Several Very Good Court Thingies

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:58 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1155. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is Matt Cameron. How are you doing?

0:01:03 Matt: Having a fantastic day, Thomas. I just went out to Boston Common and renewed my vows after 20 years of practicing law.

0:01:09 Thomas: Is that they make you do that or no?

0:01:11 Matt: It was voluntary, but I thought it was a little cheesy at first, but honestly, it Was really inspiring. Out into the park and beautiful day and got to hear from Maure Doyle who actually swore me in 20 years ago. She's the legendary clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and she just just retired, but she came back just to do this. So I got to be sworn in by her again. Lot of fun.

0:01:28 Thomas: Were there a bunch of like corporate lawyers there? They're like, ah, I want to renew my vow to make tons and tons of money that I should not at all be making

0:01:37 Matt: In Massachusetts, it's got one of my favorite expressions. We have to delay no man for lucre or malice. So we have to promise not to do that. And I get to say that again.

0:01:44 Thomas: Don't take my Luker hands off my Lukar.

0:01:47 Matt: Filthy lucre. It was fun though. I mean, it was really, there were lawyers of every kind there, but just hearing everybody kind of in unison saying the vows together, you know, I know it's kind of sappy, but honestly, I was moved. It was moving. And

0:01:57 Thomas: I genuinely don't even know what this is. This is a Boston thing. Is this a nationwide thing? What was it?

0:02:02 Matt: Is National Law Day. No, National Law and Action Day. So it was a thing that people were doing around the country to go out and renew their oaths.

0:02:08 Thomas: Should have laws. That'd be cool.

0:02:10 Matt: And maybe follow them and have people that are sworn to follow them. Have been nice if ICE was there too, but we'll just keep keep doing it.

0:02:14 Thomas: Stuff. That's the first time anyone's ever said it would be nice if ice was there yeah

0:02:21 Matt: That's right. Just to put their hand up and leave. But yeah. It was great. It was really just, I'm feeling good about being a lawyer today. And I have to say, we have got a great one today. I've got a lot of good news. I know I say that sometimes and I don't always follow through, but there's some really good news happening just in the last couple of days alone. Feel like there's something turning here, that are really pushing back, lawyers are standing up. Even with all of the trouble we've been talking about in the the last three months, even with the lawyers folding the way we've been talking about, with a threat to judges. I have a lot of hope here, so I'm happy to talk about it. We've got to start with some not -so -good news, but then we'll move on to a series of good things and a fun footnote about the dangers of incorporating, well, clip art into your legal filings.

0:02:35 Thomas: What I feel like that should be fine clip to how do you still get clip art I don't even know that it was 1997 like

0:03:00 Matt: It's obnoxious and distracting. Was like 20 bucks? Yeah, I don't know. We'll

0:03:09 Thomas: Yeah we'll find out all right well yeah it's gonna be a good day we got some good news I'm looking forward to it. Well, we'll take our usual break. Please support the show, patreon.com/law. That's where you can lose the ads, get the goodies, and have a good, warm feeling that you are supporting a show that I think more people need to hear. Think we're putting good info out there, and so if you do too, please support us. We appreciate it. Right, after this, we're going to get started. We'll get to it?

0:03:34 Thomas: You said we had to start with a little bit of not -so -great news?

0:03:37 Matt: Yeah, got to do the news sandwich. I've got start off with the not -so -good news, but some tasty stuff up ahead. Want follow up from our conversation about sanctuary studies earlier this week. A couple of things I wanted to do a little more justice than I did last time when we were talking about Judge Hannah Dugan. Couple of things that I actually didn't know when I was talking about this, they proceeded in that case with Hannah Duggan straight to indictment without a grand jury, which is really unusual for a federal offense when you're charging a judge. I mean, they really deserve better than that. If you're going to charge a judge, you should put it in front of a grand jury first. They really rushed this.

0:04:05 Thomas: Can you just do that? How does that, what are the rules on? I thought you either had to do a grand jury or not. I didn't know it was like a voluntary thing, but yeah. Why are they even there? If you can JUST skip them if you want.

0:04:14 Matt: You just want it to proceed by a federal criminal complaint, the prosecutor can just write up the charge and present it to a judge. And that's enough in a starting point. You have to go on for a bit more from there, but you can get an arrest warrant just based on probable cause in a complaint. But more typically, you're going to expect to have a formal accusation in front of a grand jury where there's probable cause to charge the individual. At that point, you're gonna actually have like a full presentation to a grand juror in a procedure of indictments. Common that you do have federal charges proceed on complaint when they're simpler like this, but it's just not what I would expect.

0:04:43 Thomas: Yeah! So they really wanted to, I mean, we already know this, but, yeah, it's, it's another, another important detail. They wanted to just do it as fast and as recklessly as they can because they want to make a point right yeah

0:04:53 Matt: Right. So they still have to obtain an indictment, and it's going to be, it has to be within 30 days of her arrest. But this really was, they were moving for speed here. And Palm Bounty was pretty clear about that in the interview that we played. Really wanted to make a splash, and they wanted to get that picture, bleeding the judge out. And I wanted to talk also about the difference between administrative and judicial warrants. We've got a few patron questions about this, and I want to be sure to answer those. I kind of glossed over it when we were talking about it, but Judge Dugan was very concerned when ICE came in and only had an administrative warrant, as they almost always do. Typically, they're only going to have a judicial warrant signed by a federal judge if you're looking at a case where someone has reentered after a deportation, which is a federal crime, or some other immigration -related crime. But almost always ICE is carrying an administrative warrant, which is just something they've written out to themselves, basically just saying, hey, we should go arrest this guy.

0:05:11 Thomas: Dear ice we are so great and we should do a fascism today just you've earned it as a treat ice

0:05:42 Matt: That's right. And guy in particular, time to take him down. So that is really useless. I mean, it's a fake warrant. It does allow them to arrest somebody, but unlike a judicial warrant, it doesn't allow them search. It doesn't let them to go to non -public areas. It doesn't mean that they can have, you know, if there's like a state police or a local officer. They can't get them involved in trying to arrest the guy. That was part of why Judge Dugan was asking because she wanted to be sure that it wasn't a judicial warrant because there's also no real penalties to not complying with an administrative warrant.

0:06:09 Thomas: For who the arrestee or just anybody or yeah

0:06:12 Matt: Anyone, yeah, that might be like if ICE asks you to try to help, like you'd be volunteering basically.

0:06:17 Thomas: What is the difference between that and not even having a warrant like I don't even know what that that's just an internal office memo right what is Is that even, huh?

0:06:25 Matt: Literally just means, yeah they can just walk up and arrest that person.

0:06:29 Matt: That's all they can do. You know, she has no obligation as a state judge. And in fact, her obligation is to her courtroom, which was what she was trying to do to protect it. Has No obligation at all to do anything when they're presenting an administrative warrant. And that is important. Just thought I wanted to make that more clear because we did some patron questions about that.

0:06:44 Thomas: Than perhaps I don't think it gives her license to, or anyone just hypothetically licensed to like interfere, right?

0:06:51 Matt: Right, right. Still, you still can't get in the way, as we've been discussing. And the allegation is that she helped to conceal by directing him through this back door. And she'll have a full defense on that. They also have to be able to prove some kind of corrupt intent and not that just that she was trying to maintain order in her courtroom or some other purpose. So I think she has a very strong defense.

0:07:07 Thomas: Hopefully an uphill battle for them. Yeah.

0:07:09 Matt: Think so. I really do. I wanted to bring it back to that because we had executive orders that actually came out late Monday as we were recording, and directly relate to the same subject. And I just want to get these out of the way because they are really important. We'll start with protecting American communities from criminal aliens on April 28th. Oh next one's even worse uh titles but

0:07:25 Thomas: Good. I'm tired of those criminal aliens. Han Solo? That's kind of what I'm thinking.

0:07:32 Matt: Right uh of there's definitely like an actual criminal alien I think of in a minute if I really put it Greedo there we go criminal alien Greedo that's the guy that hansel is shot okay

0:07:41 Thomas: Was the bounty hunter. Han Solo is the criminal alien. I mean, he's I already did it, man. We're good. Oh, You think just because he's a human, he's not an alien? I'm sorry. Is he from Earth, Matt?

0:07:46 Matt: All right well that's true you're right I'm being anthrocentric centric.

0:07:51 Thomas: He from? Yeah, you are.

0:07:52 Matt: I'm being anthropocentric. Okay. Take it all back. Wow. All right. Anyway, if Han Solo were living in Boston, executive order is trying to find another way to punish sanctuary cities. So we didn't have time to talk about last time, something I meant to mention, some good news out of California. William Oreck in the Northern District District of California, he actually had the same case in front of him that he had back in 2018, when Trump issued exactly the same order. Now, this is not the one I'm talking about. This is the previous one. So the previous one in January was about funding for sanctuary cities, trying to cut it off. And they basically just did a photocopy of the previous one that they did in 2017, where they were going to stop federal funding, which of course would be catastrophic for sanctuary cities. Was found to be unconstitutional for any number of reasons. It's vague, for one one thing. There's no real definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but it's also a spending clause issue that money needs to be spent, and they can't just arbitrarily cut it off because they don't like the way that they're not cooperating with federal authorities in ways they don'T have to cooperate with federal authority. Judge Orrick, back last week, found basically, issued an order of, you know, did I stutter? And he said, you know, here we are again. That's literally what he says here. Here we are again. We're looking at exactly the same EO. I've got the same opinion of it. The Ninth circuit issued a decision already telling you that this is not right. You can't do it. You can't cut off this funding. So go ahead and appeal me, but this is where we're at.

0:09:10 Matt: So the Trump administration responded on Monday after having this order from Thursday or Friday another tack, and this might work a little better. And it's a little scary, so I just wanted to mention it and explain what it is.

0:09:21 Thomas: They like, yeah, but are way more impounding now. Like a little more direct all

0:09:25 Matt: Actually, they're going straight for fascism. They're going the fashy way. It's just kind of the default setting for everything now. Knowing that this kind of threat to take the money, now there is a sort of indirect threat to taking the money in this as well. What they're going to do is he's ordering the executive branch to make up a list of sanctuary cities, basically, to define them and list out every jurisdiction it can find that they don't think is doing... There's an indefiance of federal immigration law. And not just take away their funding, but potentially potentially, the consequences could include all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end those violations. So this is what I was talking about last time, where Hannah Dugan, I think, unfortunately, as a judge, is maybe just the beginning of what they want to do. I think that they're going to find ways to try to prosecute police chiefs, DAs, individual officers, maybe, and potentially lawyers and anybody else they think is aiding and abetting essentially violations of immigration law in sanctuary cities. It's pretty concerning.

0:09:45 Thomas: Death

0:10:19 Matt: Know, they're threatening to pull the funding, but this is really much more oriented about punishment. And they're also going to be notifying each sanctuary jurisdiction that they're in defiance of federal immigration law and give them a chance to rectify it. And we'll see how many comply, because maybe a lot of them don't want to have to bother with these lawsuits and charges, potentially.

0:10:34 Thomas: But what law are they not in compliance with oh

0:10:37 Matt: Is ICE's position that they should be complying with detainers, even though, as we've discussed, they are completely voluntary. There's nothing that that they have to do in these detainers. That's the way they see it. They're trying to go as hard as possible on this. They're really cranking down on this, and we'll see what happens with it. There's also an equal treatments of Americans section, because of course, there's this obsession with the idea that somehow they're getting better stuff than we are. Want to look into any policies or practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens, including state laws that provide in -state higher education tuition to aliens, but not to out -of -state American citizens. Is very concerning because in -state tuition has been a hard -fought battle. Still don't actually have it in Massachusetts for undocumented people, but Texas does and has for some time. It's just kind of strange how that's worked out.

0:11:20 Thomas: So some places are making uh folks who live in that state pay out-of-state tuition oh wow I didn't even consider that yeah yeah

0:11:27 Matt: Actually quite a few places. You grew up in the state, your parents have been paying taxes in the the state, you're a resident of the state. You should get in -state.

0:11:32 Thomas: That's kind of you know I thought how it worked

0:11:34 Matt: That's how it works. There's been this really offensive kind of alienating thing about not Just seeing people as different, even though they grew up here and established residency. They're literally saying that they to mess with states that are allowing in -state tuition for undocumented people and not allowing treating people differently if they are out of state coming in, which is the whole point of in - state tuition. So is just one example, but I am concerned about this kind of rhetoric. This has been going on for a long time. There's always this idea that somehow they're getting better stuff, that undocumented people somehow are getting fast -tracked benefits and and better access and opportunity. And that's just not true, obviously.

0:12:07 Thomas: Just paying the in-state tuition they would pay if they were documented. It's yeah.

0:12:11 Matt: But their parents have been paying taxes and property taxes and everything else the whole time they've been living there, and that's how it's supposed to work. There's something to watch there. And I continue to believe the sanctuary cities are going to be the real flashpoint for a lot of what's coming here. So I think that's important to mention. This was paired up with something that caused bigger headlines, and I want to talk about. Has to be the fascias title yet of any executive order. This next one.

0:12:32 Thomas: Boy, that's a big, big claim. Okay. I'm ready. Here we go. Making the camps. That'S just all it says.

0:12:35 Matt: It's a, I mean, this is like Batman villain stuff, the way they're talking. This is just how the government talks now. This is the title of an actual order from the White House, strengthening and unleashing America's law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens. Strengthening and unleashing.

0:12:52 Thomas: That's, yeah,. S a, that'' s a good contender for most fascists.

0:12:55 Matt: Don't think that U.S. law enforcement needs to be unleashed. I think that's really not a

0:12:58 Thomas: There' s not any leash. There' s currently no leash. Are you you can't more unleash them. They're unaccountable.

0:13:06 Matt: Well, they are going to be more unaccountable after this order. Now, some of this order is just really smoke. There's not a lot to it. A lot of it is, I think, just to be able to go out to Trump voters and say, this is what you voted for, to go to police unions and cops and say we love you, this what we're doing for you. Couple of things that are concerning though. Section two, legal defense of law enforcement officers.

0:13:23 Matt: So as if law enforcement officers don't get enough through their unions. They get great lawyers and

0:13:22 Thomas: Yeah, not to mention they get great Supreme Court justices who just make everything work for them really smoothly.

0:13:32 Matt: As if the law wasn't already completely built for them, right? The attorney general should take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification. So essentially more free lawyers for law enforcement, not for undocumented people who are facing deportation. Here's the one that really concerned me that I highlighted from this. This mechanism shall include the use of private sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers. I wonder who that's going to be.

0:13:34 Thomas: Who

0:13:54 Matt: All these firms that just signed deals that are now being told they're going to do whatever the administration tells them to do. Is very concerning. If you're throwing, not just the police unions already have great lawyers, but now they're supplementing those with big law, some of the best and most resourced lawyers in the country to defend cops. Do you think that's gonna do?

0:13:52 Thomas: Would that be? Yeah don't know Matt. I really don't. I know it's a rhetorical question but do we really think this will happen? I know that's we've been keeping an eye on that like what happens when Trump tries eyes to cash in this favor uh does this work can you make people do something they don't maybe want to do yeah I

0:14:25 Matt: We'll see. I haven't seen the text of some of these agreements. Don't know how broad it is, but I know that there were certain categories of things that they were agreeing to. And maybe it's some of those they can argue filled into those categories. We'll see. I hope that there's there's a way out of it because that's not something that that I I really want being done pro bono by the biggest law firms in the country.

0:14:40 Thomas: They want a way out of it because I I think that's going to be the key I think if they want away out of that they're fine or I don't think it'll happen because this whole thing is just a joke um if they don t want a away out it then yeah I think they'll find a way to comply I

0:14:52 Matt: This whole order is really just telling officers that unleashed is a good word, honestly. It's just saying get ready to do whatever you want because we're going to have your back. A part that I thought was kind of funny in the empowering section, which promises it's going to increase pay and benefits for law law enforcement officers. I don't know how that's supposed to work.

0:15:08 Thomas: All this in uh uh bono legal work we we can dole some of that out it's a new benefit

0:15:13 Matt: How are this out to state and local cops? That's not how any of this works. They'll give them ponies also. I Don't know. But concerning, military -grade equipment and resources. This is how you end up with local police departments getting grenade launchers and tanks. So more of of that. More collection of crime data, promising more prosecution of state and local officials. My real concern, within 60 days of this order, the Attorney General should review all ongoing federal consent decrees, out -of -court agreements, and post -judgment orders. Now, these consent decries are a very important function of what the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division used to do. Now the Civil Rights division, of course, has been stripped by Trump again, as it was the first time. From what I understand, it's even worse now.

0:15:52 Thomas: I don't even know if it's still there

0:15:53 Matt: I think, well, their job now might be defending cops like exactly. The white people. These consent decrees are some of the only things that are keeping really bad police departments in check in a lot of different places. This is a review of All Ongoing Federal Consent Decrees to Modify, Rescind, or Move to Conclude Such Measures that Unduly Impede the Performance of Law Enforcement Function. So none of that is good. Can't go anywhere good at all. Also gets Homeland Security involved in a lot more of state and local policing, which is something I'm very concerned about, as we discussed last time with those 287G agreements. Idea that we're going to start to see security forces more regularly in the streets, it section got a lot of attention, I think, for good reason in section four, using national security assets for law and order. To increase the provision of excess military and national security Assets, now that it can include the equipment I was talking about, but it also says that DOD is going to coordinate with the AG to determine how military and national security Asset's training, non -lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be used to prevent crime. And that's very concerning. The

0:15:56 Thomas: Defending white people yeah yeah

0:16:48 Matt: Idea of integrating military personnel and to local cops. All of this, as we discussed back in the Insurrection Act episode, is an exception to the Posse Comitatus rule. If you have an insurrection or something that they can declare to be an insraction, you can get the military involved in law enforcement. That's really the only big exception. Am concerned about the preparations in that direction. Yeah, watch these, but I think there's a reason these two orders came out on the same day. I think that they are very much thinking about cracking down on blue states and cities and and on sanctuary jurisdictions. A related patron question I just wanted to follow up on from Mike Koppen. We have to follow executive orders? I understand that if it is a department in the executive branch, but outside of that, it is not law. It is just a suggestion. What is the legal basis behind that? It's one of the most popular questions this week. We as citizens don't have to file executive orders because they're not directed at us. Executive orders are all directed at different parts of the executive branches. We discussed all the way back back in January 20th -ish, when all these started coming out, just policy memos. They're just ways that things are going to be done. They are binding on the departments and they have to find ways to carry out to the extent possible everything that's being ordered. But really, more than anything, they are just statements of policy. So they are not binding on us. They are not law. Of these proclamations do have some effect of law, but they're just how the executive branch is going to do business. So

0:17:59 Matt: So not great, not the business we want them doing, but they're not bounding in any of the rest of us.

0:17:59 Thomas: But the ones he writes it's like no more talking about race as a country it's like well that's not really anything for us I

0:18:10 Matt: We can keep caring about diversity, equity, and inclusion, I promise.

0:18:13 Thomas: Right everyone we we took our our medicine we the bad news that's pretty fast that's some fast news uh a big fan of that matt but we're gonna take a brake and get to the uh the the promised good news so I'm excited for that all show was brought to by Soul CBD. Know, I found a bit of a conundrum in my older age, which is that That drinking is, to me, fun and delicious, and yet, the consequences. One, it's so many calories. For three, the idea of ever being hungover or even just feeling, you close to my best in the next morning. That is a little rough these still want an alternative that lets you feel great in the moment and the next morning, you try these out -of -office gummies from Sol. First off, love the name, A+. Out -of office gummies, fantastic. Is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Sol specializes in delicious hemp -derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and you unwind. Best -selling out -of -office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. And look, if you're a bit of a newbie, kind of like I am, the out -offICE gummies come in four different strengths, so you can find the perfect dose that works for you. Again, I love the names. Sol is Very Good With Language. I love these names. Names. You can choose from a gentle buzz, noticeable high, or a fully lit experience. Is great. And really just a better alternative to drink. It is. You're going to feel way better. On the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Now, soul is offering our audience 30 % off your entire order. To getsoul .com and use code opening. That's It's GetSoul, G -E -T -S -O -U -L, GetSOUL .com, promo code opening for 30 % off.

0:18:23 Matt: Pretty good. All

0:20:01 Thomas: Right matt where do we begin I know we've seen some good injunctions there's a lot of stuff I'm hoping there's something that I don't even know about that'd be great

0:20:07 Matt: Might be, but there are some great injunctions. We've got a huge win out of J .A .V. Trump, which is one of the Alien Enemies Act cases. This is honestly, this is very encouraging. This is exactly what I wanted to see. It took us a little while to get here because you might remember that to challenge the Alien Enemies Act deportations back on March 15th, the plaintiffs were in front of Judge James Boesberg in the D .C. Circuit, who's since become pretty famous, most recently for his hatred of footnotes, obviously. But more importantly, we're

0:20:31 Thomas: Famous for undoing his entire legacy in matt's eyes

0:20:35 Matt: Still chafing on that, but I do appreciate the man and his work so far. But you might remember the Supreme Court found that D .K. was not the appropriate place to bring these challenges, challenges, even though that's where the policies were coming from, that you had to bring them in Texas. And of course, the holding facilities, including Blue Bonnet, where they've been sending people out from the Venezuelan population, they've collected them and sent them down to El Salvador, are in Texas. This ends up in front of Judge Fernando Rodriguez. Now, on paper, this is the kind of guy that they want.

0:21:01 Matt: This is a 2018 Trump appointee. He's someone who has been pretty right -wing, but he's got this Alien Enemies Act case, and he just pulls it apart. He just absolutely demolishes the idea of using the Alien Enemies Act at all, which is, I've been waiting for a judge to just say it out loud, to just actually say it, like the things we've been saying this whole time. It's really gratifying because he does two things. First, he finds that the Alien Ememies act does not apply in this situation. They just can't use it, which is great because that's what we've Been saying the whole time he goes through the entire history of the Alien enemies act and a beautiful summary of everything and talks about how how absurd it is that they're making this weird claim that somehow this train to Daragua is somehow an alien enemy and that Venezuela is being run by gangs now. Does some great analysis and says, for these reasons, the court concludes that the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act through the proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and as a result is unlawful. Respondents do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA and based on the proclamation to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States or remove them from the country. This is huge. Now, this

0:21:31 Thomas: That that seems right to us yeah yeah

0:22:10 Matt: Applies to the Southern District of Texas where he is, but that's where these holding facilities are. That's where the border facilities are, they're going to have to restructure if they want to do this. And I think they're gonna keep getting findings like this. I think this is really the beginning. If you're getting it in the jurisdiction where you're expecting to get the most favorable treatment, and you're getting this, it's not going to go much better for you in most other places, I hope.

0:22:11 Thomas: I hope so I hope yeah unless we just got lucky with one judge or something but like you said I mean trump appointee on paper not what we expected be expected yeah

0:22:40 Matt: I it's great. And the logic is really hard to argue with. It's everything we've been saying. Now, the other half of this order is also extremely encouraging because I was very concerned when the Supreme Court turned around on the Alien Enemies Act thing and said that you have to bring individual habeas petitions to challenge each detainee. An open question about the use of class actions in habeas. This has been open for a while. It's never been firmly resolved by the Supreme Court, as he out in this order. He decides he's going to certify a class. And this is great. It's Venezuelan men over 14 in Texas. So anyone who might be subject to the Unenemies Act allegations. So he's just saying, basically, they all have the right now to be protected. And he's issuing a permanent injunction, not just preliminary, but permanent injuction as a class saying that the harm is so great and that this is so clearly illegal and just is not an appropriate use of this statute. It's awesome. Me in such a good mood today.

0:23:29 Thomas: I didn't know you could do a permanent injunction like I'm so used to the like temporary stays and whatevers and all that I didn'T know you could just write it in permanent marker I like that

0:23:39 Matt: Yeah, it's always an option. Obviously, they're going to appeal it. It is going to go to the Fifth Circuit.

0:23:42 Thomas: I'm always gonna ask yeah what's the next stage here can they appeal it can they get this overturned

0:23:48 Matt: The is going have to show the Fifth Circuit that they have a chance of winning on appeal and that there isn't irreparable harm to the many, many people who are going to be be sent to El Salvador otherwise, potentially hundreds more, he points out here. Maybe they can do that. Maybe the Fifth Circuit will buy it. But this is a very strong decision. And if this is the case that ends up going to the Supreme Court, I really like this as a start for it. It's great. Also have some great news out of Eastern California. Talked about, yeah, it is

0:24:07 Thomas: Oof good news eastern california that the name of anything? Because that's nothing we say.

0:24:18 Matt: Federal district, is it not?

0:24:19 Thomas: Maybe, but that's, yeah, that's interesting. If it is, that'S not a term. We just got NorCal and SoCal, man. We got, it's too, the state's too skinny to split into East and West, you know? I mean, no,

0:24:28 Matt: There's an Eastern district who's out there oh

0:24:30 Thomas: I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just saying, that''s why I was asking. This is a district, right? Because it'' 's not a term about California I''ve ever heard. That''s all I''m saying.

0:24:34 Matt: Is this the imperial valley is this what we're dealing with here maybe

0:24:38 Thomas: Well, the valleys are usually in the middle of,

0:24:42 Matt: We talked about this actually back at the time about these cbp raids that were happening around bakersfield and the general vicinity of bakersfeld uh you know they were really scaring people yeah is that is bakerfield is that east I don't know yeah it works well

0:24:50 Thomas: Eastern California. That Southern California to me, but it might be. I guess since the state curves that way, maybe. We relative to state lines or are we talking absolute terms? Because yeah, technically, that's more east, isn't it?

0:25:06 Matt: Most relevant apparently there's a lot of farmland in the eastern district of california so that is

0:25:09 Thomas: That is true. We can all agree on that.

0:25:12 Matt: Wherever it is, it's full of farms. So good enough for me. Hannah Thurston and the Eastern District wrote a very long, very good order barring CBP from doing random arrests in this area because they were causing havoc. We talked about this a couple of months ago, about the fear it was causing. It was one of the first, it was actually, I think, just before Trump was sworn in, actually, that CBP was kind of flexing and showing where they were going with things, and just doing lots of random stops and scaring people. The kind of thing they get to do in certain places. And And she, in court, in the hearing, said something to the effect of, it seems like you're just stopping anybody with brown skin, which was pretty much what they were doing. She actually ordered an injunction that they can't just go do these random sweeps, and that they actually have to have some kind of probable cause of some kind, believe it or not, that somebody might actually be subject to immigration enforcement. They can't just start doing this random thing. This is huge, and it's great for the farmers and farmland in California and farm workers, but it's also potentially the logic of this could be extended to quite a lot of other places, and the ACLU seems to be pretty bullish on where this goes.

0:26:10 Thomas: I'm surprised to learn that I basically I live in what wikipedia they're is calling eastern california I'm all I'm just right about there so that's another sign that doesn't exist because that's I've never no one calls it that I looking at and it's like all the least populated counties except you know once you get to southern californIA I think it's a little more populated that's funny it's just it's funny like I've never yeah I've lived here all my life no one's ever once said eastern califORNIA but there's a wikipedia entry so technically it's a place

0:26:35 Matt: So funny. A few miles and you too could not be stopped by border patrol at random. Not really what they're looking for, but you never know. She's ordering not only that they have to have reasonable suspicion before they stop people. And again, this is not for crimes. This is just for immigration violations. Can't be doing warrantless arrests in the districts. And if they can conduct attentive stops, they have document in detail exactly what they are doing, date and time, what they did, who they talked to, what they said, and that they had to comply with every possible policy. And then just days and days after this order, they have to continue to show the updates of how they're doing it. This is pretty strong stuff. Is a model for judges to be able to put a stop to this kind of CBP enforcement. I'm very happy about this as well. That's a good one. A quick one out of Idaho, a bill that kind of mentioned in passing a few weeks ago, but House Bill 83 in Idaho is one of these dumbass bills that's trying to get state officers to conduct immigration crimes, to do immigration crimes.

0:27:14 Thomas: Conduct

0:27:29 Matt: To do them, sorry.

0:27:27 Thomas: Crime wait what I was like this is lit all right

0:27:34 Matt: There's a trend of states trying to pass bills that basically create an offense of illegal entry to the state if you're on a border. So Idaho, obviously, is a very small northern border with Idaho. So if they catch you coming across and entering the state at any location of their lawful port of entry, or if they think that you have been illegally re -entered somehow, one way or another, after deportation or otherwise. Again, these are federal crimes. These are for the federal government to enforce. This is not something that the state can do. There's just a lot of... Texas was trying to do the same thing and end up with the same result. Just can't have this kind of confusion between

0:28:09 Thomas: I thought the the was pretty clear on this right I've

0:28:12 Matt: Yeah. And Arizona v. U .S. back in the Supreme Court about 10 years ago. I mean, this is just not something that they can do. So predictable, but good. This is Amanda Brailsford. Just want to make sure we name these people as we go. In Idaho, great finding and exactly the right direction for yet another stupid law. So let's keep that going.

0:28:28 Thomas: Got more eastern california stats for you population of what someone just made this entry today on on Wikipedia is calling the Eastern California, whatever population is five, 5 million. However, 4 .2 of that is just the one, you know, San Bernardino, Riverside counties, right by Los Angeles. So that's what, like I said, it's everything else is like almost nothing.

0:28:31 Matt: Yes please bring them oh

0:28:49 Thomas: That's obviously very small percentage of our, uh. About 40 million people almost. So yeah, it'S in that Southern part, because the, rest of of it was all like, the mountain you towns and the whatever. But I okay. Anyway, I'll be hung up on this for weeks. Probably I'll

0:28:56 Matt: It's and of food grown there as I understand it so is over there cbp can't be roaming around just stopping people at random doing racist stuff so it's a good precedent and I hope that other judges follow it uh my favorite I think out of all this now the alien enemies act thing is huge that is actually going to be monumental I think for a a lot lot of the stuff I've been concerned about, to just have this clear finding, permanent injunction, hoping that, again, other judges can follow that logic. I think that'll go a long way. But the really heartwarming News, the think I was really happy to say this week was the release of Mohsen Madawi. I dunno how much we talked about this, but he was was arrested on April 14th at his naturalization interview in Vermont.

0:29:34 Thomas: God. Yeah, that one.

0:29:35 Matt: Is another one of these foreign policy grounds deportations along the lines of Mahmoud Khalil and Romain Osterich. Are the ones we need to watch very closely because these are people who are being explicitly deported for their political opinions, for their First Amendment protected speech. And just to remind everybody, the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that they are being deported under specifically allows for deportation for First Amendment -protected speech, if they can show this compelling governmental reason that you're interfering with the foreign policy of the United States. It's ridiculous. So this is a very impressive person, Mohsen Madawi. The more I've come to learn about him and the more I read about his background and his work, the judge clearly was taken by it as well. 34. He was born and raised in the West Bank. He experienced some pretty bad stuff in the West Bank when he was growing up that really affected his work later. He's an undergraduate at Columbia. Obviously, this is how he got under the radar, doing work there. He's supposed to start a master's degree at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs in September. He is actually a Buddhist, which is kind

0:30:29 Thomas: Interesting.

0:30:30 Matt: Of unexpected under the circumstances here. So he has been dedicated to peace studies, quote, to lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis, particularly through the study of conflict resolution. He was consistently outspoken in opposition to the war, as you'd expect a Buddhist to be.

0:30:43 Thomas: Other words, the most dangerous man alive. He's wanted in 17 different countries of

0:30:46 Matt: That's right. Threat to our foreign policy of supporting war, apparently.

0:30:51 Thomas: Not peace. Yeah, exactly.

0:30:52 Matt: Yes, the opposite.

0:30:52 Thomas: That's a good point. Yeah. I see why they're so upset that

0:30:55 Matt: So he had permanent residency, and he was applying for citizenship, as is his right. And he scheduled for a naturalization interview on April 14th in Colchester, Vermont. Ought. And a naturalization interview is usually pretty straightforward. If you don't have any issues, anything that would stand in the way of your citizenship, it's going to be a pretty straightforward exam. They're going to ask you 10 basic civics questions, do a quick reading and writing test.

0:31:16 Thomas: I doubt I could answer. Yeah.

0:31:17 Matt: You could get most of them, I think. You'd pass the test.

0:31:20 Thomas: Okay. Well, I appreciate your confidence. I'm not sure I would, but that's true. Yeah, we could do that sometime.

0:31:24 Matt: Thomas still has to take the naturalization exam at some point. Have to throw a few of those in.

0:31:28 Thomas: I'm a little worried now that if I fail it, like I will get, it's a little riskier now. I don't feel a hundred percent that I won't get deported or something after failing publicly on air. I don't know. Have to talk to my lawyer.

0:31:39 Matt: You were born into the naturalization test. Yeah. If I can help you. And they go through a bunch of biographical questions and they ask a bunch as a formality, they ask you questions including, do you intend to overthrow the government of the United States?

0:31:50 Thomas: Mm-hmm.

0:31:50 Matt: It's actually one of the questions, which I think I might've told you I was actually, I had a naturalization exam on January 7th, 2021, in which the client just kind of looked at the officer when he asked him that question as we're all recovering from January 6th. But they ask about affiliations to totalitarian groups and communism. And if you were a Nazi between 1933 and 1945, that's still on the exam. I know.

0:32:08 Thomas: Wow. At this point, I'd be impressed.

0:32:11 Matt: Yeah. No, I mean, I'm not saying give him a medal, but like longevity at least. The alternative, as I've always told my client, is you had a time machine and didn't kill Hitler. That's the only other way. That's the only other way that could apply. It's still on there. So So he had concerns going in. He actually told everybody around him he was concerned that he he was going to be detained. And if a client told me that up to this point, I'd say there is a possibility. You can always be detained at an interview. If you have an outstanding warrant, if you've got previous immigration violations, maybe some deportation order you didn't know about. Sometimes we take a risk and go in when we know that somebody might be written up and put in a deportation proceedings, you just have to do it. But you shouldn't really have to be thinking about that when you don't have a criminal record, you don't have any other disqualifying factors, and you're just going in for your citizenship. And we're talking about literally like the last few feet of the process. Like you're just at the finish line. And the only thing that comes after this interview is going to be actually standing up and taking the oath in a public ceremony. So he went in and was interviewed. He had his full interview. And I'm reading through this court decision. I'm realizing the recorded on video, which is never a good sign.

0:33:12 Matt: I always warn my clients, if you see a video camera, you have to expect it's going to go badly. They don't usually do that. So the only times I've had them do that is when they know that there's something they want to catch him lying about.

0:33:24 Thomas: That's scary. Jeez.

0:33:26 Matt: Think in this case, they knew that he was going to make allegations about what happened in that room, so they wanted to be sure they had it all. But it's cruel because they had him go through the entire thing. He passes the exams, obviously, answers all the questions. He signs at the end, they actually bring up a tablet. Honestly, it shouldn't, but it makes me laugh every time because it's like the iTunes user agreement at the at the when they bring up the oath of allegiance.

0:33:49 Matt: You have to tap the box and like, yeah, exactly.

0:33:49 Thomas: You click wrap into citizenship or whatever. Yeah,

0:33:53 Matt: They have the oath like bullet points. It used to be actually to sign a piece of paper, which felt a lot more consequential to me, but it's just how you do it. You sign a tablet now.

0:34:00 Thomas: It's like, do you accept these cookies? Yeah, okay, I guess.

0:34:03 Matt: Right, sure. Just give me that certificate. Yeah. And so he'd signed that. I had assumed when I'd read the story before that they'd grabbed him earlier in the interview, but they took him all the way through. He tapped it saying he's ready to take the oath. And the officer said, hold on, got to check on something, leaves the room and Ice walks in and and grabs him. And that's it. He's taken out, shackled and escorted. There's a great video of him making a peace sign and getting in peacefully. He was prepared for it. And he told an interviewer actually at The Intercept, a reporter I talked to, that he knew. Fully He expecting this as a real possibility because of his speech at Columbia. And again, nothing violent, nothing too controversial, but he was on one of these lists with the Canary Mission, Beitar -type people that have been doxing people, kind of an advanced intelligence wing of ICE right now. He knew that he was up for it potentially.

0:34:46 Thomas: Volunteer fascists. I love it. Yeah

0:34:48 Matt: Yeah. He was issued a notice to appear and charged as deportable in exactly the same way that Mahmoud Khalil and Romina Ozturk are. But the difference was because he's in Vermont, he's got a much more favorable chance of actually being released. So, he files a habeas petition. And this is an interesting question here in habeas about the availability when you're facing removal proceedings. There's a case called Reno v. map, which allows people who are in immigration custody facing removal proceedings with no criminal aspect to request a bail hearing through habeas. The court goes through a pretty long analysis here and looks at the many, many things in his favor and talks about what an outstanding person he is, essentially, and reaches some conclusions that I wanted to read here because I really appreciate the judges who understand the moment, that are really here with us, that aren't just observing this from a distance. Who have come to know Mr. Madali more recently than 2015 describe him as a peaceful figure who seeks consensus in a highly charged political environment. But even if he were a firebrand, his conduct is protected by the First Amendment. Unlike many habeas petitions, he comes before the court charged with no crime and free from any claim of criminal conduct. The court is aware that he has offended his political opponents and apparently given rise to concerns at the State Department that he is an obstacle to American foreign policy. Such conduct is insufficient to support a finding that he is in any way in danger, as we use that term in the context of detention and release. Court also considers the extraordinary setting of this case and others like it. Legal residents, not charged with crimes or misconduct, are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day. Nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and the Palmer Raids of 1919 to 1920 that led to the deportation of hundreds of people suspected of anarchist or communist views. Use. Judge Anderson of the District of Massachusetts granted habeas relief to multiple immigrants detained for political beliefs. His decision was instrumental in bringing an end to the moral panic that gripped the nation and its officials. Similar themes were sounded during the McCarthy period in the 50s, when thousands of non -citizens were targeted for deportation due to their political views. Again, the fever passed, but not before Justice Jackson was moved to dissent in U.S. v. Exrel Nauf, writing in a habeas case, and there's this quote here from Justice Jackson about a German war bride, security is like liberty in that many are the crimes committed in in its name. So this is powerful stuff. Reaching back into history, the Palmer Raids were an extremely abusive series of deportations carried out against people like Emma Goldman, who ended up dying in Russia after that deportation, and others who just held unpopular views. And this is around the time of World War I when, honestly, I don't think we've ever been more fascist all at once than we were during World War One. People really kind of get it to pass now, but there was is really fascist stuff going on in this country, even beyond what we're seeing now. So reaching back to that and showing the historical context of the Red Scares and McCarthy era and the dangers of imprisoning people for political views, I just really appreciate when judges are going out of their way to do

0:37:31 Matt: This. So just unqualified good news.

0:37:32 Thomas: I when a judge is like, you know, I listened to this episode of Hardcore History the other day and I'm gonna write it.

0:37:38 Matt: Yeah, pretty much. Have one more piece of good news before we get to our footnote, which listener request, and this actually goes directly to how this show makes its money. So I thought you might might be interested in talking about it.

0:37:48 Thomas: It's funny I this saw and I think it does have ramifications for what the crap that patreon is trying to pull but we'll see uh

0:37:55 Matt: My understanding. I don't really know the whole context of all this. And not an Apple user. Obviously, I'm using a knockoff Chinese Blackberry, as regular listeners know. This is Apple's policy of not allowing outside payments. So was brought by Epic Games, which obviously is the company behind Fortnite and an extremely popular games store online. Apple was blocking Epic from redirecting customers to outside payment methods to circumvent the 30 % commission on in -app purchases. 30 % Commission.

0:38:21 Thomas: Insane 30 % on every transaction just for being in the apple store apple doesn't do anything other than own that store. That's it. And they restrict everything as this case is about. Like they've come up with all these rules. They control all the rules. If you violate anything, oh, if they kick you out of their store. It's really, it's mafia -esque in a way.

0:38:39 Matt: That's is. And, you though that the court previously, in this case, didn't find that Apple was a monopoly, they did find that it was unfair not let the partners freely direct its users to outside payments sources, just like give them a link to go make the payment outside the Apple Store and not get this 30 % permission. Mission. Instead of complying with the injunction, Apple started playing games, and they started charging developers a 27 % commission fee on on -app purchases and continuing to mess with the process otherwise of going off -app. So they just found all these different ways. And what I really love about this, this fits into the theme of what we're talking about here, this is a court that sees what they're doing and just does not let them get away with it. So there's some awesome language here I just wanted to read out. In stark contrast to Apple's initial in -court testimony, contemporaneous business documents revealed that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anti -competitive option. Hide the truth, Vice President of Finance Alex Roman outright lied under oath. Internally, Philip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Mastri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to to find a violation. That's a violation of the injunction. The court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt

0:39:49 Thomas: Real

0:39:49 Matt: Proceedings are appropriate.

0:39:49 Thomas: District. Thank you so much. Finally,

0:39:51 Matt: That is a real place.

0:39:51 Thomas: A real region of California that exists.

0:39:53 Matt: But he's referring it for contempt. I mean, that's amazing in a corporate suit, right? And this is the best part. Is an injunction, not a negotiation. More of that, please.

0:39:54 Thomas: That is how you know this is the real deal. Wow.

0:40:06 Matt: More or that in every one of these, because obviously with the Trump administration, this is just private business violating it, right. But I I want to see this against Trump.

0:40:06 Thomas: Wow, wow. The end of of the decisions say sent from my Android or something? It's just a judge that hates Apple.

0:40:18 Matt: Oh, I hope it's sent from my Blackberry.

0:40:20 Thomas: No, no, that's only you, Matt.

0:40:22 Matt: I know, I know.

0:40:22 Thomas: I appreciate it, but that's only you. True

0:40:25 Matt: Is so good. Are new no do overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anti -competitive acts to avoid compliance with the injunction. Effective immediately. Immediately, Apple will no longer impede developers' ability to communicate with users, nor will they levy and impose a new commission on off -app purchases. He really means it this time. Good stuff. That's how you enforce an injunction.

0:40:50 Thomas: that'S great. Gosh, no kidding. Like it. Mean, I wish more of this language was used with the Trump administration, but sure. Yeah. Maybe

0:40:57 Matt: A good start. And it's still, you know, and honestly, right.

0:40:59 Thomas: Are getting feistier. Maybe They're tired. Look, I guess I guess, you know, Trump put out a memo that this is all optional, but it's not actually.

0:41:06 Matt: Reminder. I think, yeah, generally courts are just feeling it right now. They want their injunctions followed. You Know, I'm feeling good about that.

0:41:12 Thomas: True story. When we were hanging out in New York, um noticed like was just kind of funny I noticed like casey was handling all the directions and she was like okay so going this way go that's just a weird thing where it's like oh this is kind of odd like I I thought you knew where you were it just it was one of those weird things where it seemed like she lived here or something and you didn't or something but I don't like that's not true and I and then she was gonna call it a night and and she's like so are you good it. Do you know where you're going? And I was like, what is, what is happening? Then I realized, oh yeah, you don't have a real phone. I forgot. Like you're using an old nothing phone and you can't look up a map on it. I suppose it's my guess. That's right. I mean,

0:41:52 Matt: Mean, it does run Google Maps, just not very well. It crashes all the time. She's just used to handling navigation. Nobody gives my phone any credit.

0:42:00 Thomas: Funny. It's like just the weirdest thing. Normal, any other time I would have assumed, I don't know, maybe you're, you're unable to see or there, you know, there's some other, is it related to you're you also don't do maps or something. I thought it was something like that. I was like, oh no, you just don't have a real phone. It's interesting.

0:42:18 Matt: We speak, I have an even less real phone on its way to me. The minimal phone. I'm getting a minimal phone, which is, it's going to have, it has an e -ink screen like a Kindle, a keyboard. Got to have my keyboard. So I'm easier on the eyes.

0:42:27 Thomas: E -ink screen. I didn't. Those do look nice, those screens, but you'll have even fewer maps, I'm guessing.

0:42:34 Matt: Technically still runs apps, but what's going be really fun is trying to take pictures and video. Just going to look at Kindle.

0:42:43 Thomas: Show is brought to you by 1-800-Flowers. You know it's coming up. You know what I'm going to say. Mother's Day is coming up, and moms deserve something nice. When it comes to flowers, there's only one place I would go to get it right every time. 1-800-Flowers.com. I have to tell you something great about 1-800-Flowers.com true story. Ordered some flowers for Lydia and I messed up and they came while we were gone. What I'm telling you this. Flowers from 1 -800 -Flowers .com sat in their packaging. I want To make clear, this is entirely me, my fault. This is not, this is not on them. They when I opened them, they looked amazing. They still looked so good. And that really is just a sign of the quality care and good packaging they use. Could not even believe this. Seriously. In way I was more excited even though I did mess up the gift to Lydia, but it was like, hey, it also came with a good story. Would not have even been able to tell, actually, if I had not wanted to tell this very funny story about it. Have a great deal going on. Right now, when you order one dozen roses, they'll double it to two dozen for free. Don't wait. Show mom or, you know, whomever just how much they mean to you with a gift that says it all. Go to claim your double your roses offer, go to 1-800-Flowers.com/opening. That's 1-800-Flowers.com/opening.

0:44:06 Thomas: Get to the footnote. I'm excited. These have been, you've been on a roll with these lately.

0:44:10 Matt: This one's fire, as the kids say. Can't disagree with this one, I got to tell you.

0:44:13 Thomas: This week okay I don't

0:44:16 Matt: This is a rare use of the Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12F1. And I'll read this and you can decide if this applies to the situation before I send you the picture. Court may strike from a pleading, an insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. So we're talking about redundant, inmaterial, pertinent, scandalous matter. Now, This is arguable, I will say. I it's stupid, but I don't know if it fully applies to what the court is saying. Now, this is a lawsuit that was filed in the Western District of Michigan, and it is actually a very serious civil rights lawsuit involving some bad behavior from the Clinton County Sheriff's Office, filed by Jane Doe. It is filed by attorney Jacob Perrone, who's recently become very famous in the past couple of days for the thing I'm about to to send you. So go ahead and check out what Mr. Perron put on every single page of his filing. Again, this is not just the first page. This is not the cover letter. This isn't just at the top of the page. It is, in fact, the watermark for the entire filing, for every page. It is in color. Go ahead and just describe to our listening audience what you're looking at.

0:45:17 Thomas: Now it's coming through okay yeah yeah oh what is this some sort of like dragon in a suit oh

0:45:28 Matt: It is a dragon in a suit.

0:45:29 Thomas: Dragon lawyers are The Attorney oh I see so they're it's branding oh okay I thought they were furries or something. I didn't think a dragon qualified as a furry until I saw this picture of what's obviously a furry that is a dragon. So maybe they do.

0:45:38 Matt: Yeah, maybe.

0:45:46 Thomas: I don't know.

0:45:45 Matt: I mean, he's kind of hot. I got to say, it's a nice looking dragon. He wears a sharp suit.

0:45:49 Thomas: It's a great suit. Yeah. That's all it takes.

0:45:51 Matt: He's got his arms crossed. We're wearing a purple suit. It's a purple dragon. Got an orange tie.

0:45:55 Thomas: Means business.

0:45:56 Matt: No, I mean this, I would go, I don't know. I'd be scared if I showed up in court and I'm going against this dragon. That's what he's going for, Jacob Brown. Jacob Brown, kind of an odd duck, I think. Told the New York Times, people like dragons.

0:46:10 Matt: He said, the whole Game of Thrones era is how I initially came up with the concept.

0:46:17 Thomas: Can't argue with that quote. You know, like, hey, what the hell is going on here, man? Like dragons. Okay. Yeah fine. I I don't know what I expected. Like, I don'T know what answer I expected

0:46:26 Matt: Watched Game of Throne and what he got out of it was like, the mother of dragons raised a lawyer, I guess.

0:46:34 Thomas: This is very much not a Game of Thrones dragon, though. It's my only quibble. Like, he can't really... It's not even close.

0:46:40 Matt: Think he's going to be doing any war crimes anytime soon. In court, maybe writing a torture memo.

0:46:46 Thomas: Depends. Does he work for this administration? I don't know.

0:46:50 Matt: Oh yeah, this is all we're going to have left by the end of this administration is dragons in suits.

0:46:53 Thomas: My God. So, he put that on every page in color. Well, I suppose...

0:46:56 Matt: Every page.

0:46:56 Thomas: Did he have to print any of that? Or is it all electronic?

0:46:59 Matt: It's electronic filing, but it's in color. The judge was not happy. There's a pretty funny order. Is a very short order, so I can just read it. Again, arguably this is not offensive or whatever else this is in rule 12, but it is very distracting. It's not scandalous. It is kind of impertinent.

0:47:16 Thomas: Very silly. I think it's... Look, call me no fun. I think this is pretty stupid people like dragons they're

0:47:21 Matt: This is just an example of somebody's going to try anything in just the multiverse of the law. Order complaint. Page of plaintiff's complaint appears on e -filing, which is dominated by a large multicolored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit. Comma, presumably because she is represented by the law firm of, quote, Dragon Lawyers PC Copyright Award -Winning Lawyers, end quote.

0:47:36 Thomas: Very dominant yeah

0:47:54 Matt: Yeah, I actually didn't catch that before. So he goes on, of course, to note that the federal rule 12F1 allows a court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense.

0:47:52 Thomas: Award -winning what any

0:48:04 Matt: If you want to strike a dragon, you go ahead. I'm not not doing that. Strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Here's the heart of it. Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinate.

0:48:03 Thomas: Dragons yeah I

0:48:21 Matt: Juvenile and imperтinent. It's not like a, I Juvenir is like Calvin pissing on your pleadings. I don' t know. This is just a dragon.

0:48:26 Thomas: Think I look I get in today's day day and edge things that I would would have thought were very juvenile childlike are now adult things and that's that's how it is you know comic books are a very serious adult thing now I guess uh but this is I mean come on this is a cartoon dragon in a suit it's juvenile yeah

0:48:35 Matt: That's true. Yeah. Model nostalgia. That' s true. That'S true. True? Yeah. No, obviously. Cringe. Goes on to say the court is not a cartoon. Accordingly, it is ordered that the plaintiff's complaint is stricken. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing the same allegations as the original complaint without the cartoon dragon. There's something.

0:49:00 Thomas: Okay does he refile it with a like a life looking looking dragon I was gonna say a real dragon yeah like a like an ai generated real looking dragon oh

0:49:05 Matt: Photorealistic dragon. Yeah. I will say full credit to the firm's logo has a cool looking dragon head that's not a Cartoon Dragon. It is just like a classic medieval medieval -looking dragon head. That's fine. Put that on your letterhead. Then it is further order, just in case you didn't get it before. Plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.

0:49:31 Matt: Something you never thought to see in a legal pleading directed at a lawyer.

0:49:32 Thomas: That's fantastic no yeah never thought you had to write that that's amazing

0:49:39 Matt: Just enough with the Cartoon Dragon, man. Yeah.

0:49:42 Thomas: That's so funny not even just on like a cover page or a no no the whole every single page so good he should have done it here's what he should do make it so it's like an animation like it's a slightly different you frame so if you flip through it yeah the dragon like flexes or something breathes fire you know

0:49:44 Matt: Every page, a flip book. That's right. That is great. This goes to a point that I've been making since the beginning, since we started talking, that it is important what your pleadings look like. Fonts do matter. Matters. If the judge is getting a headache because you have a cartoon in the back of every one of your pages, he's not going to finish your filing, no matter how good it is. So, you know, let that be a lesson. File things that look nice.

0:50:18 Thomas: So funny people like dragons so so

0:50:27 Matt: I was just looking for the website again, because I found the man's website. And I don't know if he's trolling or what, but on the About Us page, the top person listening to the About Us page was his designer for the law firm. I thought that was very funny. I put him under the bus.

0:50:27 Thomas: Good yeah top billing I get it yeah he's

0:50:41 Matt: Loves the cartoon dragon.

0:50:41 Thomas: Like we do one thing here we do One and a Half Things Dragons and then kind of law.

0:50:46 Matt: Also eBooks. He sells eBooks, so maybe we're just all now selling his ebooks. I couldn't actually figure out how to buy the ebooks from the website, but I wasn't that motivated either. It's not a very good website.

0:50:49 Thomas: I bet. Boy. Yeah. This is either brilliant marketing or just a very sincere lover of dragons. But that's hilarious. That's another fantastic footnote, Matt. Well done.

0:51:07 Matt: Was trying to make a Game of Thrones joke, but I think I lost it. Sorry. Anyway, yeah.

0:51:11 Thomas: It's, it's the, uh, the claw note fetish. No, I don't know. I just have talent. What would you say a dragon foot is exactly? Exactly. They don't have talent. Do they have talons? I don't know.

0:51:21 Matt: Yeah, I guess talents, that works.

0:51:24 Thomas: Right. Well, what a fun footnote. A Good Breakdown, Matt. Successfully You made me forget all about the bad news part of it. I'm not even going to bring it up again. I just floating on this good news and a very silly dragon. So well done. Thanks for listening, everyone. Out Gavel Gavel. Lots of new Gavel gavel coming your way. Out for patrons. It'll be out for normies very soon uh more on that finally delving into the baldoni side of the blake lively and baldoni dispute so it's getting getting interesting and most of all to our patrons and cya next time

0:51:43 Matt: Stuff.

0:51:54 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:52:11 Matt: Like dragons. Yeah, I guess talents, that works.