Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo REACT to Breaking Legal News 10/12/2022

Episode Date: October 13, 2022

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss and analyze: a Connecticut jury returning an almost ONE BILLION DOLLAR verdict against Alex Jones for defamation and violation of Connecticut law by profiting with the lie that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax; the Department of Justice’s filing this week to defeat Trump’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to reverse the 11th Circuit’s smackdown of Judge Cannon’s ruling in his favor; and New York’s new gun control being found to violate the Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment ruling in June, and the State’s appeal this week to the Second Circuit; and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS:  Aspiration: https://www.aspiration.com/LEGALAFDEBIT GET LEGAL AF MERCH: https://store.meidastouch.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. We'll be covering three stories. This just in the Connecticut jury is returned an almost one billion dollar verdict against Alex Jones and his info wars for defamation, violation of Connecticut law, arising out of his denial that there were any victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and his denial that 20 were any victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and is denial that 20 children and six educators died at the hands of a serial killer. We'll also cover and break down the Department of Justice filing this week its opposition to Justice Clarence Thomas who is the circuit court judge responsible for the 11th Circuit,

challenging Trump's appeal of the 11th Circuit's partial stay of Judge Cannon's order. What it boils down to is their fighting over whether the 100 documents are classified, will remain with the Department of Justice or will have to go through the special master process and We'll break that all down And then finally New York has a new New York state has a new Second Amendment compliant

Concealed weapons law, but a northern district of New York federal judge Believes that it went too far in restricting the Second Amendment rights of people, especially in light of the June Supreme Court case, six to three of New York State Rifle Association versus Bruin, and he struck down most of the pertinent regulatory issues addressed by the new law, what's he, James, has filed an appeal to the second circuit and we'll talk about what one of these landmark first challenges to a state's attempt to regulate in the post-Supreme Court world and what it all means. And I'm joined, as always, this is Michael Popack,

I'm joined as always by former prosecutor, friend, legal expert, Karen Friedman, Eknifalo Karen, how are you? I'm good, hello Popak, how are you? I feel like it's been a long time for you and me to be together. Yeah, well, you know, life gets in the way, but here we are back to our midweek. We are, and we're going to use your prosecutorial skills in many ways, including talking about all three of these matters. It's going to be taken through that lens. Let's jump right in,

because as we were recording this evening, a verdict has been returned in Connecticut against Alex Jones and Info Wars to the tune of $965 million in compensation or compensatory damages awarded to 14 family members of eight victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, including an FBI agent who was one of the first responders. That is just on compensatory damages. Punitive damages are to be awarded by the judge under Connecticut's unfair trade practices act, why unfair trade practices? Because the case centered also around Alex Jones using the around Alex Jones using the hoax, his allegations that Sandy Hook didn't happen, that it was a false flag event, that these children were mannequins, that parents didn't actually lose children, that children didn't lose parents to sell his products, and therefore violated,

and the jury so found violated. It can get it gets unfair trade practices act. The punitive damage, which could be well in excess of the $965 million compensatory damage award, that will be decided at a later time by the judge. Let's dive right in. We already covered two months ago a Texas jury, which is Alex Jones's home state representing two families that have sued him in which they were awarded $46 million. But now we got a $1 billion verdict returned by a jury just an hour ago. Karen, what do you make of all of it? And what do you make of Alex Jones' live streaming rather than being in the courtroom when the verdict was returned? Jones lives streaming rather than being in the courtroom when the verdict was returned. He's a disgusting, despicable human being. I am absolutely outraged by his reaction to this verdict.

He's laughing. He's making derogatory comments saying they're not going to see a dime of this. This guy is just as low and terrible as they get. If you recall, Popok, a while back, there was one midweek legal AF that you were unable to join me and Ben wasn't able to join either. So I had a guest on

and I had one of the Sandy Hook parents, Scarlett Lewis, who lost her son, Jessie Lewis, and is one of the two plaintiffs that you mentioned was awarded the $46 million in punitive and compensatory damages in the Texas case. And she's the one who was able to confront him in court and really tell him directly to him what it meant to her and all the other parents about what he did to her. That was one of the more powerful meetings I've ever had. Just one an extraordinary woman and she's really a just case of resilience and spreading

love, frankly. So she's just a remarkable, strong, amazing woman with a great kid who it's just so awful and tragic, which she and the other parents of the other 26-year-olds, 20 first graders. So there were six-year-olds and the educators who lost families in Newtown, Connecticut. So this is one of three cases that the plaintiffs are bringing. And just like the one in Texas, he, there was a, he defaulted. So he refused to cooperate with the court

and provide information about his company and he is not transparent and he basically lies to the court. And so the court said, well, you didn't do what you were supposed to do, you know, in cases you have to provide discovery. And he just didn't do it. So the judge basically said, okay, fine, you're, you know, he found for the plaintiffs in this case.

And so the only issue, you know, that that was before the jury was damages. And it was to figure out was before the jury was damages. And it was to figure out how great the harm was to them. And so they got to testify about what it meant when these families are grieving their children. And rather than being able to grieve the loss of their child, they are being harassed by these conspiracy theorists

who are accusing them of lying, of it being a hoax, etc. And that Alex Jones then rushed to bankruptcy court and put his entire company into bankruptcy court so that he wouldn't have to pay any of these families. We know he did it because he said he did it for that reason. And he got on his broadcast and he got on his show and he was laughing and asking his viewers for money. And he basically said, don't worry, none of your money is going to go, or none of my money is going to go to pay these families. I think it's quote something like, do these people really think they're getting any of this money?

He also said, I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times. I'm done saying I'm sorry. These parents were sobbing and weeping at the verdict because finally the jury, they finally got some kind of recognition publicly about what happened to them and that he's on his show essentially laughing and mocking them and mocking the system that is going to shield him from having to provide his assets. Popoq isn't there a way that they can pierce this bankruptcy court protection.

I mean, the guy for this trial, he flew his entire entourage down in a private jet. They stayed in a villa with tennis courts and swimming pools. And I mean, it's like he's, it's like, you know, if I was the bankruptcy court judge, I would, I would just be so outraged that he's flaunting his misrepresentations so publicly. I mean, isn't there some way to kind of pierce that? Well, the good news is he didn't file personal bankruptcy. He filed for one of his entities, the top, the top, the top, the co above info wars. So there is assets that will be available.

And certainly, a bankruptcy court judge and a trustee assigned to an estate in bankruptcy is looking very, very carefully at how Mr. Jones spends his money and wastes the money of future creditors like the families of Sandy Hook. The, you know, there's an economist in the Texas case that you talked about where you interviewed one of the surviving parents in which that economist put on credible testimony that Alex Jones is worth almost $200 million at present. His subscribers and followers who send him money don't seem to mind that he's a fraud, that he's the devil, that he has accused parents of fraudulently claiming that their children had died in a

massacre. And he'll get more money. And ultimately, through the very powerful abilities of the trustee that's appointed by the bankruptcy judge and the bankruptcy judge themselves, they'll be able to do what's called claw back. And as you said, pierce the veil and get past all of these barriers, these phony barriers, these nestled companies within companies to get to the money and connect these parents and their verdict to Alex Jones' money.

And that's going to be a process through the bankruptcy court. So it's interesting, you know, he had a little bit of a slip of the tongue. He accidentally, you know, what they call a Freudian slip in Washington. Alex Jones accidentally told the truth. He said on his podcast tonight that you just quoted, don't worry people that are donating to me. None of my money is gonna go to them. Right, it's gonna be their money.

It's gonna be all the money and that constitutes the revenue of Info Wars and Alex Jones. He's not off the air. He's still shilling his herbal supplements, his nutrients, his healing magnets, and whatever else he's selling out of the back of a wagon. And he's doing it, which is the premise of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim in the verdicts that just came back.

He is using that fraud, that invasion of practice the Connecticut unfair trade practices act claim in the verdicts that just came back, he is using that fraud, that invasion of privacy, that defamation to sell his products. And that's where punitive damages are going to come. I think this number will double. I think we'll see probably two billion dollars. And just to answer some questions that came up last time we talked about it. Alex Jones could have elected to default the entire case. Cases are divided, you know, commercial cases, civil cases are always divided into two phases.

Liability and damages, usually they're tried together. If a party defaults on liability, in other words, he doesn't answer the suit, he doesn't file an answer, he's violated discovery orders, and therefore has been sanctioned with having his pleadings stripped away from him and being found in default. Generally, there is still a damage phase, a damage trial. He could have defaulted there too, and then everybody in the room would have just decided his fate and wrote the biggest number possible, although I'm not sure what have gotten much bigger than a billion dollars.

But he decided, he's not, he's, he's as crazy as a fox, he decided to defend himself on the damages amount, and he has a lawyer, Norman Pettis, who defended him there to try to get the dollar amount as small as possible because he had already screwed up by liability. So he's not so flippant as to default on both ends of the spectrum and just let the jury write any, any old big number on the board. He did try to keep that number as low as possible, although you can tell from the number that jury wasn't buying it.

They were giving out $150 million, $200 million per family based on the evidence. One of the parents committed suicide because of all of Alex Jones' followers tormenting this person and the loss of their child. So they're not even represented with a parent. They're represented by the estate of, because the person died by suicide, which is another victim of Sandy Hook and another victim on the bloodied hands of Alex Jones.

So we're going to have to see the next phase is punitive damages. There's two types of punitive damages in Connecticut. One of them is the judge can award attorneys fees and costs. So all of the attorneys fees and costs for the lawyers representing the families, which is probably several million dollars, can be also tacked on to the judgment. That they consider punitive damages in Connecticut. And then there's this unlimited, uncapped unfair trade

practices acclaim that is also by state statute in the hands of the judge, not the jury. So there's gonna be all another phase with briefing over the next I assume 90 days, and the judge is gonna hold another hearing, and then the judge we're gonna be talking about a big punitive damage award. In the meantime, these plaintiffs' lawyers have a big project on their hands, which is

to go find the money, to go collect on the judgment, and go fight their fight in bankruptcy court. It could be a couple of more years before these families actually get cash out of Alex Jones while he laughs every night on his on his podcast and broadcasts as he stays as you said in luxury villas with pools you know and flies in on a private jet. Scarlett Lewis was awarded I think 45 million dollars in punitive damages and about four million in compensatory damages but that suit was in Texas and Texas has a cap on punitive damages.

So it was interesting strategically why that case was brought in Texas as opposed to in Connecticut where there is no cap, as you said. Yeah, I also think that the jury, I might be giving the jury more credit, but I often give juries a lot of credit. I think the jury in Texas,

understanding they only had two families in front of them, and that there were another, you know, 18 families that needed money and having heard that Alex Jones has a lot of money, but not an unlimited amount of money, because that's where the 175 to 200 million dollar economist testified was in Texas. I think they held back on how much they were going to award for them because they would have been just to continue with our legal AF law school. They would have been first in line as the first judgment creditor. And their judgment potentially as a priority in the allocation of that's what we're doing in bankruptcy would have come first. So I think they left enough in the tank, if you will, in Alex Jones' assets to give the other families, because of course these jurors knew about the trial in Connecticut

and the trial was coming up. So I think that they did a very judicious thing by not taking all of Alex Jones' money even though they could have in the Texas case. So that's cutting edge. That's Alex Jones ripped from tonight's headlines. Let's move on to another major development this week with in the Department of Justice, Donald Trump fight over the Mar-a-Lago documents. Or as a number of commentators have come to call it, Mara Lagos initials are M-A-L, Mal, I can't think of a more Mal, Mal everything than Mara Lagos.

Mal content, Malware and all of the... Mal practice. Mal practice being committed by all of his lawyers. Very good. All right. So now let's talk about this. Let's just, I'll set the stage and then you can pick up with the new filing by the Department

of Justice. We start with Eileen Cannon, a very junior rookie federal judge sitting in the upper Hinterlands of the Southern District of Florida and Fort Pierce, a small city in Florida who gets chosen randomly. I know a lot of people don't believe that randomly. And sides with Trump at every turn. She makes a decision, which is then appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

in which she established two things in her orders. She established a special master agreeing with Trump. The special master was given the scope or the remit to evaluate the 100 classified documents pursuant to her order and 11,000 other documents. Meaning not only is he reviewing them he's issuing reports and allowing the Trump team to see the 100 documents based on her order of the Trump team to see the 100 documents based on her order of classified information and the 11,000. That's the rub we're going to talk about in the Supreme Court. Trump wants to get his dirty little myths on the 100 documents, the 100 classified documents, so that he can in the future object to

their use, move to quash them whatever. he doesn't want to be left in the dark He has no idea what was in his own boxes and in his own desk apparently and wants to find out to the special master So that was the order of cadets. She also Enjoined or stopped issued an injunction against the Department of Justice from continuing its criminal investigation Using the any of those documents, including the 100 classified. That was the iPop where every lawyer, worth his salt and former prosecutor like you were like, what the actual AF? She is stopping a criminal investigation that has national security and defense security

implications because the former president asked for it? That can't be right. And then the Department of Justice took two appeals. I wanna make this clear, two processes that the Department of Justice pursued. The first one was to try to get the 11th Circuit, a panel of the 11th Circuit, to rule in its favor on a narrow appeal, a narrow appeal

of Judge Cannon's original order. What they appealed was not the whole thing originally, the Department of Justice appealed that aspect of her order, that A stopped them from continuing to prosecute and investigate the, their criminal investigation, right? And on the 100 classified documents, not the 11,000, the Department of Justice says, give them back their hours. And they shouldn't

go through a special master process. That was the narrow appeal they took on an emergency basis to the 11th Circuit, three judge panel two weeks ago comprised of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee all got together in a precurium decision which means two things. unanimous and they didn't sign it. It was all it was the collective wisdom of the three judges. They all said judge canon. You've committed reversible error and that aspect of your decision that the Department of Justice is appealing, which is that you're putting the hundred classified documents through the special master process, I said, the magistrate, but special master process is wrong, turn them over immediately the Department of Justice and the FBI to continue their investigation.

And you cannot enjoy, stop, the Department of Justice from continuing to continue their investigation. And you cannot enjoy, stop, the Department of Justice from continuing to continue their criminal prosecution during this pendency at all. You went far beyond your jurisdiction. In fact, you had no jurisdiction to do that. And so said the 11th Circuit. So what happened next?

First thing that happened is the Department of Justice. Now, reading at least one panel of the 11 circuits, one three judge panel of the 11 circuits view that the Department of Justice was completely in the right and Trump completely in the wrong and canon completely in the wrong have now filed an emergency full blown appeal to the 11 circuit on an expedited track to have the entire order of even about the 11,000 documents and every other aspect of Judge Canaan's order thrown into the trash bag.

And the 11th Circuit at the top level, the Chief Judge and another judge at a Berkdo Jordan who is responsible for administration of the 11th Circuit, ruled a week ago or so in the Department of Justice's favor, and said, we're going to do a fast track full blown appeal. All briefing is going to be done by the 17th of November. We're going to have a hearing after that. And to answer the question that everybody's got on their mind in legal AF universe, it's going to be a different three judges.

In the order of establishing the briefing schedule, Judge Jordan said that in consultation with Judge prior, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, that there's gonna be a new panel, a new special merits panel, all of whom have national security clearance. Because yes, some judges do have national security clearance, because they're handling those kind of cases. So we're going to have to see which three judges could it be one or more of the original three? Yes, but it's going to be a random wheel, a random selection by the clerk per the court's

order. And we'll have to see what that panel is comprised of in terms of appointees and then make a decision from that. That's the 11th circuit. In the meantime, Trump didn't like the 11th Circuit's ruling on the narrow issue and took an appeal, tries to take an appeal on an emergency application to the US Supreme Court.

First up on that train, the justice of the Supreme Court that's assigned to the 11th Circuit, and unfortunately that is just as Clarence Thomas. So Clarence Thomas, as we've spoken about in prior podcasts, has the authority, as the assigned judge for the circuit, to decide the application for emergency appeal on his own, really, by himself, or he can refer it to the full nine-member Supreme Court. I think he's going to do that, but there's no indication yet. All we have so far is that Justice Thomas set up a briefing schedule requiring the Department of Justice to file its opposition to Trump's request for

to peel last night. And it's just in and Karen's going to break it down for us. First of all, this is the most complicated quagmire of legal machinations I've ever seen in my life. I mean, the fact that you can keep all these things straight is unbelievable to me because I find myself having to when I'm reading about reading about this and trying to do research for this podcast, I'm like researching again, okay, what's pendant jurisdiction, what's interlocatory appeals, what's equitable jurisdiction. I mean, this case has so many twists and turns. I mean, some people might say, how was Trump able to even go to the Supreme Court on that narrow ruling in the 11th Circuit?

When now there's a fast-tracked 11th Circuit full appeal, which is also going to appeal the narrow ruling of the 11th Circuit. Why doesn't he have to wait for that to go to the Supreme Court? But we all know that Trump lives in his own world with his own rules that aren't like the rest of us. So what happened Tuesday was the Department of Justice filed a 34 page response to Donald Trump's request, his emergency application before the Supreme Court. And this was filed by the solicitor general

of the United States, Elizabeth. How do you pronounce your last name? Pre-Logor? Yeah, I think it's pro. I think it's Pro-Lager. Pro-Lager, Elizabeth. How do you pronounce your last name? Pre-Logar or pro? Yeah, I think it's pro. I think it's Pro-Lager. Pro-Lager, OK. So Solicitor Generals, those are sort of the really, really smart lawyers.

They're the ones who represent the government in the Supreme Court of the United States. And so she is the solicitor general and she filed this 34-page response and it explains exactly what they're asking for and basically what she said was to the Supreme Court do not intervene in the matter and let the 11th Circuit's decision to stand while this full appeal is pending in the 11th Circuit,

which is what makes all the sense in the world and is what should happen. I mean, I just think the case isn't right to go to the Supreme Court yet, but he, of course, you know, he is, I'm sure, going to convince Clarence Thomas to rule. And in this filing, what they basically said was, what the Department of Justice said was, it makes no sense that Trump should be allowed to put those 103 documents back into Judge Deere's special master review.

And it's for several reasons. First of all, you know, what they want is they want, what Trump wants is he wants, as you said, to actually get copies of them and to look at them. And they said, first of all, you know, his lawyers don't have the security clearance is necessary. Some are the very highest level top secret, sensitive, compartmentalized information that there's a need to know standard.

And he hasn't met that burden to show that they need to know this information. They also said that Trump hasn't said how he will be irreparably harmed by this, and the government said that they are irreparably harmed by this. And he also has not explained how ever how the 100 documents could be a turning client privileged or executive privilege. So basically what they said, what the Department of Justice said was essentially, he didn't make any of the most basic showings that you have to make, he just wants them.

And that's not enough for something this extraordinary. In order to prevail in the Supreme Court, he'd have to show that the 11th Circuit, that there was clear error, but he didn't, they didn't show that. They didn't put forth any facts to show that there was any error or clear error. And so that's where, I think they should succeed, but who knows with Clarence Thomas. They also said that Judge Cannon aired in claiming this special equitable jurisdiction,

and just as a reminder for people what that is, typically when there's criminal investigation happening, you can't ask a judge to intervene in say search warrant until there's criminal charges that are brought. And if criminal charges are brought, then you have normal motion practice. And that's where things like search and seizure, fourth amendment type of challenges are made. So to ask a court to intervene in this interim phase before there's any criminal prosecution, the judge has to assert what's called equitable jurisdiction and essentially say that what the government did was so outrageous and they violated my rights. And Trump doesn't ever say that. He never ever says that.

And in fact, Judge Cannon found that the court didn't, I mean, I'm sorry, that the Department of Justice didn't act in any egregious way that violated his rights. So as a result, there's just no jurisdiction, if you will, to intervene in this matter based on all the different, just sort of where this, of this motion. And basically, the Trump said that technically speaking, that the Department of Justice, you know, as you explained,

Judge Cannon made two rulings about the special master. And the Department of Justice only appealed the first one and not the second one, but the second one is the one that outlined the scope of Judge Dairy's review. And so therefore, Trump was arguing that the 11th Circuit lacked jurisdiction to block the special master's review of these sense of documents. But the Department of Justice argued, no, these are inextricably intertwined. And so, you know, therefore, it's properly before the Department of Justice, but that's the one little area that I think could potentially, if Clarence Thomas wanted to give Trump a

win, which I'm sure he does, he could basically say that the Department of Justice screwed up by not appealing both by by only Only doing one and my question was did the Department of Justice grow up or was was it a timing thing? Had the second ruling come out yet at the time? I couldn't piece that together So it's just like I'm sure you know the answer Thanks I happen to know the answer. Thanks. I'm happy to know that answer. The timing. It was a timing thing when they appealed when they appealed the order related to the establishment of the special prosecutor, the remaining

order related to the, enjoying them and issuing a junction about their criminal prosecution, continued prosecution had not yet come out. However, I believe that the Department of Justice and its filings with Clarence Thomas, which I'm hoping, we keep saying it's Clarence Thomas's decision to make and it technically is. I would, I mean, look, nothing at all, have I learned anything in two years of hosting,

co-hosting Legal AF is that nothing at all, have I learned anything in two years of hosting, co-hosting legal AF is that nothing surprises me, especially when it's attached to the names of Clarence Thomas or his wife. Everybody thinks he should recuse himself from even hearing these issues, which he's not going to do. It has not done. It will not do. The other, the other, um, fear is that he does not turn this over to the full, uh,

panel of nine Supreme Court justices and tries to make this ruling on his own. I don't think he's going to do that. I can't tell you why. I can't, but I don't think he's going to do that. The last time that, that Trump was before the Supreme Court about his documents and the assertion of some sort of privilege related to the Jansick's committee's attempts to get his documents, I want to remind everybody or give people at least a peace of mind. Trump lost. He lost the Supreme Court. He didn't lose by a little. He lost by a lot. He lost eight to one The one person who voted that Trump should get his documents back and they shouldn't go to the Gen 6 committee was Clarence Thomas. I don't think Clarence Thomas knowing that he was out voted eight to one on a kind of a similar issue Is going to be out there on his own

granting the appeal and adjoining or stopping the 11th Circuit from enforcing its stay against Judge Cannon. In other words, ruling in favor of Judge Cannon and sending those 100 documents away from the Department of Justice and back to the special master. He could do it. It just don't think he's going to do it. We'll know soon. Now that the full briefing is in, we will, all the court watchers at the Supreme Court are carefully watching the various dockets and postings that show, and we'll watch it

too, that show when a case has been referred to the full committee or when it order is going to be coming out directly from, from coming out directly from Clarence Thomas. After the Supreme Court took so much heat over a year ago about the quote unquote shadow docket, including from its own members, like Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer at the time, they sort of dialed back that process. and there's enough time for full briefing There's enough time for argument. I think he turns it over to the full group And I think the full group of nine even this nine votes in favor of the Department of justice in favor of the 11 circuits ruling Against judge cannon and against Donald Trump on this issue

Because his briefing is terrible, the law that he cites is wrong, the jurisdictional argument that you've raised, and he's raised, or you've mentioned that he's raised is completely wrong. There is a concept that we mentioned at the top of the segment called pendant jurisdiction, which means that if, as you said, if issues are intertwined or so intertwined, that the court yes has jurisdiction over the one that's been appealed, but another corollary or related issue is so intertwined and ammeshed with the issue that's up for appeal. The Appellate Court can grab that too under its jurisdictional powers and adjudicate it. And that's exactly what the

11th Circuit did because you can't separate the special master component from the injunction against the continued criminal prosecution or criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. You just can't. Well, especially if it was a timing thing. So if it was just a matter of, well, we couldn't do it because it hadn't come down yet. Of course, they're going to do that.

Now, the other head scratcher, which I'll try to answer, is like, why are we here? Why does Trump get to go and ask for an emergency Supreme Court application? Is that just because Clarence Thomas happens to be the sitting at the desk granting these things that day? Yes and no. There is a concept of what's called, um, vacator or vacating a stay and asking the Supreme Court to vacate or issue

what's called a vacator of a stay issued by a lower appellate court. And it's briefed, in its outline and it's briefed by the Department of Justice. There's three elements. There's always like three elements. And most of what you and I do, there's usually three or four elements that comes from some sort of case law or body of case law. And those elements have to be met in order for a party to get the relief that they're seeking. So Trump has to establish his burden as the party appealing. First, that the Supreme Court would review this case

in the future after all the appeal process is done at the 11th Circuit. So it's the Supreme Court asking itself kind of taking a peek into the future and answering the question, is this the case that we would review at the end of an 11th Circuit or a Circuit Court appellate process? And that one is probably yes. I mean, you know, when you're dealing with a former president of his papers, this, I don't think it's that novel, but this issue of whether, you know, a court, a trial court can do certain

things in the middle of a process in relationship to a search warrant or not. Maybe I would think the Supreme Court, that would make cut in his favor. But the next one is that the, that the Circuit Court, the Court, the Court of Appeals below the Supreme Court, did they make a demonstrably wrong ruling and a misinterpretation prevailing precedent? That's a dead loser for Trump. The 11th Circuit analysis, its law, its precedent is spot on. And that's a contrast to Trump's, which is completely nonsensical.

And then the third is, will the party, that's appealing, suffer a reprobable harm if the stay isn't lifted? The 11th Circuit stay in this case isn't lifted. And that's a dead loser for Trump also, because he may not like it, as you said, give me, give me, give me, I want my documents back. I'd love to know it's in those 103 classified folders that I kept, sad that he doesn't even know the things that he stole.

He doesn't even know what he has. But his curiosity is not the equivalent of a reputable harm. Because what is the reputable harm? A, he doesn't have an ownership interest in these documents. These aren't like, hey, they took my computer with all of my business records on it, and I can't operate my business without it.

So I'm a reprably harm. I'm gonna go down the tubes if I don't get my hard drive back. All right, that's sort of different. But this is, hey, I'd love to see what's in those 100 classified folders. That's not a reputableble arm under any courts analysis. So while I think he may win on the first with the Supreme Court take the case, he loses

on the next two elements. And I think that's it. Draw line under it. Game over. Now, whether Clarence Thomas bends over backwards as the one hold out on an eight to one decision against Trump just recently on its documents. I don't know.

Here's my prediction. I want to see what you think. A, he refers, Thomas refers it over to the full court. Full court takes it, has full briefing, has oral argument, and rules in favor of the Department of Justice and against Donald Trump. What do you think? I think this is, I don't think he really wants these documents or needs to see these documents. I think he's just trying to delay things like he always does. I don't think he really, I think he knows exactly what's in them. I mean, they were taken. What is a Supreme Court to? What's a Supreme Court to?

You know, I don't have a gut on this. I think they, because, because, and the reason I said the delay thing is because by doing a full briefing on this, it just delays the whole thing again, potentially. You know, and that is that I don't think they should or will do. I think that they potentially might not hear this. I think they potentially will say, you know, and give him a win. Just give him so that Clarence Thomas and Supreme Court,

I think the Supreme Court is a little bit worried about their legitimacy. And I think that if they can find an easy ruling that they can make, that is not in Trump's favor because this one, for all the reasons you described, is so extreme ways, such an extreme favor of the Department of Justice. And you've got national security here.

You've got the moat, you've got nuclear codes and secrets potentially, I mean, whatever, whatever the most secret thing is that exists. You know, I think this Supreme Court, there's a chance they just say, this is a bridge too far, Donald Trump, and Department of Justice go do your thing, and then they can say, see, we don't just do his bidding,

there is a legitimacy here, but I, again, what do I want? I hope you're right. Well, what do we both do? But we both, we both with a season of opinions, have landed in the same place, I hope I hope that's true. So before we move on, we've got a sponsor that the Karen and I love for legal AF. And my hunch is that our audience is going to love it too.

And that's aspiration. A unique debit card that helps you with your carbon footprint and helps you contribute to the environment and all the right ways. When it comes to saving the planet, there is no neutrality. There's no both sides of the issue. If you keep your money in most standard bank accounts like I do, they're lending your deposits out to fund oil and coal, switch to the planet's side and get aspiration. Aspiration is a climate-friendly alternative to big banks, get an account, and debit card that's built to help your wallet and the planet. Moving $1,000 to an aspiration plus account has the same impact as driving 6,000 miles less this year. That's amazing. Plus, you can earn up to 71 times

as much interest than at your old bank. Aspiration is fossil fuel is fossil fuel free and lets you plant a tree by rounding up every swipe of your debit card. Aspirations have been hard at work helping people align their money with their values. Funding the planting of over 100 million trees, let me repeat that. 100 million trees have been planted as a result of the aspiration debit card and its users. And they're on their way to funding the planting of 1 billion trees by 2030. It's no wonder why Forbes, Nerd Wallet and the Pennyhorter recommend aspiration for the eco-conscious. And so do we here at Legal AF. I personally, both this is Popebox speaking, I personally care about fighting climate change because I'm on big jets a lot for my national

trial practice. As people know, I travel a lot for work. And, you know, what am I supposed to do to offset all that fossil fuels being used to get me on a commercial from point A to point B? And this is one way I can sleep better at night knowing that I'm contributing to the healing of the planet by using the aspiration debit card. Best of all for the aspiration debit card, there's no credit check, no overdraft fees, and with aspiration you just pay what you think is fair, even if that's zero, because money shouldn't stand

in the way of you doing the right thing. Make your dollars, make a difference, open an aspiration account, and listen to this one, LegalAe offers, this is a special code just for you. Open and account at aspiration.com slash legal AF debit. And move your money out of fossil fuels. Help save the planet with your aspiration debit card. Remember, the link is aspiration.com slash legal AF debit. That's one word, LG, A L, A F, D E, B I T today terms and conditions

apply. I love that. What do you think about that? I love the sponsor. I love this card. It's the best. We're getting. I like the fact that you and I are getting like a very unique set of sponsors on midweek. That's that's even different that what Ben and I are getting or doing and sponsoring on the weekend. We're getting like the SOC company that you like. Bombas, yeah, my favorite sauce. Bombas, we're getting aspirations to help heal the planet with a debit card. I mean, really, who could ask for anything more?

Yeah, the best, the best sponsors. Yeah. And now we got a transition from that to our third and final story tonight, which is how states are trying to find their way since the June decision by the Supreme Court, basically finding that the Second Amendment is apparently the paramount constitutional right in all of the constitution, all attempts to regulate handguns and weaponry be damned. And since June in the 63 decision written by, this is becoming the Clarence Thomas show, written by Clarence Thomas in New York Rifle Association versus Bruin, in which the Supreme

Court said that they will tolerate very little in the way of regulation against concealed weapons and handguns in America. And that if they can't find a historical precedent starting in the 1200s all the way up to the 1800s or 1900s for a particular restriction, they're going to strike it down. And while Clarence Thomas in his written opinion that six other justices joined, and we know we don't have to keep repeating who those six are, we know who they are. We know they weren't. They weren't the moderate progressive wing of the Supreme Court.

He held out one bit of hope, but with very little actual guidance for states who now had to pick up the pieces after the June decision and rewrite their regulations concerning concealed weapons and other gun restrictions. He wrote in there that while he could envision sensitive districts where guns would not be permitted because such sensitive districts had been recognized in olden times, in historic times in the United States, he also cautioned that he does not want to see the Supreme Court would not tolerate

if a state, for instance, broadened the definition of sensitive districts to encompass, for instance, an entire urban area, like no guns in all of Manhattan or in New York City. That, the Supreme Court said would be, as you said earlier, a bridge too far, but did say there could be certain sensitive regions, maybe a hospital, maybe a church, maybe a school where that kind of restriction

could be upheld and could be justified. That's June. So by August, one of the first states out of the box, and one of the leading states, is the state that was the losing side of the box and one of the leading states is the state that was the losing side of the case in June, New York State. And it's new governor, Governor Hockle got together and passed what is referred to as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which allows for concealed carry permits to be issued to people, but creates a long list and maybe too long of a list of sensitive districts where no guns will be permitted, no guns allowed, including airports, schools, government bodies, hospitals, time square, entertainment arenas, sports arenas, theaters, and the list goes on and on.

That's one of the problems, is that the list goes on and on. Also had some very interesting, and I think my bonafides as a progressive, as it can't be assailed. However, there was a requirement, or is a requirement of the New York law that applicants for concealed weapons permits turn over their social media account links so that the investigators can take a look at how people are expressing themselves in a first amendment way or otherwise in their social media. And that was a little bit odd too. And so that's in there. And other restrictions on the ability to obtain a concealed weapons permit. So of course, groups that are pro-gun,

pro-gun without restriction, like gun owners of America, a group I never heard of. I'm sure it's an astroturf group that just got created artificially recently called, you know, GOA. It brought a suit challenging in the federal courts of New York, the new law claiming that it violated the Second Amendment and it violated the Supreme Court's ruling in June in the brewing case.

They filed it in a bit of form shopping that we've talked about in a number of different circumstances on legal AF. They filed the case in the Northern District of New York, the upper regions, I think they might have been Buffalo or Albany. And they pulled a judge who was a George H.W. Bush appointee, Judge Sutterby, and Judge Sutterby found that most of the new law in New York is unconstitutional under the new ruling of the Supreme Court because it goes too far in defining sensitive areas. He also was troubled by the social media turnover requirement as being a violation of

First Amendment. And he stayed the law or he overruled or overturned the law, but gave a temporary stay in order for New York State to take an appeal this time to the second circuit whose circuit court judge is part of the progressive group, not Clarence Thomas, and taken appeal to the second circuit which Latisha James as the New York Attorney General and the chief legal officer of the state has done. Karen, you have some very strong opinions about the concealed weapons law, the new law, and the second amendment. And I want to have you break it down now.

So in Bruin, basically what they said was there were five states, New York being one of them, that were unconstitutional and overturned the gun laws in those five states. And the reason was because every other state had what were called shell issue states, whereas these five were may issue states. And it's about issuing a permit. And so because it's a constitutional right, those have to be treated differently than other things that you might apply for a permit for.

So this said, the second amendment guarantees your right to have a permit to carry a firearm. And so a state shall issue it if you meet certain criteria. And the criteria are things like you haven't been in a psychiatric hospital. You don't have criminal convictions, et cetera. New York was a May issue state. And so what effectively happened was it

was just up to the discretion of whoever was looking over the application. And what ended up happening is almost no conceal-carry permits were issued to New Yorkers. I mean, very, very few. It was very hard to get, and so that's why it was overturned. But New York passed a new gun law that you talked about about three months ago, and that new law, according to Judge Sunabee,

what they said was that it makes it even harder for someone in New York to get a permit. And it's way too restrictive for the reasons that you said. And essentially what he ruled was, you know, New York went from a mate, was supposed to go from a mate issue state to a shell issue state. But instead, they turned a constitutional right into a mere request and just took it too far.

And, you know, I will say, it's an interesting position that he's taking, but he said that you have to, so what are the things he pointed out in, you know, this historical precedent of, you know, if you're going to talk about certain sensitive areas, he said, well, there were no summer camps, you know, in old, tinyy days. So therefore, you can't just ban it from all summer camps. You know, that restriction is blocked because, you know, it has to be historical precedent. You have to find it. You know,

but you can do it. You know, he did allow the requirement of 18 hours worth of training of barring guns from government buildings, schools, places of worship, etc. But he did say this is not the playbook, and you can't make it harder. The whole point of this is it's a constitutional right. So they're going to have an emergency appeal, I think, to the second circuit is where I think this is going to be headed.

And then we'll see from there. But my opinion, you asked my opinion on this. I do actually think that the New York, the violence and shootings are up. And but most of those are done by people who illegally are possessing illegal guns. And I do feel that if you do go through 18 hours worth of training and you are a person who meets all the other requirements

and you want to have a handgun for self-defense, I do think especially outside of New York City where I do think it's a little dense and could be dangerous and confusing to law enforcement who respond to emergencies. It's hard to tell who's the good guy with the gun and who's the bad guy with the gun. I do think that New York needs to move to a more moderate position and allow for more people to properly possess guns in the state.

Because I do think they may have gone a little too far and look, crime is going up and people want to feel safe and they want to defend their homes and they want to defend themselves. And I think you have to allow for that. And if you have training and again, if it's in areas that are more rural, I think it's justifiable and not just for hunting, but also for things like self-defense. But in New York City, I do have strong feelings about it. I don't think more guns in New York City makes you safer because it's so densely populated. And, you know, as I said, it can be very difficult. But part of the problem in New York

is that if you are caught possessing a gun, the minimum is three and a half years. So it's a harsh penalty. So, you know, we'll see where this goes and a half years. So it's a harsh penalty. So we'll see where this goes and where this lands, but New York wanted to be a model for these other states. And so far, that's not. So far, it's hit a road bump. Yeah, I had thought from the beginning

that the concealed weapons or concealed carry improvement acts that hope could pass it gone too far. I not too far based on an alignment of my personal values, although people know my my opinion about concealed carry. It went too far given the world that we now operate in. You can't bury your head in the sand and act like June didn't happen. Act like the Bruin decision, six to three, you know, strengthening the second amendment and throwing aside all restrictions that aren't tied to him some historical precedent and

basically saying all states are going to have to be must issue, not may issue in terms of concealed weapon permits, we can't act like that didn't happen. And you can't pass laws if you're a state that aren't compliant with the Supreme Court decision, even if you don't like it. And we know what the majority decision is. Now, what this is demonstrating is that states, like as you said, out in the Vanguard, out the front,

like New York are fumbling around in the dark, trying to find the right balance, because having now been rocked in June by the decision, they're trying to figure out how far they can go. Where is the line? You can't find it in the Supreme Court decision. I defy anybody to read, you know, and this is the way Supreme Court decisions are read,

are written. They are not statutes with subparagraphs and written like law and, you know, with like a decision-making tree and, you know, go to subpar 26, it doesn't have that. This is written in prose, right? This is written in the historical precedence of the 1400s, and there is no this, and the second amendment is Paramount and Sacrasek.

Okay, great, but what does a legislator do who has to write a law that complies with that pros. Barack Obama once said that you campaign in poetry, but you have to govern in pros. Where's the pros? Where's the language in the Supreme Court? It's not there. Oftentimes, it is not there. It's left to the states and the state legislators after a ruling like this one, to fumble around in

the dark trying to find the right balance. New York didn't, I mean, I think to most neutral and moderate observers, while they liked certain aspects of the New York law, they were having trouble squaring it with the ruling of Bruin from June. And I think that's why you and I sort of like kind of rolled up our nose a little bit like it did struck us wrong. A number of these things. I do not think, for instance, that under the six to three decision in brewing, you can designate the entire city of New York or any urban area as a special interest area or sensitive district and outlaw guns in it or over regulate in that area.

I'm not even sure you can do it in a neighborhood like Times Square. Now, look, I live in New York. Lord knows I don't want any cigarette smoking, tickle me elbows in Times Square also having a weapon. Okay, because a lot of those people, some of those people are a little bit mentally unstable Elmos in Times Square also having a weapon. Because a lot of those people, some of those people are a little bit mentally unstable. And I'm not, but if they have to go,

we're not talking about, you know, as you said, illegal weapons. We're talking about licensed concealed weapons through a process, through training, through a licensing process, through a background check. Those are the people that are going to be transiting in and out of these districts with weapons.

And so, you know, I don't want to have everybody confused. You know, we're not talking about the bad guys with weapons. We're talking about, let's be frank, citizens who go through a process who are law abiding because they don't have a weapon who are getting licensed and trained for a certain purpose. The question is how much regulation can you put around them and the answer from brewing from the summer is not much.

So look, New York's going to have to go back to the drawing board. I don't think they're going to do it immediately. It's not like they're going to try to get more guidance from the second circuit. But my prediction, second prediction on the show is that they're going to have to go back to the drawing board and they're going to have to more closely adhere to the milestones and guideposts that are found buried inside of Clarence Thomas' decision from June, because that is the current law of the land unless it until the Supreme Court revisits the issue of the Second Amendment and regulation, which frankly, they will at some time

because this kind of law will then go up and this is where the Supreme Court oftentimes has to take another case, one year, two years, five years later to clarify their positions because they weren't clear the first time. So they'll say, well, we said in Bruin, but what we really meant was, and they'll use that to address a certain aspect of a state's law. So look, New York wants to be, you know, the clarifying case to take back to the Supreme

Court, to have the Supreme Court clarify what it meant when it said, don't overdo it on sensitive districts, because that's not going to be consistent with the Second Amendment right that we found and validated in Bruin. So we're going to have to see, this won't be the only state. California is struggling with the new concealed weapons law. You know, other blue states are struggling with life post-Bruin. And there'll be opportunities with conflicting circuit courts, I'm sure.

You know, the second circuit ruling, oh no, these are fine underbroon. The fifth circuit, the 11th circuit, ruling differently, the ninth circuit, maybe siding with the second circuit. And then the Supreme Court's gonna have to say, oh, look at the floodgates that we opened here. We're gonna have to revisit this issue.

Yeah, they'll make it worse. Yeah, bring it back up to us. Well, what they'll end up doing, they'll make it worse in one way. I agree with you. Because then they'll really start doing what they're not supposed to do, which is legislate and start writing a code book for state legislators to do, which is not what the Supreme Court is supposed to be doing as one of the co-equal branches of government.

But look, we're going to have to see and follow the Second Amendment. It's important to our listeners and followers. It's certainly important to you as a former prosecutor in the state of New York, and it's important to me as somebody that believes in the aspects of the Second Amendment as long as it's properly regulated. So we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF. It's one of my most joyous times during the week. I'll have really two of them in my professional life. One of them is with Ben on Saturday and one of them is with Karen Friedman-Ignifalo on Wednesdays.

Let's talk about how you can help the movement that we have here, the Midas Mide, shout out to the Midas Mide. There's a number of ways. One of them is you are watching this on YouTube, but every morning after the podcast is videotaped or videoed, we drop it everywhere that you can get an audio podcast, Google, Spotify, Apple, and you watch and subscribe to the YouTube channel for Midas Touch here. That helps. Listen and follow and subscribe. It's all free on any of the platforms that you get your audio podcasts from.

And if you watched it with us tonight or watched it in the future, listen to it. Just click the subscribe button. That helps us with the algorithms and that helps the show stay at the future, listen to it. Just click the subscribe button. That helps us with the algorithms and that helps the show stay at the very, very top of the news rankings, which is important to the survival of this show. And for fun, it also helps. You can buy legal AF merchandise. We've got short sleeve t-shirts. We've got coffee mugs. And we've got a new logo with wheels of justice and legal AF and a long sleeve shirt for the fall and the winter that's up on our,

where merchandise store through Midas and they're up for sale. So these are all the ways that you can help and you can contribute to this movement, this community that we have help and you can contribute to this movement, this community that we have cultivated and we have attracted. It's not about Karen, Michael, Ben, his brothers. It's about you because if we didn't have you and we didn't have this growing audience

that's growing literally exponentially, I mean, we are doubling, tripling, quadrupling, our audience, our followers since last year, since two years ago when we first started. If we didn't have your loyal following and listening, your involvement, your being on Twitter, your being on live chat with us, your telling your friends and family who we are, what we're all about, and getting them over here to get the unbiased, unadulterated legal and political opinions that you can only find on the Midas Network and Legal AF. We'd be done.

I like Karen and Ben a lot. I talk to them every week for free, but this whole thing only works because we have an audience. So shout out to the Midas Mighty. We'll see you on Saturday when Ben and I give you the wrap up for the week and we'll see you next Wednesday on the midweek edition of Legal AF.

Karen, last words. We are the antidote to misinformation. And by the way, we do talk for free every week since we don't get paid. So, this is free. So, the my only last words are we used to we used to tape the day before this was broadcast. And today lately we've been doing it the same day and now we're doing it an hour before. We should do it live one day. We're going we're going to go live. We've been talking to the suits and to our producer. We might even go

live live next week. So it'll be legal AF live. And why been talking to the suits and to our producer. We might even go live live next week so it'll be legal AF live and Why don't you bring up the thing we talked about in our Mailbag, yeah, I missed doing mail. They're returning mailbags. Talk about that. Yeah, so mailbag is a way for people to ask us questions Legal questions that come up during the week and every once in a while on Twitter, people ask questions and I try to answer as many as I can or that I know the answers to, but on Twitter, but it's hard because you're limited by just a very short, yes, no, maybe. And oftentimes these are much more complicated than that. So if you have any questions for us, feel free to drop them on the LegalAF Twitter feed

and we'll add them to Mailbag because I want to bring it back. It was a lot of fun. feel free to drop them on the Legal AF Twitter feed and we'll add them to Mailbag because I want to bring it back. It was a lot of fun. All right, Legal LF Mailbag breaking news, and we're gonna be live next week. This is Michael Popock, Karen Friedman, I get the low signing off.

you