GG78: The Blanche Bucks Stop Here

Transcript

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

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise to face the jury and harken to its verdicts.

0:00:26 Thomas: Gavel in Gavelinos. I'm Thomas, that over there is Lydia. How you doing?

0:00:30 Lydia: I'm doing pretty well. I think you're, you should call me Judge Gabble.

0:00:33 Thomas: Judge Gavel. That's interesting.

0:00:35 Lydia: Yeah, that's my name. Well, I don't know. I'm reading a lot and I feel like I need to embody this role more.

0:00:40 Thomas: Yeah, but it'd be weird if your name was Gavel, I'm trying to think what that's like. It'd be like if a police officer's name was like Officer Gun or something. I guess that works, like with two N's.

0:00:47 Lydia: Yeah. Why not?

0:00:49 Thomas: Yeah it's Gavel and it's spelled differently though. So you got to, it's like, yeah, I was going to say that sounds too fancy. I think it could be like G -A -V -L -E or something.

0:00:52 Lydia: Yeah. What if it's like Gavel? Like, yeah, Judge Gabbel.

0:01:01 Thomas: Gavel.

0:01:01 Lydia: Yeah I like it.

0:01:04 Thomas: That'd be funny. So in a moment, we are going to be joined, of course, by Matt Cameron to go through more of this. Now, we're still in deep background of this because, again, the thing we wanted to talk about, well, all of it. But we wantedto talk about that order from the amazing judge Kathleen Williams. We wanted to get to that. But in order to really appreciate, you know, you have to have seen the first several the prequels to that and we're in prequel number what two or three now in terms of the like the readings. I mean, because we did the the initial filing and then. Yeah. And then now we're going to be talking about the settlement thing in quotes that they did, which is great.

0:01:28 Lydia: We are. Yeah mm -hmm. Yeah the complaint. Yeah

0:01:45 Thomas: And then we're going to get some. Yeah.

0:01:46 Lydia: And the very official way that they shared the settlement too. Official in air quotes if that wasn't clear.

0:01:52 Thomas: Yeah, that was kind of confusing, but we're gonna get some very expert opinions. You don't have to take our word for it. Take the words of, I don't know, 170, no, 35 or something. Same thing. How many, at what point is enough federal judges enough? You know, you're not getting more federal judge expertise at a certain point. It's like you've got, you maxed out. Out. The expert opinion of 35 federal judges who were so outraged by this. They're like, we're going to come in here on our, they're like we're retired. We were all playing golf, but with our gavels, like we have a gavel golf club somehow and in the robes, but it's sort of like croquet or something.

0:02:01 Lydia: 35 yeah. Yeah they're They're starting like their own little Avengers, basically. Yes.

0:02:29 Lydia: How would that work? Just like extend the whole part of it. Yes.

0:02:34 Thomas: It's like a croquet mallet. Yeah. Maybe they play croquet. You know what? I changed my mind. They play croquet because it's so much like the gavel. Yeah, Yeah, they're like, wow, this really translates from from my skill

0:02:35 Lydia: I like it. I think that would work. Because you don't want them hunching over. Yeah. Okay. Gavel related. Mm -hmm. Feels familiar. Comfortable.

0:02:47 Thomas: Set for my lifetime of. Yeah, it's stupid. Anyway, we're going to get into that because they had some things to say and it was very important. It wasn't like a lot of times we read we read a lotof amicus briefs or sorry, amicus briefs, as we say now. And they're always very interesting. Well, I shouldn't say always. There's sometimes ones from like the family council of bullshit that does whatever.

0:03:09 Thomas: But when they're written by parties that aren't stupid, they're often very interesting, give you a lot of detailed background, but they're usually not like that consequential, you know, cause they're just like, Hey, can we, can We write in? So I use a comment. It's like the best version of a comment section.

0:03:23 Lydia: And usually like about a very specific corner of the case that they feel like they can chime in on, that they have expertise on. But this is just more like, hey, they're trying to get away with a lot of crap. Yeah.

0:03:30 Thomas: Well, yeah. And what I was going to say is, is it's not just informational. This is like very useful for the judge, you know? Like, Hey we we're coming in. I know you didn't tag team us in or did you kind of, she kind of did in a way with some other judges, but it's, it's not only good, but useful and will be very relevant to the final decision, which isn't always true with amicus briefs. But yeah, are they even amici or whatever? Like they just are the court. We're not a friend of the court, we are the cort.

0:04:02 Lydia: No, I think they're back to front of the court because they're former federal judges. They're all retired.

0:04:06 Thomas: We're the court - we're the force ghost of the cort, like the previous cort. We are Obi -Wan Kenobi in ghost form of the cort, we ARE the cort I guess, right?

0:04:08 Lydia: They're not still the court. Yeah. It

0:04:16 Thomas: But we're a former version of the Cort.

0:04:18 Lydia: All comes back to robes, too.

0:04:19 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. There's another thing they're good at, cosplaying as Jedi. They do that too, all the time, when they're not croquing so uh this was a lot of fun and uh of course if you'd like to get access to the parts not to spoil it but parts three and four right away make sure to go to patreon .com slash a gavel pod and that will be uh those will be out pretty much right away for the patrons normies you have to wait a little bit sorry go a little but the rules I don't make the rules I don't know who makes them they just yeah yeah a bunch

0:04:36 Lydia: Dang. Yeah. You don't. I don't either. I think they just happen, but

0:04:53 Thomas: Of judges write in and they're like here's how you should handle your patreon content all right we'll take a quick break and then we'll be on with matt for that uh by the way the cliffhanger resolve of him saying that two historic things happened uh that was our cliffhangers so he's going to talk about what those are and we'll do that right along our way after

0:04:53 Lydia: That's what they are. Yeah. Mm -hmm.

0:05:19 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:05:19 Matt: These two major historic things happen. Let's go back to the settlement agreement itself, because it does come out, it is released, and let's start there. Now, this is a settlement agreement, remember, between the defendants and the plaintiff, defendants being the IRS and Treasury and the president and his kids and his 418 entities. So, pulling up the settlement agreement itself. I just want to make sure people understand just how corrupt this is. Page three of the settlement arrangement.

0:05:41 Lydia: The conduct alleged in the case and in the pending agency claims is representative of the sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat -elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and or ideological reasons. Quote, lawfare and, quote, weaponization.

0:06:02 Thomas: This sorry Trump's IRS this Democrat whatever okay

0:06:06 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. Other well-known examples of lawfare and weaponization include the Biden administration's abuse of the FACE Act, the Biden administration's wrongful labeling of certain parents as domestic terrorists, and the IRS is targeting.

0:06:18 Thomas: What certain parents, that's a new one on me what the hell is that about oh

0:06:23 Matt: So first of all, the FACE Act is people who are protesting abortion clinics, that the Biden administration was rightfully prosecuting people who were harassing women going in for treatment. And I believe the Certain Parents as Domestic Terrorists thing is about the school board protests, the QAnon-inspired stuff.

0:06:38 Lydia: Oh, the takeover. Yeah.

0:06:39 Matt: Yeah, yeah. I think that's what that is because they whine about this all the time.

0:06:39 Thomas: Yeah what yeah

0:06:42 Lydia: With like Moms for Liberty and stuff.

0:06:43 Thomas: Certain parents as though that's what the important thing was but it's like hey any parents of the following children like okay

0:06:53 Matt: So it's so gratuitous to mention this.

0:06:55 Thomas: Yeah what is sorry I forget what this this is the settlement agreement wherefore the democrats are a bunch of lying whatever you know okay

0:06:59 Matt: This is a settlement agreement that came out later. Yeah.

0:07:05 Matt: And this is the same day as the voluntary dismissal, May 18th. Okay.

0:07:08 Lydia: Yeah, how interesting. And the IRS's targeting of groups based on improper ideological criteria.

0:07:14 Thomas: Yeah that's their bullshit that have gone through the the nothing where Obama's IRS allegedly did nothing to some conservatives and it was nothing uh

0:07:22 Lydia: Right. To bring the case in the pending agency claims to a close forever. However, and finally, the parties have determined to settle the case and pending agency claims effective May 18th, 2026.

0:07:34 Matt: Relief. Yeah. So this is what he actually wants.

0:07:36 Lydia: As sole and complete relief for allegations in the case in the pending agency claim, plaintiff President Donald J. Trump and the other named plaintiffs in the cases and in the Pending Agency Claims will receive a formal apology from the United States, but will not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind.

0:07:50 Thomas: What a saint he doesn't even take a salary

0:07:53 Matt: It's incredible. So a formal apology from the United States for releasing it. Now, again, in another kind of suit, that might be all you want, right? Just somebody to say, yes, this happened. Sorry about that. But he's going to pretend that he's never going to get a payout from this. This is how it's going to work. Sneaky stuff. And now we get into the settlement agreement.

0:08:09 Thomas: Yeah sneaky no one can see through

0:08:12 Matt: Yeah, right. Exactly. For the rest of the relief,

0:08:12 Lydia: In exchange for the relief provided in the settlement agreement and except as provided herein, When, for example, the claims process described below, plaintiffs hereby release, waive, acquit, and forever discharge defendants in the United States from and are hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, charges, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive, monetary, damages, tax payments, debt relief, costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and/or interest that, as of the effective date, have been or could have been asserted by plaintiffs in the case or the pending agency claims by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of matters in the case or pending agency claim.

0:08:56 Matt: How generous. We're not going to sue you again for anything else. This Is the One Part I Wish which had stuck. And then we get to the amazing part, number C, anti

0:09:06 Lydia: To provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who, like plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from similar lawfare and weaponization, the Attorney General of the United States agrees to create, quote, the Anti -Weaponization Fund, subject to the terms and limitations described herein.

0:09:18 Thomas: Tell

0:09:22 Matt: -weaponization fund. Tell me more.

0:09:24 Lydia: All right, composition.

0:09:25 Thomas: Me more tell me we're back in greece

0:09:27 Lydia: Back to Greece. Composition and operation of the Anti -Weaponization Fund. An accompanying order of the Attorney General issued within 30 days of the effective date shall establish funding and any other relevant requirements, rules, conditions, terms, and waivers which shall be treated as incorporated herein. The Attorney General may also change the formal name of the anti -weaponization fund by order. Wow, cool. That's exciting. Yeah. Todd's fund.

0:09:46 Matt: I actually didn't catch that before. You just call it whatever he wants. Todd's fund.

0:09:47 Thomas: Wow yeah he's like Like, well, we're still spitballing. Yeah.

0:09:53 Lydia: The corpus of the Anti -Weaponization Fund's funding does not represent the value of any current claim by plaintiffs, but rather is based on the projected valuation of future claimants' claims. And accordingly, the corpus of the anti -weaponization fund's funding is not taxable income as to plaintiffs who receive no economic benefit from this settlement agreement. The anti - weaponization fund shall consist of five members. Within 30 days of the effective date, the Attorney General shall issue an order appointing the members, including the chair of the Anti -Weaponization Fund, with such order being treated as incorporated herein, one of the members shall be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. The members shall serve until the Antiweaponization Fun is concluded as described below, unless they resign or are removed by the president, who can remove any member without cause. Okay.

0:10:38 Lydia: Any replacement shall be made by the same method as the initial appointment. A quorum is three members. A majority of a quorum is authorized to take action.

0:10:45 Thomas: I don't even know if he needed that language since the Supreme Court has decided he can do whatever the fuck he wants to any executive anything.

0:10:51 Matt: This is fascinating to me. I'm always fascinated by the corruption in this kind of stuff of making it sound like it's some kind of actual government body that you're setting up when it's just the attorney general's friends. It's good to get together to give out money to their friends.

0:11:04 Lydia: Yeah. Consistent with this settlement agreement, the Anti -Weaponization Fund shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims. The Anti - Weaponization Fun may make those procedures public in whole or in part in its discretion. Cool.

0:11:21 Matt: Do you think it will?

0:11:22 Lydia: That feels transparent. Yeah. The anti -weaponization fund shall have the power to issue formal apologies, issue monetary relief owed to claimants as a result of their legal rights, grant claims in whole or in part, deny claims in whole or part, defer review of claims, and receive and request evidence or other support for claims, including requesting information from or consulting with federal agencies.

0:11:43 Lydia: On a quarterly basis, or otherwise as directed by the Attorney General, the Anti -Weaponization Fund shall provide to the Attorney general a confidential written report that includes the name and address of each claimant who has received any relief, and if so, nature of such relief. The Department of Justice or a third -party contractor of the agency is designated by the Attorney General, may audit the claims submitted pursuant to this agreement. The Department of Justice and or any other government agency may, to the full extent permitted by law, make referrals for investigation or prosecution or prosecute or take other enforcement action to address any evidence of fraud.

0:12:15 Matt: Yeah, I'm sure they'll be doing that.

0:12:17 Lydia: The Anti -Weaponization Fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1, 2028. In the event that there is a balance remaining in the Anti - Weaponization fund's accounts after December 15, 2029, the Antiweaponization fund shall transfer such balance before January 1, 2029 to the Department of Commerce, Interior, or another appropriate federal government account as designated by the president.

0:12:38 Matt: And just a reminder, we talked about this in a way, but it was going to be funded by the settlement fund that's already set up that Congress established is basically like an open pool of money. And this is honestly, once again, I have to give some credit to the evil geniuses that came up with this stuff, because what a great idea to find a way to carve out your own little piece of this pool to get your own Little subset that you can just draw from and give out to your friends, because the whole point of the judgment fund that Congress set up is so that you don't have to have individual approval from Congress appropriating every time there's a judgment against the federal government. Just make sure they get paid out. So now they're just setting up a little judgment fund within the judgment fun that is just very easy to get. So check out limitation on claims if we go down to... This is just funny to me. I don't know. Describing the limitations on the claims.

0:13:26 Lydia: Submission of a claim to the anti -weaponization fund is voluntary.

0:13:29 Matt: Oh, good.

0:13:29 Lydia: Claimants can include entities. A claimant can choose whether to accept relief from the anti-weaponization fund. If a claimant does so, the claimant must forego all other relief, including judicial relief, whether previously asserted or not. To be eligible for relief, a claimant must assert at least one legal claim stating that the claimant was a victim of lawfare and or weaponization. In evaluating claims, the Anti -Weaponization Fund shall consider the totality of the circumstances, including the strength of the claim and supporting evidence, the claimants' actions, the claimants' actual damages incurred as a result of the lawfare and weaponization, reasonable attorney's fees paid by the claimant as a result of the lawfare weaponization any time the claim is spent in prison or otherwise in federal prison or custody as a result of the lawfare and Weaponization, whether and to what extent the claimant has already obtained any form of relief for the lawfare and weaponization from any source.

0:14:16 Thomas: I don't know why it's bothering saying this, because it already said, like, they can do whatever the f*** they want and accept things or not accept them for any reason.

0:14:23 Lydia: Yeah, and the DOJ will investigate if there's any concern, which, you know, this is, yeah.

0:14:27 Thomas: There isn't. Yeah.

0:14:29 Lydia: Other factors the Anti -Weaponization Fund deems just and appropriate. A claimant who already has a claim pending in court or administrative proceedings may be eligible for relief subject to paragraph 5b.

0:14:38 Matt: Okay. I just want to point out again because this is my job. This is not how it works. It's not how any of this works. The judgment fund is supposed to be for final judgments. Now there is regulatory language that suggests that occasionally if they feel like they have to, DOJ can pay out of the judgment fund. If they think they're absolutely going to lose a case, they can just settle with somebody, right?

0:14:56 Lydia: Mm -hmm.

0:14:56 Thomas: Hmm.

0:14:56 Matt: So they're grabbing onto this regulatory language about how in some cases, if it feels like it's more efficient, they can just pay out. And they're setting up this incredibly vague, open -ended ability to pay out from the judgment Fund to anybody, whether or not they have a pending claim. You don't even have to file a complaint in court. You just have to write into the fund and say, I think I was harmed. This is so far from what the judgment fund is supposed to be.

0:15:16 Thomas: Yeah like you said it's amazing I just picture these fucking corrupt assholes sitting around being like god we're in control of everything there's all this money like we just the treasury has so much money and we I have been shown to have no like nobody will hold us accountable for anything how do we get

0:15:26 Lydia: We just need to find a way to get it. Yeah yeah. And no No moral compass. Yeah.

0:15:36 Thomas: This money and then they come out with this scheme it's like all right right well

0:15:39 Matt: Yeah. Yeah, no. And check out enforcement because I actually hadn't caught this before. B is especially bad. So the settlement is only enforceable and challengeable by the people involved in the US. Check out B.

0:15:50 Lydia: Because the claims process is voluntary, there shall be no appeal, arbitration, or judicial review of claims, offers, or other determinations made by the Anti -Weaponization Fund. Denial by the anti -weaponization fund, dependency of a claim, or rejection of an offer by a claimant does not preclude a claimants from seeking judicial or other relief outside the anti weaponization fund process, if otherwise allowed by law.

0:15:57 Thomas: Done

0:16:12 Matt: Now, I wonder how this would have held up. And again, this is not happening. As far as we know, who knows, maybe they'll try to resurrect it somehow. I still think they could do the same thing basically out of the judgment fund. They could start using that regulatory language I told you about. We talked about this in a way, but I think it's still very possible they could just circumvent all of this and just start doing it de facto. But the idea that there's just not going to be any appeal or judicial review of any of these determinations, which usually would mean denials, but really, I'm concerned about the approvals, right? The grants they're going to give out.

0:16:38 Thomas: Isn't that funny?

0:16:39 Matt: Yeah, yeah. It's all backwards.

0:16:39 Thomas: It's funny how friendly to the alleged like people this is like and it does you can apply for this and it doesn't even disqualify you from also suing like there's no reason for that to be true like there's plenty of other government stuff where it's like well you can opt in for this but then that means you can't sue you know like there is plenty of stuff like

0:17:02 Matt: Well, and it's also insane because you should be suing to be even in the position where they're considering paying you out, right? And they're saying, you don't have to be doing it. Go ahead and try to sue after this. If we deny it, then maybe come back. All right. So that's the settlement agreement. Let's pull up the infamous Todd Blanch order because the settlement arrangement is with the defendants. That is with, just to stress this, the IRS and the Department of Treasury. This thing we're about out to read on May 19th, the next day, from Todd Blanche, is signed by Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General, on the letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General. And no one else is involved.

0:17:32 Matt: And I really think IRS and Treasury lawyers should have been involved given what's going on here.

0:17:32 Thomas: Wow

0:17:38 Lydia: I'm bummed he didn't like take the opportunity to rename it. In this like memo, like, like the really cool money pit, like the

0:17:42 Thomas: Oh yeah I've settled on a name yeah

0:17:42 Matt: That's right. As he was allowed. That is right.

0:17:48 Thomas: He just names it like the treasury or something and then it's like remind me matt how did we get access to this did that were they ordered to provide this or when did this come out again

0:17:51 Lydia: Same

0:17:57 Matt: They just went and tweeted it out. They just released it. Yeah, there's an official DOJ page on Monday, May 18th. They're very proud of themselves. I mean, I'll just send you, you can see it. They put out a press release when they announced the independent.

0:18:08 Thomas: Okay I thought I remembered some like an effort to like hi because remember the judge was like I haven't seen a settlement there's no settlement what are you talking about you know wasn't that part of

0:18:17 Matt: Yeah, no, she said that in the order we just read, but that was the same day that they released this.

0:18:20 Lydia: Day.

0:18:21 Matt: Yeah. Yeah? You can see the press release here that they announced that they linked to the settlement agreement. They linked to the order. We're about to read. Uh, they're very proud of themselves and they're describing detail about the fund. They want you to know about this. We don't need to read the press release, but let's take a look at the Todd Blanch order because this is really the bad part. Just in case the rest of this wasn't the bad part.

0:18:21 Thomas: It oh okay

0:18:41 Lydia: The settlement agreement in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service has created the anti -weaponization fund. The Settlement Agreement directed the attorney general to issue an order establishing funding and any other relevant requirements for the fund. Capitalized terms in this document shall have the same meaning as in the settlement agreement. The United States It states, releases, waives, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations, or similar or related reviews. Views. Appeals, debt relief, cost, attorney's fees, expenses, and or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that, as of the effective date of the settlement agreement, have been or could have been asserted by defendants against any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, including without limitation family or others filing jointly, or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of, one, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case or the pending agency claims two lawfare and or weaponization or three any matters currently pending or that could be pending including tax returns filed before the effective date before defendants or other agencies or departments yeah

0:19:59 Thomas: What did all that mean

0:19:59 Matt: Yeah, so this memo, again, it doesn't even have a title. We don't even know. This is so sloppy. I just want to point out because this is supposed to be the official implementation of the settlement agreement, and what we get is basically the AG acknowledging, oh yeah, I see that in the settlement argument. We're going to be setting up this fund, and by the way, completely unrelated to any of this and not mentioned in the settlement agreement.

0:20:19 Matt: We are going to go ahead and make sure that the plaintiffs never have to have any kind of problems with any of our agencies. Let's just throw that in a little sweetener for you, a little bonus.

0:20:27 Lydia: Because wasn't the settlement agreement like saying that trump wasn't going to sue like on their end right but then this is now Wow. And we're going to give it back to you, too, buddy. Yeah.

0:20:33 Matt: That's right. That is the

0:20:38 Thomas: Well yeah so that's the deal you know it's like consideration 418

0:20:41 Matt: Thing I think that this entire thing was about, was to get to this. Because I think they knew that weaponization fund probably in the end was not going to happen, maybe a pipe dream. But they just kind of got to staple on this paragraph which has nothing to do with anything and really brings out what a shame this whole thing is. Because what what a release, what a thing this is, that as a result of your tax returns being leaked and the lawsuit you brought, we're just going to make sure that you never have to be prosecuted, investigated, audited. Any of your entities, any of the companies you're associated with, and of course we know they have all kinds of corporate interests with crypto and everything else.

0:21:18 Matt: Yeah. And arguably, I mean, I've kind of been thinking about this back and forth since this came out. Arguably this binds the defendants, but the defendents aren't involved in this. This the Attorney General represents the United States, allegedly.

0:21:17 Thomas: Of them well back

0:21:32 Matt: So there is an argument to be made, and I think that they could have pressed this if this had stood, that they can't be prosecuted by any part of the United State. This really seems to be the Attorney general extending it to at least any federal agency and possibly the Department of Justice itself.

0:21:46 Thomas: Then right couldn't you have achieved the same thing by just self -pardoning like for everything

0:21:51 Matt: Although pardons arguably don't cover civil stuff. That is an open debate about whether they do or not. And there's lots of civil penalties and prosecutions that could still be brought against against all these entities. So there's that.

0:22:00 Thomas: Well but would they have been stopped I guess I'm saying would it achieve this same thing or is there stuff that this achieves that a pardon couldn't

0:22:07 Matt: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The civil stuff would be covered here. Yeah.

0:22:08 Thomas: Okay well sorry what's civil when it comes to like tax fraud or something is it

0:22:13 Matt: Oh, like SEC violations or civil tax violations. There's all kinds of stuff that wouldn't necessarily be criminal that you could end up with.

0:22:16 Thomas: Like gotcha okay gotcha that makes sense

0:22:20 Matt: Treasury stuff. Yeah?

0:22:21 Lydia: Do think you're right, Matt, though, that I think it can be argued that this applies to every single department and agency in the United States, because like the United States releases waves of quits, yada, yadda, yedda, not the IRS releases waves of quids. Right. And then later, you know, it does say that have been or could have been asserted by defendants. But then the last sentence, any matters currently pending or that could be pending before defendants or other agencies or departments, the period would have ended at defendants if they didn't intend for that to be applied across the board.

0:22:26 Matt: Yeah. It's super broad. Not the defendants. Yes. Exactly. That's right. This is why we did most of an episode of opening arguments about it because of that sentence, because I really thought this is bad. This is so much worse than I would have thought. And again, Again, if it were just the defendants, you would have lawyers from those other agencies, from Treasury and IRS signing off, and they're not involved.

0:23:07 Matt: They don't have anything to do with it. So this is just corruption.

0:23:08 Lydia: It'd be like a coalition basically.

0:23:09 Thomas: Also none of this would ever happen I

0:23:12 Matt: This is, and it is so broad. It's so sloppy. It's such a short, like there's so many things that are not explained. It's intentionally as open -ended as possible. There's no doubt that's what they're trying to do here. Yeah, that's right.

0:23:17 Lydia: He didn't take the opportunity to rename it. Like God, just like I'm so upset about it. Todd, yes, my guy, you had the chance. Todd Bucks.

0:23:24 Thomas: Just lydia's still stuck on that todd's radical bodacious fund todd bucks yeah yeah

0:23:35 Matt: Blanchpacks, it's right there.

0:23:35 Lydia: I love that. Yeah, Blanche Bucks, hmm.

0:23:44 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:23:45 Matt: So this is all on the 18th of May. And now we're finally going to get to the part I really want to talk about, which is the Rule 60 motion from 35 former federal judges. And they're going to file this on the 27th of March. So they had nine days to get this together. And there's a number of amicus briefs that are filed. They're all very good, but it's a 60B motion we want to focus on. Now, Rule 60 allows a judgment to be set aside for all kinds of reasons, including fraud upon the court. And that's part of what's going to be alleged here. So we can pull up this incredible thing. May 27th, we've got this incredible filing from 35 former federal judges, and they're going to state their interests. Let's get down to their interest of move -ons. So they're move -ins in the sense that this is something, oh, move -on.

0:24:28 Lydia: You say move -ons? Yeah, I thought it was move -ins too, but I don't know. No, I, I'm not a lawyer. I've never done this before.

0:24:29 Thomas: I thought it was just movements wow do you say defendants yeah

0:24:31 Matt: It probably is move -in. Nevermind. I don't know. I've never heard it said. I can't stress enough how unusual this is that you have an outside party, first of all, filing a Rule 60 motion saying there's something wrong with this settlement. There's something wrong the way this case ended. And then to have the people who are filing it be 35 former federal judges who know federal law pretty well and know how courts are supposed to work.

0:24:56 Lydia: And like probably would prefer to just be in retirement, you know, hanging out and fishing, doing their own thing, and they're like, god damn it.

0:25:04 Matt: I can see that. And the group chat activated as soon as they saw the news about this settlement, yeah.

0:25:07 Thomas: A group, assemble.

0:25:07 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah oh my god. I hope there is as a group chat. And once you retire as a federal judge, you get added. Oh, I would love that.

0:25:11 Thomas: Oh, they have matching gavels. That's how they know. That's why they recognize each other in the wild by their matching gaVELs.

0:25:20 Lydia: That would be so cute.

0:25:22 Matt: Let's take a look at this document.

0:25:24 Lydia: Move -ins are 35 former federal judges. A full list of move -ins is listed or move -ons is listed in the attached appendix. Move ins are filing this motion because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice.

0:25:38 Matt: Is that all? Okay. Sure. Sure.

0:25:40 Lydia: The purported quote. Quote,

0:25:40 Thomas: And this would end all of that.

0:25:43 Lydia: Yeah, the purported, quote, settlement that the parties never placed before this

0:25:43 Thomas: This thing would have no law. There wouldn't be justice anymore. Yeah, yeah.

0:25:51 Lydia: Court raises profound questions about the party's candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. Justice. As former judges, move -ins have an interest in bringing to the court's attention these concerns and the availability of relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case. Move -ins file directly under Rule60 and in the alternative request leave to file as amici curiae. With respect to the former, the 11th Circuit has allowed that in, quote, extraordinary circumstances, a non -party may raise a challenge of fraud on the court through Rule60 even when the non -parties' interests are not directly affected by the judgment. As explained below, the circumstances presented here are plainly extraordinary.

0:26:35 Thomas: There isn't more extraordinary than this.

0:26:38 Matt: Right. So they're saying basically either, you know, let us be the people that bring this under rule 60 to point out the fraud in the court, or at least let us file a brief. Like let us just get in here and give our opinion. And you know the court has the authority to do this sua sponte, which just means on its own initiative, if it has a reason to do it.

0:26:54 Lydia: The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions. This is not speculation. The bodies themselves have proclaimed it repeatedly. For starters, the DOJ implemented all of the actions described above via a document expressly titled, quote, settlement agreement, captioned with this case's caption, plus a three -paragraph addendum that references that, quote settlement agreement in its first paragraph and in its third paragraph purports to, quote, forever bar and preclude the United States from pursuing claims that could have been asserted, quote by defendants against any of the plaintiffs in this case. The settlement agreement was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward the same day plaintiffs filed their notice. In fact, plaintiffs filing of the notice was expressly required by the settlement agreement. The addendum granting the extraordinarily broad releases to the president and his family and businesses was signed bei acting Attorney General Todd Blanche the next day, May 19th. Yet none of the parties filed either of those documents with the court. In addition, shortly after announcing the settlement, the acting attorney general issued an order creating the Anti -Weaponization Fund. That order, which references the settlement agreement in this case, explicitly identifies the Judgment Fund Statute 31 U .S .C. subsection 1304, under which Congress has authorized appropriations for payments of settlements against the United States, and 28 U .C., 2414, which authorizes payments of, quote, final judgments against the United States, including compromise settlements and quote imminent claims as a statutory basis for the creation of the anti -weaponization fund. Payments purportedly made pursuant to these statutes in the absence of a genuine case or controversy are not authorized. Movins submit that this settlement is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court, but the court need not decide that ultimate issue now. At this juncture, movements request only that the court exercise its powers under Rule 60 to set aside its order ending the case based upon plaintiff's voluntary dismissal. That will allow the court to commence an inquiry into whether the court was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy, and any purported arm's -length negotiations undertaken to resolve it. As set forth below, this court has the power under Rule60 to determine whether there has been a, quote, corruption of the judicial process itself, and may set aside a judgment and reopen open a case under Rule 60d3, as well as other subsections of Rule 60, whether by this motion or sui sponte. Doing so will allow judicial review of the extraordinary and historically unprecedented circumstances presented by this litigation and by the collusive, quote, settlement that invokes this litigation as the legal justification for its terms.

0:29:26 Matt: So I just want to stress that this all sounds like normal legal stuff. Like this is perfectly well -written, good arguments. This is insane. I mean, what they're doing is reasonable. This is what they should be doing, these judges, but the fact they have to file this, they're

0:29:37 Lydia: But the fact that it's happening at all. Yeah.

0:29:38 Matt: The thing they're saying in this, it's insane.

0:29:41 Thomas: Well, yeah, it's like tapping in because this isn't like probably by the strict letter of the law it seems like normally the judge wouldn't really be able to do much about this whole thing because it's like well they dismiss their own thing this strikes me as and correct me if I'm wrong it'slike there must be something to be done here and then some of the greatest legal minds are like okay let's fucking go to work like let's find the way that you still do something and I think the the judge is probably probably just looking for whatever, you know, like, give me the best, most ironclad justification for why I can stop this nonsense.

0:30:18 Matt: Yeah, just give her what she needs to reopen it, and that's what they're doing. And so the rest of it,

0:30:23 Lydia: Tap -in is like such a good kind of like visualization of that. Yeah yeah.

0:30:24 Matt: Yeah, it is,

0:30:26 Thomas: It's like wrestling tap in, but it's 35 judge, old federal judges still in their robes, but they're retired. Yeah, they're retirement robes. Yeah?

0:30:28 Lydia: In their robes. Exactly, exactly. With gavels and in hand, you know. Now they're wearing the wigs for some reason.

0:30:36 Matt: So now on page 15, they're going to explain why there is no question this was a fraud on the court, which again, 35 federal judges telling a judge that she's been defrauded. She knows she's been defraded, but this is very helpful. Exactly.

0:30:46 Lydia: But she can't do anything about it. Yeah. Oh, man. Here, it is undisputed that this court did not have the settlement agreement in front of it at the time plaintiffs filed the notice. The settlement agreement establishing the anti -weaponization fund was not before the court and the broad purported release of plaintiffs known and unknown liabilities was neither announced nor publicly released until after the case had been dismissed. It is also undisputer that plaintiffs file the notice before the the court received briefing it had ordered regarding whether an actual case or controversy existed. In such circumstances, setting aside the notice and reopening the case in order to determine whether an actually case or a controversy existed is necessary to ensure that the parties have not corrupted the judicial process and to prevent federal courts from providing cover to a collusive settlement. Indeed, the corruption of the judicial process is exactly what happened here. The parties have used this lawsuit, which was It was never an adversarial proceeding over which the court even had jurisdiction. They're like giving their opinion there, too, as a means to allow a, quote, commission controlled by the president to dole out one point seven seven six billion dollars in taxpayer dollars without constitutional or congressional authority to do so. And to confer unlawful private benefits to the president and his family by purportedly prohibiting the United States from prosecuting any and all claims against them. And the parties have plainly tried to shield this conduct from necessary judicial scrutiny by short -circuiting this court's inquiry into whether the lawsuit is in fact an actual case or controversy by filing the Rule 41a1 notice before they announce the settlement, clearly in hopes of preventing the court from ever completing that inquiry, which, if it comes out against the parties, will undo their collusive settlement. The sequence of events that led to plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal with prejudice makes this strategy self -evident. Shortly after the court requested briefing on whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this functionally non -adversarial proceeding, the government entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs that required plaintiffs to immediately dismiss this case, thus terminating the court's case or controversy inquiry, and that purported to bind the United States to a stunningly broad release of potential claims and to pay billions of dollars before even trying to defend against plaintiffs' claims. That the government has actively opposed nearly identical claims brought by different plaintiffs against the IRS only emphasizes the fraudulent nature of the settlement reached here. Scrolling through some citations. And the fact that the government never asserted even basic defenses, including that the claims were clearly untimely, or that the alleged discloser here, Mr. Little John, the same contractor as in Griffin, was not a government employee, only strengthens the conclusion that the litigation was collusive from the start and that its goal was to obtain legal authority for the purported settlements.

0:33:26 Matt: So yeah, I thought that was particularly good.

0:33:28 Lydia: Yeah, that's great.

0:33:29 Matt: There's some other good arguments here, but it all is pretty much what you expect. Actually, at page 17, there's another interesting thing I was mentioning about the regulatory provision about final settlements. They're making the point that it's only available for final settlements, and this is not a final settlement, and they should not just be giving money away to people that don't actually have judgments against the government.

0:33:47 Matt: So check out, because this is a good explanation, on page 18, the DOJ is only allowed. So this is their version. I think this is actually really helpful as we continue this to think about, because there's There's absolutely nothing to any of their claims, but I think it's important to just understand why. So their argument that this kind of open -ended language about compromised settlements, this is their take on that.

0:34:07 Lydia: DOJ is only allowed to enter compromised settlements of claims, such as this one, quote, for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States or against its agencies or officials upon obligations or liabilities of the United State. An affined or collusive suit is not active or, quote imminent litigation against the United States pursuant to which the DOJ is authorized to access the judgment fund and subsection 2414. But the court need not decide those ultimate issues yet. As long as the court appropriately exercises its authority to reopen the case, it would preserve the status quo and ensure that the settlement provisions cannot be carried out while the court completes the inquiry that was derailed by the voluntary dismissal.

0:34:45 Matt: Hard to argue with any of that, but they're going to try.

0:34:55 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:34:55 Matt: I just wanted to read the first page of the reply that was filed by the plaintiffs in this case. It is really something.

0:35:00 Lydia: We write to respond to a baseless motion to reopen a case that was lawfully and properly dismissed.

0:35:06 Thomas: What?

0:35:06 Lydia: The fact that movants are our former federal judges only makes their frivolous motion all the more damaging to our rule of law.

0:35:13 Matt: You're the one damaging the rule of law, judges. Come on.

0:35:14 Lydia: Yeah. Movants should be above making what is a transparently political filing intended to gin up press attention to a fully proper government settlement that they knowingly have no standing to challenge. Movants were not parties to any litigation with plaintiffs. They had never expressed any interest in the case until they filed their motion.

0:35:32 Matt: It's so stupid.

0:35:32 Thomas: Until we tried to rob the government blind.

0:35:32 Lydia: That is so dumb. I'm I'm sorry. That is that is the dumbest argument there. And they have no legally cognizable interest in it.

0:35:42 Matt: Yeah, you didn't even know who I was until I broke into your house. So why do you want to sue me now? Yeah.

0:35:48 Lydia: Crazy.

0:35:49 Matt: Yeah. But this is so typical of these kinds of Trump filings, this kind of bluster. They have this whole lying explanation about why these people can't get involved and how they're an unqualified right and that nobody can question this. They don't have standing. There's no fraud. Everything's fine. Check out page 19. The parties were truly adverse, period. We can barely be in the same room.

0:36:05 Thomas: We, oh, we just, we don't, we, oh. Don't like that guy over there. Yeah.

0:36:11 Lydia: Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Yeah, well, let's see what what they have to say here. Movants' suggestion that the parties were not truly adverse is contradicted by the nature of the claims, the identity of the parties and the posture of the litigation. Three of the four plaintiffs donald j trump jr eric trump and the trump organization llc are private citizens and a private entity respectively

0:36:22 Thomas: What? No.

0:36:32 Matt: Three out of four, man.

0:36:33 Thomas: Wow. Wow. That, that means they can't have possibly been in cahoots.

0:36:36 Lydia: They yeah they are not officers or employees of the federal

0:36:40 Matt: Wait, does anybody anybody remember who the fourth plaintiff was

0:36:43 Lydia: Government also their dad like come on they brought suit against federal

0:36:47 Thomas: They've never even met Donald Trump.

0:36:48 Lydia: Agencies for the we know eric they brought suit against federal agencies for the unauthorized disclosure of their confidential tax information. That posture, wherein private plaintiffs sue the United States for statutory violations, is inherently adversarial.

0:37:04 Matt: Yes it would be and

0:37:14 Thomas: It's pretty funny to be like,

0:37:15 Matt: Other circumstances okay yeah they're explaining how it's actually a super complex case it's a case of controversy and it has to be resolved but I thought it was funny yeah

0:37:15 Thomas: It's, do you know how it's adversarial is because of the posture or like the nature of the claims? It's like, no man, that doesn't.

0:37:20 Lydia: Yeah. Don't you see the verses?

0:37:24 Matt: Yeah yeah

0:37:24 Thomas: Yeah, it didn't say with or like in conjunction with yeah

0:37:24 Lydia: It says verses in the title. Yeah, we're against each other. See?

0:37:29 Matt: Uh check out page 20 this is just very funny to me

0:37:36 Lydia: Movants offer no evidence of collusion or fraud, period stripped of rhetoric movants' allegations of collusion rest entirely on inference and speculation they point to the government's litigation posture the absence of filed appearances the scope of the settlement and the decision not to assert defenses that were available in parallel litigation yeah

0:37:54 Matt: Also that is such a funny way to say they didn't assert any defenses they didn't respond to the complaint. And not only parallel litigation, like identical cases, all of the other cases in which... Yeah, exactly.

0:38:04 Lydia: Involving the same person yeah yeah the decision not to insert defenses right based on these bare bones assertions they ask They ask the court to wrongly conclude that the entire case was a sham. But none of these facts, individually or collectively, constitute evidence of collusion, much less the clear and convincing evidence required to establish fraud on the court. The government's decision not to raise every available defense is a litigation judgment, not a badge of fraud. Defendants and civil...

0:38:06 Thomas: My god bare bones assertions oh okay yeah I didn't realize it was your judgment that means it has to be right

0:38:37 Matt: We're just really bad at this. Also, I had to go back and remind myself who filed this for just a minute. I was like, did the defendants file this? No, the plaintiffs filed this. So the plaintiff's explaining the defendant's mind, which does kind of go to the whole thing about maybe they're the same person.

0:38:54 Lydia: Yeah. Right. Such a great point. Yeah. Defendants in civil cases routinely elect not to contest certain claims for strategic, economic or institutional reasons, including the entirely rational conclusion. Yeah, the plaintiffs are saying, well, of course, the defendants didn't file anything. Yeah? Yeah.

0:39:04 Thomas: Yeah yeah wait yeah this is the plaintiffs no hey don't don't pick on them this yeah we're gonna that is awesome

0:39:10 Matt: Yes. Yeah, poor government. So good right yeah totally yeah exactly yep wrong memo

0:39:20 Lydia: But also remember, three of the four people here are not involved with the government, you know, three of the Four Entities. Yes. A hundred percent. Yeah.

0:39:24 Thomas: This is like when somebody forgets that they're tweeting on their main account rather than the alt they're like I as a black man am saying that oh whoops did I write plaintiff on this paper shit I meant

0:39:41 Matt: Oops this is very funny

0:39:44 Lydia: The fact that the IRS may have identified viable defenses in internal memoranda does not mean it was obligated to assert them, and the decision decision not to do so does not give rise to an inference of collusion. Movements cite no authority whatsoever and plaintiffs are aware of none.

0:39:55 Thomas: It sure does you didn't cite fucking anything you just said it doesn't I just you can't no that's

0:40:06 Lydia: Holding that a defendant's decision to settle rather than litigate available defenses constitutes fraud on the court. In sum, the movement's position amounts to the assertion that because they disagree with the government's decision to saddle, the settlement must have been collusive. That is not a legal standard. It is a policy objection dressed as a fraud claim, and it does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of reopening a closed case, which in any event, this court does not have the power to do.

0:40:17 Thomas: Nothing I'm

0:40:32 Matt: Yeah you literally you don't you don'T have a recording of us colluding you DON'T have any emails uh no evidence can't possibly infer yeah yep

0:40:33 Thomas: Convinced yeah I like the idea there's no precedent that that they can cite for that. Yeah. Cause no one's fucking ever done this. God.

0:40:44 Lydia: Yeah, this is a loony town.

0:40:44 Matt: Yeah so that is the motion that judge kathleen williams had before her. And those are the incredible arguments against it. And now, and now at last, we get to the actual decision. It's time.

0:40:53 Thomas: Oh, oh, can't wait.

0:41:01 Matt: So this is a beautiful piece of writing. And as I said up front, so often the media just summarizes these things instead of just showing us what the judge said. And she went to the trouble of writing all of this. I think it's worth reading a lot of it. So let's get started.

0:41:13 Lydia: This matter is before the court on plaintiff's response to the court's May 29th, 2026 order on the nonparty movement's motion for relief from judgment or order or in the alternative for leave to appear as amici curiae. On May 27th, 2026, 35 non -party movements filed a motion for relief from judgment or order in which they requested this court to set aside its dismissal pursuant to Rule 60 because the case and its purported settlement is, quote, a fraud on the court. The non -party movements highlighted the atypical way the litigation had unfolded and argued that the purported settlement reached in this matter, quote is a product of collusion. In light of those serious allegations and the court's own view of the unusual circumstances of the case, the court entered an order on May 29th, 2026, directing plaintiffs to detail their position as to various issues, quote, including one, the charges of collusion and whether the parties are truly adverse, two, the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the parties, and three, the question of whether the case should be reopened because the court was the, quote. Victim of a fraud. On June 12th, 2026, plaintiffs responded to the May 29th order. The non -party movements filed a reply on June 19th, 2026.

0:42:23 Matt: Hold on. There's somebody missing from this list.

0:42:24 Thomas: Wait till we. Yeah.

0:42:27 Lydia: Oh, the defendants.

0:42:28 Matt: The defendants filed nothing.

0:42:30 Lydia: In the very first paragraph of the complaint, plaintiff's introduced their claim stating, quote, President Trump served as the 45th president of the United States and is the 47th president of the United States. They then go on to state that, quote, President Trump brings the suit in his personal capacity. After a review of the record and the party statements, the court declines to adopt or or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump's current job title from an understanding of what happened here.

0:42:55 Matt: I want to appreciate that sentence. That is such a good sentence, that they're not going to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of trying to separate divorce, his current job title, from an understanding of what happened here. Like, she's literally saying, we're going to spend the next, yep, 54 pages after this. Yep.

0:43:05 Thomas: Yeah. That's already coming out the gate. That's the kind of sentence you read and you already know you're fucked. If you're Todd Blanche.

0:43:12 Matt: Because I've reached an understanding. Yep.

0:43:14 Lydia: But perhaps the most startling misstatement, advanced... Yep, footnote, pause.

0:43:17 Matt: Footnote. You've got to read this footnote on misstatement.

0:43:19 Thomas: No. Okay. What?

0:43:21 Lydia: Plaintiffs also, with no apparent sense of irony, criticized the non -party movement's political motivations, their previous disinterest in the case, and their purported inappropriate promotion of, quote, abstract grievances.

0:43:32 Matt: I love the with no apparent sense of irony when you're talking about people that have nothing but grievances and talk about political motivations all the time.

0:43:38 Lydia: So that is the most startling misstatement that she's applying here. Advanced by plaintiffs is their characterization of this case as, quote, ordinary. The parties here are not private actors to a mine run dispute, recounting their proficiency in the art of the deal they negotiated. Lead plaintiff and defendants are public servants, the pinnacle of the executive branch sworn to uphold the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office and protect the interests of the American public. The issue before the court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy. There is nothing, quote, ordinary about this case.

0:44:24 Lydia: It is the very definition of sui generis. Generous.

0:44:29 Matt: Basically like the first time we've ever seen anything like this, like completely new. So I think this might be a good place to leave off because there's so much to come in this decision. It is a beautiful piece of writing. It's worth getting into.

0:45:01 Thomas: Is like when somebody forgets that they're tweeting on their main account rather than the alt.