank games to increase his lottery pick.

You know, in our complaint, we called the NFL a peculiar institution, which was a reference to that, although it didn't specifically use those words, but it did use the words peculiar institution. So he also files the lawsuit against the New York Giants, he because he interviews there and says the interview process there is a discriminatory process. He interviews with the Denver Broncos and says the interview there is a discriminatory process and then he sues the NFL as well as one of the defendants in case. Talk about the Rooney rule though because that really is the heart of those out there. The heart of the Rooney rule is because the NFL had this history of discriminatory conduct and just having white coaches.

The Rooney Rule was implemented within the NFL to say you have to interview diverse coaches. Now in theory, the NFL will argue, we have this Rooney Rule because we wanna give black coaches an opportunity. But what most black coaches would tell you is that it's a sham and that basically when there's an interview process, there's kind of a dog and pony show where you just

have to call in the black coach just for the facade of, hey, we interviewed a black coach. Check the box. Check the box. Check the box we called in a black coach. In fact, one of the pieces of evidence that Brian Flores puts in his complaint is before he even interviews with the New York Giants, Bill Bella check, intended to send a congratulatory email to the coach who actually got the job who has the same name. Who's also named Brian, right? His name Brian, but he sent it to Brian Flores and Brian Flore was like, great, I got the job. And he goes, wait, wait a minute. Are you talking about me?

And then I got the job. I haven't even interviewed yet. And then Bella check said, like, oh, I fucked this up. I'm really, I'm really sorry about that. And that's one of the pieces of the evidence. And then his claim against Ben Vibranko's was, it was a discriminatory interview process. And he basically says that John L. Way and others

came in hungover and didn't even take it seriously and kind of just made a sham of the interview process. And look at the proof of the pudding, then. Since the Rooney rule, which is 20 years plus, as you started this segment, one coach at a 32 is black. What does that tell you? The proof of the pudding is in the numbers.

Yeah, and exactly. And there are a lot of coaches who are white, who are related to each other. Like there's a lot of kind of whose dads were coaches. And so the dads of coach, then the sons of coach, the brothers are coaches. And by the way, they may be talented coaches, but at the end of the day,

they've been put in this opportunity that black coach has never had that opportunity. And on a similar point, the feeder stream up to head coach is not colleges where there's more black coach has been up many more. It is the offensive coordinator and the defensive coordinator position.

And the numbers of blacks that occupy offensive coordinator and defensive coordinator positions is also woefully low. So they're not even getting the leg up to be in the academy, the coach academy, to become a coach because they're not offensive coordinators, they're not defensive coordinators. Yeah, and so let me give you my analysis

of the case right now, because the discrimination case, by the way, the lawyers did an incredible job with the narrative in the complaint. It is powerful. The PR they did around the complaint, A plus. The one question that I have in my mind is this case being framed as a class action for discrimination. And I want to break down why I think that ultimately can be problematic strategically. Obviously, the lawyers can pivot out of a class action. They could drop the class allegations. What I suspect may be going on is that they plet it as a class action to try to rally other coaches who this has happened to and then drop the class accusations and bring these as discrimination lawsuits. But you know, you have a, you know, you can have a lawsuit like person A,

sues company B because they get fired for being for their race, for their ethnicity, for their religion, for not wanting to violate a law. That's a wrongful termination case. So if he alleged just, I got fired by Miami, because I wouldn't do unlawful things, he could sue Miami for wrongful termination. I think that's a strong case. Similarly, he can sue for discrimination in the interview process. New York Giants, you brought me in,

and you discriminated against me, and you didn't hire me because I'm black. And here's how I'm gonna prove it. Same thing with the Broncos. You discriminated against me in the interview process. The class action means that you're filing an on behalf of similarly situated people, a class of individuals.

And you have to satisfy, if it's a state case, state class action procedures, but in federal court, you have to satisfy federal rule 23, which is the class action provisions. And then you have to have like numerosity. There has to be a ton of people, you know, like not five, not 50, like maybe 50, but like hundreds, thousands of people numerosity. There has to be tipicality.

The plaintiff who's leading the case has to have the the lead class action. His claims or her claims or their claims have to be similar or identical to the class. There has to be commonality. The class has to share essentially the identical damages and situation. in situation, then you have to prove that class counsels an adequate representative and the lead plaintiff is an adequate representative. Why I think this is going to be difficult, though, as a class action, is because of the case, Supreme Court case called Walmart stores ink versus dukes. It's a 2011 case. It is a gender discrimination case brought by a group of women against Walmart and they alleged pervasive discrimination against women in Wal-Mart across the United States of America. And in that case, the Supreme Court held, you can't bring those as class actions. The discrimination while maybe similar and the attributes could be the same, everybody experienced the discrimination

slightly differently. They didn't use the same exact conduct to every one of you similarly. And so, and your damages may be slightly different. You may have gone to a psychiatrist. You may have gone to a psychologist. The supervisor from North Carolina, who may have discriminated against you, is different than the supervisor from Miami who discriminated against you. So this Walmart case really destroyed any ability of discrimination cases to be brought by private litigators in federal courts as class actions. And so that's why you don't really see those. They can be brought as mass actions.

Like you could group people together and many people can sue for their own individual claims, but not as class. I've got an opinion and a question, a question of course to you. My opinion is not different from your analysis, but I think I know why they did this, and not because I have any insider knowledge just from reading it.

And I know these lawyers and their class action guys, that class action lawyers. The goal, if you're a plaintiffs lawyer and you've got a class action, is to file it and you have to get past the first hurdle. The first hurdle in the process is to convince the federal judge here that you have the right to certify a class going over all the prongs that you had allized earlier in the segment, numerosity, typicality, commonality, all of that. And there's a trial within a trial.

There's a fight within a fight early on in the case, maybe six months from now, just on the issue of can there be a disertification of a class putting aside the merits, although the merits are involved in the prong analysis that you just laid out, of course they are. But the fight now is not one to prove whether Flores was racially discriminated against or whether the NFL is a plantation as alleged on the first day of Black History Month, which is when this case was filed in the South District of New York, the fight between the lawyers for the NFL and these teams and the lawyers for Flores, the class action lawyers, is over certification. They get past certification.

This case is over. It will be settled almost immediately by this is my view almost immediately by the NFL. The fight now the fight is between certification and non certification. If certification happens with all the caveats and all the hurdles that you've identified then. The problems with mass discrimination cases being the subject, proper subject for a class action vehicle. They get past that. They're done. They've won the case. NFL will settle. They'll be changes historically, you know, culturally throughout the NFL and real changes as a result of the settlement. Now, here's the quite. That's my opinion. Here's the question I have for you. still in the running for a series of head coaching jobs. And of course, those teams are saying the right things,

which are, well, it's okay that he filed that lawsuit. We're still in an interview process. Do you think, given your experience, do you think Flores has just wrecked his career for the next five or 10 years while this thing's maybe being litigated? Or do you think the NFL will bend over backwards and the teams to give them a head coaching job while he's while he's litigating it. I think it would be very difficult for the NFL for a team to hire an active litigant.

to hire an active litigant, even though that should not be the barrier for entry. I just think it is, I think they should. I think it's inappropriate that they don't. I'm just drawing on all of the experience that I know. I'm asking. You know, that oftentimes it is a death now when you file a lawsuit for you to get hired, you know, that oftentimes it is a death now when you file a lawsuit for you to get hired,

you know, in that in the industry. Why did Florentz do it? He didn't want to keep going through the charade. He couldn't take it any longer. Why is he using a maskiness? Why is he using the lawsuit? And whatever potential remedy could be fashioned for him a year, two years, three years, or never, depending upon the results of the case. Why do you think he decided at the height of his career? He is a recently former head coach in the NFL, one of only two when he was, when he held the job, why file the federal case now?

He, but he clearly must believe that his career is over before filing the lawsuit. Right. You know, I think that he thought if there were other avenues of getting a head coaching job, he probably wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. You know, the purpose of a lawsuit is to make you whole at the end of the day. You know, the moment he got fired in Florida, I think he believed all of his dreams and hopes and aspirations of being a head coach in this league. Stephen Ross is a very powerful owner,

hard-carnished, and that he's done. And I think he's also courageous at the end of the day too, but for filing the lawsuit. There are some things that Brian Flore is did in the past that I don't think were great. That doesn't make what he did now less courageous, but one of the things Brian Flores did, for example, with a player on the Miami Dolphins

named Kenny Stills, you know, who was one of the people who knelt with Colin Kaepernick, Brian Flores intentionally started blasting Jay Z music in the locker room in front of Kenny Stills because at the same time Jay Z said that players need to stop kneeling and move away from kneeling. Byronic. It's ironic that he's now standing on the shoulders of Colin in the case.

Well, but, but you know, that doesn't make, you know, you could then become courageous, you know, like, you know, but, but, you know, but there is that piece of the history too, because I remember when that happened a few years ago, and I was like, that's a pretty fucked up thing to do to a player who's kneeling for social justice, to retaliate against the player like that doesn't mean, you now can come to the realization. But, you know, overall, Popo, I want to, I want to, I want to, I'm going to follow this one closely. And again, kudos to these lawyers, very powerful case, the images, the way that complaint was structured, the story being told, I'm wondering strategically if they pull away that

class action stuff, focus on the discrimination, because what I worry is that they're going to get bogged down in the procedural morass of class action discovery. Well, they are the first six months. They are. And we're not and we're not going to focus on the discrimination until a year from now and and that that could slow down the process. But we'll follow up.

Popo while we're doing that before we go on to the next topic, what chair are you in? Oh, it's a very important book. look at the whole setup is pretty incredible. Tell me about your chair and you know that segment, which was, which was really fascinating. I leaned into all of it because I was, I wanted to hear your, your impression. Also reminded me that I'm glad I'm sitting in a really, really comfortable new chair. And from the first moment I sat in this X chair, my body immediately said, ah, so this is what a real office chair is supposed to feel like. If you can look at the background, I have another office chair, which I don't like as

much as the X chair. I love this one. Oh, chair. See you later. You're on the X chair. No, that's all. This is on the X chair. And I look, now I look forward to sitting at my little podcast studio here in my office with you every with you every weekend. You can your chair the one you're sitting in now, Ben.

Can your chair give you a massage while you're working my X chair. This podcast is brought to you by X chair. Yeah, I'm not even sure you're sitting on a chair. Looks like you may be sitting on some sort of ball. Can your office chair heat up or cool down? My X chair can. It's all in the LMX massage and temperature regulation, exclusively designed and made for X chair. And once you feel the customized support of X-Chair is patented dynamic, variable lumbar, or DVL,

your back will never be happy in any other chair again. You just plug it in the back. It's really, really easy to assemble the chair. I did it and to plug it in. I like all the cooling and heating and massage. It's high performance, it's quality engineering, and it results in extreme comfort. Those are all the cooling and heating and massage, it's high performance, it's quality engineering, and it results in extreme comfort. Those are all the reasons I love my new X-chair.

I picked it out in this color, it comes in many, many colors, and I can't wait to now sit in it at work. Sometimes even when I'm not working, I sit in my X-chair just to get that feeling. Take my advice and that of Benz, try X-chairair for yourself, risk-free for 30 days. Once you realize how much better your chair should be, you'll never go back,

I promise. Ben, how do they find this X-Chair? Oh, they could find the X-Chair by go to share legal AF dot com now. That's the letter X C H A I R L E G A L A F dot com now. That's X chair L E G L A F dot com or call one eight four four four X chair. I like I like eight four four numbers. I'm a little of an old school person. So maybe you try that call one eight eight, four, four, four, X, C, H, A, I, R, four, get this $100 off your order because you listen to legal AF, $100 off. X Chair has a 30 day guarantee of complete comfort and you can finance your purchase for as little

as $30 a month. That's xchairlegalaf.com. Just go to xchairlegalaf.com. You're really going to like this chair. And you got it, you got to sit on something you feel good and we sit a lot in the day. And popoq, you installed that yourself in like 30 minutes, which shows you it's easy to set up. I was so impressed that you were able to do that. You know, and that just says easy setup, easy installation. Go get it right now. So Popeye, I want to talk about updates on the Gile max. Well, short update on the new trial. We talked about several weeks ago, her and her legal team filed the motion for new trial because one of the jurors started giving press interviews after she was convicted and found guilty, saying that

he was a victim of sexual assault, and that he convinced the other jurors to convict her because of his experience. And then essentially he acted as an expert in the jury room to try to convince other jurors about problems with fading memory and the like of when you are a sexual assault victim. The problem is when he went through his jury questionnaire and what we've talked about on legal I have takes place at the beginning before the trial happens during jury selection process called the voidier, the vo-i-r-d-i-r, vo-i-r-d-i-r-e vo-dier. Which one does that mean voidier?

To speak the truth, preliminary examination to... It's not exactly that. It's a French word. We'll have to put it up on the chat. It's French for speaking the truth. Yeah. I had a, I went to law school as people know in North Carolina.

And my, that is a funny little aside. How lawyers in different regions pronounce Vaudere. I pronounce it the way you do. In North Carolina, and in the South, they pronounce it Vordyrie. Yeah, well, and actually, if you translate a word for word, from old French and derived

and derivative from the Latin verum, that which is true. But it basically means to speak the truth. So the issue is this individual didn't tell the truth in the preliminary blood deer process, said that he wasn't a sexual assault victim. He likely would have been disqualified from the jury because lawyers want to avoid precisely what took place here. You want jurors who are impartial, who will watch what's happening and weigh the evidence and, and, and follow the evidence. And so the, the update here, Popoq is that Gilaens Maxwell's team, they want to keep the motion that they filed for a new trial, what's called under seal. They don't want it being made public.

Tell us about what that even means. What does under seal mean? And what are they concerned about that becoming public? Because that was their most recent letter brief to the judge. I also like how in New York, you all file letter letters like letters to the judge. Yeah, it's it's weird. So in federal court practice in the Southern district, you write a lot of letters to your judge. You, of course, you actually file them. So they're all in the public record. But for instance, you can't file a motion, like a motion to dismiss in federal court, New York until you send a letter to the judge

and the other side telling the judge why you want to file the motion and the grounds for it, which means your letter is basically your motion, a smaller version of your motion. Then the judge will even sometimes hold a hearing. You know, get you on the phone to talk about your letter request. And then once you get the letter request, then you file your motion. But by that time, the judge has already heard the arguments in this letter process. So now we have a letter process. By the way, I like the letter process. But you know, out in California, we have this a ton of stuff that involves you like what's called meeting and conferring with the posing council where you have to like go back and forth with like letters to each other and try to resolve it with each other before you can then go to the judge. We can't write letter

briefs and so we have to file formal motions. And then you have to rely on the opposing lawyer to like fill in their part in the motion. And then they, the problem is in theory, that's great. But lawyers game that meeting confer. And so the process becomes really cumbersome and not what it was intended to do. I like the matter process. Yeah, yeah. Although one day we'll talk about the thing I don't like in your practice in California, which is the tentative ruling that the judge posed before you even opened your mouth and had your oral argument. But that'll be for another day.

So they've sent a letter, the lawyers for the defense of Galein Maxwell, the defendant's lawyers, have sent a letter to Judge Nathan. And they've said, look, we have filed the motion for new trial. In the motion for new trial attachments, we have attached the juror questionnaire, this 20 page document that every juror was asked to fill out,

was required to fill out as a prospective juror so that the lawyers on both sides and the judge could see the answers asked follow-up questions in the Void Deer process where you and I actually stand in front of the prospective jury pool and we say juror number 27, juror number 10, what do you think about this? I see on your form, it says the following. Tell me more about that. This is what you and I get to do with the what your process or the judge does it a lot in the federal system.

Well, that means your questionnaire has to be accurately filled out. There was a section as you and I have anticipated that asked for were you the victim of prior sexual assault or any kind of victim related to sex crimes and This juror number 50 who's already been who's already outed himself. He's making a documentary in London through either the Independent or the Guardian. He's he's now identified himself as Scotty David. So we'll call him Scotty David Scotty David. So we'll call him Scotty David. Scotty David did not insert in the questionnaire something that was that apparently is true, that he as a child or otherwise was a victim of sexual assault. He goes in, he gets selected. Mate probably would have got bounced from the jury under

one of the challenges that either side official challenges that either side are allowed to raise. They get a limited number of them and he may have still squeaked through. Sometimes you and I get jurors that we were like, hmm, I wish I didn't have to take juror number 16, but I'm out of challenges and there's no other way around it. So it's not a guarantee that he wouldn't have made the jury pool, but certainly lying or forgetting to list a very important element of the case doesn't look great for him. The judge is going to hold a hearing. The fight on the most the letter that is just sent to them is whether the questionnaire is going to be unsealed. So there's a process in the court system, federal or state that certain information and certain documents for a limited time

and on a narrow grounds can be sealed from the public view. Meaning the judge can see it, the participants, the litigants can see it, the clerk can see it, but the public can't see it. And different judges take different views, but there is a federal law and statute and rules that govern what can it can't be sealed. And the judges have to lean in favor of unceiling so that the process is public. And

in the light, you and I had a recent case in which there was a fight over what will be sealed and what won't be sealed. And of course, when there's really embarrassing facts or business information, the lawyers for that team will want to bend over backwards and overseel everything. And then the other side wants to remove the ceiling and the judge has to mediate that in the middle. The defense has said, don't unseal the questionnaire because we don't want Scotty David and his team to see it before we cross examine him at the hearing that you're going to hold your honor about whether we're entitled to a new trial. We don't want him to know our cross examination strategy and advance.

That's the fight here. There's going to be a hearing. He's Scotty David's going to be cross examine. The fight now is whether he's going to get in advance and advance the questionnaire because the jurors don't leave the process with the questionnaire in their back pocket. They don't get to take it home. They got to put it all. Everything that was involved in the case, it gets sealed and enveloped and gets and gets stored by the clerk, but they don't get to take home like courtesy copies or memorabilia for the trial. Here's my questionnaire. So that's the fight. What do you think about that?

That should he get the questionnaire in advance? No, right. You shouldn't get the questionnaire in advance. I mean, he should just be asked the questions. He should testify truthfully. I mean, I think we already know what he's going to say. He said that he breeze through the questionnaire. He thought he filled out everything truthfully. And I don't think he's going to say anything different than that. You know, when I think he should just, I think he should just say what he said in the jury room. You know, it's really unfortunate. It's a really unfortunate thing. We want Gelae Maxwell to be, we want that sentence to hold. I don't want that jury verdict to be tainted at all.

But I think it is critical and important in any case, whether you are Gilei Maxwell or whether you're a far more sympathetic plaintiff and I think, mostly all, I mean, far more sympathetic defendant. And I think most would be more sympathetic than defend. And in fact, whether you're a plaintiff or a defendant, we just want people to have a fair opportunity

in our court system. And this is not what's supposed to take place in the jury room. And I've already said, Popeye, it's my belief, very confident that that sadly, the verdict is going to be overturned by the judge, you know, after kind of a full hearing on these issues. I want to turn to what's going on in Texas, a judge recently granting an injunction in favor of an engineering company that said a Texas laws infringing on our first amendment rights and our ability to speak out as a Palestinian against Israel,

if we want to as a company, that that should not be a factor in whether or not a government does business with us as a company. Wherever you stand on the issue, we're not gonna be having on this legal AF, politicized discussion on the Israel-Palestinian situation right now, period. Just not what we're doing on this, because in my view, what should be undisputed, regardless of where you stand, is

that the court made the right decision here. And so let me tell you, and I'll get your opinion on that, Popeye. The state of Texas enacted a law that in relevant parts specified the following, quote, a governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it won does not boycott Israel and two will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract. Plaintiff, A&R engineering and testing ink is a company that has done business with the city of Houston in the past and wants to continue to do so. Its contract is up for renewal and Houston has tendered A&R new contract, which contains the language requiring A&R to certify that it will not boycott Israel.

And this company was not comfortable doing so. And the court ruled in favor of the company and the court said, quote, the speech contemplated by this company may make some individuals, especially those who identify with Israel and comfortable anxious or even angry. Nevertheless, speech even speech that upsets other segments of the population

is protected by the First Amendment unless it escalates into violence and misconduct. And we don't just see this law here in Texas, Popoac, because this is also a sign of some of the other laws. Republican governors are trying to force unprivate companies. We see a lot of this with DeSantis in Florida, trying to enact provisions that if you want to do business. With Florida, you have to enact radical right wing

extremist agendas. You can't teach this. You can't have that policy there. You can't, as a private company do mandates. And so what's so strange and interesting and unlawful is that this Republican party, though, that's found in the past, I thought their view was that big government encroaching on private business. All you see is them, Republicans wanting to encroach on private businesses and tell them what to do, what they can say or can't say using the force

of their government powers. What do you think about this case? What do you think about the rule? Yeah, look, I like all the points that you hit. The gyroscope we've talked about this before, the Republicans moral universe is missing. The gyroscope is spinning really out of control. Right-wing people had always been pro-business

and conservative, I mean that in the traditional sense in their approach, conservative meaning restraint, not conservative meaning activism. We'll talk about it another time. The Supreme Court that used to be comprised of a Rehnquist in a San Jose O'Connor practice conservative restraint. A Supreme Court comprised of Alito Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas, and the like practices a brand of conservative or right-wing activism from the bench. So you and I are always like, well, how do you reconcile these positions? And the reality is they're not reconcilable.

So Texas passed a law against what is called the BDS movement, the boycott divestment and sanctions against Israel movement. And the reason we're talking about it here, and the reason you're so right, is because it implicates first amendment issues, which are part of our political discourse, and part of the litigated politics that you and I talk about. And we promised our listeners and followers from day one

that we would not blow sunshine, and we would not run away from tough issues, although it's not, you know, this is not really the heart of our case. So Texas passed the law. It's actually the second law. The Texas had passed their 2019 law had also been struck down or was about to be struck down by a federal court. They rewrote it. And this is the revised attempt to stop people who have federal, I'm sorry, state contracts with aspects of the state from also exercising their First Amendment rights to participate in the BDS movement. And this engineering firm that had a contract with the city of Houston needed to sign a pledge that they were not going to participate and voice their opinion about the Israel, Palestinian issues, the owner of the engineering company's Palestinian.

He refused to sign it. That meant the city of Houston didn't give him the work, which made him a plaintiff with standing to sue on the fact that this statute would have violates the First Amendment Constitution and Judge Hannan, or Hainan, who sits in Houston, a federal district court, Southern District, Texas, appointed by W by Bush, ruled in his favor and said this law, as you just said,

we may be uncomfortable by certain aspects of First Amendment speech, right? You know, Dave Chappelle makes people uncomfortable. This topic may make one side of the aisle or the issue uncomfortable, but that's what the First Amendment is for, up with certain limits at the Constitution and the Supreme Court have illuminated. But so I agree with you. I think even though my political feelings may lean a different direction, looking at it as constitutional analyzers and scholars, the way you and I try to be for our legal AFers,

I think that decision was right. I sighed here with the Republican judge who ruled that that particular statute is unconstitutional to the first amendment. What do you do if you don't like that the business has this position or that position? You could boycott the business. You know, you could say, hey, we're not doing business, we're not going to purchase services from the business. That's a good way. Here I ran the other way though, because the engineering company doesn't take walk in business. They're really for what I can see.

They do municipal big projects. They need cities and states to hire them, but he rightly refused to sign the certification that he's, that he legislates his conduct in a completely unrelated area. I want my engineers to be certified to know how to build buildings, to know how to make measurements. That's what I want. What they do in their off time and whether they have a podcast like you and I expressing whatever view, as long as it doesn't incite violence, it's not seditious conspiracy. They can have that podcast too. Why would say this? You know, they have a, yeah, I, we could delve deeper into the business. The, the hook on

the regulation, which is now unconstitutional, is that they have a city contract. So if you want to have the city contract, I'm not sure if that means they exclusively do business with the city versus with people outside of it. But the hook is, if you want a contract with us, here's how you have to speak. And they're very lucrative. Those city countries. And the court said you can't force, you can't force that. This podcast is brought to you by athletic greens, A G one, which is my favorite super food. I love A G one.

I mean, I drink it during the podcast. You see me drinking it before I had A AG1, I had a medicine cabinet that was filled with all these different vitamins that I would try to self-select for myself and gummies and pills and all of these things that I thought were giving me nutrition, but they really were not doing the trick. And what I like about AG1 is that with one tasty scoop of it, it has 75 vitamins, minerals, whole food sourced ingredients, multi-minorals, multi-vitamin, probiotic, green superfood blend, and more and one convenient

to all the servings. So what I just do is I have my AG1, I just take a scoop, I put it in my AG1 cup, I put some water in, I shake it up a little bit, I drink it and I'm good for the day and I feel incredible. And look, you might as touch legal a efforts whether you're watching the Midas podcast and the legal a F like, I think you legitimately have seen a different me with way more energy since I started taking this. The proof is in the green and trust your eyes, the special blend of high quality bioavailable

ingredients in a scoop of AG one work together to fill nutritional gaps in your diet, support energy and focus, aid with gut health and digestion and supports a healthy immune system effectively replacing, as I said, multiple products or pills with one healthy and delicious drink. As the research changes, this is what I love. Popoxotis AG1, while most nutritional products that come to market, they never evolve. Athletic Greens will obsessively improve AG1 based on the latest it research producing 53 improvements over the last decade and counting. They invest in the most absorbable and natural source for each ingredient and go above and beyond with their third party testing to ensure customers like me continue to receive the highest quality and best daily nutritional habits on the planet. It's lifestyle friendly, whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan,

dairy-free or gluten-free, and it contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it tasting good. So join the movement of legal a efforts, athletes, athletes, moms, dads, rookies, first timers, and everyone in between taking ownership of their daily health and focusing on the nutritional products you need in the simplest matter possible. That is essential nutrition. And to make it easy, athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting

free one year supply of vitamin D and free travel packs with your first purchase. All you have to do is visit athleticgreens.com slash legal AF today. Again, simply visit athleticgreens.com slash legal AF, take control of your health and give A, G, one, to try and our legal AFers love A, G, one, they love athletic greens and take advantage of these deals. Popock and I and my brothers, we spend a lot of time with these podcast partners of ours to try to negotiate these great discounts

for you for being listeners for these exclusive deals. Now also, before we talk about more law, for those listening, and I see we're crushing it today with viewers on the YouTube and the listening to the listenership keeps going up. Now is your time to get the Propchane T-shirts salty. Please put up we designed the PoPockane T-shirt. We engineered an official PoPockane T-shirt and let me tell you about it. We only made 50 of the PoPockane Tshirts. 50. So supplies are limited. Please try to keep your orders at about five.

You can maybe order a little more per person, but we do want lots of people to get the POPKEE and T-shirts. We have an officially capped it, but don't buy all 50 in the first order, because I know that's going to sell out super quickly. So go to the link below. We have it right here.

It's on the Midas Touch Merch website. It's officially up. The link is now here. You can open it up on your phone if you're watching it on your computer, open up on your computer. You can place the order. We have 50 of them in stock and this will go quickly. Popoq are you happy you finally have a popoqy?

I am thrilled, surprised because you dumped it on me last last podcast, but thrilled. And we're already getting like in the last couple of podcasts, live chats. We've seen people, where are the shirts? You keep teasing us with the shirts, bring the popaki and shirts. And you know, you and I have seen we have at least one podcast listener who's in Thailand who not only made our map for us showing we're up 47 or 48 states and 16 countries for legal a efforts, but he made an early version of his own hashtag, Popaki and Gray and Black T-shirt that he wears apparently all the time in Thailand. So he was a trend center and now we're now we're doing this one. So I'm really thrilled I'm making the symbol, tell Jordy, set aside. I can't do that symbol with my hand.

I almost did it. You almost did it. My hands have like no, whatever. Like I'm unable to do it. But someone clearly didn't take our advice as I'm watching someone just order 12 popaki and t-shirts at once and someone placed an order of four. So we have 16 popaki insurance that have already been sold already. So make sure you get the popaki insurance of people.

They sell out. I wanna turn to a big ruling in North Carolina. Lots of very positive, Jerry Mandarin news for Democrats. We talked in the last podcast about Alabama, the NAACP, and a number of entities filed lawsuits against the racist redistricting that took place in Alabama, went to a three-district court judge panel ruled that the Alabama map, which essentially put made, even though African Americans and Alabama make up close to 30% of the population, it basically just created one congressional district

instead of two. And so that was ruled to be unconstitutional in Alabama. And we were, I think, talking on that show, there's a big ruling that could happen in North Carolina and the North Carolina Supreme Court. And the gerrymandered, it's saying, the gerrymandered, redistricting done by Republican lawmakers last year that would have given GOP candidates a sizeable advantage in North Carolina elections for the midterms. and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and the political and stand, but the four Democratic justices joined in the majority opinion here. And the North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein wrote, quote, under our Constitution,

political power must be vested in derived from the people. And our government must be founded upon their will only. And so a very profound and important ruling here. And one of the things Popok as well that is, you know, I think very notable for our legal efforts in terms of like the Jerry Mander maps, according to the Cook political report. Let me just read what David Wasserman wrote. He says, and owing to some acrobatics, Jerry Manders and Illinois and New York as well as favorable court developments in Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This was before this North Carolina ruling even came out. Democrats have now taken a small lead in our redistricting projections for the first time all cycle.

This was supposed to be a disastrous redistricting situation for Democrats, but it's actually turning out to be in the Democrats' favor. Now, my view and the view of the Democrats in the legislation that they won't pass for the people is that gerrymandering shouldn't exist. This is ridiculous. We should abolish this concept of gerrymandering. So, but it exists. The Republicans have tried to racially gerrymander

and they've done it in such a gregious ways that federal courts, the state courts are saying, you can't do it. It's absurd to me that you could politically, gerrymandering, and that that's okay, that you could try to slice it along political lines. But it's very hard to do that for Republicans without being racist. And that's the difference where they found versus where the Democrats gerrymandering. Because the Democrats gerrymandering is not done in a racist way, it's been done in a political way,

but not a racist way. So what do you think about this ruling Popeye? I think thank God for the state courts system, thank God for the show, because we've talked about from the very beginning, the courts being the vanguard and the protector of the people if done appropriately. And it's not the federal courts that are saving the bacon here for the Democrats. It's the state courts. The reason the federal courts have been sort of

sidelineed from the redistricting fight and finding constitutional violations based on redistricting really comes from a 2019 Supreme Court case where Roberts was in the majority and wrote the opinion, Rucho versus Common Cause, where, and this is going to shock our listeners and followers, the Supreme Court took the position that redistricting and how states divide up their map for their electorate

and for their elected officials is a political question. And therefore, the Supreme Court would not sully their hands with purely political questions. They would leave that to the electorate in the states and backed out of an abdicated responsibility over regulating on a federal level, redistricting. Now people at home listening and probably thinking,

what do you mean the Supreme Court back that of a political question issue? All they've been doing this last term has been involving themselves in highly charged political issues, but you'll find that when, you know, this is reverse engineering, when the Supreme Court doesn't want to get involved with something, they say, oh, political, purely political question. We can't, we can't sell it ourselves, we can evolve with that. But when they want to get involved with something, then all of the political question

doctrine goes out the window. State courts don't have this problem, and the state courts have stepped up, and the result is what you just quoted. At the beginning of the term or the beginning of the season, we thought, oh, shit, with all of the voter suppression laws that are coming out of the 2020, sorry, the earlier election with Biden, that the Republicans are ramming down everybody's throats at the statehouse level. They're going to do the same thing on redistricting, and we're going to be worse at the midterms and beyond because of Jerry Mandering. And it looks like because of the state courts that have rejected these maps and forced

these legislators to go back to the drawing board and do them fairly and equally, we may end up, Democrats may end up plus one or plus two in an advantage of the Republicans. So be careful what you ask for when you're a Republican legislator sitting there trying to gerrymandor. Now the two recent ones, the three recent, well, the two most recent ones are North Carolina and Ohio, both by four to three decisions of their highest courts. And the four to three decision in Ohio, which throughout the map there recently, one Republican switch sides and voted with the majority.

In the North Carolina Supreme Court decision rejecting just yesterday, the proposed map for the Republican led legislation or legislature, they, we went down party lines for, as you said, four Democrats, three Republicans. If the map had been accepted, it would have resulted in 10 safe Republican districts and only three safe Democratic districts. And the Supreme Court of North Carolina said, you have to now use a statistical analysis to make sure that the way you're drawing this map mirrors the electorate at large and the demographics of the electorate at large and come back to us with another map. Similar thing

in Ohio, relying not on the U.S. Constitution, but on the state constitution, which required fair distribution of the electorate in redistricting. So it looks like we may have dodged a bullet this season, but it's only because the state Supreme courts are stepping forward and throwing out these maps. Look, Democrats, Jerry Mandertoo, I'm not here to, you know, we're going to call it balls and strikes. There's at least 12 states that have illegal redistricting maps if the voting law that's been kicking around Congress way too long were passed.

It would eliminate, it would find violent of that law that hasn't yet been passed. 12 states maps, seven of them are Republican, but five of them are Democrat. Right now, as of Friday, a case just got filed against New York, which is heavily Democratic by 12 Republican voters saying, hey, we're getting redistricted out of existence by the Democrats are in power. So it's not, Jerry Mandering is not just, it's not a new thing, and it's not just a Republican thing. Democrats do it too, and they will for as long as their, this voting law is not passed by Congress. Exactly. And just here's the difference at the end of the day. Democrats want to eliminate Jerry Mandarin.

While it exists, we're going to have to play the game. And we're not going to do it in a racist way because it's not in our DNA as Democrats, but we're going to have to Jerry Mandarin. But we want to eliminate it. It's a very easy comeback when they go, oh, well, I thought you're against gerrymandor. We are. We want to get rid of gerrymandor. Why don't you want to get rid of gerrymandor? Because I'll tell you why. I don't want to get rid of gerrymandering. Just look at in non gerrymandored states, especially with local legislative districts for local state offices. People elect Democrats. By and large, Democrats would crush in non-Jerrymandered states. If you don't

divide and carve it up and make these Frankensteinian districts, Democrats would have power, very long-lasting power. But speaking about, though, just like racism in the Republican DNA, I want to turn to Fulton County, Georgia, where the district attorney there, Fawney Willis, has in paneled, there will be in paneling. She wrote to the courts there for a paneling a special grand jury to investigate Donald Trump's extortion of Raffensburger his interference in the election process, you know demanding that Raffensburger, their secretary of state in Georgia find more votes, you know, Trump's attempts to tamper with the results in Fulton County and elsewhere. Lindsey Graham's efforts there. So,

Fony Willis, she gave a interview to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, one of the main papers in Georgia, main paper in Atlanta. And what she told the paper is that the Fulton County the paper is that the Fulton County, the court process that was going to be allowed by the judge, that they're expected to seat this special grand jury starting May 2nd. She told the newspaper that it could potentially continue to work through 2023, but that they expect a lot of activity to be taking place in June and July of the summer. You know, she also said, quote, there's a possibility that after two months, we'll have all of the information. We need to press forward. There's a possibility that after a week, one, that some of the issues, you know, may come to a halt. We're not sure, but we may press ahead. But when

let me clear, Popeye, what she says that we will maybe be able to press forward after two months. She's talking about a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump and other co-conspirators in Georgia who tried to interfere and did interfere with the elections who extorted their Secretary of State and Georgia, who engaged in all of that, which we have on audio. One of the reasons why I said, you know, we're speaking of like racism in the Trump Republican DNA. Let me give you what Willis says to the newspaper. She says, quote, I've gotten more racist comments in the last year than ever before. I get called an N word very regularly. It's really silly to me that they believe that by hurling those kind of insults, that it is going to impact the way we do our investigation. It's not going to impact me to do

something faster. It's not going to impact me in treating the former president or anyone else unfairly. And it's not going to make me stop when I have a lawful duty to do. The heart goes out there, you know, but she's doing incredible work out there. And I think it's gonna result in a late 2022, early 2023 prosecution of Trump.

I agree. And the thing that I found most troubling about that article, about it, is that she's asked the FBI to help protect her and others related to it. At the same time, that Trump at a recent rally blew the racist dog whistle again, calling prosecutors racists because they're going after him and his family. Well, let's look at the prosecutors that he's obviously referring to. Latisha James, Fawney Willis, and Alvin Bragg of the Manhattan D.A.'s office, what do they have in common?

They're black. So when a white person of privilege, and there's no more entitled or privileged person in the universe, he's to use his phrase, he's the most entitled and privileged person, the Trump and his family, says racism tries to turn the tables on what racism is and the definition of racism and turn it on its head and claim that because the prosecutors have an urban cities and states and country, you know, states happen to be black. It must be a racist witch hunt against him is really, you know, anybody that that continues to want to be in the Republican party with Trump as

its titular head really has to check themselves into a psychologist. I've been really, I think it's become if this is the talking points and the planks for this party and they've lost their way. It absolutely lost their way. I think about Mike Pence speaking at the Federalist Society Convention this past week. And he spoke out, he condemned Trump for spreading the big lie. I mean, Pence is such a coward so that when he comes out with these statements,

it's like, okay, now a year plus later you he comes out with these statements, you know, it's like, okay, now a year plus later, you're coming out with a statement that's strong and saying that you absolutely had no authority to owe. I don't like the way he put that. Everybody's giving him some sort of, you know, not they're on the independent side, some sort of mock credit because he came out a year later and said something against Trump. What he really said, Ben, at this Federalist Society conclave in Orlando, was that don't blame me, Mike Pence, because I, as the vice president, had no authority to overturn and not accept the electors.

And neither would, and he went on, because he's got raw meat. He's got to throw out at these people, because he'd like to run for office again. Neither will Kamala Harris, when we retake the White House, she won't have the right as the Vice President. It's all about me, me, me, me, me. It wasn't about Trump. It was like, don't hang me politically or otherwise, because I had no choice as the Vice President. But the worst part of that day was who followed him. So they gave him polite golf clap applause. Thank you, Mr. Pence. Great. He gets off the stage and who gets on the stage, your favorite governor, governor, death santa's to arousing, you know,

parade of applause and throwing flowers and yay, we love you. That's where the Republican Party is. Oh, absolutely. That is where they are. They are with the Santas, which is a Trump by a different name. And death Santas ambitions are authoritarian as well. One of the things I look forward to though, if that's antices, their candidate is just,

if he's even going to debate. And, you know, he is so ill-equipped to, so cowardly won't answer basic questions, such a hypocrite that I'm frothing at the mouth to put the Midas touch machinery on that person right there. And the Midas Touch machinery, what it's also powered by, right? It's powered by one of our podcast partners Smith AI, which is an award-winning virtual receptionist service, which handles our and your calls, chats, and texts, to unlock new business at a fraction

of the cost of hiring and in-house staff, clients demand instant responses. But businesses are spread through, and I know you're great, Papokian, but I got two bros, Bret and Jordy, that's all I through and I know you're great Propokian, but I got two bros. Bret and Jordi, that's all I got. I got a small, got a small group here. You got to do zone.

You can't do a man to man. If you're losing leads from visitors to your website or missing calls that could grow your business, you need to delegate those frontline converse situations to the best virtual receptionist. That is Smith AI. It's not your average reshepsiness service. Since 2015, they've combined the best receptionists across North America with AI technology for superior business communications and customer engagement. But this isn't like AI on the phone.

These are real people. And, you know, if your clientele is Spanish, they're bilingual too, right? Popo, they got Spanish receptionists, they got English receptionists. And they, you know, and it's perfect and it's seamless. They do it all seven days a week. Also on your website, they have a 24-7 live chat service.

They even have to talk about them too. They integrate with your preferred software. You might have Salesforce or HubSpot, Calendale, ZAPA, and thousands more. So even though you're not involved in every call, you're always in the loop. Absolutely. And my clients love it. Again, as I mentioned, English and Spanish speaking receptionist, they will block spam for free, including all those annoying sales calls. And it's helped Smith AI has helped thousands of businesses across a wide range of industries, including law firms. You know, a pub I use it for my law firm, home service professionals, marketing agencies and other service base businesses. They're ready to help your business to work uninterrupted run your business with less stress and get more leads from your marketing efforts, mid AI pays for itself. And then some with all the new clients, their receptionists help you win. Never miss another lead boost revenue. Increase your focus at work. Keep your staffing

costs down. It is as simple as forwarding your calls to Smith AI. Plan start at just 240 a month. Try Smith AI today and see for yourself why business owners are saying things like it is the secret to business growth and the client happiness. And our listeners will save $100 when you sign up using our promo code legal AF at Smith.ai. So you visit Smith.ai, read their five star reviews and make sure you use our code legal AF that Smith dot AI code L.E.G. A.L. AF and save $100 at sign up. Don't let another day go by. Try Smith A.I. code legal AF. Popok. Give us us some Jan six updates. I know you want some or you want some Jan six jam. Here's some.

Give us some Jan six. Give us some Jan six. Jan. There's some Jan six jam. We should have some jammy music. We'll be with some jammy music on like we're doing another ad read. So we got some big developments here as we move towards the ultimate sort of presentation of the evidence, which we both expect to happen in the first quarter, no later than the second quarter of 2022 by the committee. They've now gone through over 400 interviews

and don't be confused everybody. A lot of these Republicans that are out there at press releases and news conference is saying we will not participate. We will not turn over our records are doing just that behind closed doors. They are participating. They are giving evidence under oath. They are turning over their text messages.

This thing is crumbling if Trump was trying to have a united front behind him of not cooperating with the Jans X committee, it's failing, which is why, and I'm sure you've talked about it on the brothers podcast, which is why you've got the GOP trying to sanction the two members of the Jans X committee because they are participating in the persecution of legitimate political discourse. That's now the new or well-in conversion of the Jans X insurrection. You and I call it a Jans X insurrection. I know, you saw that the RNC Republican National Committee, they sanctioned Liz Cheney, right? I started talking about, right? They say, yeah, pretty wild.

Yeah. Yeah. Ronomick Daniels comes out and says, it is not, it's not an insurrection. It's legitimate legal, I'm sorry, political discourse. And why are they doing that? They're trying to undermine the credibility of the crazy thing. Oh, you were saying it, but it just, it just isn't fully like it. You have to say it over. You heard it, but I almost didn't hear it because it's so the Republican Party, this Rona McDaniels, their position as a political party is in favor of the insurrection. Therefore that, that was legitimate political discourse.

That's what they're for as a political party. By the way, they don't even have anymore, like an actual like policy book, Rema Rimmer, the last one that's like anything Trump supports we support. Was there there was no planks for their platform? They didn't publish a platform. So now the one thing that they put publicly is that they're for the insurrection. That's their problem. Ronan McDaniel, who's the niece of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, who's come out in favor of the Gen 6 committee's work and against things like Trump announcing in a way of tampering with witnesses that if he ever gets back in office, he's going to be pardoning anyone

who participated in Gen 6, whether they killed people or otherwise, or murdered people or otherwise. The, you know, again, this party, God forbid they were a party in power or had a podcast or social media during the Civil War. You could see how they be defending what happened in the South against the North, just the way that they are completely converting the language of what happened in the South, against the North, just the way that they're completely converting the language of what happened before our very eyes. Okay, any sentient human being with five senses

knows what happened on Jan 6. Just watch the video of the bonfires and the crowds overrunning it and the fight hand-to-hand combat look like game of thrones, battle scene between the Capitol police and the proud boys, oath keepers, and everybody else behind them. How you can call that legitimate first amendment expression, which we talked about earlier in the podcast,

means you're either lobotomized and saying to members of a cult, because that's the only way you can come out and say that. So good news for our listeners and followers. We like to end on good news. 400 plus people have been interviewed by the Gen 6 Committee successfully. Road, Stuart Rhodes, who's sitting in the federal can, the federal detention center. He just gave a video testimony to the Gen 6 Committee. Now a lot of it, he asserted the Fifth Amendment

because he's up on charges for suspicious conspiracy, so his lawyers had him assert the fifth. But apparently, he did answer many questions of the Janssix committee, Kaylee McAnany, whatever that low light press secretary that used to stand at that podium and blind of the American people about the purported fraud and the election. Even though Trump blew the dog whistle, don't participate, don't turn over your text messages. She's turned over her text messages. In fact, one of the text messages that she received from Sean Hannity, which even Sean, even Sean Hannity privately told the White House, get off of the big lie, get off of the fraud,

loser argument, stop raising it. Those text messages that Kaylee turned over have already led to a follow-up request to Ivanka Trump about her role in the whole thing. Bernie Carrick used to be police commissioner in the New York before he went to jail for fraud, who had a press conference that said, I'm not going to participate with a JAN-6 committee and cooperate, as cooperated with the JAN-6 committee and given testimony. So, you know, all of this is just a tremendous result and success for democracy for the for for the investigation JAN Six is doing, and terrible.

Thank God, terrible for Trump and all of his supporters. Let me put this all together. So in the gerrymandering cases, Democrats are actually in the lead in the projections for redistricting. If you look at polls and generic polls, Democrats are also in the lead. What is going to be happening over the next six to nine months?

Well, we've talked about the DOBS versus Mississippi case, where the Supreme Court stands poised to overturn Roe v Wade or at the very least uphold Mississippi's 15 week ban on abortion. Now Florida is looking Governor Death Santas, the Republican legislature there, is seeing what's going on in the Supreme Court. They've proposed their own 15-week ban on abortion with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. That was proposed in a legislative session to at least have those exceptions in the ban. That was rejected. So what's going to happen this summer So what's going to happen this summer is that Roe v Wade will be either significantly weakened or completely overturned and Republican states and Republican governors and legislatures will be enacting 15 week bands in their respective states at a minimum.

What else is happening? Popox giving you the January 6th updates. We are going to have a lot more information that will come out, likely a report that will come out, but public hearings will be taking place and right around the election time, that information is going to start being made public. Like all that information is going to be public. What else is happening?

COVID cases are down across the country now. The jobs report was a positive one. I always stop. You're under selling that. This is the most job 6 million created by any administration since statistics were kept since 1939 for all of those people that say during a campaign that Republicans make more jobs, go do the math. Every administration that's been democratic, every administration that's been democratic

has created more jobs in total than Republicans who are supposedly propusness since time immemorial. And not only is that proven by Biden's record, it is the most job creation in the history of record keeping in the United States. Box news right before those job numbers were announced. We're literally giddy rooting for bad job numbers. The whole morning they said, it's gonna be an interesting morning this morning. Oh, it looks like the economy's in a free fall. Look at how we're they gonna spend this. And the job reports come out and they had to,

they had to eat it, but it just so fucked up that they root against the country. So you have the confluence of these factors. Polling is also increasingly showing that Americans are sick and tired of childish, whiny, childish, whiny behavior by this Republican Trumpist party. You put those factors together. Democrats are going to hold the house and Trumpist party. You put those factors together.

Democrats are going to hold the house if you remain engaged. That's the one F. You listening, you have to be active, you have to be engaged. You have to start contacting friends, family, registering people to vote. The legal stuff informs the political landscape in many ways. That's why this podcast, so great,

is so important that you know the intricacies of the law. But we need you now to go out there and to be an advocate to register voters, to canvas, to do anything you can to spread these messages of truth. Michael Popaki, it looks like the Popaki insurance are literally about to sell out. Wow. So not just my family, it looks like others are actually buying it as well. You know what I liked about that, that rundown with that jam that you just did the bed,

we're going to call it the Ben Jam when you do that. I really liked it. I also like it because as we've said, democracy is a participatory sport. And you just identified all the ways that we're arming our people mentally, emotionally, for the fight ahead to keep the house, which and get all those lost paths that we need off those books. Special thanks to all our sponsors, X Chair, paint your life, Smith, AI, athletic, greens, Michael Popak, was so incredible seeing you in New York. We should definitely, definitely get that photo of me and you. It could sit next to your not crooked blue painting that's in the background.

A perfectly straight painting, that angle proves that it is perfectly straight. Popeyes, the kind of person who's got the, what's the tool called to make sure? The level level. Popaks got, Popaks got the level. I know a lot about law, I know very little about mountain paintings and the walls, but we thank you all for all of your support. Keep fighting for democracy, keep fighting for truth,

keep listening to legal AF, Ben Myceles, Michael Popak, giving a special shout out to the Midas Mighty. See you next time on legal AF. you