Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump files Desperate Motion in Federal Court and Gets INSTANT KARMA

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on breaking news with Trump’s lawyers desperately filing an early motion for mistrial even before they are done cross examining E Jean Carroll in her suit against Trump, a motion so frivolous that the court already denied it. Thanks to our sponsor Zbiotics: Head to zbiotics.com/LegalAF to get 15% off your first order when you use LEGALAF at checkout. Shop Meidas Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Michael Popoq legal a F well the old theme song from sopranos is playing in Joe Takapina's mind. I woke up this morning. Joe Takapina woke up this morning and he filed a motion from mistrial. During in the eG in carol case he's not even done with the cross examination of of eG in carol but he's so getting his backside kicked by both eG in carol and the judge that he did something extraordinary. He fights not even mid case. He's not even it's one third of the case through when he thinks he's got a grounds for mistrial, which he doesn't. So let me start with the fresh news. The judge already denied the motion for mistrial done. Move on cross examine the witness.

She's your witness, Mr. Takapina finished with EG and Carol. But let me tell you how we got there and why this shows complete weakness and a self-awareness, I guess, that he doesn't completely understand by Joe Takapina's point that he's conceding that they're losing. Let's start with this as a trial lawyer. No perfect trial. There's no such thing as a perfect trial. You're not guaranteed by the US Constitution, a perfect trial. You're not guaranteed by the US Constitution a perfect trial You're guaranteed a fair trial and that's what the judge has been giving him He just doesn't like the Takapina homicide and Trump side

Just don't like that they're on the losing end of ridiculous motions that have no support in the law at all All we've learned so far so far in at this point in the trial And in the motion that was just filed at 501 this morning is that Joe Takapina doesn't have a command of the English language of grammar of syntax and of English literature because most of what he's arguing about, if you have to believe that what you put in your motion first is most important to you, then what's most important to him is that Joe Takapina can't ask a proper question in a federal courthouse and get an answer back without having the other side properly object and the judge sustain the objection.

That's not on them. That's on you. Yes, this is an adversarial process. Everybody has a role. The judge is the umpire. It calls the balls and strikes. The other side gets to object. And then the objection is either sustained or overruled. And then you move on. See, Joe

Takapina normally plies his trade, if you want to call it that in a statehouse, state courthouse doing criminal law, where there's a lot more leeway, especially in New York state. I've been in New York state Supreme Supreme Court a lot more leeway than federal court. Federal court, you better mind your peas and cues. You better dot your eyes and cross your tees. You better know your federal rules of civil procedure. You better know your federal rules of of of evidence. If you don't know them, the other side's going to remind you what you're missing. And you got to figure out from the judge how to make objections. Some some objections. The judge is okay with with what's called the speaking objection. Sometimes it's, you got to put the smallest amount of words on the records so that the jury

doesn't really know what's going on. Some judges require you to cite by the rule, rule number 403, 401, 412, and then makes decisions based on that. So the objections here are basically the Joe Takapina because he can't ask a proper question, keeps getting slapped down, then he gets frustrated because he can't figure out how to ask the proper question and he blames the judge.

I'll give you an example. If you ask a question of a witness like Joe Takapina has been doing, you can bring out the following under question and answer. Your position, Miss Carol, is that you and Donald Trump were in a dressing room about eight foot, but 12 feet wide at about six or seven o'clock at night on a Thursday night. Is that right, ma'am? Yes. And that during that time, you say at some point, you were pushed up against the wall, right? Right. And that you injured your head. Yes. And that at some point, my client sexually attacked you.

Isn't that right, ma'am? Right. But nowhere your claim to the jury is there was no one around you. There were no other people there. There were no other salespeople. There were no security guards. Nothing. Right, ma'am? Right. Okay, that's a proper cross examination. What you can't do is what's called argumentative questioning, which is sort of what it sounds like. It's not that you're arguing with the witness. It's that you're doing your closing argument. You as the lawyer are making statements that are just

for arguments sake for the jury, not really to properly ask a question to the fact witness. So you would say, so you want this jury to believe that there are, there are no, it's not a soul around, not, not a, not a person around at a very busy department store, that prides itself at having service, that prides itself, objection, argumentative. Where is your question, Joe? That's an argument. And then when you get shot down because you're asking argumentative questions, and it happens happens to me, happens to other people on legal AF that are practicing lawyers, you just regroup. You try to get away within it. It didn't work. So you say, let me rephrase. And then you rephrase.

So your position is that no one was around on five o'clock in the evening in the lingerie section of Berkdorf, right, ma'am? That's it. And you move on. And then you make your argument, the actual argument in closing time, you know, like five or six days from now, you say, you can't believe that. And then you, whatever argument you want to make, he did it again and again and again, got shot down by the judge.

So that to him shows prejudicial behavior by the judge. Judges being unfair to me, judges being prejudicial to me. No, he's not. The judge is keeping you on your toes and making sure that you're complying with the rules of the road in that courtroom. And you're not. And you don't understand grammar or syntax. Atop of it, your second big argument, assuming that your arguments in your motion match

what you think is the most important is you don't understand English literature. You wanted to make a big deal, Joe Takapina, in front of E. Jean Carroll and the jury that she had in her memoir, a chapter or a section about her plan to send all men to Montana for retraining. That in the literary business is called satire. You learn that I think in seventh grade. She didn't really mean that, but just like the handmaid's tale by Margaret Atwood is satire. And there's a legitimate political and other discourse in society by having satirists. That's satire. Why you wanted to continue to bring that up, but you wanted to show

that she's that she's nutty, she's cookie, she's off her rocker because that was her plan. You didn't get it with satire. If you didn't get it, the judge got it because the judge said as you continue to drill down on this ridiculous line of questioning, the judge sort of stopped it in its track so we can get to real evidence in the case and said, she said it was satire, like Jonathan Swift's amottis proposal from 600 years ago, right, ma'am? And she said, yes. And the judge said, move on, move on, it's satire. She didn't really mean it. Let's think a quick break to talk about our next partner, Zbiotics.

Now, if you're like me, you've probably skipped a workout because of drinks the night before, like it happens. But if you commit it to your health, your routine, you need Zbiotics. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle

rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not the hydration that's the blame for your rough next day. Z-biotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. It's designed to work like your liver but in your gut where you need it most. Just remember to drink Z-biotics before drinking alcohol, drink responsibly, and get a good night's sleep to feel your best tomorrow. Now I can't lie, after we hit one million subscribers, I may have partied a little bit too much that night. But luckily, I knew I had

Z-biotics. Now as instructed, I drank a bottle of Z-biotics before any alcohol. And I was amazed at just how good I felt the next day. Give Z-biotics a try for yourself. Go to Zbiotics.com slash legalaif to get 15% off your first order when you use legalaif at checkout. Z-biotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money no questions asked.

So remember, head to zbiotics.com slash legal AF, and use the code legal AF at checkout for 15% off. Thank you, ZBiotics, for sponsoring this episode. And then Joe went home and looked it up. Or his trial team looked up a modest proposal. Again, I think you learn you read about a modest proposal in seventh or eighth grade. Maybe it's ninth grade. And a modest proposal, Jonathan Swift wrote a whole satire about solving the Irish poverty problem by eating Irish children.

And so he doubled down Takapina in his motion and he writes in the moving papers, judge, I read a modest proposal now. Like now, you just got around to it. And it was 300 years ago. And that was about Irish poverty and Irish cannibalism. This was about sending all men to Montana for retraining. I don't see the link really, Joe. You don't see how that's analogous in the world of satire. And that's your grounds for

Miss Trial. And then, so he didn't like that, that's unfair and prejudicial, the whole satire thing. And then he doesn't like the fact that the judge isn't letting him vigorously cross-examine her. And outside the presence of the jury, threatened to go after Eric Trump because Eric and Donald Trump were busy social media posting about things they shouldn't be talking about to try to influence the jury, which was a crime. And they didn't like the fact that judge warned them after it came to his attention that even though Donald Trump is too busy to show up at trial, a fact that is not lost on the jury.

Let me repeat. Jerry's hate when parties don't show up for trial, especially one, this, this important on these facts. So the jury already has not good tidings, not good feelings for Donald Trump coming into this case. And every day looking at that empty chair, they have to be there. The jury's got to show up for $22 a day or whatever they're paying these days in New York. They got to do their job and their other job and their job at home. And where's Donald Trump?

That's in the back of their mind. And to that point, another grounds, constitutional grounds for mistrial. Everybody leaned in now in my hot take. What are, what is it, Popoq? What are the constitutional grounds for mistrial? There's lawyers that sit at tables in the in at trial. And the jury, which has eyes and ears and can see that they may not notice that that EG and Carol has some lawyers too. And you're probably thinking, I'm sorry, what? All right, so let me explain it to you. Joe Takapina didn't like the fact that when in response to one of his questions,

meaning he opened the door, E. Jean Carroll said that her witness, Carol Martin, a famous newscaster, formally of CBS News in New York, told her, don't go after Donald Trump even after she heard what had happened to her back in 95 and 96 in that dressing room. Because so come after you with dozens and hundreds of lawyers and crushed you. And she rightly said, and it came true. Look, two full tables of lawyers coming after me.

And Takapino wanted to say to her, well, we have lawyers, you have lawyers too, but he did it so ham-fistedly. Rather than saying, well, ma'am, you would agree that you have lawyers also, right? And you have lawyers that are almost the same number as our lawyers, right? And kind of do it in a deft way, in a proper way. He instead did it in an argumentative way with no question. He said, but we, you have lawyers. That's not a question. We have lawyers. That's not a question, Joe. And so the judge shot you down, not because the concept you couldn't ask

about in cross examination, it's the way you asked the cross examination question. That was wrong. Another tutorial, an unnecessary tutorial by the judge. So again, we're talking about how many lawyers sit at a table and if the jury having eyes can't notice that, that Joe Takapina can't fathom satire and how it fits. He doesn't like the fact that when Joe Takapina can't ask a proper question, the judge makes them try again.

He doesn't like the fact that the judge is an allowing Joe Takapina to ask a proper question, the judge makes them try again. He doesn't like the fact that the judge isn't allowing Joe Takapina to ask a question that's not a question, but really argument, masquerading as a question. He doesn't like that. He doesn't like the fact the judge called them out on the social posting, social media posting, and said there are criminal statutes that may be implicated without going into it, leaving it to the other side to file whatever motion

they want to file. It doesn't like all that, but that's not grounds for a mistrial, Joe. That's just a normal trial. I have any trials if you put on in federal court involving these kind of facts. Not many, I presume, based on your conduct, and all you're doing is pissing the judge off, because's not going to and has not ruled in your favor and has already

denied your emotion for mistrial and told you to get on with the case. And if you think this is going to be some sort of grounds for the bill, good luck at the second circuit court of appeals where I've also argued where you're going to argue that that the judge wouldn't let you tell the judge tell the jury how many lawyers We're sitting at a table that was right in front of them or the judge the judge commented about a matter of satire in front of the jury. How does that change? the due process rights of your client

Or the judge was mean to you because you have malformed questions that don't grasp the English language or grammar or syntax And you get called out for it and you can't figure out a way right because you can't think your way out of that paper bag You can't work your way around to ask a proper question This is not grounds for a mistrial you know it you know it you're a pellet lawyers your appeal lawyers know it And it's just a waste of time money and, and energy, although a gas it gives Donald Trump something to talk about, you know, at his next rally, that, you know, judges mean to me another judge out of the 95 judges in America, every one of them, except for one Eileen Cannon found in Florida, the magistrate judge, she wasn't mean to me. But everybody else has been really, really mean to me.

They're either racist, crazy, mean, or all four things. And that's it. That's why Joe Takapina files these things. I'm sure Donald Trump types this up at three o'clock in the morning. This is my artist rendering of him typing with two fingers. And he sends it to Joe Takapina who like slaps it on, it was letterhead and files it as a motion.

I'm sure that's what's going on. I'm gonna follow this case. We've been following this case every step of the way on legal AF, the podcast that I co-anchor on Wednesdays, on Saturdays, on the Midas Touch Network, for sure. If you like this kind of content, give me a thumbs up here. Talk to me in the comments. I may talk back and you can uh, follow me on all things social media at MSPOPOC. This is Michael

Popec, legal AF reporting. Hey, Midas, mighty. Love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram at MidasTouch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.