Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Russian Illegal Donations, Trump Twitter Tantrum, Mary Trump makes Donald say “Uncle", and much more.

Episode Date: September 26, 2021

The top-rated weekly US law and politics podcast -- LegalAF -- produced by Meidas Touch and anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, is back for another hard-hitting, thought-provoking look in “real time” at this week’s most compelling developments. On this episode, Ben and Popok focus on the following new developments: 1. Russian illegal cash funneled to the Trump re-election campaign through newly-indicted former Mitch McConnell & Rand Paul aide. 2. Trump opposing Twitter’s efforts to transfer his Florida federal lawsuit to San Francisco by arguing in part that Twitter is so addicting that he can’t be bound to its Terms of Service and venue clause. 3. Updates on the Fraud-It/CyberNinjas Arizona audit that led to Trump being declared the loser of Arizona for the 3rd time. 4. The first test suits filed (by two disbarred lawyers) against a Texas doctor providing abortion services to Texas women seeking the $10,000 bounty, and to challenge the constitutionality of SB8. 5. Trump’s “SLAPP” suit filed this week against Mary Trump and The New York Times because she provided the newspaper with Trump’s tax returns and the Times won a Pulitzer Prize for the reporting. Support the show! Go to https://BetterHelp.com/legalaf and try BetterHelp today with a 10% off discount your first month! Affordable, private online therapy with BetterHelp. Anytime, anywhere. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Midas Touch Legal AF podcast. If it's Saturday, it is Legal AF Live. And if it's Sunday, it is Legal AF. Ben Myceles here with none other than Michael Popeye Popokian. The like in the new Popepy nickname or no, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, not watching rocking that blue, Duke law sweater, um, as it gets the weather gets crisper in New York, the Pope is adapting to his climate and Pope, is drinking out of a legal AF mug.

The legal AF merch is crushing it. Thanks for everyone who's purchased legal AF merch, Pope, I love that legal AF merch is crushing it. Thanks for everyone who's purchased legal AF merch. Popok. I love that legal AF merch. And if you're wondering, then where is your legal AF merch? Where is your legal AF mug? I have it all in my legal AF showroom, which I will show one day. You know, I have a showroom, Pope, do you have a showroom that's dedicated, like a shrine to legal AF? I don't, Pope, everyone knows that Pope, come's prepared and we come prepared on legal AF with all the law of the week of the month of the year of the universe. We try to break it down for you in ways that are clear, easy for you to understand. And so that you know the stakes about our democracy and how we collectively can become better informed

about the law, about our Constitution, about our democracy to fight back against the fascist threat that we are all confronting right now. And speaking about that fascist threat, Pope, coming our way from the GQP, it was reported that a former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul was indicted for allegedly funneling $25,000 from a wealthy, unnamed Russian to the former President Trump's reelection efforts. The indictment was recently unsealed. It wasn't just reported. It actually happened, but recently what happened was it was the unsealing of an indictment.

Opoch, maybe just walk our listeners to, what does it mean that the indictment was unsealed? What does it mean that it is sealed? We're gonna talk later in the podcast about the ceiling in connection with a state resolution relating to the Trump estate in 2001, in a state not criminal, but in a civil estate proceeding there, which is a different type of ceiling.

But Popeyes first maybe talk our listeners through what it means that the indictment was sealed and unsealed and tell us a little bit about what this criminal case is alleging. Yeah. Thanks, Ben. And I just a note for those that are watching with us, Ben has a very nice October decoration on his mantle behind him. I assume every holiday that will change into some other doll.

People should be ready for the decoration in Ben's studio. And Popock, just one legal story, a war story, if you will, about that doll. And why I got this doll. Back in the days where you would be in court every single day pre-COVID before so many people know, lots of the hearings are video hearings. It took the courts a long time to catch up from in-person hearings to doing Zoom-based hearings, which a majority of my hearings now are Zoom. There's some in-person hearings, but lots of them are by Zoom. And even trials by Zoom, trial witnesses by Zoom,

I have a trial coming up in October. We stipulated that most of the witnesses would be there by Zoom. But the point of the story, Popo, and where I'm going with this is there was a appearance lawyer and a lawyer who would be hired literally just to kind of show up for case management conferences. And for those listening, not every appearance at court is like a hugely meaningful hearing that involves some major motion. Sometimes you just got to show up and give the court an update on what's going on.

And there's a group of lawyers that are basically called appearance attorneys. And what they do is they're paid by attorneys to basically just show up and give the court an update on what happened. Now, the courts hate a lot of times appearance attorneys because they show up and they don't really know the facts about the case and where the court has questions. There's nothing that fushed

rates. The heck out of a judge more than an appearance attorney, which is why the law firm sends the appearance attorney. And just they just hire this appearance attorney to show up and just get beat up by the judge for not knowing shit, basically. And when you're there and you're watching it, you're like, Oh, I just feel so bad. But there's this one appearance attorney who looks just like, and I'm pointing to, I'm pointing to the this, this pumpkin that's mostly pumpkin body and face all merged. And he would always show up. And he would just be so jolly. And he would walk through the courtrooms and he would do his appearances. And he was like the matrix,

no matter what court you were in, this jolly man would be there. And case after case, the poor man would just get beat up by the judge for not knowing anything. And so I saw that pumpkin and I said, you know, for legal AF, it kind of reminds me of those experience.

But Popeyes, I digress. That's a back to the district court, federal district court for the district of Columbia in Washington. We have the case against Benton and one of his colleagues for having funneled money from a Ukrainian and Russian business associate directly to the Trump campaign. And the law that we're gonna be talking about here is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, title 52 of the USC,

which completely regulates in the area of donations and foreign donations and the failure to register foreign donations and who's allowed to donate and who's not allowed to donate. And in this case, the indictment, which was sealed, we was sealed, and now unsealed, we'll talk about that in a moment, was brought against Benton, who they claimed is what's called a straw donor, an STRAW donor, meaning he's not the real donor, but he's being used to funnel and channel

money from an illegal and unacknowledged or undisclosed source directly to a federal campaign in violation. Like a straw, proper, right? Just like a straw. A straw, man. It's made out of straw. It's not a real person. And that's in the law, they use that term a lot. There can be a straw person in a transaction, where he's not really the buyer, where the seller, and he's referred to as the straw. So this is a straw donor that's also fictitious. And I'm your height man, he's a straw man. He's a straw man.

And there's two ways, as you and I have talked about, as part of legal AF law school academy, that a crime can be charged against someone. A prosecutor can do it by way of information and that document is called an information or they can do it and it's more usual by way of information, and that document is called an information, or they can do it and it's more usual by way of indictment, where you have a grand jury that's been empaneled, and over the course of the term of that grand jury,

they are presented evidence on a probable cause standard, and they issue if they find there's probable cause, they will generate or issue an indictment. And indictments can change over time and added counts and added people, and those are called superseding indictments. And they can be originally sealed, meaning the grand jury has gotten around

to indicting someone, but it is sealed because the investigation is continuing parallel to it, and they don't want it to get into the public notice or public record. So this was actually a September 9th. I think it was unsealed on September 9th, but I assume the indictment had been handed down by the grand jury months earlier, but kept in the pocket by the prosecutors as they are continuing their investigation.

So there's the unsealing, which is the first time the public and lawyers like you and I, and therefore our listeners and followers are going to find out about an indictment. But it's a four-count indictment, but it all stems from really the same thing. It all stems from conspiracy to funnel money from an illegal source undisclosed to the election campaign of them, President Trump. And so that's another one that you and I are going to have to follow, because we're just at the indictment phase. We will be following that on legal AF,

Popeyes, great explanation. Popeyes, I want to talk now about the Donald Trump response and memorandum of law in opposition to defendant Twitter inks, motion to transfer, doesn't that sound exciting? Let's talk about what that's really like. We're talking about what that really means. Transfer.

Transfer. Transfer. So we all know that in July of 2021, Donald Trump filed lawsuits against Facebook. He filed lawsuits against Twitter. He filed lawsuits against YouTube. He filed all of these lawsuits in Florida. They were assigned to different judges, Pope Occult, explain how that all went down and why he filed these different lawsuits. But here, Twitter has filed a motion that basically says, you filed this case in the wrong form to begin with.

We're in the wrong case. We're in the wrong location for this case. So before we even get to the meat of this case, which Twitter, YouTube, Facebook are going to win because they have a first amendment right to regulate their platforms. Donald Trump doesn't understand the way the first amendment works.

These social media companies have a first amendment right to take away hate speech and disinfo and all the crazy pro-insurrection stuff that Donald Trump was putting out. And not just before you move on, and not just first amendment. They have a right under the 1996 Communications Act, Section 230, to regulate how members and users

are on their platform. Popok, that is exactly where I was going. You see where we are mind melders. The Communications Decency Act also provides those protections as well. All credible lawyers view the Donald Trump lawsuit against Twitter, which asserts a number of bizarre legal theories but at its core, Donald Trump is against Twitter, which asserts a number of bizarre legal theories, but at its core, Donald Trump is telling Twitter, I have a First Amendment right to say these things

on your platform. And what lawyers say is you have a First Amendment right against government intervening and infringing upon your speech under the First Amendment. Twitter is a private actor, and actually the First Amendment protects Twitter, not you, Donald Trump, and also the Communications Decency Act. But before you get to the merits, before you get to that point, Twitter is saying, look, you sued us in Florida, in district court in Florida, we shouldn't be in Florida in the first place. Where should we be?

We should be in San Francisco. We should be in the Northern District, federal court in California, because when you sign up to have a Twitter account, you sign a terms of service. And that terms of service has. It's a contract. So whenever you sign and you click that you agree to the Apple terms of service, the Twitter terms of service, any of those things

where you click accept, you are signing contracts with these entities. And those contracts provide for things such as terms of service and things of if there's a dispute where they are litigated and here there's a forum selection clause in Northern District of California. So here Twitter saying in their motion to transfer the case, we're going to get to the merits. But first we need to get to the right court and you suit us in the

wrong court. Donald Trump and his lawyers filed an opposition saying, nope, this case needs to be in Florida because we think that your terms of service should not be enforced here. We think your terms of service don't apply to us here. Donald Trump is going to lose, I think, this argument because they're incredibly dumb arguments. And frankly, incredibly embarrassing arguments, at least one of the central arguments is embarrassing. One of the central arguments and Popeyes, I'll let you flesh it out a little bit more, is that Donald Trump was and Twitter users generally are so addicted to social media are so intoxicated by the medium of Twitter that it's so addicting to them that somehow it's an unconscionable agreement to even enter this terms of service in the

first place based on their psychological addiction to Twitter. Folks, this is literally in the brief. Can I extend that one? Let me extend that one. That would be like saying that our followers and listeners of Midas Touch and Legal AF are so addicted to our shows that they can't help themselves, but to buy the merchandise that we put in front of them. They have no control.

They've lost complete control. We've taken mind control of our followers and listeners and they are, they can't do anything, but by our goods. They go whistleblast, and the brief whistleblowers, psychologists, tech ethicists have gone on the record to document how social media companies intentionally engineer their software to be addictive and to create dependency among their users.

How embarrassing. So that's one of his arguments. Another one of his arguments is that that he does not have the resources to litigate a case in a northern district of a northern district of California. Literally folks, this is in the briefs. Quote, quote, plaintiffs access to resources to conduct extensive litigation in Northern California are limited. Folks, this is big. This is basically Trump's lawyer saying he's broke. He's a pop, I thought you're a billionaire.

That's normally an argument that a pro per plaintiff who doesn't have any money would make. That's the other argument. Is the probably way before you leave that one, is the problem that there is no golf, golf Trump golf course or hotel in northern California? He only likes to hang out in places where he has his name on the front door. Is that a problem? Donald Trump has limited resources, folks, in a court brief. That's what his lawyers put in, how pathetic.

And then the last argument that he makes, which is probably his strongest of the arguments, but will fail, is that because his account was a government account, and he was acting in a capacity as a government official, that therefore, the Twitter terms of services don't apply because there is some language in the terms of services that do refer to government governmental entities having their own set of rules. But Donald Trump doesn't include the full context of what's

actually said because it says it's then governed by the rules of your particular territory and country, which would then revert back to the United States of America, unless Donald Trump believes, and he probably thinks he is a Russian dictator. But POPO, can I break that down? Presented POPO, can I break that down? I was always a POPO, can I break that, but I can still add to it. And to it, that's what you got. Because all right, here I go. Oh, look at that. It's like a challenge challenge. Just like a rap battle.

It's like a rap battle. Let's do it. All right. So for those that for those that are how you do it in a rap battle, is that a? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. I didn't really do.

Okay. Check. Check it. Check it. Are you M&M? Is that what happened here? All right. I'm just like, your new nickname, my Salis M&M. We got it. We got it. We got M&M? Is that what happens here? All right. I'm just like a new nickname. My

Salis M&M. We got it. We've done. DJ Ben, but I'll get. All right, Mike drop. I'm out. All right, look, Florida. You call me Florida, man. Let's talk about Florida, federal court practice. I know all the judges here that have that have taken the jurisdiction over the cases. So, because I'm Pope, because I'm Pope, the first thing that happened is he filed suits against Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in separate cases, and he filed them in the Southern District of Florida, the clerk then randomly assigns judges to each one of those. He may have tried, Trump may have tried to argue

that they should all be joined together in one lawsuit and they're somehow related, but these are independent defendants, social media companies. And if he tried that, which I don't think he did, he could have checked the box on the civil cover sheet and tried to argue they were somehow related. But I think the clerk rightfully rejected that and just randomly assigned them, frankly, to three different judges. The Twitter case that we're talking about is to a judge who I know well because

he started out judge scola, Robert scola on the Miami State court, circuit court for years. I think he also played on a softball team of mine that my law firm sponsored putting that aside for a minute. He is a phenomenal judge. He's also really bright. He's also supremely moderate in his views. He is not a Trump appointee. I don't think, I don't know why Trump is fighting so hard to keep the case in front of Scola, because if I were them, I think all of their arguments ultimately on the merits underneath the case, which will they'll eventually get to. I don't think they're going to get a better day in court with Robert Skola than just letting it go randomly assigned in Northern District of California, but putting that aside for a

minute. Can I tell you why though? Can I tell you why? Does he want to say that? Yeah, sure. What do you think? What's your thought? Well, I want to keep it in Florida.

He still thinks. I don't think this is ultimately a jury trial case, which, which, if it is, if it is a jury trial case, and he does have some state court claims in there, which could go to a jury, he might think he's got a better shot at pulling a Florida jury to decide those issues for the ones that aren't going to be decided as a matter of law by the judge. What do you think? You want to know the real answer? All right. Okay. Uh, check it. Check it. One, two, one, two, Occam's razor. All right. I know. The simplest explanation is sometimes the answer at the end of the

end of the day. He wants to roll out of bed. No, the simplest explanation is Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. There is no exit plan here whatsoever. The idea of filing this lawsuit was a PR stunt to begin with. And all Ponzi scheme Trump wants to do is delay and delay and delay this thing and just keep the wheels turning and fight wherever he can fight to try to make the thing last as long as possible. This gets denied. He tries to appeal this to the circuit, you know, to the district, you know, to the court of appeals. Well, also, now in the rap battle, you're right.

I'll reinforce what you just said. He picked, and I practiced in Coral Gables, Florida, which is a suburb of Miami. I don't know these lawyers that he is hired. I know one's ever heard of them. One of them is a right wing conservative Republican. That's their claim to fame. And they filed it. The lawyers on the brief underneath those lawyers, nobody's ever heard of. We're going to talk about that later in the Mary Trump case that we're going to talk about later this evening. But he so he hires puppets that he can find cheaply in his backyard to file, as you said, these cases, which have no end in sight that are favorable to Trump. And it's just better because he probably doesn't have any contacts in the northern district

of California. And he goes, you know what? I'm going to lose this. So let me drag this out for seven to 10 years before I lose it. I will fundraise with my GQP sheeple and get all the money fundraising off of this. Extend it. Keep going how there's a liberal conspiracy and a big tech conspiracy and spout the bullshit for the next 10 years.

Because he knows, he knows that ultimately he's gonna lose it and he wants to drag out his ability to continue the pines. I agree. He uses all of these things and he'll use the Mary Trump suit that he filed for the same reason to gin up fundraising as he prepares for his next campaign in 2024.

And he's trying to do it on the cheap, I agree with you in his backyard, pardon me, in Miami. One thing to note, I don't disagree with you, but I thought the strongest argument that they raised was the one dealing with the terms of service. Because Twitter does want legitimate local government, municipalities, governments, countries to use Twitter as the social media platform of choice.

They just do. Every city in America has a Twitter account that they use, usually for official business, to declare something about their city. Large and small. It could be as large as New York City. It could be as small as, you know, fill in the blank. You're local 1000 person municipality.

And they don't want to lose that. Immunice of palaties generally under what's called home rule or sovereign immunity, a version of sovereign immunity. They can only be sued where they live, where that city resides. He's trying to use that to say, oh, I was a sitting president. In fact,

is the pleading, the caption on the pleading, which is the first thing that he filed says, Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States, then a whole bunch of other people nobody's ever heard of as fellow plaintiffs for this peputed of class action. He's trying to say, well, I was president. I have an executive privilege. I had an official account that was declared official at real Donald Trump now disabled. And therefore, I get to use that section of the terms of service. It's the strongest argument. It's the one that Skoll is going to have to grapple with, but I think you're right. It loses just like the other ones, including the one that said, I'm so addicted to Twitter that I can't contract with Twitter on the terms of service.

It should be ignored because they're in a power imbalance because they have psychologically manipulated my brain. And I'll tell you why he's going to lose this because it's funny. If you go and you look at page four of the brief that Trump filed, you know, it's always funny to me when an attorney bolds an underlying certain words to give emphasis to it in a brief, but then doesn't bold an underlying words after it. And I guess assumes that the judge or the anyone reading it is stupid and is not just going to read the next sentence. And to me, if you want a bold word in a brief to give it emphasis, do it sparingly because

it looks like a coloring book sometimes in a look silly. But make sure you're not looking disingenuous. And here's why they look disingenuous. This is what they bold in the Twitter terms of service. Quote, if you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. Pause.

That's bold and in italic. Here's the rest of what is said in that terms of service, though. For such US federal government entities, these terms and any action related there too will be governed by the laws of the United States of America. And in the absence of federal law, to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the state of California. And so it's still accepting the existence of US law where forum selection clauses are valid and binding and exist in the first place. And this is what Trump's argument is here. Plaintiff was clearly a federal government entity in the United States using the services,

quote, and his official capacity. But further, he was legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses, contained in Twitter's terms of service without input from other agencies, including the National Archives and Record Administration, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. And so what Trump is saying is that even though I am the president of the United States, I wasn't able to follow the law because I required input from other agencies like the National Archive and the Records Administration, which by the way, you direct as the executive.

And so to me, that's where he gets very weak because the Twitter terms of service does ultimately incorporate venue selection clauses in the United States. Yeah, and just around it out, terms of service, TOS law and litigation is very active and our users and followers should be sensitive that when every time they're participating in a social media platform or something else online, they have probably clicked a box or more than one that have bound them to a terms of service. And those are the things that go on forever that nobody ever wants to read, but buried in there are going to be things that are going to relate to a lawsuit that you may be involved

within the future. One of the funny observations I have, Popak, about terms of service and the evolution of terms of service clauses is that corporations really pioneered these class action waivers arbitration clauses within these terms of service to prevent consumers and litigants from being able to bring cases in public courts and to have private disputes.

One of the things I've just been noticing lately in my own practice is that because the costs of arbitration have gotten so high that lots of corporations are rethinking their views of putting arbitration clauses in their terms of service and think it's actually cheaper to go back to the days where they were had forum selection clauses in states versus arbitration because the burden as the law developed over arbitration clauses in terms of service was that you as the entity you as the corporation who puts these clauses and have to pay the

costs of arbitration and the arbitrator's fees, which can be hundreds and thousands of dollars, potentially millions of dollars. So if a consumer has the claim of $50 or $25 and you have an arbitration clause and 5,000 consumers each bring an arbitration against you. You could be talking about, on that case alone, just in administration fees, you could be talking about what, you do 5,000 times say. Are you doing the math?

I'm doing the math. You could be talking about $750 million. Yeah. If 5,000 consumers just brought arbitrations without you even litigating the merits of the case. And a lot of plaintiffs lawyers have become savvy to that. So just wanted to interject as we give these legal lessons. We have updates, updates, and lots of updates for you.

But before getting into updates, I want to talk about updating and maybe even upgrading your mental health and taking care of your mental health. This podcast might as touch legal AF is sponsored by better help. That's better H E L P. Is there something interfering with your happiness or is preventing you from achieving your goals? Look, as hard-charging lawyers, we need mental health breaks also. You know, it's important that we speak with mental health counselors and avail ourselves of that. The same way we wake up, you go to the gym, sometimes you got to work out, you're mental as well, to make sure that you are prepared. Better help assesses all your needs and matches you with your own licensed professional therapist. You can start communicating in under 48 hours.

It is not a crisis line. It's not self-help. This is professional therapy done securely online. There's a broad range of expertise available, which may not be locally available in many areas. The service is available for clients worldwide. You just log into your account any time and send a message to your therapist. You'll get timely and thoughtful responses. Plus, you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions, so you won't ever have to sit in an uncomfortable waiting room as with traditional therapy, which

I never liked to have to sit in those waiting rooms. It was always uncomfortable. So to have this option is incredible. Better help is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches. So they make it easy and free to change therapists if needed. It's more affordable than traditional offline therapy and financial aid is available better help wants you to start living happier a happier life today. Visit their website and read their testimonials that are posted daily. I've read some of these testimonials. It's incredible. Here's one from Kathleen who talks about her therapist. She's great at what she does, very understanding and helpful. She is willing to work with you, which helps a ton. This is from David Evans, who gave a review on better help. He

said, I have a tough time talking about things and David has been so very accepting of this and has expressed the very gentle and kind nature talking with me and talking to me. He's incredibly responsive with messaging as well. Better help wants you to start living that happier life today. So visit betterhelp.com slash legal a f That is betterhelp.com slash legal AF. That's better H-E-L-P and join over two million people who have taken charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional. In fact, so many people have been using better help

that they are recruiting additional therapists in all 50 states. And there is a special offer for legal AF listeners get 10% off your first month at better help HLP better help. You will, I think really appreciate their services. And look, as a lawyer, as people who are hardworking during COVID, there's a lot going on. I like having sponsors who are focused on mental health. And I think as lawyers, right, Popo? Like sometimes you just gotta take a pause and you gotta focus on your mental health.

I was really thrilled when we found out that this was our sponsor for the show. I think it's so important in the era that we live in and where we are in the moment to focus on and to acknowledge the importance of mental health. So I'm really glad that you were able to read that. And I'm really glad that the sponsor was willing to give our followers and listeners a discount to try their service. And I'll pause here too and reflect also on just being a lawyer. Lawyers have one of the highest rates of alcoholism, of substance abuse, you know, in many professions.

Sometimes you feel like that's ingrained in the culture of what it means to be a lawyer and you see it on, you know, on TV and movies amongst colleagues. And that's not really the case. It doesn't have to be that way. And I think the most important thing in an evolution of a young lawyer's understanding the profession is truly understanding the duty that you have to your clients, to the profession. And you need to really stay sharp on your game all the time. And it's like an athlete, you have to be able to perform at the highest level as a lawyer and and that means taking care of yourself and focusing on your mental health popock updates updates updates.

We have incredible updates. Cyber ninja updates. We haven't heard about these cyber ninjas for quite some time. I mean, I'm sure they've been doing crazy shit. We just, I think they ended up hiding out in the wilderness in somewhere in Montana. You know, this is true where they were like, they brought the voting equipment there. They tainted all the voting equipment for Maricopa County. Just so everyone recalls, the Cyber ninjas was this group from Florida that had never done any like

election auditing. They had zero experience, but they were hired in the infinite wisdom by the Arizona GQP Senate who brought this group in here to create mischief in Maricopa County and try to overturn. The election results there despite multiple independent audits. This was not an independent audit. It was a fraud it was a group that's tried to conceal every step of the way what they were doing. They were lying about what they were doing. They were using inappropriate and improper procedures.

They basically caused Maricopa County to have to buy millions of dollars of new election equipment because all the stuff that they were doing, this, these, these cyber ninjas, as ridiculous name, kind of tainted all of that. But now the cyber ninjas finally released their report. Most of the report is like rambling and bull shit about the election and just rehashing dumb shit. But at the end of the day, what they say is that actually there were 366 additional voters who had voted for Joe Biden. And Biden was deprived of 366 votes. But let's not take it for granted. It's because local media, local groups, community groups,

political leaders held them accountable, right? Popo? So I agree. I saw a great headline. It says Trump has lost Arizona more than any candidate in the history of presidential elections. He lost it on election night. He lost it on the hand recount. And he's lost it now with his hand chosen cyber ninjas. But the scary part is, I would have thought that when this report becomes public, that Biden didn't just win by 10,400 and 57 votes in Arizona. He won by more than that. So it says cyber ninjas. I thought that would sort of put an end to it, but it hasn't. Trump has pressured and browbeat and Abbott in Texas

to do a, even though he won Texas, this is totally crazy. This is back to your theory of Occam's razor, which is just do crazy shit to do fundraising. He's having a state where he won to a hand to a hand recount or a recount in certain counties. Nuts, Arizona, I thought to be over, but now there's like, oh, let's let's let's let's broaden it. None of this matters because if you do the electoral count, none of these states ultimately mattered because for every one of these states that

by that Trump is challenging Biden won a handful of other ones that put him over the top and the electoral. He didn't just win by one electoral vote. He won by a margin large enough that none of this matters. He would Trump just remind our listeners and followers what have to prove that in five different states, there was such rampant fraud coordinated among people who barely can coordinate to do anything, that they coordinated a fraudulent campaign to flip hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of votes. Never happened.

So to Ben's point, why are they doing this? It's to give them the oxygen to raise money and to continue to attack the legitimacy of Joe Biden's presidency, which is all they want to do for the next three years. It's really why we do legal AF. You know, the Cyber Ninjas encapsulates it, the bogus Trump lawsuits encapsulates it, there needs to be a robust defense of truly what the rule of law means. Oh, I like that. Popoca is drinking out of that legal AF cup and making a look, making a look great, but we truly need to have a robust defense of our democracy, of our laws, of our

process. Because when Donald Trump says the rule of law, he's talking about the rule of fascist law, not actually our constitutional principles, our norms, and what truly made America a special place in the international world here at home. We always need to perfect it, but we definitely don't need to go backwards. And Trump not only wants us to go backwards, but put us in the depths of exactly what this country, our country was created in our constitution was made to fight against. And Rips into Tatters, the fabric of our democracy. I mean, when I, it hurts my heart to watch

Gold Star parents attack the president of the United States because of Afghanistan or to hope that really defenseless and inhumane immigration policy gets passed in this country to satisfy the lowest common denominator of the Trump supporter. I mean, it really hurts my heart to watch the fabric of our, what holds us together as a democracy, as a people torn a sunder by Trump continuing to foment discontent and attack the legitimacy of Joe Biden's presidency. And I was, you know, for those watching, for those listening, don't see my eyes looking.

I was just trying to pull up a tweet that Laura Windsor, Lauren Windsor, go check her out on Twitter. She does incredible reporting for the undercurrent. It's her entity that she works with. She does all of these incredible. She goes to the rallies and she asks a lot of these politicians difficult questions. And her and the undercurrent team was in Phoenix yesterday and had a very interesting chat as she says with Representative Paul Gossar,

who said that there will be, this is what he's telling his base. He's Gossar as a GQP. He's telling his base that there will be, this is what he's telling his base. He's, go SARS, a GQP here. He's telling his base that there will be a new presidential election between Biden and Trump before the end of this year is what he's telling him. I mean, it's the craziest shit that they are. Poppockets slap. Right. Poppock, I want to talk another update.

We talked about the GQP's handmade bounty hunter anti-women anti-child bearing, person's law in Texas also known as SB8, which completely remove the right of child bearing persons to have choice, to have autonomy over their own bodies. This is a despicable disgraceful. And as we talked about unconstitutional law under Roe v. Wade, under KC, under the constitutional

precedence and under Supreme Court precedence, that we discussed on prior legal AF podcasts. I'm not going to rehash all the law there because I know we have a lot of dedicated legal AFers who have learned that knowledge. The update here is there's a doctor, Alan Brade, is his name, San Antonio doctor, physician who provides abortion care. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post where he stated that he was violating Texas's law. He believed it was unconstitutional, that he would be providing the same type of care he was always providing to childbearing persons and their right to choose. And in fact, had been engaged in that conduct

since the law was passed. I think he did that knowing he would be sued. And in fact, he was sued. Popeyes tell us about the lawsuits that were brought against him. And also one of the interesting things is that the groups that champion this horrible and horrific law don't want these lawsuits to be filed.

And actually, they say, even after reading the Washington Post, I'll say, hey, we don't think that there's enough evidence there for us to file a lawsuit, but there's very specific reasons why they don't want lawsuits. Well, you listen, you set up a crazy scheme to make people into bounty hunters, and you don't know who's going gonna come out of the woodwork. So who came out of the woodwork are basically two, not one, two disbarred attorneys, because they got nothing to lose. They've already been disbarred.

One of them, Oscar Stilly, in sitting in Arkansas, and then Felipe Gomez, Felipe Gomez, I think you mentioned to me before we started recording tonight that he's pro life, but still he is definitely pro choice. The reason he brought the suit is because he wants to create a constitutional challenge and he wants his suit to be it. And he also said, well, I could also use the $10,000.

I mean, the guy's a little bit off his rocker himself. I read his lawsuit that he filed. It is a lot of tongue-in-cheek. It's not something you and I would ever file. I mean, he wrote things in there. He can't believe or true just because, you know, he's sort of a little bit off his rocker. But this is what happens, state of Texas, and state of Florida, who's considering almost the same blueprint

to pass a law in Florida that matches the one in Texas. This is the law of unintended consequences if you are the pro-life movement, because then you're going to get two disparate lawyers who decide to have fun in games to try to bring up the constitutional issues with their lawsuit and maybe get some money along the way. So the, the, the, the doctor braid did a heroic thing. He not only continued to perform abortion services after six weeks or, yeah, after six weeks,

but he wrote about it as you said in the op-ed piece in the Washington Post to publicly declare I am challenging this law. The problem, I think, with the lawsuits, and I want to get your opinion on this, is that in order for you to have a judge, a federal judge decide an issue, there has to be a live case, your controversy, meaning you can't go to court and ask for what's called an advisory opinion. Hey, Judge, what do you think about this law? There has to be two in our system of litigation and our in our trial system in America.

There has to be two parties adverse who have real live claims that are fighting it out in our system of litigation and our adversarial system of litigation. Here, Stilly has already been on record as saying he's not actually against the law. He's actually against the law and is bringing the suit to challenge it. So here's a question for you Ben, do you think that's going to be a hurdle for him to have standing or to have a live controversy for the federal judge that's deciding to be a hurdle for him to have standing or to have a live controversy for the federal judge that's deciding that case.

You know, in a way, I think that there can be standing. You know, there's a concept in law that's basically called strict liability, right? You almost don't, you don't have to look into, you know, any of the intent, you don't have to look into the reasonableness. It's kind of like, did you do something or did you not do something? And if you did what's wrong, it's a per se violation and the question becomes, okay, what are the damages now? I don't have to have an analysis beyond that.

And the way the Texas law looks, if you violate that law, I don't think it invites even the craziest people to basically pull their, to file a lawsuit, to pull whatever political claim that they have or whatever their prior political stance is kind of irrelevant. They're calling it out. They want to collect the $10,000, whether they're for against it, they're suing for their 10k. Yeah, you may be right. It may not matter whether the plaintiff thinks the law is constitutional or not constitutional because it's on the books. Now, I know the other side's going to raise it. They're going to say, oh, listen, is there really a live controversy here? But

he's trying to collect the money. What happens to the constitutionality of the statute is sort of besides the point, although it'll be nuts if these are the two cases that end up being the challenge. Now, the doctor is being defended by the Center for Reproductive Rights, who's defending the doctor. And I think we'll be defending any doctor or any person who is sued under this law, because listen, they're the repository for legal brains bigger than even yours and mine, well, definitely mine. That are, that have the repository of constitutional knowledge concerning reproductive rights. So he's definitely got the right people in his corner, the doctor. The other side, as we said, two disparate lawyers.

So it's the worst case scenario for the pro choice movement. I'm sorry, the pro life movement. They're going to have to come in and try to intervene in the case because they know these two idiots are going to defend, you know, the issues related to the statute. And that's the problem. That's where the live case in controversy comes up when the federal judge in Texas and Bexar County turns to one of these two despised lawyers and says, I want you to debate right now with your adversary, the constitutionality of this issue. They're going to say, oh, we don't think it's constitutional. See, then we don't have

a controversy that's properly before a court. This is gonna be an issue. You and I are gonna talk about it. You may be right, I may be right. We're gonna see how the briefing plays out and these cases play out when we do future updates. One update, you know, one question there, Popak. You know, the framing of it, you know,

I don't like to call them pro life anymore because these are the same people who support the deaths of 700,000 people. They want to kill. I just like to call them pro hate. They're not even anti abortion. I think they are just pro hate. They hate women. They hate childbearing persons. they hate choice, they are the hate group. And I think that that needs to be reinforced. And with these hate groups that are out there, notice that they're not the ones who are suing this doctor. The reason they're not suing the doctor is they actually don't want there to be a live case in controversy. That's right. They just want the threat of the law to have a chilling effect to destroy choice. That is what the intent of the law is. Recall, on our past episodes, one of the reasons the Supreme Court allowed the law to stay

in place was because there was no active controversy in place. There was no actual lawsuit. So it was only a hypothetical case that could be challenged. So actually the groups that created these handmade bounty hunter, horrible, horrific, anti-women, anti-choice laws, their nightmare is actually that, one of these cases gets filed, gets challenged,

and gets deemed unconstitutional. Quick super, quick update, the Mississippi case challenging, challenged and gets deemed unconstitutional. Quick super quick update. The Mississippi case challenging Roe v Wade has now been set for oral argument on December one of this year. That will be a December oral argument. So stay tuned for that. One other quick update there. The Mrs. This will be helpful to the ultimate oral argument related to this statute, the SBA in Texas. There has been a tremendous amount of Texas women that have crossed the border to go to neighboring states like Oklahoma to get abortion services, which is

exactly, it's a terrible result, but it's exactly the argument that the lawyers are going to make to show that there is a constitutional federal issue here in the flow of commerce, because one state has so violated and openly defied the constitutional right of a woman to choose, that they now have to leave their state and go to a fellow state to provide those services if they can at all. One other update to your update to the prior update, Pope, a month, a university poll taken this past week.

States, here's the prompt, a private citizen who files and wins an abortion lawsuit in Texas is eligible to receive $10,000. Do you approve or disapprove giving $10,000 to private citizens who successfully file abortion lawsuits, only 14% approve, 81% disapprove. One, one Papakian correction. Yes, because I'm from New Jersey. It's pronounced mometh, it's mometh college. I used to study there when I was in high school. See, I think that that was educational. Because what did I say, monmouth?

Monmouth, right. You know, I'm into monmouth. I'm into monmouth, but I will say it the right way. Updates, updates, those were your updates. Popoq wanna talk now about the lawsuit that was filed by Donald Trump this week against the New York Times and his niece Mary Trump. Mary Trump was recently on the Midas Touch podcast. Mary Trump is a hero. No questions asked. Full stop. Her books have been incredible, incredibly enlightening. She's been an incredible voice of transparency,

of holding Trump and her whole family accountable and letting the public know just how crazy, and with the fascist tendencies that they have. And Mary Trump was a true hero during very, very difficult times, and very courageously was outspoken knowing the litigious nature of her family and having an uncle who was the president who would use that power against private citizens freely, like a fascist dictator.

In the previous lawsuit that was filed by Mary Trump's uncle, Robert Trump, Robert Trump passed away kind of mysterious circumstances last year. Robert Trump is one of Trump's brothers. Past away of mysterious circumstances, many suspected it was COVID, but it was never really discussed what had happened. There was a lawsuit that was brought in Duchess County, just as this case is brought in Duchess County as well.

That case was brought July 13. That case was decided rather on July 13th of 2020, but it was brought in the summer of 2020. And that was seeking injunctive relief to stop the publication of Mary Trump's book. And the allegation by Robert Trump was that there was a confidentiality agreement that was entered sometime in 2001, approximately April of 2001, that basically made all the relationships between the Trump's confidential. That's the accusation that was made by Robert Trump.

Fast forward, that's basically one of the same accusations being made by Donald Trump here. He also alleges like a conspiracy between Mary Trump and the New York Times to publish private records, but essentially it is breaching confidentiality and confidences that exist. But there was a decision already on these issues and it turns out that when everyone's talking about this confidentiality agreement, when you go back and you pull the order from Judge Greenwald, it's actually not a confidentiality agreement. It's actually a stipulation that relates to an estate resolution when the Trumps had a disagreement and dispute over the estate of their parents after their mother passed away. And there was a fight over the estate assets. There was a stipulation that would keep the record sealed or confidential, but not to make

every interaction and relationship confidential. And so in connection with the Robert Trump case, one on that issue as it relates to Mary Trump, the judge in 2020 said, the confidentiality doesn't say what you're claiming. It says Robert Trump. And I think a judge is going to say the same thing here. That's not what the confidentiality says. And then two, as a respect to the publisher of Mary Trump's book, the air shim and its Simon and Schuster, with respect to this current lawsuit, the New York Times is a publisher. The judge also said, one, Simon and Schuster didn't enter into any agreement, number one. So they're not bound by anything. And two, there's a First Amendment right. They're a publisher. They have the right to publish. They have a free speech right. I'm not going to allow what's

called prior restraint, which is to prohibit a publication before it's published, and that there's an absolute first amendment right to publish it. So Popak, I wanted to give that history of what happened in the country 2020, because I think it informs this. So yeah, it's very good. So the, there's two things that I wanna add, and then I'm gonna wrap it up with a blow off

of what you just said. New York Times runs a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles examining Donald Trump's taxes and concludes that he is basically committed tax fraud or that he's paid very little in a way of taxes, like $700 a year on millions and millions of dollars related to his real estate empire. Where did they get the information? Well, when the Pulitzer Prize winning articles were written,

there was a lot of speculation as to where they were getting the tax returns from. Because if you remember, the accounting firm was refusing to turn over tax returns. Trump broke 100 years of precedent, precedence, and did not as either as a candidate or as a sitting president releases own tax returns. So everybody was wondering, this is really great reporting. I wonder where they got that information from. Well, where they got the information from is Mary Trump being part of the family, this estate battle that you just described so eloquently got her hands on tax returns. She turned those tax returns over to the New York Times in their reporting. How do we know that? Because Mary Trump both on, I think on your show in her book and in other shows,

as said, she was the one that turned over the information to the New York Times. So there's nothing, there's nothing hidden here. The New York Times as one of the reporters who won the Pulitzer. So, so poignantly put it, they did nothing more than pick up the phone when Mary Trump called. Hello, yes, Mary Trump. Oh, you have a lot of tax returns. We'll be right over. That's called journalism. That's called First Amendment protection. And whether and under a long line of cases, constitutional cases, including a number of them with the New York Times's name on it, like Sullivan versus the New York Times. So why is this case filed in state court? I have no idea. Why is it in Duchess County, which for those that listen around the world is in a little town called Pekipsi,

New York, North of Manhattan. It's not even where Trump lives. It's not where his golf clubs are. It is apparently where he thinks he has a friendly forum for filing these lawsuits, and it's in state court. And who did he get to file the lawsuit? Kind of a a lion of the legal community, somebody who's, you know, a preeminent lawyer on first amendment rights issues, freedom of the press. No, he got some 10 year lawyer out of New Jersey, which is not in Bikipsi, New York, who's never handled cases like this to file the suit. This is exactly like what we talked about earlier this evening. This is exactly like the suits that have been filed in Florida by anybody he can find that take his cases. That's why no, as you said last podcast,

no actual lawyer would ever take this case. He just finds this, you know, people that are looking for their own publicity who are looking, you know, it'll be good to be associated with Trump. Let me take him on as a client because good things may come of it. But there, there's these aren't legitimate lawsuits. He is going to lose on the first amendment. And more importantly, something you and I talked about in preparing for tonight's podcast, I think he's going to lose when they file when Mary files and the New York Times file, what's called an anti-slap claim back against Trump. So New York under Cuomo in 2020

has one of the most stringent and robust anti-slap suits on their books. And for those that follow a slap suit, it's an acronym SLA P P. It stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. That's when somebody files a lawsuit, not because they want to win it, not because there's merit. It's because they want to shut up the other person. They want to, they want to bound and gag them. They want to move them out of the public person. They want to, they want to bound and gag them. They want to move them out of the public forum. They want to stop them from exercising their first amendment rights because they don't like what they're saying.

Doesn't that sound a lot like Trump not being happy that Mary Trump goes on the might as touch podcast rights of book is in the public media talking about how she thinks Trump is an idiot, is a moron, is a liar, is a cheat. So he files the suit. What can she do? What can the New York Times do? They can file an anti-slap lawsuit. What's the benefit of that? They get attorney's fees if they win. That's great. Anytime you can get attorney's fees awarded against your adversary, you're in the driver's seat. They get a better burden of proof. In other words, Trump's going to have to now prove that there was not just a cognizable

claim that he has against them for torsious interference and whatever else he's brought. Because he has not brought, I want to make this clear to our followers and listeners. He has not brought a defamation case against Mary Trump or the New York Times claiming that anything in there about his tax evasion is not true. He's basically conceded that the Pulitzer Prize winning story about his tax evasion is true. I'm just going to pause there for a moment. He's claiming instead that the New York Times has torsiously interfered with the contract that he has, this stipulation that you referenced between Mary Trump and the Trump family. That's how weak this case is. Now, if they win the anti-slop

case, which I think they will, they get attorney's fees. Discovery stops. Discovery is stayed during the period that the anti-slap claim is being evaluated by the judge, which means if they wanted to scare and intimidate Mary Trump, which I think would be a hard thing to do having watched her on your show. But if they think they could scare an intimidator into not giving interviews and to sit for a deposition and be beat up for a couple of days, not happening. No discovery is going to take place as soon as they file that claim. And again, another head scratcher, you know, this is what happens when you hire lawyers who really don't know their way around some of the court systems.

I, if I were filing this meritless case, which I never would, but if I were filing it, I would file it in federal court because you have a better shot is still, is still have a problem, but you have a better shot at winning an anti-slap suit in federal court in New York than you do in state court where they file it, Duchess County state court. So we're going to follow this closely. I know Mary Trump's a friend of the of mightest touch and of legal AF at all. And I think at the end of the day, she's going to win. She's going to take him for attorney's fees and costs.

In this case, it's going to be dismissed like the other one was Trump is the biggest loser, loser, loser, loser. He's lost in Arizona, like 10 times with each of those audits and recounts and all the bullshit. I don't know how you could lose an Arizona so much. He loses his lawsuits. He has no exit strategy for this lawsuits, but he prays on his base of losers

who he cultivates to be losers and who he and his base brainwash with all the disinfo that they spew every day. The best medicine for disinfo is the truth. Midas Touch, truth is golden, legal AF, Kremlin file, zoomed in, Mayacolpa, the whole array of Midas Touch Media Network podcasts, delivering the truth, all of the pro-democracy community groups, pro-democracy media out there, pro-democracy, social media leaders, pro-democracy, political leaders,

shout out to everybody for fighting for democracy. And Popak and I, we just try to do our small part here every weekend delivering to you the legal A F live on Saturday's legal A F dropping every Sunday on the podcast platforms. And we have a blast doing it. I want to give a special thanks to our sponsor, betterhelp.com. Remember go to betterhelp.com slash legal AF. I just went to that site again right now. It looks awesome. It's kind of got the legal AF branding on it. Make sure to check it out and give them support

because it helps keep this show going. Popo, great episode. Yeah, really great. But on better help, I also followed them on Twitter. They could use some more Twitter followers, so I went on there and clicked for LegalAS. Yeah, and when you're watching this or when you're listening to this on podcast,

go reach out to BetterHelp on their Twitter handle. Tell them that you heard about them from MidasTouch, I think they will like that as well. We wrapped it up. We've talked about it all this weekend. Popoch much to talk about next week, but for now, if it is Saturday, it is legal AF live. If it is Sunday, it is legal AF. Popoch, I'll let you give the closing words. I can't think of a better way. I never thought I'd say this, than to spend Saturday nights

with you and our listeners and followers doing a legal, political, update show. It's been a really an amazing experience. I'm so glad that people are finding that what we do resonates with them. And however you get us, whether it's on the video feeds, the live feeds, the podcast downloads on any of your platforms, we're just so thrilled to have you here. No yellow cards for Pope Pock on this episode, the past episode, you're doing great Pope Pock and special shout out to the Midas Mighty. We'll see you next week. you