Matthew Cox | Inside True Crime Podcast - What Will Happen To Graham Stephan and Meet Kevin | Lawyer Explains ( FTX LAWSUIT)

Episode Date: February 21, 2024

What Will Happen To Graham Stephan and Meet Kevin | Lawyer Explains ( FTX LAWSUIT)

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash-brown and a small iced coffee for $5 bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Hey, so what did you want to talk about? Well, I want to tell you about Wagovi. Yeah, Wagovi. What about it?

On second thought, I might not be the right person to tell you. Oh, you're not? No, just ask your doctor. About Wagoe. Ask for it by name. Okay. So why did you bring me to the circus? Oh, I'm really into lion tamers.

You know, with the chair and everything. Ask your doctor for Wagovi by name. Visit wagovi.comi.com for savings. Exclusions may apply. But we're all going to take their money and promote them together. And I won't do it unless you do it. And if you do it, I'll do it. And we're all in.

All the big name financial advisor, YouTubers know each other. Do all of the ex-con YouTubers know each other? A lot of them. At what point in this interview do I tell you what's going to happen with this lawsuit? Because I actually already know. But it is a 73-page lawsuit, which I have read, okay? I don't come unprepared today.

These are legitimate law firms. They make money and they make a lot of money for themselves and their clients filing class action lawsuits. Look, if I'm wrong, I'm going to say I'm wrong. And you know their attorneys are saying don't say anything. Yes. Because, you know, you may be wrong. Like, I'm sure, like, to me, the right response is just to go out and just say, look, here's I messed up.

I made a mistake. But then, of course, you like open yourself up to a massive amount of liability. Or do you? We should ask a lawyer. Hey, this is Matt Cox. And I am here with America. Erica's attorney, and we are going to be talking about the Graham Steffen and I think it's meet Kevin and the all the, isn't it meet Kevin? Oh, he's on there. Okay, all the, uh, the YouTube

influencers that are being sued over FTX or the promotion of FTX and I am and, uh, yeah, I, I, anyway, check it out. Check out the video. And, uh, I think that's about as good as they're going to get. It's early hour. yeah it's early as soon as it happened right as soon as the lawsuit came out everybody I immediately got like five people telling me you've got to do a video on this and I'm like listen I did a video on this and in that video I said I think these guys are going to get you know one I said they might get indicted and then I said but I think they'll probably definitely be sued over this and that was you know so then of course when it happened I was like like, well, I'm not shocked and I kind of already mentioned it, but everybody was saying, you've got to do a video about this. You've got to do a video about this. But I kind of just assume they would get sued. You know, whether it goes anywhere or not, I don't know. But what are your thoughts? Isn't the reason that I'm here to tell you at least my opinion about

where it's going to go? Absolutely. My opinion doesn't mean anything. So I'm curious to know at what point in this interview do I tell you what's going to happen with this lawsuit because I actually already know. Really? I know. I kind of want to hold out a little bit. I mean, let's talk about it. What's going on? Okay. So first of all, do you know that the named plaintiffs in this case are the same as an almost identical lawsuit against Tom Brady? No. Okay. So Tom Brady did some ads for FTCS. Yes. The lawyers who are, they're your, they're your compatriots. They're from Florida. The lawyers are the same lawyers in the Brady case. And it really is almost an identical lawsuit. What's the, well, I mean, I can, I can see that. What's the lawsuit or what's the name of

the law firm? So it's three or four law firms, but you've got Mark McDowell Hayden out of Miami, Boys Schiller Flexner out of Miami, Grossman Roth, Yaffa Cohen out of Coral Gables, and the Moskowitz law firm out of Coral Gables. Now, I don't know these people, and when I googled

Moskowitz, there's a very famous photographer with the last name. She has beautiful photos, but actually that's what shows up if you just Google Moskowitz. Right, but no law degree. No law degree. Just beautiful photos. Just great photos. So a different person, one imagines.

So this lawsuit has four counts. They've sued them under a Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act statute, which is kind of the main thrust of the case. And then kind of a catch-all is the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act statute, which is similar to a law that exists in every state. And then a civil conspiracy, which sounds like a crime with the state, the word conspiracy in it, but it's not. It just means people acting together to do something that's illegal and not criminally illegal, but civilly illegal, such as, you know, Hock, F-TX investments

that are losers. And then the fourth count is for declaratory judgment, which isn't really asking for money. It's asking for the court to declare that some of the things that the people who have been sued, what they did was wrong. So, four counts, not not. Not. Not. that complicated, but it is a 73-page lawsuit, which I have read, okay? I don't come unprepared today. Wow. Yeah. So what is the bulk of it is just probably different, showing different statements that these guys have made about FTX? See, if you did that, you would be a good lawyer. That's not what this lawsuit has. Really? Yeah. You would think that they would have. gone into the time machine and because the videos a lot of them have been taken down right

a lot of these people have repudiated what they said for money uh so good on them for doing that but no it's it's surprisingly bereft of actual factual content about the 10 uh i shouldn't say 10 people nine people and one creative agency the creators agency LLC so nine nine um influencers and one company that probably works with them, I guess. Do you know what that agency does? Do they, like, get, do they? I think they're a matchmaker, product, and spokesperson. Okay.

Yeah. And so, and I don't know if you watch the Coffee Zilla video on this very topic. Yes, I did. I think if this lawsuit was against you because you had recommended this, he doesn't make his video. I think he makes his video because these are not just regular YouTubers, whatever that category might be, you know, these guys give financial advice. And FDX was a place where you could get financial instruments. Right.

It's not like, like, I mean, they're actually, people go to Graham Steffen because he gives, because he's saying, hey, I'm giving financial education, you know, even though probably when you put up, he puts up his YouTube, he probably clicks entertainment, but he promotes himself as someone who is financially savvy and his advice is sound. Like, you know, I, you know, he, what even, I hate this too. I hate it when people come out and say, look, I'm not an attorney or I'm not a financial advisor, but like people, that's, it's like, like that completely, you know, that completely

allows them to go forward and give financial advice. It's like saying, I'm, you know, you know, don't be offended, but, you know, I think you're an asshole. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, I don't mean anything by this, but I hate your gut. Yeah, don't take this personally. Well, but, you know, well, but I do take that for it. Like, that doesn't, that doesn't absolve you of having insulted me just now.

And so I feel like it doesn't absolve you by you saying, look, I mean, I'm not a, I'm not a lawyer, but if I was you, you should do this. Well, now, that's an. interesting thing that you're saying, because oftentimes when I give my clients advice, because I have thousands of clients a year, one of the things, when they really can't figure out what they should do, like, should they settle a case, should they hold out for more, should they drop a case, whatever the situation is, sometimes they are more interested in hearing what I would tell them if they were my nephew or my niece or my neighbor as opposed to me as, like, actually one of the most experienced employment attorney.

he's in the history of the world, what is my advice for them? They want to know, like, do I care about them as a person? Right. Well, it's great that I do, but what if I'm a moron? The fact that I care about them is, like, totally meaningless. Unless you just want to feel good. Oh, my lawyer actually likes me. Oh, this, I believe, like, who cares? Like, follow the advice. Like, what if your doctor is rude, but they're like, hey, we got to cut this cancer out. You jerk? Yeah. I don't cut out the cancer maybe i don't want to die um i was just thinking of you said telling somebody listen i'm not a lawyer but i thought you were my lawyer oh i am your lawyer if i was you i would drop this um so uh yeah okay so here's here's did you see meet kevin's response

I'm not responsible but embedded in coffee's video yes yes now I in fair in full disclosure when I when I saw coffee's video I was like oh Graham Stefan I sat next to him on a couch in a hotel lobby last year for about 20 minutes didn't talk to him he was with his girlfriend or wife or whoever and I was talking to another lawyer he's the only one of these I've ever heard of, but I've only watched like one half of his videos. No, so I'm not a guy who's going to go on YouTube to get financial advice. I'm not, I'm not that guy. You know why? Because I went to college for four years and law school for three years, and I believe in education. Yeah. So I don't know what these people know or don't know. But anyways, yes, sorry, to answer your question,

I saw his interview with Kevin. I'm not at fault, but I'm going to give my money back. yeah and i i love that too like i'm going to give it to a charity i'm going to wait and i'm going to it's kind of the the the logan paul you know spin right like i mean it just i mean i get like to me i'm just not going to say anything because look if i'm wrong i'm going to say i'm wrong and you know their attorneys are saying don't say anything yes because you know you may be wrong like i'm sure like to me the right response is just to go out and just say look here's i messed up I made a mistake. But then, of course, you open yourself up to a massive amount of liability.

Or do you? We should ask a lawyer. Do you? You apologize? You say, look, I messed up. I should have really made it more clear. Yeah, I definitely feel like that opens you up. Yeah.

So I watched Coffee's video, and this is my first exposure to Kevin. He seemed so likable. He is. Like he's talking, and I'm like, wow, I like this guy. I like his personality. I like the way that he talks. and then at the end of it, I'm like, okay, he said it's not his fault, but he's going to put his money into a fund, but he's not going to do that until after all the dust settles.

Yeah, until the lawsuit settles because I may need this money. Yeah, I mean, I'm maybe paying this to my lawyer. Graham Stephan, so, you know, the funny thing about the reason I started watching Graham Stefan is a lot of people were telling me initially, you should do something like Graham Stefan. Like I should do a channel like Graham Stephan. I was like, okay, well. brag about how rich you are no he he's no no i i don't think of his channel is like that what

when i first started watching him he had just kind of well he had been doing the channel for maybe a year or two and it's i was i was in the halfway house and it was he was a a real estate attorney he was a he was a um real estate agent yeah right he was a real estate agent and he was just giving kind of advice and a big thing with him was like saving money yeah like how to save money how to where to put your money so that it grows and he had you know long-term strategies there were no get-rich he didn't give any get-rich quick strategies um and anyway so so i liked his video then he was it was very they weren't well they were they were decent quality but he was just a more down-to-earth person of course things have subtly changed a little bit because obviously he's made a ton of money

But because he started making a ton of money on YouTube, people now take his advice on real estate super serious. And there were things that I heard him say that I was like, kind of disagree with that. You know, there's actually a bet like that would work if you were maybe in California. That certainly wouldn't work in Florida. You know, most places aren't New York in California. There's better strategies. So there were lots of things, but people, they believe everything he says because he's made a ton of money on YouTube.

Like, you made a ton of money on YouTube. That doesn't mean you're super successful. You were a minor real estate agent that had listed and sold a few properties. You did make some good decisions, but that's like buying real estate in the 1970s. And then by the 90s, you're making a ton. Well, that was one of the largest times of appreciation. You'd have to be an idiot to buy a property, hold on to it for 10 years and not make money. Uh, anyway, but he's also very likable. Um, my only, you know, my only problem with him, once again is that it does feel like they're, they're holding out, holding themselves out as financial experts and trying to say, you know, I'm not responsible for anything I'm telling you right now. And it's not like they're just saying, hey, by the way, this video sponsored by FTX and it's a crypto company and then giving basically saying, here's the,

thing about FTX and going through it. They actually seem like they're pushing it. Yeah. And I think that's why coffee had that kind of visceral reaction, which is that something has to change. He wishes that they were liable because they claim to be financial experts. That's kind of the vibe I got from it. Not that he thinks that they are. I mean, you don't have legal legal on your channel who tells you this lawsuit is deeply flawed in some material way. and then you say, well, I still think that the plaintiffs are going to win, right? Although I honestly think legal legal didn't go half as far as he should have about how incredibly stupid this lawsuit is, which I can't wait to get into whenever you want me to.

Okay. Well, let me mention two things. One, I have been approached by several different new cryptocurrencies. so on multiple occasions and multiple times i've gone to colby my you know the guy that runs my youtube channel yeah and we looked at it we even had a meeting with some of the guys and it was a startup and colby was like look here's what i know here's what i don't know and these guys are trying to convince us to partner with them and do like help with an ad campaign and in the end colby was like look it's your channel like you can do what you want to do he's like i can't tell

you exactly what's happening. It's a startup. A lot of companies do very well, and then they crashed. And so I told Colby, I was like, I'm not a financial expert. And my real problem is, is that I look at a lot of things when people ask me to do things and talk to them, where do I want to be standing in front of my federal judge explaining that these people gave me money so that I could convince people to buy their product that I never once looked into. And that you didn't buy yourself? Right, that I didn't buy myself. First of all, I'm not even allowed to own crypto.

I'm not allowed to own stocks. My wife says the same thing about me regarding crypto. So I'm in. So to me, it's like, what is my federal judge who's going to be the most skeptical person on earth about me, given my history? And I said, I can't be in front of this man trying to explore. explain why I promoted this product that I don't know anything about, that I wasn't able to vet the company that ultimately maybe they went under and people lost money.

In no way can I, do I want to be in a position where I told people to invest in something where they lost money. Okay. But there's an amount of money that that startup could have offered you, that you, that those questions would have been more easy for you to resolve in favor of doing a sponsorship. I mean, yeah, there's, of course, there's an amount of money that anybody will risk. That's right. Okay. Now, your risks are higher than Brian Young's who sued in this in this lawsuit, right? Because he doesn't have to answer to a judge. Well, maybe he does. But we'll see. But you know that you're not a financial expert. Hey, you guess what? These guys, they also know they're not financial experts. They actually do. They don't have the certifications unless there are a couple of them that do. But like the what I've seen.

they don't. Moreover, the lawsuit doesn't allege that they do. The lawsuit doesn't allege these people are financial experts and that makes them reliable. Oh my word. The lawsuit just says they're famous YouTubers. So it's just a poorly written? No. They did the best they could with the facts that they have. This lawsuit and the Tom Brady lawsuit and so many lawsuits like this are about one thing, which is the degradation of traditional authority structures in society. So, like, a hundred years ago, you had, like, the church, the government, your employer, the family, and people live in those contexts. Well, there's too many scandals with all of those things.

Too many families are broken. There aren't traditional authority structures. People don't trust the government. People don't trust the church. people change employers all the time people change families all the time there isn't a way for people to like confidently believe that they are in the spot in their life where they should be where they want to be and they have people to rely on so they go on youtube and they listen to people they've never even met they listen to people whose um whose qualifications are either

unknown, unmade, unasserted, and not verifiable. But you know what? They're so nice to listen to. I was going to say, but people like them. Yes. They trust them. Yes. So there's no longer a belief in institutional authority.

But instead, there's people with great personalities. And there's hot people who come on your TV and tell you what to do, right? And there's people that are funny. And you're like, oh, they're so. Like, honestly, if Jim Gaffigan told me what car to buy, I'd probably buy it. That dude is hilarious. Well, listen, people ask me advice all the time, and I'm like, what are you doing? My first set of advice is don't ask some guy who went to federal prison for bank fraud and got out about how to invest money.

I have people that ask me about different companies and about advice for stocks. And I'm like, look, I don't know anything about the stock market. But if you did, if you did, you'd only know what's good for you. Well, probably. You actually can't make financial advice for another person without knowing what's their risk tolerance? What's their age? What other investments do they have?

What lifetime earnings do they anticipate? Do they have family members that they're trying to care for who are disabled? What are their retirement goals? Like, it's so, it's so intensely personal. It's seriously like going on YouTube to get legal advice. There's a whole process that you need to know. And you know what's so funny? People ask me questions, and I'm constantly going back saying, you didn't give me enough information.

You know? So I don't know what your goals are. Yeah. I was going to say, the other thing is, it's funny because I was involved in a lawsuit with Warner Brothers. And I sued Warner Brothers and another production company. And in the, in it, you know, we went through and we very clearly in our. in our um in the in the in the suit explained that bradley cooper said this todd phillips said this you know like we gave like six six or seven different examples of them saying over and over and over and over

on this date he said this during this podcast or during this interview or during this tv show or during this um press release and we went oh i mean there was just pages of examples that's why i was wondering were that did they fill it full of examples of like graham step in and uh meet kevin and all these guys stating you know this is a great stock or this is not stock but this is great uh you know current cryptocurrency and blah blah blah but you're saying they didn't that seems very weak to me so uh the allegations about each of the nine creators are identical it doesn't take long to read one of them so i'm going to read one of them to you because it's if you just hear it read aloud, you're like, oh, it doesn't really say much. Let's see here. Let me,

let me move past the. Now, this is actually a paragraph about the plaintiffs, not about the creators, but it's the only part of the lawsuit, as I read it, that actually explains what the creator supposedly did. That's wrong. You ready? Yes. A plaintiff Garrison purchased an unregistered security from FTX in the form of a YBA, which is a yield account, which I tend to agree with the plaintiffs that these yield bearing accounts actually are unregistered securities. So I'll concede that and funded the account with sufficient amount of crypto assets to earn interest on his holdings. That's fine. If you're telling me you bought a IBA and you put money in it or, you know, crypto money, fine. Okay, listen to this.

Plaintiff Garrison did so after being exposed to some or all of the defendant's misrepresentations and omissions regarding the FDX platform as detailed in the complaint. Now, pause for a second. What's detailed in the complaint is that FDX is a scam, okay? But we all know that now. Right. Everyone knows that after November 11th or 12th or whatever. Okay.

And executed trades on the platform in reliance on those misrepresentations and omissions. As a result, plaintiff garrison has sustained damages and defendants are liable. So this is paragraph 13 in the lawsuit on page 5. If your viewers want to read it, they should. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are all exactly the same talking about other plaintiffs. Here's what's so legally indefensible about what they said. And I was trying to think about a metaphor that I thought that someone like you would appreciate, okay? All right.

You're at home right now recording. You're not at a studio. But let's say later today, like me, you're going to go to the gym, okay? And on the gym, on the way to the gym, on the road, it's five miles away, okay, from where you are right now. You're going to pass a cop who's pulled over, and the cop, instead of, like, keeping you safe and keeping you on the road, moons you. okay well you keep driving and then like three 300 yards later another cop moons you okay okay nine more cops moon you and at that point you wreck your car because you're distracted okay that's what this lawsuit is he's saying he watched all these creators all of them and after he had

seen every little bit then he wrecked his car then he bought ft x and it was a scam well it's not the first creator's fault. It clearly wasn't enough to motivate him to buy the FDX product if it took him exposure to eight more creators in order to do it. And if it was enough influence from the first person to buy the stock, then the other eight people aren't at fault because he was already doing it. But these incredibly vague allegations are that each plaintiff, This is so insane. Each plaintiff watched every single creator. And only then, and after watching all of those, bought FTX.

A horrible example, by the way, the mooning thing. No, it's perfect. Perfect for you. You would be distracted by that. You'd be like, I hate cops. What are they doing? Don't show me your butt. Yeah, but they're not telling me to do anything.

They're distracting you from what you should be doing. What's a cop's mission? It's on the side of every patrol car. To protect and serve. Thank you very much, okay? And if they're mooning you, they're not protecting or serving you, right? Okay. Well, these influences job is supposedly like to financially protect and serve you.

But instead, they just distracted you. They showed you their butt and you did something stupid. Well, I feel like that Colby's going to pull the butt story off, and he's going to use that as like our little prologue. Because he's a smart guy. But that is actually what this is like. This is like cops mooning people on the way to the gym. Like if one plaintiff sued one creator and said, you got me. I watched all six of your videos about FTX, and then I pulled the trigger, I would be like, well, that could be. Reliance. That could be reliance. But to sue multiple people by the only logical inference that a judge will ever make about this, and this will never see a jury, this will get dismissed. The only logical inference that a judge could ever make is that one creator was not enough. Two creators were not

enough. Well, you have to prove 51%, right? To win your case, you've got to prove more likely than not. If you sued nine creators, is each one of them liable for 6% of your bad financial decision? Well, each creator has to be liable for 51%. So it's like so stupidly flawed that I can't believe it. And I'm sorry, I've got to keep going because the other thing that they point out is that famous people like Tom Brady promoted FDX. You know who Tom Brady influences YouTube creators? He influences everyone except his opponents on the football field, except I think they would probably do what he said too.

He seems like a likable guy except for his, you know, recent divorce. Yeah, I don't get the, it's, look, to me, the Tom Brady thing doesn't make sense at all because Tom Brady, like I wouldn't take advice from Tom Brady on financial advice, because why would I? that okay right but mr garrison and podolsky and all the other plaintiffs what they're saying is i'm not so bright and i'll follow the advice of anybody but here's what just drives me crazy about this lawsuit in paragraph 65 they say hey ftx bought the naming rights to the miami heat arena okay you and i matt we're uh financially we're not sufficient

We don't have all the degrees and giving financial advice, but if a company can afford to buy the naming rights of the heat, and if the heat are willing to partner with them in a naming agreement, that so legitimizes them. They are the opposite of the crypto startup that you are like, I don't know, I don't think I'm going to do this. Right. like it the lawsuit goes to painstaking detail about how fdx was defrauding everyone you know what these YouTubers are going to be able to make a very very credible case that yes I too was defrauded you know why because on YouTube I give financial advice but in real life I get financial advice like I hire experts to tell me what to do and I don't ever do what someone on YouTube tells me to do except to smash the like button and hit the subscribe button and all that other stuff,

right? Right. So you think it's going to be, you're thinking that the lawsuit's going to be thrown out. There is a procedural mechanism where when you serve a lawsuit, the, the responding party has 21 days to answer or file a motion to dismiss. And when you answer, you typically say, you know, there's 10 paragraphs and you admit, admit, admit, admit this one, deny this one, admit this one, whatever. And then you can raise affirmative defenses like, you know, all this is true, but he didn't lose money or like whatever your affirmative defenses are. Right. Or you can file a motion to dismiss saying, even if everything in the lawsuit were true, I still wouldn't have to pay because this doesn't actually state a claim.

And that's where we're at on this one. Because you have to prove that you relied on the statements of each defendant on their own. Like, you have to get there for each one. You can't just put them all in a basket and say, well, here's all the influencers that I relied on in this basket judge. Let's enter a judgment against all of them. This is dumb. It's like straight up dumb. It only works if you are like, a conspiracy theorist and you think all these influencers got together. And they're like, hey, guys, FDX is a fraud, right? Yeah, we all agree. Okay. But we're all going to take their money and promote them together. And I won't do it unless you do it. And if you do it, I'll do it.

And we're all in. Like, there has to be like a secret meeting, a secret meeting of the YouTube Financial Advice Council for this lawsuit to be valid. It's so dumb. So I have a question the attorneys that filed it you don't think that they've they thought about that or do you think this is kind of like a nuisance suit where they're just hoping these guys say look we'll give you a hundred thousand dollars each one of us will throw it in a pot and that's it these lawyers are legitimate lawyers they know exactly what they're doing they have they they they they there's four law firms and they um they make their money by filing class actions so they know what they're doing. I don't know what they're doing. Okay. I'll tell you this. Um, when you are big on

YouTube, you buy creator insurance, right? I mean, that's what they tell me. Yeah, okay. All right. Listen, when I get there, I'll let you know. Yeah. Please, please call, get me back on your channel when you've made it. Okay. Yeah. I was going to say, what's probably happened to me when I get the lawsuit is I'm just going to call you. We're going to talk about it over the course of, uh, I'll be like, Matt, I'm a YouTuber. What do I even know? The thing is, my channel's so small, everyone is going to be like, wow, that guy must be a really good lawyer. Yeah. He's not making any money on YouTube. But they know what they're doing. They have a reason. And if it's that they think that each guy has a million dollar liability policy, and rather than the hassle and expense of defending, they can they can pop $10 million out of this fund of people. set something up for their name plaintiffs, get the law firm some money, and then move on down the road.

Maybe that's a strategy. If they think that they have properly alleged reliance, I don't know how they could have passed the LSAT or the bar exam because it's not there. It's like categorically not there. You could do it. Now, I'm not saying it would be true, But you could have one guy, Edwin Garrison, sue one guy, Kevin Pat, meet Kevin, I can't say his last

name, and say, I relied on your statements. Fine. That's a credible claim. But for six guys, I actually don't know how many plaintiffs there are, but let's see. Let's say there's six plaintiffs to sue these nine creators. It defy, like it doesn't work. You can't say each. one of these guys relied on each one of these creators and that each creator was culpable,

legally culpable. And if that's Kevin, meet Kevin's take in his handheld video on Coffey's channel, I got to say, I totally agree with him. And it's not because he seems like a nice guy, although he does seem like a nice guy. I think his lawyer, I hope his lawyer has already told him I could win this lawsuit drunk. There's no way. that we can lose this. Because I don't think there's any way they can possibly lose. Okay.

Yeah. Now, there are other problems also, okay? Let's hear it. They've sued these people in Florida because FTCS is headquartered in Florida. That's fine. You know who they didn't sue FTCS? They didn't sue FDX.

That's who you would sue in Florida. I don't remember where all these creators live, but I do remember that it says that Graham Steffen lives in Vegas, okay? Edwin Garrison, the name plaintiff, he lives in Oklahoma. What are we doing in Florida? Well, the law firm doesn't want to have to go all the way to Oklahoma. Do you want to make these guys come to Florida?

So there is a real problem with something called personal jurisdiction over Graham Stefan in Florida, not only for the Edwin Garrison case, but for Garrison is purporting to sue on behalf of a class, a nationwide. class, or maybe it's just a statewide class in Florida. Why, you think they should have filed in federal court? No, they did file in federal court. But like, Graham Stephan hasn't been to Florida in connection with this case. Or if he has, they didn't allege it.

How is he personally liable in Florida? How can he answer to a Florida court for a video that he filmed in Vegas? He can't. Yeah, but he released it globally. It's YouTube. That's right. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court, not in a YouTube-related case, but in a case regarding a class action, has said, no, if you want to sue a defendant, you have to go to where the defendant is to get a big class, okay? And they've said that you don't have personal jurisdiction over that defendant for people who aren't in the place where you've sued.

Okay. He's not there. So if he sued him individually, he could sue him in Florida. If these guys were in Florida, the victims are in Florida and they want to sue Graham Steffen, because they're in Florida, they can sue in Florida. Probably, but they still have an uphill battle because there's nothing in the lawsuit about Graham Stefan going to Florida. But also, Garrison's not from Florida, the lead plaintiff.

So they found a staff. that's in a state where FTX is. But the whole thing, the whole lawsuit is premised on these promoters being something called an agent for FTX. Now, you know this. You're going to say, but Josh, I'm not a financial expert or whatever. That's fine. You know how every couple years someone comes to your door and knock,

and it's just like some sweaty, nicely dressed dude from either Edward Jones or what are some of the other investment houses. But they're just cold calling on you and they want you to invest with them. Does this happen to you? They're usually trying to sell, you know, surveillance cameras or sprinkler systems or something. But yeah, I have them. Okay. Those people, those are agents.

Okay. When you are employed by someone and you reach out to the public to try to make a sale, you're an agent. The idea that the type of agency at issue in the statute under which they've sued is for the spokespeople is absurd. It's completely laughable. You know who they ought to sue? These guys, they ought to sue Apple because according to the stats, 55% of the people who watch these videos, watch them on their iPhone, right? Oh, well, so Apple is now an agent for FTX.

I mean, come on. It's a leap. It is a terrible, terrible leap. Okay. So I've got personal jurisdiction problems. I've got problems with the definition of the statute. And I've got pleading problems that they don't allege that each defundation. Each defendant is legally culpable on his or her.

No, they're all, no, there is one her. On his or her own. Without that, they're just not going to win. It's ridiculous. Wait, what's happening? Okay, sorry, we're going to check the camera. Yeah, she just restarted it. Yeah, yeah.

All right. Just a bad off? They cut their own legs out because the whole thrust of the lawsuit for literally dozens of paragraphs is about what a scam FTX is and how the world found out it was a scam. Well, they found out at the same time. Yes, I agree. So, like, it doesn't actually, it doesn't actually help them to say that FDX was a scam. Now, they have this very narrow thing that they're saying that,

Um, FTX sold, uh, yield bearing accounts and that's an unregistered security. And that's, that's illegal. That's, that's fine. The fact that FTA, the, I agree with the plaintiffs. That was illegal. Go sue FTCs. These people aren't agents. They're, they're spokespeople. It, it's so silly. They should sue NBC because Tom Brady's ads for FTC ran on NBC. okay this um i don't know i feel but so you here's the thing you're saying the law you just so why would the lawsuit file this then um it's why would the lawsuit file this what did i just say why would the law firm file this did i say the right thing yeah who cares everyone knows what you meant okay do you not have an editor no one cares what you actually say and i'm likable so

yes that's right So I don't want to impute bad motives to any lawyer, unless they have a case against me or my clients, whatever, then I do impute bad motives to them. They don't see this the way that I do. But guess what? I don't make money whether this lawsuit wins or loses. I'm just going to call it like I see it. This is a hot garbage right here, a dumpster fire. Okay. So do you think it's possible that, I mean, to me, with a lawsuit like this, then typically a lot of times the lawyers actually have skin in the game because they're saying, look, we'll get a piece of whatever we recover. But is it possible that these guys got together on some forum and said, hey, I lost money on FTX. Hey, there's six of us here. Let's get together and let's sue. They went to the law firm. Law firm said, I don't think you have much of a case. And they said, look, we'll each give you whatever, $10,000 a piece. If you guys will just file a lot.

lawsuit. And they said, look, we can put something together. Like, you know that old adage, don't throw good money after bad. Well, we're throwing that adage out and we're throwing good money after bad because we lost money on FTX. And now we want to pay you money so we can lose money on an FDX lawsuit. Right. That is a possibility. But the type of work that these lawyers are doing is typically done where on a contingency basis where you only get paid if you win. No, it's possible that that is not what happened here and that your version of it is possible that they, that the plaintiffs got together and they said, hey, let's create a fund of $100,000 and hire the best class action lawyers in Florida that we can to file this lawsuit.

And guess what? They probably actually have. These are legitimate law firms. They make money and they make a lot of money for themselves and their clients filing class action law. lawsuits. This lawsuit is deeply, deeply flawed. I know that if someone pitched this lawsuit to me and said, well, you file this, I would say no, because I would be afraid that I would get sanctioned. Because lawyers just can't make stuff up and we can't file something knowing, knowing that we're not making a legally credible argument, not a factually credible one, because oftentimes you file, lawsuit based on, I don't want to say a hunch, but based on a just and reasonable inference from the facts that you have, that facts that you don't know are likely true. Totally legit,

file that lawsuit happens every day. I believe in those lawsuits. You infer, you make reasonable inferences from the facts that you have. But the lawsuit is framed in such a way that But meet Kevin, he's not said to be 51% liable here. He is said to be part of a soup of nine creators and that soup is at least 51% liable. Down vote, down vote, down vote. If this lawsuit survives the motion to dismiss and, oh, like, I don't defend companies. I represent individual humans. Okay, that's all I do is I just stand up for the little guy.

If somehow I got raked into this and I was defending these lawyers, I would be so, so, so excited to get the watch history off of YouTube for each of these six plaintiffs. Because they're saying in a pleading that their swearing is true by virtue of the fact that their lawyer is signing it. They're saying in a pleading that they watched Meet Kevin's videos and that they watched these other guys' videos. Now, the defendant's lawyers, the creator's lawyers, are going to be able to put together a timeline of every FTX-sponsored video that each of these nine creators posted

and the watch histories of each of these six, plaintiffs, if there are six. It doesn't matter. And we're going to be able to see when relative to that stream of information, these guys bought into FTX. And I'm telling you, I would be shocked if there was any sort of factual, grounded in reality nexus between each plaintiff and all nine creators. You know, way more likely? What's way more likely is that these guys bought into FTX months and months and months before the creators said anything.

And now they have somebody to blame it on. That is right. And I'm telling you, I would be worried if I were these plaintiffs that I'm going to be confronted in a deposition with my actual watch history, because they will have to give it over. Right. And my FDX transaction history because, oh, man, oh, man,

I better not have bought some FDX prior to having viewed these videos. And even if it falls exactly the way they're saying, you're saying it, you feel like it still doesn't make these guys liable. Yeah. And so let's say I represent, do you know who Tom Nash is? I know but I think he's one of the I isn't he the one guy that coffee Zillick said probably shouldn't be a part of the lawsuit oh go then I don't want to pick him oh actually he he's a great guy to pick I'm Tom Nash's lawyer okay okay the very first thing I'm doing is filing a motion to sever myself from this lawsuit because I don't know any of these other defendants and I didn't work with any of these other defendants. and the facts about whether Edwin Garrison relied on my statements are totally independent of the facts relating to whether he relied on someone else's statements.

Right. Well, you know, a lot of these guys do know each other. Well, they know each other. Did they work together on their FDX sponsorship? No, I seriously doubt that. But I'm just saying, in general, some of them do know each other. Yeah. You could allege a conspiracy.

But you're right. you got to figure out when did they meet when did this happen what was discussed who's saying this we need some yeah i i get it i get it did he so all the all the big name financial advisor youtubeers know each other um do all do all of the ex con ex con YouTubers know each other like a lot of them okay i mean it's not it looks at this is not a huge you know it's it's a it's a niche, you know, genre. So it's, you know, I do tend to find out that we do cross each other's paths a lot. And I can imagine like that there's, there's not a lot of channels exactly like mine, but there are a lot of what they call prison channels. Yeah. You know, I call mine like a

true crime channel because I'm really just telling crime stories and I try and stay away from anything related really to prison directly. Yeah. There's a lot of prison channels and tons of those guys definitely know each other. And have you, have you had a prison YouTuber, a prison channel YouTuber on your channel? Yes. Okay. And did you, did you like offer him compensation in terms of like cigarettes or something like that? I offered him nothing. I offer everybody nothing. So like not even a pack of cigarettes to come on? You get nothing. Okay. No cigarettes, no soup, no stamps. I got nothing to come on your channel. But I assume that was because I was working on a contingency basis. And if we won the video, then I would get a third of it or whatever.

I would love to be in the room when the depositions of the plaintiffs are taking, if this doesn't get dismissed, so that they can be examined on the timeline of when they bought FTX relative to when they watched each of these creators. The lawyers were smart. They were smart. They didn't say that Edwin Garrison watched each of these creators. He said that he said that he, he watched some or all of them. Right. Well, they haven't. Some wiggle room.

Yeah. He hasn't sued some or all of them. He sued all of them. And I'm telling you a judge is going to be like, what? No. No, no, no. You can't do that. I don't like their chances.

It's funny. So I, there was a movie called War Dogs. Okay. With Jonah Hill was in it. Oh, he's still funny. Yeah. Well, he played. a guy named Ephraim Devoroli.

And I was locked up with Ephraim Debroli. And I wrote Ephraim Devaroli's, uh, his memoir. Is this have to do with the Warner Brothers lawsuit? It does. Okay. Lucky guess. So Devoroli got out and sued Warner Brothers. Now, when I was locked up in prison, he and his literary agent came up with this

scheme saying, look, if we, if, if you publish, if you publish, if you, publish a book, like a memoir, a true crime memoir, when you get out, we can circulate the memoir, and if it gets into that Hollywood circle, we can allege that Warner Brothers used that to write the movie, and we can sue them for theft of intellectual property. Now, in there, it turns out that Devereoli had a cousin that actually knew a guy that was in that circle, he was actually the vice president of Warner Brothers son. And through somebody else, they got to him and he got a hold of the manuscript. So they had a direct link to Warner Brothers. Like, we gave the manuscript to this guy. He signed an NDA. He's the son of Warner Brothers president.

We didn't know that. They did know it. Well, it's so funny about that is during the course of the lawsuit at one point they were going with to warner but they were having a mediation right they're going to mediate because warner brothers is ready to settle and the day before the mediation i filed my lawsuit and in my lawsuit of course i state i was at the discussion when they talked about suing warner brothers i was at the discussion when they talked about um his his uh his cousin i was at the discussion you know and that it was all a scam from the very beginning to sue warner brothers and that's why they asked me to write the book. Now, and so immediately Warner Brothers cancels that, they cancel it.

Then there was another meeting, well, I'm sorry, not another meeting. What happened, they canceled it, and almost within a few days, maybe a week or two, their lawyer drops them. They have to go get another lawyer. So I always thought I would have loved to have been in the room. when Deverelli had to explain to his attorney. Because I was like, look, I was in the visitation room with Ross Rebac. Ross Rebac actually came to, Ross Rebac was the name of the literary agent,

who was Devoroli's literary agent. He was also mine. So that day, he came to see me. Debroli's family came to see him, and we all sat together in the visitation room. and it's on on a camera so his lawyer had to go to him and say is this true that on this date and there were there were multiple days where we did the same thing right and so so that we could all be in the same meeting together so because you know you can't just go have nobody can they have to be approved to come see you yeah so i would remember thinking how hilarious was it when

devroly had to say yes there's a log that says we were all there yes there's video that says we were all there. Yes, Matt is a published author. Yes, Matt wrote the book. Yes, Matt. And his lawyer said, yeah, I'm done. I'm done. So I got that law firm to fire Deverelli. Yeah. Then parts of the manuscript had been pilfered from another book. That you, part of your manuscript. That I'd written for him. Because Devoroli in the, in the middle of writing the book, left. He got transferred. Oh. So I'm like,

there's the only way for me to finish this book is to, you know, embellish or fabricate scenes. And I told my literary agent this. And he said, do it. We'll say it's based on Devoroli's story. He didn't say that, though. What he said was when it came out, it said the true story over and over again.

So his second lawyer, they changed the whole lawsuit. They refile it against, they alter it and file, against Debroli and what happened I'm sorry against Warner Brothers so this time in the

when I respond I explained and they're saying we have the real lawsuit their movie is we have the real story their movies fabricated and they pulled from our stuff and then we go back and forth so I then tell them look I tell his lawyer I send it directly

to his lawyer and say by the way you're now alleging that that book is 100% true. And they use those stories to make the movie. I said, that's not true. And you're the one person that knows they're not true. Because it's, yeah, because I pulled it. I wrote the story and I pulled it from my book. So I sent that to his lawyer. A week later, he drops, he drops the whole thing, says, yeah, I'm done. I can't be a part of this. You guys are running a scam. They have to go get another lawyer. No. I've got two law firms to file. hire him. So when you, when I was asking about the lawyer, like who's the lawyer? Because I was

thinking, this guy was hiring lawyers in Miami and Tampa. And anyway, yeah, two law firms in Tampa. So anyway, so I was just thinking, yeah, I was wanted to be in the room when he had to sit there and say, yes, that's true. Okay, well, you just lied to me. And how all the lawsuits? I didn't lie. I totally forgot that happened. I'm so sorry. Is that a big deal? I totally. forgot that happened i'm i didn't know walked away yeah yeah we're done we're done when i when i got out of law school i was going to start my own law practice i bought a book it was actually like written in the 70s and then updated i probably had the sixth or eighth generation of it it was called how to start and build a solo law practice something like that absolutely great book if anyone is going to

open a law practice i'm sure there's like a very current version of it not the 1999 version that i had back in the day, but one of the things it said is there was a principle of don't ever be the second lawyer. Meaning if some other lawyer saw fit to dump a client, there's a reason for that. Trust that lawyer's judgment. Yeah. And so like your guy, Devoroli, he was able to get a second lawyer and a third lawyer like, yeah. And every time it altered. Yeah. So I have a theory that in general, and this is like a rule, and there are certainly, the rule gets violated. But in general, people tend to find a lawyer that's a good fit for them. If you are a like a table pounding knucklehead who just wants to bully people, you can go find a table pounding knucklehead that wants to bully people. If you are, if you're like me where like you have, you actually care about the truth and you really just want a good deal that works well for everyone and it's like tied to reality, you'll end up finding somebody like me.

And so if you're like, let's say a fraudster, you can tend to find a like a Saul Goodman type lawyer. Like, I feel like that's ultimately what he got. Yeah. It's like a, there's like a tender out there for lawyers and you can find the one that's a good match for you. All right. well I'm good are you good I'm good I'm good

you blocked off about what did you block off an hour hour 15 we just knew that you need to be done by 10 okay yeah all right well I I appreciate it yeah man um okay let me wrap this up well I mean you thank you um Colby will send you this yeah fantastic I just want to say it's an absolute pleasure talking to you. I understand why your subscribers and your viewers like your channel.

You're a sharp guy. You've had experiences that a lot of us haven't had, and it's a pleasure to be on your channel. I would like to say if you ever end up back in prison, I'd probably be one of your subscribers that actually comes to visit you there. I don't know how to, I don't know what to say to that. I know you meant it, well. but thank you very much i always like listen i always like i would love having you on um how was your

channel doing by the way how are the so the average views on each video is going up slowly i got hot in december and that kind of cooled off in january and it's still still cool but we're making good content and we're learning and we're the main thing is we're getting faster at getting stuff out relevant. Right. And that's important because a lot of the legal topics, they're kind of, you know, it's a stream. They're here today and they're gone tomorrow. They float by. But I'm still really enjoying it and adding subscribers and viewers and happy to be doing it. All right. Cool. Cool. All right. I'll put the description. I'll put the link to your channel in the description box. And I do appreciate you coming on. Pleasure, man. All right.

I feel like we've, uh... Can I say a little bit more? Because I have more to say about this. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. Wait, whoa, they got to cut this part out. I lost my train of thought.

I was thinking about how my coffee is not, uh, warm enough right now. Wait, what, seriously, what was the thing I was going to say? Give me, they, they, you better edit this out. You better edit this out. It's really early to your eye. I am. It's really, you know, shut up. No, you won't. No, you won't. I gave credible legal analysis in this video, and you're going to start with me having a brain fart. You know what? I think. I hope no one watches this video if you do that. I mean, you were to, listen, nobody watches my videos. Okay, fair. Okay. Hey, this is Matt Cox, and I appreciate you guys checking out the video. Do me a favor and hit the subscribe button, hit the bell so you get notified of videos just like this. Share the video to your friends and family and leave me a comment. Also, I think I already said hit the light button.

Also, when I was in prison, I wrote a bunch of true crime books. All of them are really good, believe it or not. And I have put together a compilation of trailers on those books. They're also on Audible. They're on Amazon, Barnes & Noble's, and here are the trailers. Using forgeries and bogus identities, Matthew B. Cox, one of the most ingenious con men in history, built America's biggest banks out of millions. Despite numerous encounters with bank security, state, and federal authorities, Cox narrowly, and quite luckily, avoided capture for

years. Eventually, he topped the U.S. Secret Service's most wanted list and led the U.S. Marshal's FBI and Secret Service on a three-year chase, while jet-setting around the world with his attractive female accomplices. Cox has been declared one of the most prolific mortgage fraud con artists of all time by CNBC's American Greed. Bloomberg Business Week called him the mortgage industry's worst nightmare, while Dateline NBC described Cox as a gifted forger and silver-tongued liar. Playboy magazine proclaimed his scam was real estate fraud, and he was the best.

Shark in the housing pool is Cox's exhilarating first-person account of his stranger-than-fiction story. Available now on Amazon and Audible. Bent is the story of John J. Boziak's phenomenal life of crime. Inked from head to toe, with an addiction to strippers and fast Cadillacs, Boziac was not your typical computer geek. He was, however, one of the most cunning scammers, counterfeiters, identity thieves, and escape artists alive. and a major thorn in the side of the U.S. Secret Service as they fought a war on cybercrime. With a savant-like ability to circumvent banking security and stay one step ahead of law enforcement,

Boziak made millions of dollars in the international cyber underworld, with the help of the Chinese and the Russians. Then, leaving nothing but a John Doe warrant and a cleaned-out bank account in his wake, he vanished. Boziak's stranger-than-fiction tale of ingenious scams and impossible escapes, of brazen run-ins with the law and secret desires to straighten out and settle down makes his story a true crime con game that will keep you guessing bent how a homeless team became one of the cybercrime industry's most prolific counterfeiters available now on amazon and audible buried by the u.s government and ignored by the national media this is the story they don't want you to know when frank amadeo met with president george w bush at the white house to discuss

operations in Afghanistan. No one knew that he'd already embezzled nearly $200 million from the federal government. Money he intended to use to bankroll his plan to take over the world. From Amadeo's global headquarters in the shadow of Florida's Disney World, with a nearly inexhaustible supply of the Internal Revenue Services funds, Amadeo acquired multiple businesses, amassing a mega conglomerate. Driven by his delusions of world conquest, he negotiated the purchase of a squadron of American fighter jets and the controlling interest in a former Soviet ICBM factory. He began working to build the largest private militia on the planet. Over one million Africans strong.

Simultaneously, Amadeo hired an international black ops force to orchestrate a coup in the Congo while plotting to take over several small Eastern European countries. The most disturbing part of it all is, had the U.S. government not thwarted his plans, awarded his plans, he might have just pulled it off. It's insanity. The bizarre, true story of a bipolar megalomaniac's insane plan for total world domination. Available now on Amazon and Audubor. Pierre Rossini, in the 1990s, was a 20-something-year-old,

Los Angeles-based drug trafficker of ecstasy and ice. He and his associates drove luxury European supercars, lived in Beverly Hills penthouses and dated playboy models while dodging federal indictments. Then, two FBI officers with the organized crime drug enforcement task force

entered the picture. Dirty agents, willing to fix cases and identify informants. Suddenly, two of Rossini's associates, confidential informants, working with federal law enforcement, or murdered. Everyone pointed to Rossini.

As his co-defendant, prepared for trial, U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller sat down to debrief Racine at Leavenworth Penitentiary, and another story emerged. A tale of FBI corruption and complicity in murder. You see, Pierre Racini knew something that no one else knew. The truth. And Robert Mueller and the federal government have been covering it up to this very day. Devil exposed. A twisted tale of drug trafficking, corruption and murder in the city of angels. Available on Amazon and Audible. Bailout is a psychological true crime thriller

that pits a narcissistic conman against an egotistical, pathological liar. Marcus Schrenker, the money manager who attempted to fake his own death during the 2008 financial crisis, is about to be released from prison, and he's ready to talk. He's ready to tell you the story no one's heard.

Shrinker sits down with true crime writer, Matthew B. Cox, a fellow inmate serving time for bank fraud. Shrinker lays out the details, the disgruntled clients who persecuted him for unanticipated market losses, the affair that ruined his marriage, and the treachery of his scorned wife, the woman who framed him for securities fraud, leaving him no choice but to make a bogus distress call and plunge from his multi-million dollar private aircraft in the dead of night. the $11.1 million in life insurance, the missing $1.5 million in gold. The fact is, Shrinker wants you to think he's innocent. The problem is, Cox knows Shrinker's a pathological liar and his stories of fabrication. As Cox subtly coaxes, cajoles, and yes, Khan's Shrinker into revealing his deceptions,

his stranger-than-fiction life of lies slowly unravels. This is the story Shrinker didn't want you to know. bailout, the life and lies of Marcus Shrinker, available now on Barnes & Noble, Etsy, and Audible. Matthew B. Cox is a conman, incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a variety of bank fraud-related scams. Despite not having a drug problem,

Cox inexplicably ends up in the prison's residential drug abuse program, known as Ardap. A drug program in name only. Ardap is an invasive behavior modification therapy, specifically designed to correct the cognitive thinking errors associated with criminal behavior. The program is a non-fiction dark comedy, which chronicles Cox's side-splitting journey. This first-person account is a fascinating glimpse at the survival-like atmosphere inside of the government-sponsored rehabilitation unit.

While navigating the treachery of his backstabbing peers, Cox, simultaneously. simultaneously manipulates prison policies and the bumbling staff every step of the way. The program. How a conman survived the Federal Bureau of Prisons cult of Ardap. Available now on Amazon and Audible. If you saw anything you like, links to all the books are in the description box.