Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF - 6/27/2026

Episode Date: June 28, 2026

The award winning Legal AF Podcast, helmed by Ben and Popok, report on breaking events from DC, Virginia, Florida, the Financial Markets and Iran, and the US Supreme Court, all at the intersection of law and politics.   Support our Sponsors: Americans United: Americans United will keep fighting for freedom without favor - equality without exception. Keep up with this issue at Https://au.org/legalaf Select Quote: Get you FREE Quote today at https://SelectQuote.com today! Veracity: For up to 65% off your order, head to https://VeracityHealth.co and use promo code: LEGALAF Hims: Get a personalized, affordable plan for you at https://HIMS.com/LEGALAF Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/subscribe?coupon=c0fc8f5c Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. If you want a $3,000 a month payday $1,000,000, for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer

research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number 155-2194. Please play responsibly. Hello, mid-sized business. We see your big ambitions, but how do you achieve the wins you want? when your technology is holding you back. SAP Grow is built to grow with your business, no matter its size.

With AI embedded at its core, working across every system, all ready to go from day one so you can hit the ground running. Bring it with SAP Grow. AI Cloud ERP for any size business. This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer.

Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming. Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment. Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg. I am one of Moody. On July 10th. Maui, you aboard my boat and restore the heart of Tefiti. And here we go.

The journey begins. See her light up the night. The ocean chose you. Let's go save the world. I got you back, chosen one. Disney's Moana. Boots Nick. His name is Hay Hey Hey.

His name is Yum Yum when he goes in my tum-tum in Teeters July 10th. We've got a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal A.F. It's been a busy week and a busy week for Midas Touch hosts, bringing accountability in the courts. That's right. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Trump regime to produce key records and a redaction or privilege log pursuant to the Epstein Transparency Act

in response to a major lawsuit filed by Midas Touch host, Katie Fang, a true American hero and patriot. We'll talk about what this DC federal judge ruled, its implications. The Trump regime is scrambling right now, changing lawyers in the case. We'll talk about what's going down. Another $10 billion lawsuit as well filed by Donald Trump in his individual capacity backfiring in his face. Which $10 billion lawsuit is this? Is this the one against the IRS and the Treasury Department? No, no, no, we'll get to that in a moment. This was another $10 billion lawsuit he brought while in office, but he brought in his individual capacity against the British Broadcasting Company, against the BBC, saying that they hurt his feelings when they did an edit on a document.

documentary about January 6th that really nobody watched anyway, which, get this, implied that Donald Trump encouraged the insurrectionists to attack the Capitol building. And Trump says that's caused me so much harm. And so the BBC said, okay, how much harm? 10 billion? Show us your bank records. To which Trump responded. No, no, no, no, no, no. BBC said, okay, you don't want to show us your bank records? Show us your emails, text messages, any communications regarding Jason. Oh, Trump goes, No, no, no, no, no, I can't do that. And then Donald Trump says, but the judge is unfair. Let me disqualify the judge.

And the judge is like, you can't disqualify me. The judge, then the Trump regimes like, or Donald Trump in his individual capacities, like deadlines. What deadlines? Yeah, the BBC may have filed a motion to dismiss, but we're just not going to do any deadlines to which the judge said, hello, like you realize we're in a court. You filed this lawsuit. What are you doing? Yes, Donald Trump in litigation kind of looks like that. that so-called Great American Fair where nobody's attending.

And a big MAGA person was just recently arrested there. The only person I think who's attended this of engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct in front of the female gymnasts who were they, everything that MAGA touches is grotesque and disgusting. But I guess we'll get into all of that. Another $10 billion lawsuit backfiring in Donald Trump's face, which he converted his $10 billion lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the IRS into a source. super pardon so we wouldn't have to pay taxes and would have to have all of the audits against him

waived and then have a J6 slush fund. So a lawsuit was filed in Virginia, as you all know. And the judge was like, okay, look, can you trump DOJ? You want to just do a declaration that says the slush fund doesn't exist? I'm happy to dismiss the case. Just put it in writing in my courtroom if you want me to believe that this issue is moot because, you know, yeah, certain Trump regime officials have now said, we're not going to do it yet. We're not moving forward with it for now. So the judge is, okay, put that in writing in my courtroom, happy to dismiss the case, to which the Trump DOJ said, how dare you judge? And they attacked the judge, and they said, we're not submitting anything. And you're violating our separation of powers. And the judge is like,

Judge Brinkema, a federal judge of a judge who is like, okay, well, we're just going to keep the case going. I don't know, wait, what are you doing? Like, okay, you don't want to submit a basic declaration. Okay, let's keep the case going against you. We'll talk about that. And also, you know, I guess some of these issues that Donald Trump has in filing these frivolous cases and just everything that he does, which is utterly wrong and disastrous, when you have basically a right-wing fascist Supreme Court that's basically entirely rigged at this point and, you know, just votes for a completely dystopian America that makes the handmaids tale show look like, you know, a utopia. We'll talk about some of these horrible Supreme Court rulings. We've got a lot to discuss. Let's bring him Popok. Popak. Popak. Good to see you, my guy, you know, these intros man these intros it's uh here we are june 27th live 2026 and uh you you you and i have been friends so long and so simpatico that sometimes when you do your intro i just like grab popcorn i'm just like i like this is but but all kidding aside and the way that we're jovial about it the jocularity all those you brent call it it's yeah well no i i see it the other way i i think it's

encouraging and we don't want our audience to doom scroll when they don't have to and you and I don't blow smoke or sunshine but the reality is that things are going well for democracy and for the rule of law in courtrooms and that so when there's a little bit of giddiness or a little bit of a little bit of giddy up in our step and a little bit of a whistle on our lips it's because um we see that there are accountability and good things happening in courtrooms it may not go a all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. And that continues to frustrate our audience as it should. And I think the Supreme Court is actually writing its own permission slip for its reformation,

for its demise as the current Roberts Court. I think the more they, if I get one more, if you and I have to report on one more six to three decision written by San Bolito, taking away rights inconsistent with our patriotism and values about immigration, you know, I'm going to throw up. But it also calls for the need and puts a lot of focus and attention on reforming that Supreme Court through term limits and additional seats and some other interesting proposals that have come up with on a court that is not, its composition is not governed by the constitution. Nowhere in there says there's nine people with a chief judge, that's all made up stuff that Congress does. And Congress in the

the right hands. So that's the reason why some people say, Popak, your enthusiasm for this story you're telling is so infectious. I want it to be because I really believe it. It's not an act. When things go wrong or awry, an appellate court decision or usually a Supreme Court decision, will be the first ones to tell you with honest commentary. But when things are going well, like we're going to get to it next, but not just landmark, it will be in Texas. books and it is now the blueprint for independent journalists having katie fang having broken the glass ceiling filing these types of lawsuits withstanding the ruling by judge sullivan about katy fang having informational damage standing for article three lawsuits that is and and her as an independent

journalist opens the floodgates for other journalists it won't be the mainstream ones it'll be us to file lawsuits and be the one to bring that case. That case is going to be taught in law schools. I already have it up on my Unlegal AF Substact. Katie Fang for the Pulitzer Prize for journalism over this. I'm not kidding. And so when things like that happen, and judges like Williams will talk about in Miami

and Brinkuma in the Eastern District of Virginia and Bozberg and things that are happening there and the former federal and state judges that are rallying like the cavalry to their aid to give them comfort and support as federal judges because they're out there, right? They're way out there on a limb, and Donald Trump and his Department of Justice

and Todd Blanche are sawn away with buzz saws behind them. They need somebody underneath saying, jump, we got you. And that's former federal judges, former state judges who are making their filings, we'll talk about. That's this audience and this community. Every time, and I've done a lot of interviews,

This particular week was an interview-heavy week for Legal AF YouTube channel. I had everybody from people who wrote biographies of the anti-Trump president, President Taft, to attorneys general, to senators, to Michael Ludig. And universally, they all say the same thing regardless of what perspective they have. We can't do it alone. We need the American people to take to the streets. literally to oppose this president to support the rule of law, the democracy, and federal judges. And with that, and the federal judges who are writing these briefs and motions,

that's what we need at this critical moment in time. In my lifetime, there has been no more critical period in our democracy, existential threat, and defining who we are as an American people right now. We either go left or we go right. I don't mean that politically. This is it. The fork is in the road. And now is the time. You don't want to look back and say, what did I do, particularly, to defend our democracy? You've got to leave it all on the playing field. And that's what you and I, hopefully, with giving this honest reporting and commentary about

these various legal stories, hopefully that's what we're encouraging our audience to do and the community to do. Yeah, it's why I quit my practice of law. It's why you've devoted most of your life right now to building out legal A.F. And you still are able to practice, but we'll talk about it. Obviously, as we always do before the break, your practice is focusing on helping legal AF listeners and viewers with some of their legal issues that may arise, which is why you said, I'm not going to fully bend do what you did because I still want to help our listeners and viewers because they've been saying, Popak, we need your help.

And for me, if you go back to the type of law I practiced, you know, it was class action. against things like Fire Festival or against massive Ponzi schemes. And I worked as a lawyer for an SEC receiver in some of the biggest Ponzi scheme cases in California where I saw this behavior. I went through terabytes of document production. I've personally prepared the privilege logs, the document productions, the motions. I've done the trials in these cases, whether it was going against these Ponzi scheme companies that were in receivership that the SEC, you know, were filing against.

Or Fire Festival, which has so many analogs to this great American fair thing that's going on right now. I'm like, fire festival looked better than what the hell I'm seeing right now in D.C. A quote that I gave in the Fire Festival Hulu documentary in 2018, which seems kind of prescient right now. Back then when Trump was in office, I said, you know what? We're talking about Fire Festival here, but there's a fire festival going on in the White House every day.

And right now we have that at a nuclear level. We have that in matters of war and peace. We have that in matters of Donald Trump literally doing 3,700 stock trades. We have Donald Trump launching strikes against Iran at 405 so that the markets could close. I mean, just pure and utter market manipulation that's being done while the American people are suffering. And what we hope to do here, because a lot of people say, hey, you guys talk a lot, you guys do the show. but can you also walk the walk? And I said, talking is important.

Let's be clear because there's a lot of disinformation silos out there that lie about everything and spread disinformation. So it's important to create a media environment that pushes back. And I think we've been able to do that, not just what we do on Midas Touch, not just what we do on legal AF, but by working with Katie Fang, by working with Scott McFarland's, by working with Aaron Parnas, by working with I could go over all these other mocklers and all these other creators. building their platforms and in this kind of decentralized way, flooding the zone with the truth

is such a critical role. But then it's such an honor. And let me be very clear. All credit goes to Katie Fang. She brought this. She's the courageous one. And all of you as well, you know, who have worked with Katie, who have supported Katie's channel.

And so for me, I'm just honored to be associated with Katie Fang on this network and to do anything I can to support the great work. that she's done because this lawsuit that she brought is historic. And there were a lot of doubters when she brought this lawsuit about is she going to have standing. Can she really be the person to sue? The Epstein Transparency Act was untested in terms of an outside person brought a cause of action. She was the first to do it.

There's no one else who she led the way. And so we got this 48 page order. Popak, why don't you talk about this order from Judge Emmett Sullivan in Washington, D.C., the categories that now need to be produced and why it's so important, this preliminary injunction having been granted. And you see the Trump regime scrambling. They've brought in Stanley Woodward on the case.

They're now bringing in all their big guns as well, if you will, on this case. And so this now becomes the case. Katie Fang, the Todd Blanche. People will be reading about this in law school. People will be reading about this for generations. They've talked about it, Pope. I had, you know, you and I have, you and I have, you know, you and I have friends.

Before we had any itch to be podcasters, we were just lawyers in Miami. And we used to meet for coffee to talk about fundraising for judges and our careers. I'm older than Katie and all of that. But, you know, I've been a big follower of her on, I remember once I was in Manhattan about the four years ago before she joined Midas and I was riding on the Hudson Parkway. And I saw a giant when she was on mainstream. I saw a giant billboard with her face. And as I rub by in the car, I took a video and I sent it to her and it gave her a big laugh.

But I told her, you interviewed her and so did I. I told her before she got eyes and look, this Fang versus Blanche is not just about the confirmation hearing that's coming up on the 15th of July against Todd Blanche and things he's going to have to answer to. It's not just that. It is bigger than that. It is a Fang, you know, Fang v. Blanche being taught in law schools, being taught in First Amendment classes and constitutional classes. I think it is that big. And it has opened the door. It has opened the door and provided it provided the blueprint and the permission because of the way Judge Sullivan wrote his 60-plus page decision about informational harm. Because the first thing a plaintiff has to prove, the first thing to get through the front door and not have it locked against them is that they have in federal court what's called Article III standing, Article III, injury, Article III of the Constitution. In order to do that, you have to show you have some sort of harm to you that's sort of unique to you that allows you to sue about the thing. The thing here is, was there going to be anybody that's going to step forward and try to hold the Department of Justice and Todd Blanche, for violations of the Epstein Transparency Act that were effectively acknowledged by the Trump

administration. How many press conferences with Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche did we have to watch where they said, oops, another 500 names of unredacted victims while white men who were the predators, their names and faces on draft indictments, on foreign language documents and photos of Donald Trump, they've been removed. They found a way to remove those. But of course, when it comes to the victims and others, they indiscriminately took the black tape off, which is the exact opposite, victimizing them all over again.

And Katie and I watched, as you did, as various strategies were used to try to get federal judges to whom the Trump administration had run for cover to take an interest and appoint a special master or review. We had Judge Berman and Judge Engelmeyer in New York. We had Judge Rosenberg in South Florida. And they had jurisdiction, but it was limited to the Galane Maxwell and Epstein prosecution.

So when Roe Kana and Tom Massey and others ran in to urge them to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire to provide judicial oversight over the production of the Epstein files, which were being, this is when there was only 12,000 documents produced. let alone three million, which is still incomplete. The judges said, we respect the dignity of the victims, but we can't do anything about it, and each one of them walked away. And you and I and others sat around and said, who's going to come forward to be the plaintiff here? Is it going to be one of the survivors? I don't want to put it all on their shoulders.

They're victimized already. You know, of the 1,400 Epstein survivors, 25 have revealed themselves, which is their right. I don't expect them to carry the water on a case like that. Who's going to do it? And then came forward, Katie Fess. and Public Integrity Project. And I've had the lawyer Brendan Ballou from Public Integrity on as well

to talk about their case. And they came up with a novel way to pick the lock to the front door of the courthouse, to show informational, economic harm to Katie. And to get around another issue, the Trump administration arguing, there's no ability for anybody to sue if the Epstein Transparency Act has been violated. You almost hear like an evil laugh at the end. I thought, no one can sue. There's no private right of action.

Is there? Well, when you're busy trying to tell the American public that something is done and over, like the production of the Epstein files, you, the Department of Justice, who has taken responsibility for it, you've just committed final agency action. And that's a term of art under the Administrative Procedures Act. If you do final agency action, a court can provide oversight

over whether you did it right or wrong. And a party who has, injury like Katie Fang proved she can bring the suit so she did not bring the suit under the about she didn't bring the suit as a plaintiff under the epstein transparency act she brought it under the administrative procedures act arguing that she had informational harm and therefore final agency action of declaring that's it because Todd blanche announced we're not going to be translating any of the foreign language documents that we have in an international child sex trafficking ring. Okay. We're not, also there's all these ones, these FBI reports about a woman when she was

13 who says she was sexually abused by Donald Trump. Yeah, we're covering those up to. And a bunch of other documents. And we're not going to provide the log listing all of the redactions so that, so that journalists and others can know about it, even though we said we were going to. So Katie said, look, I can't do my job. I got a job to do. This is what I do for a living. But I do for a, we all do, we all share her frustration. She says, I'm an independent commentator and reporter. And I've spent a good portion of my career, especially in independent media, covering Epstein, you know, and she's interviewed survivors. She's gone to the library, you know, the Trump Memorial Library with Jeffrey Epstein. She's done, you know, just like we have, grabbed documents and done reporting and analysis

because she's a practicing lawyer herself. And she's, I can't do it anymore. I'm getting spoon-fed information that makes us complicit. How many times do we say, we'd like to tell you more about the connection between Donald Trump and a child sex trafficking ring, but we're being blocked by the administration. And she said, I'm going to file it. And her lawyers came up with her this strategy to pick that lock.

I've got injury because informational injury because I can't do my job. And I've lost money as a result. Now, the reason she had to raise the money issue It's not because she's seeking money. She's not. The lawsuit does not provide her money. The lawsuit, she has to argue that she's been damaged

in doing her job and she would do more videos and I guess earned more money because she's got to show she's got that type of harm. And so that's why she had to raise it there. So with that, there's the briefing and now we got the judge's order. You know, all of our phones blew up at the same time with Judge Sullivan. I had said, you got a great judge here.

Judge Sullivan's a great judge for you. And he said in his ruling, a couple of things that made new law, I think, that an independent journalist who can't do her job because she's being denied documents that were ordered produced under a statute in Congress and anything analogous to that can now run to court and sue them and sue the government, not under the Freedom of Information Act, which is what the Trump administration said.

She could just do a Freedom of Information Act request, and then we won't give you documents then either. And the judge says they're not co-extensive. There's that Epstein Transparency Act, and there's also FOIA provisions, but they're not co-extensive. And then Katie and her lawyers are the great thing. Right before the judge ruled,

they filed a supplemental briefing, supplemental authority, and said, judge, here's what they did when somebody did a FOIA request for these documents, they said, no, they're being released pursuant to the Epstein Transparency Act. So if you go to the Epstein Transparency Act, they said, no, go to FOIA. If you go to FOIA, they say, no, go to the Epstein Transparency Act. That pissed off the judge. They never really responded to that. And when the thing that Todd Blanche has, that's a problem among many, is that the judge also ruled that Blanche effectively conceded, conceded, all of the substantive legal points that Katie made about his, his violation of the Epstein Transparency Act

because he failed to respond, not adequately respond. He failed to respond to her legal arguments. He kept saying, she's the wrong, she doesn't have standing, Judge, she shouldn't be here. Why are we here? At the same time, you have to also say, but if we're here, I didn't do it. You can't just, like, ignore that part of your brief. and the judge said you literally Blanche has conceded he violated the Epstein Transparency Act by failing to produce a video apparently there's some sort of I hate to say it but this is from the record some sort of torture video sex torture video that now has to be revealed because it was withheld the inner FBI interview notes of the woman who said she was 13 when she was sexually abused by Donald Trump they got to now translate all of the foreign language documents that should have been translated from the beginning. And they got to do a log under some other by serial number, by Bates number, that they have to do, that they have to do by date certain. And they don't get to use the 250th anniversary weekend to do their work.

Oh, no. The judge gave them until July 2nd. I think that was purposely chosen. July 2nd, they have two choices. They either produce the documents that he's now ordered. pursuant to Katie's injunction to be produced, or they have to show cause why they can't do it. So there's one more step, sort of an order to show cause step.

So they either have to answer it, order to show cause, meaning the burden is on them to show why this should still be redacted, untranslated, not provided at this very late date. Understanding the judge already made factual and legal findings against Todd Blanche. This now folds, right, Ben, right into all these things we're going to be talking about today, fold into the cross-examination of Todd Blanche on July 15th.

I think it's going to take more than one day, by the way, for his confirmation hearing. And one last thing on that. I just interviewed Judge Ludig, who's leading these 300 judges, state and federal, in making these fantastic filings that are having real results in the courtroom. And I said to him point blank. Let me just ask you something, Judge. Is Todd Blanche fit to be the Attorney General of the United States? And he just looked at me and said,

Michael, he's the most corrupt candidate we've ever had in 250 years. So the answer to that is no. He shouldn't be anywhere near the Attorney General's office. Let me just remind people, Judge Ludig, by all right, should be the Chief Justice of the United States right now instead of John. Roberts. It was that close. It was down to two people. He's a federalist. He's a constitutionalist. He was a Republican and a conservative one at that. But you see where you see where he stands now. He stands to protect the democracy and the rule of law. Everybody, make sure you subscribe to the

Legal AF YouTube channel, the Legal AF substack and the Legal AF podcast. Make sure you subscribe across all of those platforms. And please, if you can, subscribe. to our YouTube channel. Also, if you or somebody who knows been injured in an auto accident, trucking accident, any type of accident at all, reach out to the Popak firm, see if you have a case. You or somebody know,

877 Popak AF or visit the Popak firm.com. They do catastrophic injury types of cases. And so if you have a case, the consultation's free, reach out. Also, shout out to the Popak YouTube channel and the Popak substack. That Popak YouTube channel did

5.2 million views in 48 hours. a record for that channel up to 1.15 million subscribers. Keep it growing. Keep it growing. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show. Well, it's time for some life talk, life insurance talk, that is. You probably have it, but do you know how much you're paying for it? And for how much are you being covered? Odds are you pay too much for too little. And did you know if you receive life insurance through your job and you're unexpectedly laid off? You could suddenly be covered for nothing. scary to think about, but simple to get right thanks to select quote, where I'm headed to sort

out my life insurance policy today. Unlike other one-size-fits-all life insurance companies, select quotes, license agents work for you. In as little as 15 minutes, they'll compare policies from top-rated carriers to find you the best fit for your health and your budget, and they work for you for free. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at selectquote.com slash legal a.F. Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash legal a.f today to get started. That's selectquote.com slash legal a.F.

Our next sponsor had a story that really resonated with me, especially with everything around metabolism and trying to approach it the right way. This podcast is sponsored by Veracity. Ali Egan, Veracity's founder, CEO, and certified hormonal health coach experienced compromised metabolic health firsthand, including years of undiagnosed Hashimoto's, an autoimmune disease that impacts the thyroid. She found functional medicine, which focused on underlying root causes and helped her take

her health back into her own hands. Veracity was created to give people access to holistic solutions and support optimal health. with their most popular product, metabolism, ignite, you get an all-natural caffeine-free formula made with ingredients like lemon verbena, ibiscus extract, green coffee, bean extract, and magnesium. Clinical trials showed no negative side effects from the ingredients. I like that it's a simple doctor-formulated option to support your metabolism. So learn from Allie and make the switch to Veracity.

Head to Veracityhealth.co and use code legal AF for up to 65% off. your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y-Helf.C-O for up to 65% off and make sure you use my promo code, Legal A-F, so they know I sent you. Welcome back to Legal A-F and thank you to all of our sponsors. They help make this show possible. Support our sponsors. The discount codes for those sponsors are in the description below 10 billion dollar lawsuits, Popak. Have you ever heard of 10? I mean, I've heard of 10 billion dollars lawsuits where there may be 10 billion dollars in damages. It's like massive company versus massive company, but a 10 billion dollar lawsuit where a billionaire or like Donald Trump claims that his feelings are hurt and he repeatedly says,

I'm 10 billion dollars emotionally distressed. Could we all stipendable? that if someone claims that somebody doing a documentary about them causes them $10 billion in emotionally distress, that perhaps they don't have the emotional fortitude to be the leader of a country or the leader of anything. But Donald Trump files $10 billion lawsuits. You made me upset. You made me upset. Ten billion dollars. I don't care what political party you're from. It's the biggest abuse of our legal process. It's whiny. It's pathetic. There has a lot of have been multiple federal judges who have called Trump out for being a vexatious litigant in essence because he files all of these lawsuits for the headlines.

And then here's my thing too. You want to file your $10 billion lawsuit? You want a tough guy. Okay, file it, then litigate the case. You know, as I noted at the outset, I was a litigator. I dealt with cases where there were terabytes of documents and you'd have to go through all of the stuff with teams of lawyers and this Popak, I'm sure, will share with you when he was an associate. He may not have had a, not to date him or anything, but he may not have had all the electronic

discovery tools I had. And he was probably in rooms of people with millions of documents. That's what we, that's what lawyers do, man. That's what these are cases. You know, so Trump files a $10 billion case. He wants his headline, but then he doesn't want to do the case. And it's really pathetic and it's frivolous and it's dangerous. And it's actually symbolic of everything he does. You can make the exact same parallels. You know, he goes on this catastrophic war with Netanyahu, you know, I'm going to invade Iran. Epic Fury, Midnight Hammer, this and that. Okay, well, guess what? Iran's fighting back. Uh, can I do social media post? Can I just say we're winning in their navies on the bottom? No, no, you're in war now, buddy. You're in a war,

okay? You're in a freaking war right now. And those bombs, those explosions, those deaths are real. buddy, you're in a litigation right now. You got to do it. You know, litigation's tough. You're going to miss deadlines. You're going to attack the judge. You're going to not the turnover documents. Okay, you're doing a $10 billion case, treat it with the severity and serious.

This is what he does in all of his cases that he brings, especially in his individual capacity. And so we'll talk about two $10 billion cases. Think about that. We're talking about the president of the United States. States so emotionally out of touch with basic reality, apparently, that he needs to file a $10 billion lawsuit against the British broadcasting company for some documentary that, no offense to the BBC, that maybe a thousand people watched, you know, it was some obscure documentary on J6 that, you know, that the BBC, because, you know, documentaries aren't, you know, necessarily hundreds of hours long,

they didn't edit where they put the beginning of his speech with the end portion of the speech to make it seem like it was one sentence of him encouraging January 6th insurrectionist to attack the Capitol when it was divided by other words, basically. And Trump's like, we caught you. That was unfair. And it was like, well, didn't you still tell the January 6th insurrectionist to like, you know, go there? and wasn't the whole thing that you undermine the 2020 election, and aren't there lawsuits about this? You know, anyway, so you're saying you didn't do these things? And so anyway, Trump tried to also, like, get around the fact that a defamation case like this

would be hard to bring. So he files in federal court. This is like his trick because he thinks he's so tricky and smart. He, like, brings it under. And Popok will know more about this because he's a Florida lawyer. Like under, like, Florida consumer statutes about, like, you know. So this way. Right.

So this way. So this way, the BBC, unfair trade practices, this way, BBC couldn't immediately file what's called an anti-SLAP motion, which would then potentially bring sanctions and attorney's fees against Trump for filing the thing to begin with. In Florida, it's got pretty robust anti-SLAPP statutes, which prevent you from filing these, or bring you serious repercussions for filing like frivolous lawsuits that are meant to chill like public speech. And so anyway, Trump files this $10 billion lawsuit. BBC, we've been reporting about it a little bit, but now things are really heating up. BBC files a motion to dismiss. They also propound lots of discovery, meaning they send requests. You're claiming $10 billion.

Show us the money that you've lost. We want to know because it seems like you've made billions of dollars, you know, grifting in the White House. Where have you lost all of this money? Show us. And also, we want all of your communications regarding J6. You know, that was never turned over to the J6 committee or anybody else. So you sued us in your personal capacity.

We want your cell phone records. We want your text messages. We want your financial records. Those would be the three categories of documents that you need in a case like this. So Trump says, you know what, BBC? Here's what I'm going to do to you. We want your documents. Here's 450 discovery requests about BBC.

And what BBC says, okay, we expect that. That's litigation. Here you go. Here's 55,000 documents that are responsive. Here's our privilege log where we log everything that we don't turn over if we assert a privilege. You've got our records. This is what you do in litigation. Now can we see yours?

No, no. And then BBC files a motion to dismiss. You know what Trump does? Doesn't file an opposition. And so the judge is like, you're going to file an opposition there, buddy? You're in court. Should I just dismiss your case? Or should I sanction you?

Or are you going to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss? Then Trump's lawyers go, oh, sorry, he's just so busy being the president. He's got this war in Iran and things are so difficult. Can we just continue this while we've, fight over discovery and the judge is now like having to decide like, what do I do? They didn't even respond and file an opposition to like the motion to dismiss. And then the BBC's like, motion to compel, turn over your records and documents to which Trump's like, why would we do that?

It's overbroad. And then Trump does the ultimate Trump thing. And I'll throw it over to you, Popat. Because isn't this just every one of his damn cases attacks the judge and says, judge, you need to disqualify yourself. And we shouldn't be able to even deal with any. of these issues until you disqualify yourself because you're unfair to me and the judge is like denied okay now what are we going to do with all of this stuff don't popaq let me bring in it and

again this is not this is where i go ain't a democrat thing ain't a republican thing this is a grown-up thing okay and and i shouldn't even say that because kids behave better than this they do their homework on time or else they get an f you do your thing or you don't bring the thing no one forced him to file all this lawsuit. And it's stuff like this that just makes me so damn embarrassed right now that the country's being led by someone who's such an idiot and is so incompetent and can't make basic deadlines and just behaves this way. Sorry, Poppac, all you. Oh, no, don't. Don't be sorry. I said in my, I did my reporting on this on the legal F YouTube channel. I said, you can pick your courthouse, and you can try to pick your judge. You can pick your lawsuit that you're going to file

and the amount that you're going to demand, you can pick your defendant, but you can't pick your defendant's defenses. And you can't tell them what they can and cannot litigate over in a case for defamation. See, Donald Trump's lawyers want to make the case a very narrow one about a little two-minute clip or a 10-minute clip where the BBC edited the ellipse speech.

In a lip speech that was live-streamed, in its entirety by dozens and dozens of channels, not ours, but you know, C-SPAN to Fox showed the ellipse speech. BBC was doing a documentary and in the documentary about a relatively infamous speech did some editing of it and Donald Trump didn't like the impression it left it led people, put him in a false light. It was defamatory trying to make money by making it look like I led an insurrection. And when I didn't, well, there's a couple of ways to defend yourself if you're a bit accused of defamation. One of them is to show that it's not defamatory because the gist, the thrust of what you've said, which here is not even what they've said.

It's about what Donald Trump said, and it's about their editing about it. The gist and the thrust is still truthful and accurate. And the other way to defend it is just directly right between. the eyes, truth. And they're going that route as well. And they've told Donald Trump in discovery and the court that we, our defense in part, is going to be the Donald Trump's an insurrectionist and that he led the instruction. And that is a, because he wants me to only focus on the clip, doesn't mean I get to abandon my defenses or he gets to dictate my defenses. And we need to prove the Gen 6 case, literally in a court.

courtroom. Donald Trump, I like it because he opened up Pandora's box and the toothpaste is all out of the tube and the train has left the station and all the milk is spilled. And now he doesn't know what to do because their lawyers are not that bright because they that's easy. Any monkey in a keyboard, okay, can type up a lawsuit and file it and put a giant number all caps and bolded, you know, to get the to get the shiny object for the mainstream media. 10 billion, 50 billion, 40 billion. Let me just a teachable moment. You don't have to put any dollar amount, and 99% of the time you don't put any dollar amount in your pleading. You only do it for the sensationalism of the press.

You just have to put the jurisdictional amount in controversy, which in a federal court is 75,000. They put the big numbers so that the press will run with it and distract from the lack of merit of the case, okay? So they now we're in that period that I think people around the country and around the world enjoy from our politics, which is discovery. It's unlike a lot of different states, a lot of different countries, civil code countries in particular. The judge does a lot of investigating. The judge does a lot of prosecuting, but we don't do that here.

The judge is a neutral who allows the parties through the adversary process of being at each other's throats. and in the document and informational exchange to have the judge or if there's a jury involved, the jury as a fact finder, find out what happened in the case and make a ruling and apply the law to those facts. That's different than in other countries. And here, the BBC is saying, all right, we tried the apology route and that didn't work. We apologized for the clip. He didn't like the clip. We apologize. No, you want to sue us for $50 billion? Okay, here we go. Now, in there, Here's the complaining. This is Donald Trump.

He's whining like a stuck president. Here's what he says about the 126 requests for production, 126 categories of documents that the BBC is seeking, along, in addition to the 47 subpoenas to third parties, including trying to get the Jan 6th's committees documents and Jack Smith's documents and financial documents from banks and from Donald Trump's organizations. And then a little something that doesn't get enough coverage,

and I used it successfully in my career, 152 requests for admission, which are not technically discovery, but they also flip attorney's fees on their head if you deny a request for admission that you should have admitted, the other side gets attorney's fees for having to prove that you lied

and you didn't tell the truth in your request for admission. And here's how Donald Trump describes the document request and the attack that he's under of his own making. Page three, plaintiff states that defendants are attempting to distort the allegations in the complaint in order to unnecessarily expand the scope of discovery into a sweeping inquiry into Jan 6th. Yeah. Post-election, challenges, government investigations, congressional productions, call logs, calendars, and unrelated litigation, thereby needlessly increasing the cost of the litigation.

No, this is their defense. Then they go through the categories to try to prove to the court and us that they're being harassed. Listen to these documents, Ben. All documents and communications about your claim that you did not call for violent action on Jan 6th. All documents and communication you provided to the House of Jan 6 committee. All documents you provided to Homeland Security about Jan 6th, to special counsel Jack Smith about Jack Smith. to any federal state or local agency about Jan 6th. While you're at it, why don't you give us your call logs

for the President of the United States from November 3rd to January 20th, 20th, 2021, along with your calendar schedules and daily diaries? And then as to the speech, give us everything you got about the speech, including drafts and your communications with any of the following people. Here we go. We could all do this together. Steve Bannon, Christina Bob, a lawyer. Jeffrey Clark used to be a lawyer.

John Eastman used to be a lawyer. Boris Epstein, a lawyer. Michael Flynn, pardoned. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer, was a lawyer. Other Stephen Miller, Kelly Ward, Roger Stone. And they don't like that. And the other 47 subpoenas. And they don't like their objection to interrogatories.

You got requests to produce, which is documents and information, digital or otherwise. Interrogatories are questions and answers under oath. It's a question I get to, you can do it in deposition, but you often take advantage of being able to ask questions under oath in interrogatories to get the answers. And here's the two they don't like from the Trump side. Identify all persons with whom you've communicated regarding any aspect of your Jan 6th Stop the Steel rally, including planning the event and discussions about the event after the fact. Identify all persons with whom you've communicated regarding your efforts to challenge or your disagreements with or the validity of the 2020 presidential election, including the certification on Jan 6th. They don't like all this stuff besides missing deadlines and asking for extensions because, Judge, we're just a little shop in Coral Gables,

Florida, and we've got a trial up in Palm Beach County unrelated. We need more time. What do they think when they filed the lawsuit. They're just going to dust off one of their templates. Donald Trump called up the lawyer in Florida and said, hey, dust off another $50, 10 billion. Use the Michael Cohen model. No, use the Washington Post model. No, use the, they're all losing. They're all losers.

You know, and he thought he was going to file in the Southern District of Florida. He'd get a judge that was on his side. But Judge Altman has already chastised that those lawyers a number of times from missing deadlines and failing to respond to things like motions to dismiss. And so, you know, this is the law of unattended consequences or just stupidity. I mean, you every time, if you want people go back six years to when you and I started this, we would often say that Donald Trump, by filing as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, is entered a world of hurt.

May not be at the moment he files it, but at some point, because he's going to have to sit for a deposition. If you're going to be a plaintiff, you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. You can't turn down a demand for a deposition under oath. In fact, you and I have often said, let's do those first. I'm not even sure I need documents. I mean, they don't need documents either, by the way.

I would just be like, let's have a deposition of Donald Trump right now. There's enough in the public domain between the Jan 6th's in Jack Smith's report. I'm not sure, other than they want to drive him crazy, I'm not sure they need it other than about his finances. Sit down, Mr. Trump. Swear yourself in with the court reporter. What's your address?

Where do you live? What's your title? What do you do? Let's turn to Jan 6th. Let's play the ellipse speech in its entirety. Who'd you talk? Every question they asked an interrogatory, you do it in depot.

Boom, boom, boom, right? You do it. And he can't go anywhere. And that is what we've said will be his undoing because we've seen him in depositions. They're terrible for him. This shambolic, dissembling, mumbling, attacking the lawyer. If it's a woman, it becomes a misogynist attack on the woman. Hell, he used the C word against Robbie Kaplan in a deposition about E. Jean Carroll,

sex abuse case where he literally spelled out C-U-N-D on the way out of a deposition to her. Okay, so he does not do well in his own depositions or in his own defense, right? E. Jean Carroll case for sex abuse, case one, he doesn't testify, 5.5 million. Case two, he testifies $183 million. I mean, 83 million dollars. So, so that is the secret, a secret strategy that that that defendant should use more against him, get him in the chair fast. And you don't have to wait to the end of the case. You know, and the broader point to make when we cover something like this is this is how he runs everything into the ground.

It's not just his litigation. It's his businesses. It's why so many of them went bankrupt. And it's what he's doing with the United States. The parallels here are so on point with. rushing into a war, no plan, getting the headline, not actually following through, and getting this, attacking this, attacking that, you know, without any plan or objective. And when someone fights back, he then backs down.

Inevitably, I can easily predict what happens in this lawsuit next. What happens in this lawsuit next is a judge will make an order. You've got to produce the records. then BBC will do a deposition notice and notice his deposition as well. He won't produce the documents. He'll ask for extensions. He won't show up to the deposition. Eventually, the judge will do in order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

He'll ask for an extension. He'll ask for an extension. He'll try to drag this into what, by the way, parallel to this, we'll be going through 60-day periods of time in the memorandum of understanding. where, you know, he'll violate the MOU, he'll violate the MOU. You know, these all take the same types of paths. It's his psychotic nature. They all go in this path.

It's just obvious. And then eventually, finally, the judge will say, all right, man, that's it. What are you going to do? Because I'm going to dismiss it on such and such a date. Trump and his lawyers will dismiss the case without prejudice. So they'll go, oh, it wasn't really dismissed. Then they'll attack the judge and say it was. was unfair. And then maybe they try to bring the case again in a different court or a different,

you know, or we reserve the right to bring it again somewhere else. And it was very unfair. And this was a Democratic judge who hates it. It is very obvious where these things go. And, you know, as I've said before, I mean, you know, if you have a vexatious litigant, horrible person, they need to be dealt with by the legal system. The big problem here is that this is this guy, is running the country and we have to be and I know you are for watching and listening to this we have to we have to respect ourselves and our families and our future generations and our time and meaning and existence and that of others as well we have to appreciate that more by not having actual and I'm not being hyperbolic actual psychopathic losers running the country and J.D. Vance would

be significant. Don't get me wrong. I despise JD. He would be better than this guy. You know, anybody would be better. I mean, George W. Bush looks like a godsend compared to this guy. And I despise George W. Bush. I mean, I'm talking about threshold doing things. And Trump is the worst person in the worst moment because exactly how he behaves in this case is how he behaves in everything in life and it is a path towards bankruptcy and losing. And I don't want to be a loser. I know you don't want to be a loser. You know, and I'm sick and tired of people out there who have such hate in their heart that they're willing to be such a loser because the guy goes up there and says the most racist and vile thing. Just shut up, man. Care about yourself. Care about your family.

Care about future generations. And this lawsuit to me is so emblematic of not a Democrat Republican of a loser thing of loser behavior of psychopathic behavior of a vexatious behavior of bad faith behavior and we'll take our last quick break of the show a reminder make sure you subscribe to Popox YouTube channel Legal A.F just search Legal AF on YouTube the channel just hit 5.2 million views every 48 hours a big milestone there 1.15 million subscribers it's critical that we we get that legal a.F. YouTube channel to 2 million subscribers heading into 2027. So please make sure you subscribe to the substack as well. Make sure you subscribe to legal AF on the substack. And

if you or somebody knows been injured in an auto accident and trucking accident, if you've been the victim, sadly, of a catastrophic incident or somebody else was catastrophically injured, that's the type of case that Popak handles wrongful death, sexual assault, injuries that result in kind of long-term permanent injuries. You know, we've had a lot of legal a. FERS who have trusted Popak with their case. So call 877 Popak AF or visit thepopokfirm.com. They're available 24-7 to take your call.

877 Popak AF or visit the Popak firm.com. We come back. We're going to talk about some of these Supreme Court rulings and we'll talk about the other $10 billion, the other $10 billion case that's backfiring in Donald Trump's face, the petulant baby. in the Oval Office or whatever you even want to call that grotesque structure right now that he's destroyed in D.C. It's horrible. We'll be right back after our last quick break.

We have an important message to share from our friends that Americans United for separation of church and state. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A.U. is highlighting a case involving federal workers caught in the crossfire. A multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution. Americans United received emails from multiple USDA employees saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation

of church and state promised in the First Amendment. They are absolutely right. Government employees signed up to work for the USDA, not attend Brooke Rollins's Sunday service. The Constitution draws a bright line between personal faith and government power, and this lawsuit says she trampled right over it. Well, the hits keep on coming. from this administration. And Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. If you want to help, head to A.U.org slash legal AF to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. Americans United supporting everyone's right to live as they choose, so long as they don't harm others. That's AU.org slash legal AF. Sure, you've got weight loss goals,

but hitting them isn't easy. That's where weight loss by his, Hymns comes in, offering access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP-1 medications, including the Wagovi pill at its lowest price ever and the Wagovi pen. With Wagovi at Hymns, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps regulate your appetite so you eat less, and it's the first and only GLP 1 available in a pill, so no needles needed. Everything happens online.

you'll connect with a licensed provider to see if treatment is right for you. And if prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door. No insurance necessary. Plus, HIMS supports you beyond medication with 24-7 care team messaging and personalized plans, including lifestyle tools like meal plans, recipes, and fitness content to help you stay on track. Ready to reach your goals? Visit Hymns.com slash legal AF to get a personalized affordable plan that gets you. That's HIMS.com slash legal AF.

HIMS.com slash legal AF. Based on advertised cash price for 30-day supply of medication only, membership required, fee not included, and billed separately. Weight loss by HEMS is not available in all 50 states. Wagovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS to get started and learn more, including important safety information. Wagovi clinical study information and restrictions, visit HIMS.com. Welcome back to LORDICS to.

Legal AF, thank you to all of our sponsors for making this show possible. Support our sponsors, discount codes are in the description below, Popok and Jordi. Spend a lot of time with those sponsors working on those discount codes. And so we appreciate their support. Again, check them out. It's great stuff and helps the show. Let's get into it, Popak. Why don't you jump in and talk about Judge Brinkama, the proceedings taking place in Virginia

regarding this slush fund, $1.8 billion for the J.C. insurrectionist, but also let's not fall for the distraction aspect that's important and disgusting, but also it's the super pardon of Donald Trump having his own DOJ and Treasury Department and IRS give him full immunity from any audits or investigations into criminal tax evasion or whatever that dates back from the signing of the agreement basically forever back in time, which could not just be hundreds of millions, but potentially billions of dollars, based on all the quid pro quos he's entered into, you know, with all of these foreign countries and crypto and all the stuff he's done since he's been in office, which has just been absolutely

violent, disgusting. And then you have on a kind of parallel track, if you will, proceedings in Florida, which is where Trump originally filed the collusive lawsuit against his own government to try to get $10 billion of our taxpayer money and then dismiss the case, lied to judge, who's the federal judge in that case, and didn't disclose that there was a settlement, but then used the case and the judge's initials in the settlement agreement that was actually just a declaration of settlement that was signed only by Todd Blanche,

with a day later the addendum, which was the super pardon, waiving all of Donald Trump's tax liability and tax immunity and giving him essentially tax immunity. And now the proceedings there, despite Trump dismissing it, are reinstituted after, You mentioned some of those federal judges filed a brief to the federal judge here, retired federal judges to the current federal judge informing her of the fraud on the court taking place, to which, surprise, surprise, Donald Trump's lawyer's response has been to attack the judge,

citing separation of powers. Judge, you can't question us. How dare you even think about asking if we entered into a collusive settlement? Stay in your lane, federal judge. Great work, United States. Supreme Court right-wing fascists for totally undermining our rule of law. And it pains me as a law professor who teaches this to see how these rulings by the Supreme Court, which we'll talk about in a little bit, their most recent ones, they trickle down,

obviously, and they create a situation that, you know, the rules are for thee. There are other litigants, but not for me when it comes to Donald Trump, who goes in there with his absolute immunity. And it reminds me when I was a kid and you had game genie. that's an old school reference, the people who have the Nintendo, and you have invincibility cloak, and you just go around the boards like you don't even have to follow any of the rules. But in this case, you're not winning Super Mario. You're destroying the United States of America on it.

It's 250. Popak. Let's get into it, ma'am. Many of the cases that you and I talked about today also have another context. They're going to be used against Todd Blanche because they indicate the corruption of the Department of Justice and the corruption of the nominee, not just being the private former, I could think of many former private lawyers who then become honest civil and public servants, especially when they move into the Department of Justice.

We've never had a case where the president has not only brought along his entire criminal defense team and given them all cushy top jobs in his administration and particularly the Department of Justice, and if not there in the judiciary, because he's been placing all of his criminal defense lawyers in these lifetime appointed federal judge positions. You know, one law firm alone in New York, Sullivan and Cromwell, which is where a number of these U.S. attorneys and the future director of national intelligence all come from. It's like three or four lawyers that work. It's like the only, it's the only big law firm in New York that was willing to take on Donald Trump's matters

and look how they're reaping the benefits of it now. But Tom Blanche is going to have to answer for many of these cases that you and I have talked about today and the position taking. When Emmett Sullivan says, Judge Emmett Sullivan says in Katie Fang's case, that the Department of Justice's Attorney General has conceded violations of the Epstein Act in this case and enters a preliminary injunction. when Judge Williams in Miami, another judge in Miami, who is seriously considering opening an evidentiary hearing, a trial, if you will, about whether Donald Trump and his lawyers, and Todd Blanche and others in the cabinet conspired to commit a fraud on the court about this IRS Jan Six Fund. That's in Miami.

And, you know, she just, just to touch on that for a minute, And I know that judge really well. She just told 23 Democratic attorneys general who wanted to also file an Amici brief, a friend of the court brief, about how unlawful what they observed was happening in that case is. The judge said, greatly appreciate the filing. I've got what I need. And when she says, I can translate that for you. I got what I need in terms of legal briefing from the 35 former federal judges.

is I've got the briefing. What I need is the facts, and I haven't gotten them from the Blanche side, about whether a conspiracy to defraud my court occurred. The only way a judge can do fact finding is to hold an evidentiary hearing or trial and get Tom Blanche to testify. And if he doesn't do it, which is unlikely that he will, he'd rather lose than testify. We've seen that time and time Again, that'll be fair game for the Sheldon White House and the Corey Bookers and the Senator Blumenthal's and the others on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have to cross-examine Todd Blanche. Case in point, Judge Brinkama, because the Jan Six Fund and Donald Trump and Blanche have been whipsawed between two federal judges.

And when they say one thing in one court, it gets used against them in the other, usually because they're inconsistent in their position taking. But Judge Brinkama, who is at the Eastern District of Virginia judge, senior status judge, she made it quite simple. She said, all right, you want to get rid of the Jan 6 fund. You want to say that the settlement agreement that created it is over basic contract principles. See, a settlement agreement is a contract. It's analyzed under basic contract principles that Ben and I learned,

even with the lack of technology apparently that I had. apparently I learned it according to Ben by candlelight but in any event but in any event I did have a computer then in law school but the contract principles say all right if parties do a contract want to amend rescind do what's called a novation of a contract all the parties have to sign instead we had Todd Blanche not only not put it in writing in the courtroom under oath but not put it in writing anywhere they just want the judge because one party to the to the agreement he wasn't even really a party to the agreement declared the agreement over the settlement agreement and the fund is is dead on arrival that doesn't do it in a court of law as judge brinkham has reminded them you want to

prove it to me we're in a courtroom look around see the wood paneling in the leather chairs see my robe we're in a courtroom don't point to me to social media posts or video clips or even congressional testimony, put your money where your mouth is. And I want all the contracting parties, not just one that says unilaterally. I'm walking away from the contract. I want them all. If you want to do that, you'll never see me again. You'll never see me again in this case.

I'll relinquish jurisdiction. I won't provide oversight. I won't continue to block the formation of the fund. Just give me an affidavit. That's all she said. Give it to me by this date certain. You'll never see me again. So or if you're not going to do that, that's okay to file your response in writing, in this courtroom, in July, and we'll put this case in a trial docket.

And the injunction stays in place in the meantime. In fact, Sky Perryman for Democracy Forward, it's her group that brought the Brink of a case. And I got Sky for an interview on Monday of Ron LegalAF YouTube channel to update our audience about this. So instead of doing one or the other, leave it to the Trump administration. to come up with their own way that's infinitely worse than if they just shut the F up, to paraphrase Robert De Niro, and didn't say anything. So I said they created a third way, a third piece of paper.

A notice, okay? Let's read it. Judge, you can't tell us what to do. Separation of powers. It was all word salad, you know, without any citations. You can't command can't command and compel three cabinet-level people to give testimony in a courtroom. No, you just need to trust us and the statement that was made by Todd Blanche and officers of the court. Reality is federal judges don't trust the Department of Justice, if not, no longer give them

the benefit of the doubt or the benefit of the presumption of regularity and believe that, that, you know, it's the old joke. How do you know when the Department of Justice is not telling the truth when they're in court, their lips move when they speak. That's how you know. And so judges are not trusting them. So every judge you and I have reported on that is trying to fact find about the Trump administration requires filings and testimony, but they don't want to. So they usually blink and flinch and dismiss, but they don't have a choice here. So the judge said, all right, I see what you filed. I didn't tell you to file that, but you've chosen to. So let me hear, so here's my response.

And she issued her order. In her order, she said, the more you tell me that you do not want to put this in writing under oath in my courtroom, the more I believe that you are reluctant, and therefore you're just trying to get away from my jurisdiction by saying that you are reluctantly dismissing the Jan 6th Fund or not going forward with it. And there's a doctrine in the law, the reluctant party doctrine or the voluntary cessation doctrine, which is sort of what it sounds like. You get caught doing something bad. You're in a lawsuit now, right?

Bright lights are on you. Can't go anywhere. And you go, oh, I'll stop doing it. I'll stop doing that thing. But you're not really interested in stop doing it. You just want to get the judge to dismiss your case. And so even if you voluntarily stop the bad thing, doesn't mean the lawsuit is over. And that is that voluntary cessation doctrine or the reluctant party.

And she points to clips of, to turn it back on him, Todd Blanche and clips of Donald Trump, where Todd Blanche in his other testimony said, I think it's a great fund and it serves a good purpose, but we're not going forward with it. And Donald Trump's saying out loud, I think it's a beautiful, everything's beautiful about an insurrection. I think it's a beautiful fund. I think we should go forward with it. just says right you're only stopping the bad thing to get out from my jurisdiction which only reinforces my decision that i'm retaining jurisdiction see you next month gentlemen with your filing i'm not sure

there's much they can do about it on appeal at the moment you know all these ventual these roads lead to the united states supreme court but what i love about the brinkama williams sort of call in response between the two federal judges is it putting so much pressure And when you pressurize Trump and his beleaguered, gassed Department of Justice, they say and do crazy shit that gets used against them. It's just so the more you, and that's what I love about our platform and our network and our channels is that we channeling the millions, you know, approaching 10 million if it combined the two channels of our audience. and we train it with a heavy artillery, pressure, pressurizing the Trump administration, who knows full well who Midas is, who knows full well who legal AF is. It's not just judges that are watching us and concern patriots.

It's the administration. And we are pressurizing them, and they are making mistakes under pressure. You know, also, what legal AF, I mean, I've talked about the growth, and everybody, make sure you subscribe to the LegalAF YouTube channel and Substact, but also, I mean, being the kind of voice and the main network now for the Judge Ludigs, promoting Katie Fang and the work that she's doing, the ACLU, all of these groups, Popeye, why don't you give a shout out just so people know what we'll talk about to all these groups that are actually the ones litigating in court, their main place of getting out information is legal AF. I mean, talk to us about

to some of the other people who constantly, That's the real fun part of the job that you and I do in the build of legal AF. I mean, we could have just made it. Well, Poppac will do commentary all day long. But that was not our vision. Our vision was to be a trusted brand for the. And so here are the groups that are regularly with us and even official collaborators with us. The 24 Democratic attorneys general regularly appear with us.

Rob Banta's interview is up right now with me from California. It's up on legal AF YouTube channel today. And I often go to. their conferences and whole panel discussions with them. Democracy Forward and Sky Perryman, who has over a hundred cases against the Trump administration and is regularly winning. They're at almost a 90% winning percentage. Sky comes on and do exclusive briefing about cases like the Brinkham case that we just discussed. The American Civil Liberties Union is a branded collaborator with us with their own playlist. And if it's not me or one of our others on the channel like

Adam Kassfeld of All Rise News, it's them doing their own reporting about their cases that are so, so important. So we have the American Civil Liberties Union. I regularly interview people and lawyers for the NAACP, and we're working, sort of working with them as well. We've got court accountability action, along with True North, which is about rooting out corruption in the federal courts up to the United States Supreme Court. That's all they focus on.

Civil, we got Court of History, our resident historians, Sidney Blumenthal, who was in the Clinton White House, and Sean Walentz of Princeton University, who, I mean, their guest list alone of journalists and politicians is unmatched on YouTube right now. Seriously, just their playlist is so enjoyable. I joke with them that they're like murders in the building, but history, politics, and law.

And so you have that. You got Dean Dahl is with me doing shows. You've got Adam Kassfeld of all rise news. I mean, that is our regular contributor list. That's every day. That's how we can crank out 12 fresh videos every day. Because this is a generational project, right? This is, we're talking about what's happening on a day-to-day,

but really what we have to look and do is what pro-democracy, law and order people were outflanked by this kind of right-wing fascist movement. that then found its final, you know, dagger in the heart of democracy in Project 2025, but it was a decades-long generational project. We have to do that. We have to address short-term. But then long-term, because let's face it, we still have a right-wing fascist Supreme Court right now that hates America, that hates this country, and watches the handmaid's tale and says,

not extreme enough, we got to go push further. How could we harm people even more than what we see? Oh, let's give immunity to glyphosate. Let's, I mean, you take a look. I'll play us out with just these rulings that were just made this past week by the United States Supreme Court with mostly six to three or seven to two, but all right wing, you know, pretty much right wing Supreme Court rulings. So you've got, you know, the Monsanto versus Dernel case, the court ruled that Monsanto, that's Ramp. Roundup bear is shielded from cancer victims suing over Roundup. Federal pesticide law blocks states from requiring cancer warnings on labels.

You know, RFK kind of made his whole career over working with plaintiff's lawyers in states to sue Monsanto and Roundup. That's how RFK, you know, one made a lot of money. But two, his whole Maha thing was going after Monsanto. Well, the Trump regime, RFK, they did the amicus brief on the side of Monsanto, on the side of the corporations to allow for there to be immunity of glyphosate. And so now you can't sue them for causing cancer and from causing all of these things. And so federal law preempts state law right there. Wolford versus Lopez, six to three decision.

The court struck down Hawaii's law requiring permission to bring guns into private property that is open to the public like stores, restaurants, and hotels. Hawaii said, you know what, we have an issue with, you know, guns and gun violence. You know, we're for Second Amendment, but can we kind of keep it away or have a permission structure for bringing these on to stores, restaurants, hotels? Can we do that? the Supreme Court. So no, people need to have their war weapons, not just, you know, concealed carry. I mean, they're allowed to bring it into your rescue. You can't say they can't bring it into restaurant stores and hotels. Well, that's kind of a problem for our tourism in Hawaii. You know, we're trying to, you know, pass laws before. We don't care. Have you read the Second

Amendment? Yeah, I did. I mean, it says a well-regulated militia. Stop saying it says regulated. Yeah, it says regulated in it. We, there's commas. The, there's commas. The commas mean it doesn't apply. What commas mean the words well-regulated militia don't mean things. And yes, trust us. Why? Because these right-wing Supreme Court justices are sociopaths. And they come up and make framework like, we're strict textualists, except when the text

contradicts them. Where states' rights until they want a fascist authoritarian? We're originalists until the original interpretations. They make up their framework to come up with these fascist rulings. Mullen v. Al-Otrolado. Asylum seekers stopped at the border or turned back in Mexico. The court says you haven't arrived in America yet when you arrive in America. So there's no right to apply for asylum.

You turn around. And even if you're about to be politically persecuted and killed, let it happen, folks, because you're not really in America and you can seek asylum. And then Mullen versus Doe, another right-wing Supreme Court six to three decision. The right-wing Supreme Court rules that the Trump administration can end temporary protected status for migrants fleeing violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria, and that courts cannot review the federal government's decisions regarding TPS. And then I've heard some people say, well,

what if there's a Democratic administration who wants to install TPS? Well, then won't this right-wing Supreme Court? Didn't they just screw themselves by saying that they can't even review what the administration does regarding TPS? And my answer to you is, no, this is a right-wing super. They'll find their sociopaths. They're crazy people. They come up with a framework that will contradict the framework.

So trust me, if there's a Democratic president who then tries to say, okay, well, we're going to be compassionate. Use your precedent in order to now assert these rules. Then all of a sudden, all of these cases that the Supreme Court is now like, you know, saying, well, we'll agree to Donald Trump. interpretation of irreparable harm and we'll let the Trump policy stay in place. The Supreme Court will then accept those cases. Here's my prediction. It's a grim one, but it's the reality on a fast track if you have a Democratic president. And then the Supreme Court will be like,

okay, okay, we've seen what's taken place now and now there's too much executive power. So now we're going to place limitations on the executive when a Democratic president's doing it. The same way, as I've said before in videos, isn't it interesting? that right now, I'm, I guess, happy, although we shouldn't have been in this catastrophic war in the first place, that the price of Brent Crude is like 72 bucks, despite the fact that for all purposes, you know, the ceasefires BS, the MOUs BS, there's more, you know, military actions taking place. I looked under the Biden administration, you know, like a random date in 2023 when Brent Crude was at like $92. And I'm like, that's fascinating to me

that the so-called markets found there to be far much. more uncertainty in 2023, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine in like mid to late 20, then right now when the literal Strait of Hormuzes basically has been shut down for months and months and months and we hit tank bottom. That's a fascinating thing right there because the markets think that it's going to, that, that this will, that the Strait of Hormuz situation is going to be perfectly fine. And I go, look, all I know is things have escalated in the war between Ukraine, between a Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what's going on there.

I see more oil depots being blown up there every day. The Strait of Hormuz is clothed. The Bob El-Mondib Strait may soon be shut down if things escalate as well. I mean, that's been threatened. But yet, you know, it just seems to me obvious that to the extent, and I'll end it on this Popak. And if you, you know, I think it's a natural point to end this episode on in general, though, is that to the extent there's been any positive things coming out of this Trump

regime. It's that Trump is so blatantly corrupt that I think it's allowed us to kind of see the playbook and the roadmap. It's like if the football coach for the opposing team showed you their play, their play cards or whatever it is, here are the plays. I get to see them in a clearer way. And I think that a lot of us go, oh, that's how you were doing it. That's how you were doing it. That's how you were doing it. That's how you were doing it. And how do we not see that? before. We knew it was going on, but it is fascinating to me that the guy who said, you know, we're going to be the ones to stop the cabal and the deep state and all of this. As always, it's always projection and they've revealed themselves. This is what's going on. This is what

the Epstein class has done to us behind the scenes. And to me, you know, that's not even conspiratorial saying that. I think that's where we're at. Popok, any final words before we go other than to say, great work with legal AF YouTube channel, substack. Everybody subscribe there. Let's keep on fighting man what else you want to say popaq obviously subscribe to his youtube channels subscribe to the legal aft substack if you or someone who has been injured in a car accident trucking accident catastrophic injury reach out to the popock firm 877 popok a fopc consultations free the popock firm dot com go there as well if you prefer to send an email popock where you want to go before we end this show yeah i'm going to do it consistent with what you just said two things

that i want people to take away from this episode one is and to manage some expectations We're going to get some rulings probably this week. Could be into the 4th of July weekend, but I think it'll be this week from the United States Supreme Court. We're waiting on 14 more decisions, but particularly we're waiting on birthright citizenship. I believe that's going to be something that's going to be favorable. In other words, they're not going to allow Donald Trump to take away

the right for somebody born in the United States to be an American citizen. Mail-in ballots, though, we're waiting on about what they're going to do there. We're waiting on Donald Trump's ability to fire at will. agency heads within the executive branch and undermine the integrity or the independence, the Federal Reserve, all left for the last week before the six MAGA cowards leave for their summer vacation. But I want people to think and use this next week in particular, because we'll be doing a show right in that next weekend. But plan now to do some sort of personal counter-programming during, to celebrate America, to celebrate

the America that you love and the values and the patriotic values that you admire that are missing from this current government, there's going to be plenty of ways to do appropriate counter-programming to all of the propaganda that Donald Trump has spewing out as he's captured America and it's for birthday celebration for its Declaration of Independence. Midas will be doing counter-programming. Legal A-F will be doing counter-programming. And now is a good time as we gather ourselves in July, I'm starting to believe we're here in July, ready, July 4th weekend, as we get ready for the November elections.

It used to be back in the day before you and I started doing what we're doing, Ben, that people would say, nobody pays attention to politics during the summer. It's after Labor Day. Those days are over. Now we have to use this time to renew our faith in our democracy and our rule of law stay together as a community and a fellowship and use next

weekend as a as a personal protest and counter programming not to america but to the trump regime and its attempt to hijack our values while they're in office thanks everybody for watching this week's episode of legal a f thank you again subscribe to the youtube channel subscribe to our youtube channel subscribe to legal a f youtube channel subscribe to legal a f substack and the pop hoc firm uh check out as well. The links and stuff are in the description. So check that out. Don't be shy. For real. If you or somebody know has a case, reach out. Don't be shy. He's representing a lot of, a lot of legal a app listeners and watchers. All right. Have a great weekend, everybody. Let's keep on fighting. Stay strong. Stay positive. I know it's hard, but we're in this together.

We're fighting back. We have not given up. We have only gone stronger as a community. And we'll keep on getting stronger as a community. Shout out Midas Mighty. Shout out LegalA aft.