The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW - Dangerous Precedents of RICO Indictment

Episode Date: August 31, 2023

Davis Younts, YountsLaw.com, joins to talk aboutRICO and other perversions of the rule of lawvital importance of reclaiming trial by jury and jury nullificationhow to best protect your family from escalating attacks on parental rightsFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

joining us now is davis yance and i was just asking him his um website it is yance law.com that's y-o-u-n-t-s yance law.com and uh we got so many things that have happened legally that i would like to talk to him about uh he contacted me said he'd like to talk about Trump's indictment and the GOP debate. But, of course, there's been a lot of things that have happened, Mr. Young, since we last talked about the military mandates. What is the current status as far as you know on that? Have they made anybody whole on this?

We just had some whistleblowers talking about the DMED database and how many conditions have escalated even after they went back and said, oh, well, you know, you're comparing this to the previous five years. Oh, the previous five years are all wrong. Even after they went back and manipulated the data, it's still a huge increase. What is happening in terms of the military and this vaccine? Yeah, so unfortunately, not a lot has changed when we look at trying to make military members whole, as well as trying to get really solid military members back into the service. So you still have more than 12,000 military members that were kicked out. They were alleged to have committed misconduct because they had a religious accommodation that was unlawfully denied, those individuals are still out there, still struggling with a negative service connotation on their DD 214. And unfortunately,

the decimation that happened, remember at one point there were 264,000 members of the military that were not fully vaccinated. Many, many of those, and no one has accurate data on it, there's reasons why they don't, I'm sure. But many, many thousands simply left the military. They either retired, retired early, didn't reenlist or otherwise. So those folks are still out there. So a lot of the work I'm doing now is going to be based on trying to restore rights to military members who were persecuted for their religious faith, try to make them whole, as well as try to get others back into military service that were either kicked out or sidelined in some other way. And unfortunately, what we're hearing right now, what I've been hearing over the last couple of days is that the mandate may be coming back. There's a lot of chatter about a new vaccine

for the new COVID variant that's out there. And the military whistleblowers that I work with, some of my clients are telling me there's a lot of chatter from commanders from the Pentagon. Talking about what it would look like to bring a new mandate back. Yeah. We just had Biden, uh, saying, yeah, we're going to have a new vaccine and this one's going to work. So yeah, they're going to try. They're going to try. And of course they can force the people. Yeah. And the military, they can try to

force the people without it. Jason Barker was a listener who was in the military at the time. And he wrote a great letter that we had on a website for quite some time, uh, outlining his religious objections to it. A lot of people use that, that were in the military, but even people who were nurses and other things who were, they were having that dictated by their employer. He hung in until he got up to his 20 years. He was getting pretty close to it. And he's one of those people who left as,

as he got to that point. And he's now a commentator with Knights of the Storm. So he's out there still doing good work telling people about this stuff. But yeah, they've pushed so many people out. And as you pointed out last time we were talking, people who managed to remain in now that they've kind of paused this mandate, if you're still there, they're saying, well, you can't do this and you can't do that. And that's going to essentially drive them out of their career if they're blocked from being able to do certain things that they have to do in order to get a promotion. Right.

That's absolutely right. So the impact is still is still exist. It's still there. It's still a problem. And again, nothing Congress has done so far prevents the DOD from issuing a new mandate. So if we look at the leadership in the White House, we look at the mentality of senior military leadership, we're looking at a real issue. Now, I think there's also a possibility of a budget fight, right? So if Congress does engage in a budget fight and starts talking about funding for the military and those things, it's possible they will hold off until some sort of a budget agreement is reached.

But I am concerned we're going to see increasing chatter in September. And then if there is some sort of a budget deal that happens, I fear if there's going to be a new mandate, it will follow shortly on the heels of that. And since we've established with Warp Speed that they don't have to test any vaccines or anything like that anymore, this quote-unquote new vaccine, that could appear any day now as well. They don't have to do any testing whatsoever. We've established that as a precedent.

That's going to stick with us. It's already sticking with one type of medication after the other, isn't it? Absolutely right. And remember, still to this day, they're not manufacturing the FDA-approved version of these vaccines for COVID. They're still not manufacturing the FDA-approved version, which is still an unresolved legal issue when we talk about the military and others. So tons of issues, and unfortunately, they're going to continue for our military members as well as anyone else, particularly those that work for, you know, liberal state governments or the federal government.

And you're talking about the label specifically, right? The Corbinati issue. Is that correct? That's absolutely right. It's absolutely right. Which the FDA said, look, these products are identical, but they're legally distinct. Well, if they're legally distinct and you haven't approved the one that's available in the United States, then how can you legally try to require people to have this?

That's the fundamental issue. It's just this kind of double talk that we see happening all the time with all of these issues. That's what the government has become, isn't it? That's right. Yeah. Become more about political will than the rule of law, unfortunately. That's right. That's right. Well, when we talk about political will versus the rule of law, you want to talk about the indictments happening in Georgia. That is truly amazing. I think many people have talked about how this has criminalized free speech and the practice of law. What's your opinion of that?

Yeah, I think that's the biggest concern I have as we try to look at this indictment, right? So Georgia is using sort of a very robust RICO statute, the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations Act. This is something used to go after the mafia. And why the reason that it's attractive to prosecutors is you can essentially group people together, say 20 people, 19 people are part of a conspiracy, and then try to hold each individual member responsible for all of the actions of everyone else in the conspiracy, right? So this is what was used to take down the mob. It's important to understand that you don't have to get someone for murder. You just have to

say that a murder happened and it was part of the organization. Well, now what's interesting about what's happening in Georgia is they're bringing all of these other individuals in and they're arguing that things that were done after the election that dealt with trying to investigate and try to understand whether or not there was election fraud or election interference. And that's being charged as a conspiracy. Yeah. So imagine, I mean, things like phone calls, things like phone calls to individuals, individuals responsible for ensuring a free and fair election and saying, hey, we're hearing concerns. We're hearing problems with drop boxes. We're hearing things like people are coming in the middle of the night and putting hundreds of ballots in a drop box. Can we look into that?

Are you seeing these same concerns? Is there anything we can do to try to understand what happened? Right? So I haven't seen anything yet. And I'm a former federal prosecutor. I'm a former defense counsel. I still practice criminal law. I haven't seen anything that goes to this idea. What we are going to do is change the outcome of the election. Our intent is to change the outcome of the election our intent is to change the outcome of the election you don't see that what you see is we don't agree with the outcome we have concerns about the outcome we think there may have been fraud but the narrative that you hear in all of

the media continues to be there was no fraud it was a fair election right but but i mean look at 2016 the same media was saying there was russian interference it wasn't a fair election, right? But I mean, look at 2016, the same media was saying there was Russian interference. It wasn't a federal election. You can see multiple times where former presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton said, hey, the election was stolen, right? Unproven interference there.

So again, my big concern about what's happening in Georgia is you are using a county that is very, very, leans heavily Democrat, right? 70, 75% of the voters in that County are registered Democrats you're using an elected official a D a to bring a conspiracy charge against individuals who were at worst trying to determine whether or not there was fraud and based

on their belief that there was fraud in the election figure out legal means legal means with which to challenge the election and the outcome of the election very very dangerous precedent now there may be things that were done that were illegal but it's very very dangerous precedent to do that because now you're creating a scenario where i mean frankly if we take if we take morality out of it we take ethics out of it or anything else you're creating a scenario where, I mean, frankly, if we take, if we take morality out of it, we take ethics out of it or anything else, you're creating more and more incentive for politicians to cheat in elections because if you lose, you're going to be criminally prosecuted. I mean, is that really what we want going forward? Again, those are some of the things that I have concerns about when we look at these cases. Yeah. I, I covered an op-ed pieces on

Brownstone from a lawyer and, and he was essentially saying the same thing. He said cases you know i i covered an op-ed pieces on brownstone from a lawyer and and he was essentially saying the same thing he said you know when you i've been amazed he said to see how mainstream media would just let julian assange twist in the wind for doing investigative journalism and wouldn't do anything about that do they realize that that's not going to come back to them and he goes and now when i look at what is happening here he says you don't have to agree with what they were saying he says i've looked at the legal briefs and I thought they were garbage. But he says they were still investigating this thing. If you're going to criminalize the practice of law, and he says most lawyers are being silent about this,

just like most of the journalists are being silent about Julian Assange. If you're going to criminalize the practice of law and investigation around these cases and stuff like that. And he says that that's an amazing precedent that's being set. And, you know, the mainstream media and the mainstream of the legal profession are not worried about these types of things. This really is the ground shifting under our feet, isn't it? It is. And one of the concerns I have is, you know, what attorney is going to want to go and work

for President Trump in a future White House or is going to want to go and work for president Trump in a future white house, or is going to want to work with him when most of the attorneys that worked with him, it seems more and more are getting criminally charged. Right. So, I mean, that's a very, that's a very scary thing. When we think about the practice of law, we want attorneys, we want a society where attorneys will represent individuals and advocate for a fair trial for anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of what they're alleged with doing or their background. Everyone deserves a fair trial. But if we continue a process where we've decided we don't like president Trump, we're going to go after him by any means

and included in that is going to be coming after these attorneys. And here's, I mean, just imagine this, these attorneys, these attorneys that, that were just involved in exploring and trying to figure out, can we file litigation? Is there something we can do within the legal process to challenge this election? Those attorneys are now being criminally charged. They're facing half a million dollars in legal fees just to defend themselves in a case like this. And quite frankly, I'm also hearing there are attorneys that are afraid to represent them. There are attorneys that are saying, I'm risking my license, my entire legal career in order to defend you. So it's going to be

a half a million dollars or a million dollar bill because I'm risking everything. I'm risking my ability to make a living by doing this. And that bothers me much like it bothered me doctors that are losing their license because they recommended alternative treatments for COVID or they approved religious accommodations or recommended medical exemptions. So I just, again, I think those are the big picture concerns we, we have to recognize and deal with. Or you're not going to situation like, uh, you know, journalism, for example, you know, how I get kicked off all these, I've had PayPal ban me and so forth because they don't like what I talk about. And so, you know, this is happening everywhere in our society. Um, you know, this is, um, this is taking it to a new level in terms of coming after the lawyers,

and we should all be very concerned about that. But this is just in general, the new totalitarian rules that they're imposing on everybody. Everybody feels the lash when it comes to social media to one degree or the other, don't they? No, they absolutely do. And I think, we have to be wise. We have to be careful in how we evaluate this. And the last thing I'll say about these criminal cases is this, you know, there was, there's a subtle shift that's happened over, I would say over the last hundred years in our legal system, most people outside the legal system wouldn't recognize that it happened, but it's really important because there's a concept called jury nullification. Yes. happened, but it's really important because there's a concept called jury nullification. So the concept called jury nullification was part of our system. It was part of our system

when our nation was founded, it was understood as critical. And jury nullification is this idea that when we take a criminal case and we put it in the hands of a jury, those 12 citizens can make a decision that say, we know that the law was violated technically here, but the right outcome is to find this individual not guilty and move on. The government's wrong to persecute this person for this violation of the law. This concept of jury nullification, that has fallen completely out of favor. Many states have laws on the books that you can't even argue for jury nullification as an attorney, that you can't stand up and say, this is not the right thing to do in this case. I believe there's only one new England state that even has jury notification as a possibility

on it. Now, why do I bring that up? It's just something to pay attention to and think about. Ultimately, the jury is supposed to be something critical in our system. Thomas Jefferson said the jury was the only anchor yet imagined by the mind of man through which a government could be held to the principles of its constitution. I mean, think about that. So I pray, especially given what I do, but even for any case, I pray for juries, for citizens who are wise, who are discerning, who are clear-minded

and are willing to push back against totalitarianism and tyranny from the government. But I do think that concept of jury nullification is something we need to figure out how to bring back, whether it's through legislation or otherwise. It needs to be a part of our system because in some cases, and I have tried cases where we have won, my clients have been acquitted because of jury nullification, and we weren't allowed to argue it as you have the authority to do this under the law. But we were allowed to argue the right thing, the fair thing, the just thing is to acquit in this case. So that's just an important principle we've lost sight of in the law.

It needs to come back. Yeah, so that's how I got hired at InfoWars. I was doing reports about Fully Informed Jury Association and some people who were standing up for it. And if you just hand out general literature about jury nullification downtown in front of the courthouse, not about any particular case or anything, they would come after them and try to get them in jail for jury tampering. That's how serious it was in terms of challenge. But it has always been a very important part. Trial by jury had Gilbert and Sullivan writing an opera about trial by jury because it was understood to be such a bedrock of a society that was going to have rule of law and individual liberty. And it goes back to William Penn's trial. I've talked about that many times,

establishing jury nullification as well as habeas corpus and so this is something that's always been there but the way that they get around this is in many cases you have the judge just lie to the jury and say you're not here to judge the law or the punishment you're here to just judge the facts of the case and nothing could be further from the truth i had one person that i interviewed uh out of new jersey and he, he called himself New Jersey weed man. He had Rastafarian dreadlocks and stuff, and he smoked pot a lot and he got, uh, they, they, um, arrested him. He had quite a bit of marijuana for his own personal use. And if you, uh, talk to him, you'd realize that it really was for his own personal use, but he actually lit

up when I was doing the interview with him over Zoom. But he looked at it and he said, I couldn't get a lawyer to argue this case, but I knew it was in the New Jersey constitution. So I printed up that part of the constitution. And when I was representing myself, he said, I knew that the majority of people did not support criminalization of marijuana in New Jersey. So I thought I could get off with jury nullification. So he puts up the sign and the judge immediately says, take that down.

I'm going to hold you in contempt, throw you in jail. He said, but the problem is that the jury had already seen it, that it was in the New Jersey constitution. And so they voted a seven to five to acquit him, uh, but, uh, with a hung jury. So the, the, uh, DA came back after him again and the next trial, he had a different judge and he did the same thing. And that judge allowed him to put that up, you know, the show, the New Jersey constitution. And that time they acquitted him 12 to nothing.

And, but we don't usually have jury trials anymore because they play this game. And this is another thing we've seen in these charges against Trump. They come in with so many trumped-up charges that they try to get you to plea bargain out of it. That's the other issue. It seems to me like that's the really big issue, Davis, that how do we break this cycle of people who, A, don't believe that their fellow citizens are really going to take a stand and are really going to judge the law or whatever, and the fact that they're so overcharged with this stuff because the game is they add all these additional charges and then say well we'll drop the additional charges if you plead guilty to what

we really want to get you for in the first place they don't present it that way but that's essentially what's happening how do we break that cycle you know it's it's a really it's a hard challenge to break that cycle cycle but the reality is, just look at federal courts. 98% of federal cases results in a plea agreement. 98%, right? And, you know, there's this joke, we hear it all the time, it's become a trope. But it's scary to me how much of a trope it's become that we all violate, we all commit violations of federal law unknowingly every day, right? Each citizen does

that. There's something to that. So what happens is, especially with the way the federal guidelines work and sentencing is all in the hands of the judge, not in the hands of the jury. So federal judges, appointed federal judges are in charge of sentencing. And the issue is the way the guidelines work, you know, many individuals face, you know and dozens sometimes hundreds of years in prison over the allegations so they're sitting there going okay i'm i'm looking at you know 25 30 50 200 000 worth of legal fees number one and number two i'm looking at the possibility if this goes poorly of doing decades in prison or i can take a deal I can do two years of probation. I can save a lot of money on attorney's fees and I can try and move past this, but there's no thought to the

coercive nature of these charging decisions. So, you know, one answer is to take a hard look at how we pick, how we select and how we use United States attorneys. That's on the federal level. On the state level, I would encourage people to be very, very cautious. If you have the ability to vote in an election for a district attorney in your county at the state and local level, take that very, very seriously. Look hard at those people and try to find other people that are willing to run for that office at that local level that have some control and discretion and can do the right things because these DAs and these US attorneys do have a great deal of discretion in charging, and that would be a great step. So there are

political solutions to it. Unfortunately, we've created a system where there are so many people going through the process, they can't properly give everyone a jury trial. The system breaks down. Yeah, I agree. And so the system is built on plea bargain. And, you know, it was, I remember in the transition period before Trump, after he got elected in 2016, before he was sworn in in 2017, Obama and Eric Holder talked about how they were going to focus on district attorney races and on state attorneys general. And they had a lot of money from Soros, as we've

seen. And so we've seen that type of thing being done in all these different places. With Trump, we see it being put into practice. And I don't support Trump since he did what he did in 2020 with the lockdowns and the vaccines. But I think it's an outrage what is happening. This weaponization, as you're pointing out, is setting up some very, very dangerous precedents for so many different things. And people can see what this strategy of district attorneys and state attorneys, generals, they can see how dangerous that is and why that was so important to radical leftists like Obama, Eric Holder, and George Soros

to spend lavishly on these races to put people on. I mean, they're spending millions of dollars on local district attorney races. So that tells you how important it is to them and that they're going to use this for something. So what you said is absolutely true. We have to look at the sheriff very carefully. We have to look at the local district attorney. We have to look at the state attorney general. Those are races that I think in many ways are far more important than

even the president because the president is so insular from all these different concerns. And it really is the people who are closest to you that are going to have the biggest effect on you. They can make things better or they can make things much worse than whoever's in Washington, can't they? That's absolutely right. And whether or not you support, you know, President Trump running again, you have to look at the reality of the plan that was put in place with these prosecutors, with these DAs, with these elections, the importance of these U.S. attorneys, you know, and now you have situations where, you know, the federal judge, the D.C. case, that judge has set the trial date for March 4th.

That's the day before super Tuesday, the DA in Georgia wants to set the trial for the same date, the day before super Tuesday. So, so again, you know, we should all just take pause, whether, whether we are a Trump apologists or not. And I'm, I'm with you. I have great concerns about how COVID was handled and what happened there. But the reality is this is partiality. This is using the criminal justice system to political advantage. And when you start looking at trial dates, you just have to roll your eyes and go, wow,

this feels a lot like election interference, doesn't it? They're doing that in our face and they're doing it deliberately and they're trying to escalate things into a civil war. the thing that concerns me i didn't get to the clips today to play them but you know we've got people now openly talking about civil war and assassination trump tucker talking about the assassination of trump you got john voight the actor saying this is a civil war and everybody trump is becoming the mason dixon line. He pushes this stuff because he makes money from this stuff. And so he's taking the indictments to the bank, and his poll numbers are going up. But the other people are doing the types of things like you talked about, the fact they're going to put the trial date the day before Super Tuesday and all the rest of this stuff.

And it really is polarizing the country into a civil war. I think that is a very very dangerous thing and and it looks like both sides want that to happen seems like to me i mean again we we have to go there we we we have to be wise we have to be discerning and we have to have those concerns and then we have to look to things like what will congress do congress the republicans and congress can vote to defund the DOJ, right? They can restrict the powers of the person. So there are political things that can be done, but if they're not done and we're not seeking political solutions, then the divide gets

greater, the differences get greater, and we reach into some very, very dangerous times. I pray that's not the direction this goes, but if political solutions aren't being sought, I agree with you. I have the same kind of concerns. Yeah. When we look at this too, as soon as I saw the RICO statutes and I saw Rudy there, and he actually talked about this in his statements, the fact that he had used RICO so extensively as a prosecutor before he became mayor in New York. And when you look at the RICO statutes themselves, I've always had a big problem with the way they were organized.

And it really was kind of an evolutionary path into civil asset forfeiture because the whole point of a big part of the RICO statute, besides making the prosecutor's job easier to come after organized crime, it was also to take away the money so they wouldn't have the money to hire the best lawyers and defend themselves and get off on technicalities and things like that. And so that gradually evolved over a period of time with people like Rudy and ironically with people like Joe Biden into civil asset forfeiture, where they come in, they confiscate property from people and never even charge you with a crime, let alone find you guilty. And so I thought it was kind of ironic that Rudy is getting charged with the RICO statutes.

What do you think about the RICO statutes in general? Yeah, I have grave concerns with them. You know, I'm a big believer in looking to the bible as a foundation for how we approach our our legal system and and one of the concerns i have with rico statutes is just fundamentally it was designed to make get prosecutions and getting convictions easier that troubles me just just notionally whether it's my time as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney anytime we're changing the law to try to get more convictions or make prosecution easier, I'm troubled by that because that's not supposed to be the point of our legal system. Our legal system is supposed to be designed to punish the evil and protect the innocent.

It's not about numbers, prosecutions, or anything else. So RICO statutes have a troubled history. They were used with some effect against the mob, and you could see how you could bring down an organization by doing that. At the same time, whenever you have a conspiracy like that, whenever you have a RICO statute, the problem is I represent individuals. Sometimes I do court-appointed work in the federal system. So you'll have a very low level drug dealer, right?

So not the greatest human being in the world. I understand that, but very, very low level, minimally involved, but because they're charged under a conspiracy or under a RICO type statute, all of a sudden they're responsible for millions of dollars worth of drug trafficking over an entire region when all they were was a bag man or something else on a very low level, right? A user that sold a little bit and they're responsible for anything else. So one of the things that bothers me about it is it does lead often to what I would consider unfair outcomes and really escalates the criminal liability for individuals who are just, you know, bit players and something, or even just didn't fully understand the scope of what they were getting involved with when they did yeah yeah this whole civil asset forfeiture

thing i talked about a case that's uh getting some publicity now it's several years old about six years old uh up in muskegee oh um uh oklahoma and just you know pulling a guy over going through his car you know he's got a taillight out or something like that and just, you know, pulling a guy over, going through his car. You know, he's got a taillight out or something like that and just finding cash and taking all the cash. And it was cash that they'd been doing as a Christian band concerts they were doing for people. And so it was their pay as well as donations that they had picked up, cash donations for an orphanage and all the rest of the stuff.

But this has become kind of standard operating procedure, and the police have been corrupted by this heavily because they get to participate in the booty, but it's, you know, just taking the stuff, never even charging the person, but charging the object,

the inanimate object, you know, they make a, it's like, you know, the, the government versus, uh,

this car serial number, this or a jet or a house or a stack of cash or whatever. They don't even bother to charge the person, let alone find them guilty. That's the thing that I see just so amazing to me. And, uh, you know, it's kind of another one, you know, with Trump, when he said about the red flag laws, we just take the gun and do the due process later, due process later. I said, well, that's not due process. If you don't do it when it's due, right, it's going to be done beforehand. And, and, but this is a really

dangerous thing that's happening. And it's been happening to ordinary people for a very long time. I was talking about civil asset forfeiture back in the 90s. And yet now that it has gotten to the point where they're coming after their political opponents using this type of tactic, RICO and civil asset forfeiture, that's still not really being talked about by either the left or the right press. They're still not talking about these injustices. It's still strictly about Trump versus Biden. They're not looking at the overarching issues and the precedents that are being set here, I'm afraid. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a grave concern, and that's why we have to stay engaged.

We have to stay alert that's why i appreciate the work that you do um in in trying to help people understand and educate people because we have to pay attention to these things and we need to remember the law should be the law it shouldn't matter there shouldn't be partiality there shouldn't be concerns justice is supposed to be blind for a reason that's what we should fight for we should live in a society in a system where it doesn't matter who is on trial or where in the nation there are we should be able to count on our fellow citizens to do the right thing we should be able to count on district attorneys now we live in a fallen world that's never going to happen but if we go back to and we understand why we had things like jury nullification yes that's a critically important thing. Why we gave Congress,

why the founders gave Congress the power of the purse. They don't exercise it anymore because everybody feeds into the system, but there is so much power that comes from the ability of Congress to work on funding. I mean, look at simple things like what Senator Tuberville is doing in Alabama. I know very little about Senator Tuberville. I wasn't necessarily optimistic about him as a senator, but he has done so much to protect the military from woke ideology, as well as to push back against the abortion policy by simply saying, I'm going to object to unanimous consent to these military nominees. We can either go and have a full hearing and have a

floor vote or i'm gonna i'm gonna keep my block in place and i'm gonna object to this unless you change your illegal policy on funding abortions and unless you give us an opportunity to understand who it is are these communists or not that you're appointing to senior senior military positions um that's a really good example of our country in mind or not? That's right. It's a really good example of what one person can do. If they're committed to this, uh, you can really be a fly in the ointment and there's things that you can do to, to stop that instead of just rubber stamping everything that's

going along. Uh, and that's typically what we have seen with Congress. You know, the other part of it is let's just kick it over to the bureaucracy and let them have the hot potato. And then if they get really wrong, we can come in like we're the saviors on a white horse and we can fix this thing and blame it all on the bureaucracy, which never has to answer to the public at all. So we have this system of taxation without representation,

and now regulation without representation as well from these people. I'm so glad that you talked about a fully informed jury association. And that is not the association, but an informed jury. That is a key thing, I think. And it is something that is so vital that we have lost. And just to state it again, everybody needs to understand that if you're a juror, you're there to judge not just the facts of the case, but you're there to judge the law and the penalties that will be applied. And if you think that the law is unjust or the penalties are going to be excessive, it is your right and your duty as a juror to oppose that. But you're told exactly the opposite

by almost all these judges. And I guess what I've heard is that if you start talking about it to your fellow jurors, they'll kick you out of there and put in an alternate, right? Because that's typically what happens. That has happened. There's been documented cases of that happening. Absolutely. Truly amazing. Well, you know, when you look at these other cases, just real quickly, not just the one in Georgia, that's particularly egregious in terms of its politics. And before we leave it, let me just ask you your opinion about this. As I've looked at this and other people have looked at it, it looks like another part of this strategy is to have so many people that are there that they can get the lawyers to

turn on Trump. And by charging the lawyers, she can break the attorney-client privilege. That's another important precedent that they're trying to get rid of. So by charging the lawyers, then that breaks that, makes them co-defendants, and then hoping that they will turn on Trump. And then Trump is not paying for anybody's big legal fees. And that's kind of a dangerous thing for him as well. Even one guy who had to sit in jail for over a week because he couldn't make bail and couldn't afford a lawyer. He's now got online fundraising, uh, gifts in go or something like that. Uh, but, um, it is, um, yeah. What do you think about that strategy? You think that's going

to backfire on Trump and that some of these lawyers are going to flip? Is that what her ultimate strategy is? You think? Yeah, I, you know, the reason, in my opinion, the reason that you charge people under a RICO statute, the ring, the reason you bring in multiple defendants in these cases is because you are going to try to flip someone. Um, you know, I, I heard yesterday, I, I don't know how much of it is true, but I heard yesterday that in the, the Mar-a-Lago case the classified documents case in florida that someone is already flipping someone's already cooperating at least with regard to like the obstruction the destruction of video charges things like that so you know it's a

very common practice for prosecutors to use that you know as far as what trump does and how he approaches it i i do think there is a feeling among many that they can't possibly afford, many people associated with him, they can't possibly afford the legal fees that this requires to fight this. And he is raising unprecedented amounts of money for his campaign or through his campaign. And his legal defense fund money isn't hurting. So there probably are some concerns about whether or not he can provide money to co-defendants and and what that does if that looks like obstruction because

they're not cooperating but he could certainly go out and say these people are patriots you need to support them and help them just like you're supporting and helping me I do think there are things he could do um to do that it dangerous. It's unprecedented legal issues we're dealing with. This idea of trying to pierce attorney-client privilege, very, very dangerous. But I do think he should be doing, at least to the extent he possibly can, everything he can for these other co-defendants. Because they're just caught up in issues that many of them have no control over. They're just trying to do the job, do a job to the best of their ability. That's right.

Yeah. And it's not good optics even for the politics to let these other guys go to jail because they can't afford a lawyer or bail. That's something that's not very wise. You know, when you talk about the Dikemint's case, I don't know. What is your general take on this? I'll tell you, I look at the Dikemint's case. To me, that seems like the only one where they have a clear violation.

And yet again, you know, why it is selective prosecution. They don't appear to be interested in anybody else violating these laws. I mean, technically, he appears to have violated. I haven't seen any lawyers that came up with a plausible defense for it. Dershowitz, as hard as he tried, said, well, maybe the documents were already declassified and maybe he didn't know it. That's the best he could come up with. But, you know, what everybody sees is the fact that, no, they haven't come after Biden

or Hillary or anybody else about these things. And so they still see it as a lawfare against him, you know, weaponized legal attack against him, even if he technically did violate it. But what is it from your position? Because you've been involved with military trials and things like that. I'm sure that, you know, classified security and things like that have come up in the past. What is your opinion about that particular case? You know, I think my frustration with that case is it is an example, I think, of, you know, politically targeted and selective

prosecution. Because here's the issue. You're really dealing with two different laws. You're dealing with the Espionage Act that goes all the way back to World War I, Woodrow Wilson, which is really what they're charging him under. But it was never designed, it was never intended to go after the president of the United States. There's another law called the Presidential Records Act, right? The Presidential Records Act, which really is what's supposed to apply to presidential documents and the requirement to archive these documents for historical purposes, but there are no criminal penalties in the Presidential Records Act. So in the past with other presidents everything's

been handled they've had to turn over documents under the presidential records act but they were allowed to keep things again under that act for personal historical reasons um so it really is a selective prosecution issue so yes technically if things that that president trump believed were covered under the presidential record act or believed that he was allowed to take, even maybe his attorneys advising him thought it was okay for him to take, but they weren't technically declassified yet. Yeah, there could be some technical violations to the law, but that, again, goes back to one of those issues of what was the intent of the law when Congress passed it? And is a prosecutor twisting the intent of the law and using essentially a technicality

to try to come after a political opponent. And I think the answer to that is yes. Yes. And you go back to that espionage act that you talk about, you know, Woodrow Wilson, I think the 1917 espionage act. And I remember very clearly talking about how the Obama cohorts, which are essentially, you know, what's around Biden at this point in time, running his administration. But during the Obama administration, they charged more people in his eight years, they charged more people with the 1917 Espionage Act than all of the previous administrations combined. And so it is a favorite tactic of theirs to use the 1917 Espionage Act. So it's got his fingerprints and that whole group all over that thing.

But yeah, it truly is amazing that it's gotten to this point. But my big concern with it, again, as you point out, there's some very dangerous precedents that are being established. And it is also being used to intensify this tribalization and this polarization and everybody's getting ready to fight over this stuff and and it is coming up to um i don't know if you pay attention to the fourth turning or not but it's something strauss and how talked about in the early 90s the guys who came up with the names millennial and everything they looked at the cycle of about every 80 years about every fourth generation libya turning in society where there

would be a major restructuring of all the different institutions usually accompanied by a financial crisis or and or war you know and and the previous ones were world war ii and the great depression prior to that civil war prior to that the american revolutionary war they went back 500 years in american and british history and so we're at a time where the, the, the people are really kind of primed for this. And this seems to be the flashpoint, uh, in my opinion, what they're doing here with Trump. It truly is amazing. But, um, I don't know. It's great to talk to you. And, um, is there anything else on your mind you'd like to talk about? Homeschooling, anything like that that's happening? Well, you know, I think one of the things that I think you would be interested in being aware of, and I think something we need to keep an eye on,

is a trend we're seeing with regard to, it affects all parental rights, but in particular can affect homeschoolers. It's this. There was a story that came out this week where Pennsylvania, that's where I live, where I practice local law, they engaged in a training program. So the state of Pennsylvania created a training program in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh. And what they did is they put out training materials that say, essentially, if the parents are homophobic, if the parents are opposed to their child transitioning, that could be a danger. They could be a threat.

And you should consider whether or not it's appropriate to remove a child from the home in Pennsylvania. Wow. Okay. So it's big news that I want people to see because there was a lot of attention that was paid to states on the West Coast Washington, who came out with laws that specifically had legislation on the books that says that's a reason, you know, not allowing a child to get an abortion or, you know, opposing an abortion or opposing, you know, medical treatment,

so-called medical transgender treatment, child mutilation, puberty blockers, those things, that that could be a threat to the child. Well, other states now, and we're seeing this in Pennsylvania, the training materials have now been released. They're publicly available. Just no one was paying attention. You have your local county social workers being trained to look for people who have religious beliefs. It talks about traditional religious beliefs that oppose this and the danger and threat that may make to a child so when we talk

big picture about homeschooling the biggest you know continued drum that I will beat is homeschool your children or get them into a really good small Christian private school do everything you can to do that. Because the cases we have seen in Pennsylvania, the cases we'll continue to see in Pennsylvania will usually involve some sort of an interaction with a public school counselor, teacher, otherwise, that starts a child down the path of confusion that these individuals will play into their, their mental illness. Um, they will drum that up and, and then you will see this. And then all of a sudden, you know, the County is knocking at your door and removing your children.

So I'm not trying to be alarmist on that, but it's something we have to pay attention to. Yeah. As a matter of fact, that's another level up. I just talked about, uh, this week about Massachusetts where they had, I think it was yesterday. I talked about it. Uh, they had a couple who wanted to adopt and so they were going to get into the foster care program

and adoption program. And as part of that, they realized that they were Christians and that they were not going to go along with the LGBT agenda and that type of thing. So they kicked them out of the program. So there's a lawsuit happening there. But what you're talking about there in Pennsylvania is even worse. That's coming after people who are parents and taking the kids away from them simply because they don't go along with the LGBT agenda. And as you point out, it's going to be the schools that are going to kind of act like the Stasi informants, you know, saying, well, this is what we see, you know, sending child protective services, so-called, and to attack the parents, isn't it? Wow. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

So homeschool your kids, get them in a good private school, a good Christian school, a small one that you know what's being taught, that you understand what's happening. The other thing I tell parents all the time, particularly homeschool parents, is pay very careful attention to who your doctor is. Yes. Your primary care physician people people miss this completely but your primary care physician your doctor has a critical role in all of this because you have progressive doctors you have clinics that that won't take you as a patient if your kids don't

get every single vaccine as soon as you know as soon as they're born or otherwise but you also have you know these clinics that will push this medical mutilation of children and feed into these things. And so you need a really good primary care physician that at least understands and is sympathetic to your religious beliefs and basic parental rights. And that's a good buffer against the county, against the state, or otherwise when it comes to protecting your children and protecting your family. So that's the other note of encouragement I would have for folks that are out there is pay attention to who your doctor is.

Be very careful about that. That's real important advice. Yeah, because they can become the informant to get you into trouble if you don't do the vaccines and that type of thing. And that is something a lot of people don't think about. And it's getting harder and harder to find doctors like that because they're setting up the, you know, they've taken over the institutions and they're the gatekeepers. And they're looking for people who are going to, you know, go into their political side of things. And then they heavily push this as part of the medical curriculum as well.

It has always been about parental rights. I don't know if you saw the article about Michael Ferris, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. Washington posted a detailed article about him. And they focus on parental rights because he's understood that parental rights is at the essence of all this stuff, homeschooling and everything else. And so that is really going to be where the fight is going to be. It's going to be about parental rights. Well, it's always great talking to you. Again, Davis Yontz and his website is yontzlaw.com. And it's great to have somebody talk about not just doctors, but to talk about lawyers

who look at things from a Christian moral perspective. And therefore, they're going to try to uphold the law as it is written. It is great to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on. Hey, thank you, brother. God bless you. Thank you. God bless you.

We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back, folks. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. The Common Man The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.

But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing.

If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thank you.