GG79: Blanche v. Taint

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.

0:00:25 Thomas: Gavalin Gavalinos. I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia. How you doing? Yeah.

0:00:28 Lydia: Hello, I am doing well. I'm excited to keep reading this throwdown that's happening on paper already,

0:00:36 Thomas: A gavel gavel favorite judge. That's for sure. Yeah. And real life attorney Matt Cameron. How are you doing. It's because of their sordid love affair. Yeah, nothing to do with his position in the government actually.

0:00:39 Matt: Yeah. Hey, all right. I spent the day suing Todd Blanche, so let's keep talking about him. Why not? I mean, I just can't get enough Todd Blanche. No, I sue Todd Blanche all the time.

0:00:40 Lydia: Rising through the ranks. Oh, oh my gosh, I want to know more about that, but not on this show. Yeah, all to do with the taint.

0:00:59 Matt: Yeah, actually, he owes me 50 bucks. But no, I see Todd Blanche all the time. No big deal. It's fine.

0:01:08 Lydia: NBD.

0:01:09 Matt: And so far, 100 % winning record against Todd Blanche. So yeah. Yes. Well, it's actually even funnier. It is like if the cop showed up and was like, so judge, the last 3 ,000 times you saw a case like this, you ruled this way. We know we are wrong. You are going to rule that way. So go ahead and do what you are going do. It is like that. But yeah,

0:01:08 Thomas: Actually yeah wow yeah they they have taken sort of the like cop in traffic court approach where it's like they give you a bunch of bullshit and then you're just hoping they don't show up and they know they usually don't I guess or they don's don't try that hard oh my god well no it's just they're doing numbers game right they can screw as many

0:01:12 Lydia: Okay, all right. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, wow. Like, like learned helplessness, like a dog trapped in a cage, almost like just kind of giving up.

0:01:45 Matt: If you don't get the lawyer, then you are never going to get to to hear them make that wonderful argument. So it's so stupid. Yep, that's where we're at.

0:01:46 Thomas: People over as possible not everybody can yeah man that is so bad well that sucks I wish there was some judge who would put him in his

0:01:58 Matt: Well, we're returning to Kathleen Williams once again in Miami, writing this beautiful, beautiful decision that I want to read more of. We left off last time with a little teaser, the first two pages, her intro. Of course, the last thing that she told us that there's nothing ordinary about this case, and she's going to really prove it. Now, we already know there's nothing ordinary about the case, but there's something so satisfying in the way that she writes it out and the way she's gonna explain it. And we talked a bit about the underlying facts last time, but it's worth reading the way she summarizes them. There's even some stuff we didn't talk about coming up in these facts. And also, of course, you know me, we got some beautiful footnotes. Got to talk about these footnotES.

0:02:04 Thomas: Place oh yeah boy I'm I'm worried you're going to be able to contain yourself you know well we're on gg so it's kind of like you're getting you know it's like that's you can be horny on ggs yeah it's exactly Exactly. We could do, we could do a little, we can do a quick pre -break footnote. What do you think? Is it, is it a quickie? I actually think we might've read that. Yeah. Yeah, I remember that with no apparent sense of irony, Matt had us reread the same footnote the

0:02:36 Matt: Well, I just keep getting horny on me and it's a little too much on our podcast, but here we go. I'm doing it. That's true. Yeah. It's an alt. It's fine. Yeah, totally fine. Actually, I don't think we read the footnote on page two. We could start off with that because it's pretty funny.

0:02:45 Lydia: It's your sweet spot, you know? Yeah, exactly. We can do that. And then we'll have to take a break, I guess. But why don't we do? Why don't we do this okay let's do it quickie just need a couple minutes plaintiffs also with no apparent sense of irony criticize the non -party movement's political motivations their previous disinterest in the case and their purported inappropriate promotion of quote abstract grievances I think we did too I I remember with no apparent sense of irony yeah it's good

0:03:01 Matt: We'll tease. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah yeah. I love that so much. She's like, ah, yes, that's right. Well, we could either cut that or just read it again.

0:03:29 Matt: I just like it so much, it's such a beautifully perfect little footnote, because it's like you guys see yourselves, right? Like you do look in the mirror sometimes?

0:03:32 Thomas: Answer is no.

0:03:38 Matt: Yeah, no, of course not.

0:03:39 Thomas: Fantastic. Well, after this break, we'll get to, I promise stuff we haven't gotten to in this yet and uh it's gonna be worth it so patreon .com slash gavel pot if you want to avoid the breaks get the goodies and we'll see you in a minute okay matt what's uh what that was a that was a quick previously on you know we just had to refresh what's where are we we're with the new content oh wow yeah what

0:03:58 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:04:06 Matt: Catching up to current events. So this is the full order, it is 56 pages, we'll not be reading every word of it, but we're going to read a bit of it. For those who don't usually read judicial decisions or judicial orders, this follows the course that I'd expect. The two pages we read were kind of her introduction, her setup, and now we're going to get the background. And one way you know this is going to be a killer decision is that you'll notice section one, background, footnote. On the header. I am not above doing that myself. And this footnote is wonderful. So this is worth reading. Yeah. Now, I will say, this is normal. So she's saying basically, on my own, I'm out in the world, right? The New York Times is reporting on this. You're out there talking about it. I'm going to take traditional notice that this stuff exists. That's pretty much normal, but the next part is pretty funny. Notice the parentheses. So Floyd is one of the cases where you have somebody who was fired for investigating January 6th, suing to get, you know, for their job. And then we have the Crewe case also, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Notice, I don't usually read out loud the quoted citation that she wants you to see, but this is a great quote here.

0:04:28 Lydia: Heading is footnoted yeah all right just starting with that footnote then the court sui sponte takes judicial notice of articles reporting on relevant events attendant to this case dockets of other cases and statements the parties made right the court incorporates these sources to provide an overview of the architecture of this litigation moreover the department of justice has directed courts to look to unsworn public statements as binding party admissions. Yeah. Because the acting attorney general's statements were recorded, this court can take judicial notice of them. Oh, OK. Interesting. OK, cool. Yeah. On September 29th, 2023, the Department of Justice charged Charles Edward Littlejohn with illegal disclosure of, quote, tax information associated with Public Official A and thousands of the nation's wealthiest people in violation of 26 U .S .C. subsection 7213A1. It was subsequently revealed that Mr. Littlejohn worked as a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated, which in turn maintained a contract with the Internal Revenue Service to perform certain work for the agency. During his plea hearing on October 12, 2023, Mr. littlejohn identified President Donald Trump as the quote high -ranking government official at issue, whose tax information was illegally disclosed to news organizations like the New York Times and ProPublica.

0:05:32 Thomas: Does that mean oh okay so we might be taking the bad with the good or they're good or vice versa

0:05:33 Matt: That was an argument that they were making. They're basically saying anything that Todd Blanche said in public, we're allowed to bring in because you can take notice. So she's saying, yes, Todd Blanch, I do notice what you're saying. We are noticing it. Yeah, it's good for the goose, et cetera. Yeah.

0:06:30 Matt: And just to remind everybody, the reason we're talking about this plea hearing and this timing, because we need to get that two -year window, she'll talk about it, but in which he should have brought this lawsuit. So she says she's making it clear when he was on notice. I will also notice the footnote four. I'm not going to read every single footnote, I promise. But I really like footnote four also, very good reminder.

0:06:47 Lydia: The illegal disclosures of tax information all transpired during President Trump's first term. During this period, Charles Reddick was commissioner of the IRS and Stephen Mnuchin was the secretary of the Treasury Department. Mr. Littlejohn's prosecution, however, was undertaken in 2023 during the administration of President Joseph R. Biden. Oh, yeah, that's good to call that out. Yeah. The following exchange took place during the October 12th, 2023 plea colloquy.

0:06:51 Thomas: Yeah, colloquy

0:07:05 Matt: Love it. Yep. Short and concise. All right, moving on.

0:07:14 Matt: Oh, we've got a classic gavel gavel moment here.

0:07:18 Lydia: Colloquy, yeah. Oh, go ahead, hon. You can be the court. Yeah. And I'll be Alina Haba.

0:07:18 Matt: We have a script.

0:07:19 Thomas: Oh oh I I the part I was not born to play at all okay am I oh wait oh and this is like unrelated this is not anywhere near the same like court or judge or anything that we're in now this is just okay

0:07:27 Matt: And then, yes, this is Alina Haba, Trump's personal attorney, going in before the court.

0:07:37 Matt: Right, this was the plea for Little John. This is what happened during that plea hearing.

0:07:39 Thomas: All right before I go on to accept or not accept this plea are there any victims or their representatives here today that would like like to exercise their rights to be reasonably heard under the Crimes Victims Rights Act.

0:07:50 Lydia: Yes, Your Honor.

0:07:51 Thomas: Please come up.

0:07:51 Lydia: Thank you, Your Honour, for the opportunity to be heard. As an attorney, I find that I should probably state I am not licensed in this state in the District of Columbia. I'm here on behalf of President Trump, who was a victim, as we just heard, of this atrocity.

0:08:04 Matt: This atrocity. This war crime.

0:08:06 Thomas: Yeah, I want to know, did she ever walk up? Was she the one who had that weird walk up music in the CPAC thing, hon, we did or no? Yeah, Alina Haba.

0:08:15 Lydia: They all had weird walk -up music.

0:08:15 Thomas: Remember, she had us. Yeah, I remember you commenting on it because it was like, I don't know.

0:08:17 Matt: They're all weird.

0:08:20 Lydia: That might have been her, yeah.

0:08:21 Thomas: Yeah, but anyway, I wonder if she did that in the, hold on, your honor. Yeah. Yeah. This atrocity. Yeah. God. Yeah, yeah.

0:08:24 Lydia: Has her boombox, presses play. Yeah. Yeah. Now, noted, noted. It is bolded in the order itself. Are there any victims or their representatives here today? And then bolded again. I'm here on behalf of President Trump, who was a victim. Yeah. Clock starts on

0:08:27 Matt: This atrocity. How many Iranian schoolgirls died in the release of his tax returns? I mean, come on. Yeah. Yes. Love it. Yep. Yep, yep. So, taking note that on October 12th, 2023, he's stepping up and on the record identifying himself as a victim. Yep

0:08:50 Lydia: January 29th, 2024. Mr. Littlejohn was sentenced to 60 months of incarceration, followed by 36 months of supervised release. Subsequent to Mr. Littlejohns disclosures, various parties sued Mr. Littlejahn, Booz Allen, the IRS and the United States Department of the Treasury for damages is pursuant to 26 U .S .C. subsection 7431. This statute confers a private right of action on individuals whose tax returns were improperly inspected or disclosed. However, any action arising under this statute must be brought with, quote, within two years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the unauthorized inspection or disclosure.

0:09:22 Matt: And just for context, he did, I think we might have talked about this, but Little John released not only Trump's returns, but about a thousand other returns of wealthy people who were similarly always dodging taxes.

0:09:31 Lydia: Interesting.

0:09:31 Matt: That's where all those suits came from.

0:09:31 Thomas: Wow. We're gonna have to set up a slush fund for every single one of them.

0:09:35 Lydia: The statute provides for damages including, quote $1 ,000 for each act of unauthorised inspection or disclosure. In these actions where the IRS or Treasury Department was named as a party, the DOJ zealously defended the government by challenging the timeliness of the plaintiff's claims, disputing whether damages had been correctly calculated, and denying that the government could be held liable under subsection 7431 because the unlawful disclosures at issue were made by, quote, a Booz Allen employee working on IRS contracts and not an officer or employee of the United States. So basically saying, and in all other cases, this is what you argued, and now you're arguing the opposite. In every case naming the government as a defendant, the DOJ engaged in a vigorous defense. That is, every case until the instant litigation. This complaint was filed on January 29, 2026, two years and three months after Ms. Haba's appearance at Mr. Littlejohn's plea hearing by plaintiffs President Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, LLC, against the IRS and the Treasury Department. Because defendants are government agencies, they are afforded 60 days from the date that the United States Attorney was served to file an answer or response of pleading. However, on April 17, 2026, three days before the 60 -day period lapsed, plaintiffs filed a consent motion for a 90 -day extension to relieve defendants of their obligation to file a responsive pleading to the complaint, quote, while the parties engaged in discussions designed to resolve this matter and avoid protracted litigation. They're working hard.

0:10:05 Thomas: Yeah in other words they did lawyer stuff. Yeah and I'm guessing they probably prevailed on that somewhat right? Yeah yeah yeah

0:11:04 Matt: Needless to say, that's pretty unusual that the plaintiffs would be saying, why don't you give the defendant some more time? They really could use it.

0:11:12 Lydia: The consent motion also represented that Daniel Epstein, co -counsel for plaintiffs, conferred with counsel for defendants and defendants consented to the requested extension. Counsel for defendants was not identified other than the complaint and notice of voluntary dismissal this was the only pleading filed by any party in this matter before dismissal yeah yeah at this point because the court had serious concerns about whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the lead plaintiff ostensibly had direct unassailable control over defendants it ordered the parties to file memoranda of law on this issue by may 21st 2026. The court then appointed Amici Cure, quote, to assist the court in identifying the applicable law governing and analysis of its subject matter jurisdiction. The Amici were also directed to file a memorandum of law by May 21st, 2026, On May 14th, 2027, the court appointed Amichi filed their memorandUM. Neither party to this action, however, filed any pleading to address the court's concerns.

0:11:28 Matt: That is really just incredible in a suit like this, that there would not have been some token government filings trying to stop this.

0:11:35 Thomas: Yeah just like Todd Blanche and the sock puppet you know just something wow

0:11:39 Matt: I mean, there's your answer, right? When you're saying, it seems like maybe the plaintiff is controlling the defendant and the other way way around. And neither of them respond. That's an answer.

0:12:23 Lydia: Instead, on May 18th, 2020, plaintiffs filed a two -page notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, where plaintiffs stressed that the notice of dismissal automatically divested the court of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the DOJ issued a press release about a, quote, settlement that had been reached in this matter and published what purported to be the, quote settlement agreement signed by lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants. In this document, the parties referenced the instant litigation and claimed that, quote in the interest of resolving the dispute between the parties, they stipulated and agreed to certain terms, which included, quote, a formal apology from the United States to plaintiffs, along with the creation of of an, quote, anti -weaponization fund. The anti - weaponization fund, ostensibly set up, quote, to provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of individuals who suffered weaponization and lawfare, was to be financed by the Treasury Department's judgment fund in the amount of $1 .776 billion.

0:13:15 Matt: And check out the footnote, because that is pretty funny. So the voluntary dismissal, which is, again, when the plaintiffs are saying, we're done with this. We're dismissing it.

0:13:23 Lydia: Plaintiffs argued that, quote. A Rule 41A1A dismissal is self -executing, terminates the action upon filing, and divests the district court of jurisdiction, and stated that, quote, the notice does not require judicial action. They emphasize that, quote, no judicial analysis is appropriate.

0:13:40 Matt: Seriously, stay out of it. Yeah.

0:13:40 Lydia: Oh, yeah, like, don't look at it. Don't look at this too closely. The day after the dismissal, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch testified before Congress. In response to a question as to why the, quote settlement agreement had not been provided to this court for review, he replied that, quote, there is no judge because the case had been dismissed and therefore there was, quote, No mechanism for reviewing the, Quote, settlement agreement. Wow. There is no judge. That's just like that's all timing, right? Like, oh, there's there's no judge, okay. Yeah. Because I guess it's been dismissed now. On that same day, Acting Attorney General Blanche issued a, quote, order, which,

0:14:00 Matt: That is quite a thing to tell the judge. Just me.

0:14:15 Thomas: Yeah yeah that's good excellent excellent inclusion yeah yep and they all got shit canned immediately

0:14:17 Matt: The quotes are doing a lot of work there. It's so cute. He thinks it was an order. Just can't read that out loud enough that just that that was put on paper and signed by the acting attorney general yeah I was gonna say how many of those people are still there yeah I mean it's safe to assume

0:14:18 Lydia: So I was getting confused, which referenced the, quote settlement agreement and released the president, his relatives, companies and affiliates from, quote any and all claims, counterclaims and causes of action that, quote have been or could have been asserted against plaintiffs that arise out of, quote one, any matters that were raised or could could have been raised in the case or the pending agency claims. Two, lawfare and or weaponization. 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.

0:14:57 Lydia: Unlike the quote settlement agreement, which was signed by purported representative, purporting representatives of both plaintiffs and defendants, only acting attorney general Blanche's signature was on the release order. Also on that day, it was reported that IRS officials had prepared a 25 -page memorandum that outlined major flaws with plaintiffs' claims and listed the various defenses that could be advanced on behalf of defendants, defenses that had been raised in other litigation arising from the disclosures. Really?

0:15:27 Lydia: On June 2, 2026, in testimony before the United States House of Representatives, Acting Attorney General Blanche advised that the Anti -Weaponization Fund would not be moving forward. He did not, however, commit to a similar termination of the audit and immunity protections set forth in his release order. Six days later, President Trump nominated Mr. Blanche to permanently serve as Attorney General of the United States. Wow.

0:15:47 Matt: Coincidentally so we can skip ahead just a little bit because there's some legal discussion about jurisdiction but the jurisdiction issue is particularly interesting here so I do want to highlight she's just going to talk about the basic law of you know if she gets to look at this she's going to decide she gets the look at it it's a little too much in the weeds legally but bottom of page 10 let's pick it up the question I

0:16:03 Lydia: In order to examine whether plaintiffs brought this case for an improper purpose, the court must consider and, quote, inevitably decide, the question posed to the parties in its April 24, 2026 order. Is there a case or controversy presented in this litigation?

0:16:19 Thomas: Yeah yeah

0:16:19 Matt: Never got an answer to so I'll just go ahead an answer of now, right?

0:16:21 Lydia: Yeah. Although jurisdiction ordinarily precedes the merits, a court may consider both where, as here, jurisdiction overlaps with the merits.

0:16:28 Matt: So yeah, so she's going to talk about case or controversy now. We can skip the basic concept, of course, of a case or controversial, but she's gonna talk about some interesting examples from history. I think it's pretty obvious to have a case before the court, there has to actually be a controversy. You have to have problem with somebody. So we'll check out the beginning of page 13, this section here.

0:16:46 Thomas: And the only case that blanche could cite was that scene in liar liar where Jim Carrey beats himself up in the bathroom or whatever.

0:16:53 Matt: Pretty much. This is a good summary here at page 13.

0:16:57 Lydia: The quote judicial power conferred by the constitution grants the federal judiciary quote the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants in bold duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction a justiciable controversy quote must be definite and concrete touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests adverseness is essential to a federal court's ability to adjudicate the merits of a case where federal courts are restricted to, quote, questions presented in an adversary context. Indeed, quote, even when Article 3 permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction, prudential considerations demand that the court insist upon, quote that concrete adverseness, which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

0:17:41 Matt: Now the case cited here is US v. Windsor, which was the case that legalized a marriage for everybody in 2013.

0:17:49 Thomas: Wait, what?

0:17:49 Matt: And there's a really interesting footnote here about the history of Windsor, and it's a little long to read, but essentially the procedural history of Windsor. Because you think about this, you can't just walk into a district court and be like, hey, I have a marriage that's recognized in Massachusetts. I would like the federal government to recognize my marriage. You can't have an order that says, yes, you're actually legally married. And at the time, of course, the Defense of Marriage Act kept people from being acknowledged at the federal level. So as often happens with these, I just think this is fascinating, like how you actually get to the Supreme Court. They had to create a pretty reasonable controversy that would actually hold up that the court could review. And so Edith Windsor was demanding her tax refund as a married woman. And of course she can't get it because Defense of Marriage Act would not allow that because she's not officially married. And there was an argument about whether or not this was actually something that was a controversy because it was kind of manufactured. But at the same time, as they point out in this footnote, Edith Windsor turns out did not control the IRS at the time, unlike certain plaintiffs. Yeah, you could could file as married in your state and and had a household yeah yeah I hadn't thought about that either but yeah that's the reality and just to make the point in case people hadn't really put this together you could not file a visa petition for your spouse and that was a big problem for us of course so many people that had been together for so long there was such an exciting summer when that was finally possible they had a good time all those couples have been together forever

0:17:47 Lydia: Side

0:18:39 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, wow. Never thought about that.

0:18:40 Lydia: Note, question mark, I guess, and if you don't know, that's okay. But Those couples, and while the federal government didn't recognize gay marriage, those couples were having to file, like, two completely different tax returns.

0:18:58 Lydia: And then you'd have to prepare completely different. Wow. What a pain in the butt. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

0:19:17 Thomas: For a second, I was like, wait, isn't that Obergefell? So this is before that and just getting marriages legally recognized in all states, even if the individual states haven't legalized gay marriage. Yeah. Didn't know Birgittfell just make it so you can't ban gay marriage?

0:19:28 Matt: At the federal level yeah and then I believe Obergefell was between the states right that they'd recognize each other windsor struck down the defensive marriage act right and then And then I think Obergefell required, let me make sure I've got, right, required the states to.

0:19:38 Thomas: Right, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:19:39 Lydia: Yeah, I think that's correct. Yeah.

0:19:42 Matt: So now we get into some great examples.

0:19:44 Lydia: For more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized the adverseness requirement. Requirement. In VZ, a defendant and his brother -in -law entered into a contract to institute a lawsuit that would procure a favorable court opinion as to land rights. After examining the record, the VZ court determined that there was no real conflict of interest between the parties because their interests regarding the issue of law were, quote, one and the same. Yeah.

0:20:05 Matt: So I just want to tell a story quickly of Vizzi because I think it's funny. These guys who lived in Maine, it's just unimaginable to even think about this as 1850. I guess you could just say things like this. But his neighbor, a guy named Moore, was claiming that he owned the Penobscot River, which is a pretty major river in Maine. I guess he could just saying that. And he's like, no, I get to control transportation on the Pinobscot river. And his guy, this guy lives next door across the river, whatever, was like, well, you can't really do that. That. So he signs an agreement with his brother -in -law to say that he and his brother in law agree that he actually gets to control the river. And then he sued his brother in law or whatever. It was just kind of like this funny thing. So there was no actual conflict between the parties because they agreed to do this to create a lawsuit.

0:20:13 Thomas: Why didn't they just sue that one guy?

0:20:34 Lydia: Like a conspiracy.

0:20:45 Matt: That's a good question.

0:20:46 Thomas: Must be some reason. Yeah.

0:20:47 Lydia: Interesting.

0:20:46 Matt: I'm working on the facts from memory, but that is what happened, that basic thing. There was some reason, but yeah.

0:20:50 Lydia: In fact, the VC court declared that, quote any attempt by a mere mere colorable dispute to obtain the opinion of the court upon a question of law which a party desires to know for his own interest or his own purposes, when there is no real and substantial controversy between those who appear as adverse parties to the suit, is an abuse which courts of justice have always reprehended and treated as a punishable contempt of court. Veazey recognized that even where parties may work together to avoid the expense of litigation, there still must be a quote, real dispute between the parties concerning some matter of right. The Supreme Court repeated he did and reinforced the adverseness requirement in Muskrat. In Muskrat, several plaintiffs endeavored to halt the enforcement of legislation that affected their land rights. The plaintiffs initiated the suit at the behest of Congress, who authorized the plaintiffs to sue the United States on behalf of themselves and others with similar interests.

0:21:38 Matt: So think about that for a minute, that Congress created a law specifically for these people to litigate tribal rights, allowing these people specifically to sue. It's very strange.

0:21:48 Lydia: That is very strange. And this is a 1911, so this is also another very old one. Yeah. Mm -hmm. Aware of Congress's acquiescence to the suit, the Muskrat court nonetheless questioned its jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. The court there noted that, quote, the term case implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication. After examining precedent, establishing the limits of judicial power, the Muskrat court determined that the parties did not present a case or controversy as contemplated under the Constitution. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the fact that the United States was named as a party defendant where the government did not have an interest adverse to the plaintiffs. As a result, the court held that, without sufficient adverseness between the parties, the action presented, quote, no justiciable controversy to be determined by the court.

0:21:50 Matt: And the court thought so too. Yeah. And this is a setup that was cooked up by Congress, not by the executive branch, but it was still a setup.

0:22:39 Matt: I think this is fascinating just because I was not familiar with the history, as I think most people weren't, of cases in which the government was not actually an adverse party to your litigation.

0:22:47 Thomas: Yeah, I didn't know there was a Muskrat court. That's awesome. Seems like they do things a little differently, but yeah. Is that another case or something?

0:22:47 Matt: It was very specific.

0:22:55 Lydia: A different species, you know. The decisions in Vesey and Muskrat established beyond Cavill? No, no, it's just lowercase. What is that word? Does anyone know?

0:23:05 Matt: Beyond henry cavill

0:23:04 Thomas: Oh, sorry, what page did you get on now? Yeah. Huh kinky

0:23:06 Lydia: Okay, this is page 15. All right. The decisions in Veazey and Muskrat establish beyond cavil that adverseness between litigants is a constitutional minimum that must be satisfied in every federal case seeking judicial determination. Quote, there is no Article III case or controversy when the parties desire precisely the same result. Moreover, the adverseness requirements, quote, subsist through all stages of a federal judicial proceeding. Therefore, a federal court must revisit the case or controversial inquiry as often as it deems necessary. Adversary. Adverseness is not determined merely by affixing the labels, quote, plaintiff and, quote, defendant to the parties. Courts must look beyond names and titles to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented. With this principle in mind, a court must consider whether, quote. One party is actually informally in control of the other party, and if so, quote adjudication may be refused. Put another way, a Court must determine whether A single party acts as the, quote, dominus litus, the, quote, master or owner of the suit, on both sides of the litigation.

0:24:05 Matt: I just have to stress again both sides being donald trump and the irs like this is why I want to read this much of this part because it's so strange

0:24:06 Thomas: Well to be fair I mean trump and blanche are in a dom sub relationship and that sounds kind of like what was just said yeah mm -hmm it calls him

0:24:16 Matt: It does seem that

0:24:16 Lydia: Yeah, and Blanche loves him. He loves him, sir. Yeah, yeah. Uh -huh. This header is, the parties were not sufficiently adverse to satisfy Article 3's case or controversy prerequisite. The complaint purports to present a controversy between plaintiffs, President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization, LLC, and defendants, the Internal Revenue Service and United States Treasury Department, claiming defendants caused plaintiffs reputational and financial harm for which they now seek, quote, at least $10 billion. At first glance, the complaint seemingly satisfies Article III by establishing causes of action, quote, arising under the laws of the United States. However, closer examination reveals that a justiciable case or controversy is absent. Plaintiffs and defendents are not adverse because one party controls this litigation.

0:24:20 Matt: Way it's true I will love him no matter what it's real it's right there out in public we can skip down to number two on page 17 I

0:24:27 Thomas: Sir damn this one weird legal trick yeah

0:25:15 Matt: Think by closer examination she means she went back and read the caption of the case at the top where it says, Trump, the IRS. That's really all you need.

0:25:19 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, in reaching this conclusion, the court determines that plaintiffs improperly employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in this matter, access to taxpayer funds, and exemption from audits and other investigations, which was accomplished by leveraging control over defendants. Yeah mm

0:25:34 Thomas: Pretty rough to have a judge say the thing you're doing, Mr. President and Attorney General, Deputy or whatever, is to obtain access to taxpayer funds. Wow.

0:25:49 Lydia: -hmm steal money from the taxpayers of the United States. Yeah continuing

0:25:51 Matt: And to get yourself more immunity, like you need more immunity from other things. Incredible. I just love the way she's saying it all to his face.

0:26:05 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:26:06 Lydia: On to the section A, President Trump is chief of the executive branch, and the vesting clause is the bedrock of his authority over that branch of government. Specifically, the vusting clause states that, quote, the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. Indeed, just recently, the Supreme Court cited Myers v. United States as a, quote landmark decision, and perhaps, and quote, perhaps our best word on the subject of whether the president could remove subordinates in government service at will. Trump v.

0:26:33 Lydia: Slaughter, yeah, okay. Finding that he could, the majority ruled that, that, quote, subordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him. Then and only then can they remain accountable to the president and the president to the people.

0:26:32 Matt: And that, yep, that citation to a case that just came out, which we were expecting, and one of the major cases of the last term in which it was found that he can fire anybody he wants to, including, of course, anybody at the IRS.

0:26:55 Lydia: Quote, these officers exercise the President's power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him. And it says emphasis in original here with the italics on president and responsible. Here, defendants are the Treasury Department, an executive agency, and the IRS, the largest bureau of the Treasury department. Both defendants Are unquestionably part of the executive branch and ultimately answer to its chief executive, President Trump. President Trump's authority to appoint and remove federal officers as he sees fit is evidence of his ability to exercise control over defendants. Article 2 explicitly states that, quote, the president shall appoint all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not here and otherwise provided for. While the Constitution strategically allows, quote individual executive officials to, quote wield significant authority, such, quote authority remains subject to the ongoing supervision and control of the elected president. President Trump's supervisory authority directly implicates two key individuals acting on behalf of defendants, Scott Besant, the secretary of the Treasury Department, an acting commissioner of the IRS, and Frank J. Bisignano, doing my best, the chief executive offer of the IRA. Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that executive branch actors, quote, unquestionably exercise executive power and must therefore be controlled by the chief executor. And then here, argue that the parties are sufficiently adverse verse to establish an

0:28:13 Lydia: Actual case or controversy. Secretary Bessent, in particular, is subject to President Trump's actual and direct control in both of his representative roles. First, as Secretary of the Treasury Department, Besset is a member of President Trumps' cabinet. In this role, Secretary Besent is, quote, the president's alter ego in the matters of the treasury department, quote, where the president is required by law to exercise authority.

0:28:33 Thomas: And that's why he has to wear a costume that's like Trump's, but evil. He's like, it's the alter ego Jekyll and Hyde situation. It's a weird requirement, but the founding fathers had a little sense of fun to them.

0:28:44 Matt: Whimsy.

0:28:44 Thomas: Some flair. Area. Why don't we have more things like that? It'd be fun.

0:28:45 Lydia: Goofy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whimsy. See consequently besant is under president trump's direct control as an appointed member of his cabinet second president trump'S actual control over secretary besant IS grounded in statute the internal revenue code establishes that in quote the department of the treasury a commissioner of internal revenue shall be appointed by the president the internal revenue cod also provides that besant in his role as acting irs commissioner quote may be removed at the will of the president president trump employs his authority to remove the irs conditioner without cause and has done done so as recently as of as august 2025 through secretary besant president trump also wields significant control over ceo bisignano who secretary besan selected to be quote the first chief executive officer of the internal revenue service yeah corporatize

0:29:29 Matt: So I hadn't caught that before, that they're calling him a CEO of a government agency. I do not like that. Yep. Yep, run it like a business.

0:29:34 Lydia: Everything weird ceo bisignan reports directly to secretary beson who oversees ceo bizignano's management of the irs's daily

0:29:45 Thomas: Oh boy. I really want her to put in. And a third reason is every MAGA person turns into a subservient little B word around Trump. If you're trying to like list out the reasons why people are under Trump's thumb, it would be really funny if she's like, also, that's just curious thing where you could point to examples of them not even being able to say the 2020 election with the way it did, like just just for fun come on yeah

0:29:51 Lydia: Operations yeah b word exactly yeah exactly a super like a super cut of that

0:30:10 Matt: Yeah, yeah. Also, I mean, obviously she's writing all of this for the record and for the public, but I love the idea that she's just in like a very third grade teacher way, just telling everybody what their jobs are, because she's a defendant she's talking to.

0:30:14 Lydia: Yeah yeah yeah quote through the president's oversight the chain of dependence is preserved so that the lowest officers the middle grade and the highest all depend as they ought on the president and the president on the community therefore not only is secretary besant directed by president trump as his alter ego, but the president's ability to remove him at will and control Bisignano through his oversight unquestionably impedes Secretary Besant and CEO Bisignato's ability to zealously represent the Treasury Department and IRS in a matter that is directly adverse to the president.

0:30:50 Matt: So you'd think that would be enough, but no, know. There's another fun detail coming.

0:30:55 Lydia: In addition to the constitutional and statutory bases for President Trump's control over defendants, President Trump executive order confirms his intent to wield actual comprehensive control over defendants in this matter. Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, sets out the scope and breadth of President Trump's control over federal agencies. The executive order was issued on February 18, 2025, shortly after President Trump took office for his second term, and expands the president's oversight of federal agencies and employees. Notably, the executive order provides that, quote, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch. Most relevant to the issue of control in this matter is Section 7 of the Executive Order, which explicitly addresses President Trump's ability to direct defendants' conduct in litigation. Section 7 begins by declaring, quote, the president and the attorney general, subject to the president's supervision and patrol, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branche. The section continues by making clear that, quote. The president and and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. The following language further animates the court's concern as to adverseness in this matter. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney general's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation unless authorized to do so by the president or in writing by the attorney general.

0:32:18 Thomas: Jeez yeah you gotta get a permission slip to have a different

0:32:30 Matt: It's pretty amazing to see that in writing in relation to this lawsuit. Yes.

0:32:36 Lydia: That's insane.

0:32:37 Matt: And the position advanced in litigation is he should have access to taxpayer money. So they have to agree. And that he should get full immunity for anything that he and his sons and his company might've ever done.

0:32:36 Thomas: Opinion

0:32:47 Lydia: Yeah. Therefore, in this case, unlike others that private parties have instituted, defendants and their representatives are unable to advance any legal position or interpretation, however legitimate or well -reasoned, contrary to that held by lead plaintiff in this matter, President Trump. Not surprisingly, then, no attorney appeared on defendants' behalf, half, challenged plaintiffs' actions, or justified the United States' position in any way. Plaintiffs seem to suggest that the course of litigation in Griffin supports their position on adverseness, claiming that the plaintiff in Griffin asserted, quote, substantially identical allegations against the same defendants arising from the same course of conduct by the same individual. But unlike this case, the plaintive in Griffin is a private, non -governmental actor. And unlike this case, the Griffin defendants challenged the plaintiffs allegations. In Griffin, the defendants, the same IRS and Treasury Department suit here contested the plaintiff's Privacy Act claims by arguing preemption and, alternatively, the plaintiffs' failure to plead actual damages. The Griffin defendants also challenged the Section 7431 claim, arguing the complaint was a shotgun pleading based solely on conclusory allegations.

0:33:07 Thomas: Man we got griffin defendants and muskrat courts this is awesome I love this is a disney movie matt

0:33:57 Lydia: After the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, the government filed an answer asserting a sovereign immunity defense and denying several allegations in the amended complaint. That action was settled after two years of litigation.

0:34:10 Matt: And just to be very clear, so we know what we're talking about here. This is one of the other Charles Littlejohn disclosed tax returns, right so it's an exact parallel so same facts yep and

0:34:18 Lydia: Yeah, same exact damages, essentially. Yeah. Likewise, in Safe Harbor International LLC v. Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated, a class action lawsuit brought by non -government plaintiffs, the government appeared and moved to dismiss the plaintiff's class action complaint. After the court denied its motion to dismiss, the governor filed an answer asserting sovereign immunity, and statute of limitations defenses. To date, that litigation remains pending. Here, unlike Griffin and Safe Harbor International LLC, the same defendants, faced with the same claims caused by the, quote, same course of conduct, attributable to the, quote, Same individual, did not endeavor to defend their agency's safeguard taxpayer monies or even file an appearance. Instead, before the party's deadline for addressing the court's critical jurisdictional questions passed, the parties executed the, unquote, settlement agreement that effectively mooted the issues the court identified. This case was, quote, resolved before any litigation occurred and before the government was required to explicate its position.

0:35:18 Matt: Check out this footnote on griffin at 31 here I know this is so much

0:35:20 Lydia: Additionally,

0:35:21 Thomas: You pervert enough stop sending us nudes huh so it can be done it was only only $1 billion. Oh no, it was nothing. Oh wow. That's so funny. This does raise the question and feel free to punt to the end if you want, but I I'm wondering, would they have gotten away with it if he had just given a little bit better of a performance? Like could Todd, if Todd Blanchard been like, Oh, why I ought to, Oh I sure hate that other side. I'm going to file. Yeah. File File some responses. Well, I mean, it kind of seems like if they filed good responses, but then we're just like, oh, we reached a settlement. You know what I mean? Like, I wonder, Matt,

0:35:22 Lydia: Griffin was filed in 2022 well within the applicable statute of limitations period. And while the question of whether the government was the appropriate party survived a motion to dismiss challenge, the court there noted it was a matter more suited to summary judgment. Significantly, the settlement reached after two years of litigation with the IRS amounted only to a non -monetary apology, not an award of billions of taxpayer dollars and conferral of immunities to plaintiff, his family, and affiliates. Mm -hmm. Like, yeah, exactly.

0:35:51 Matt: Fun no no billions yeah plaintiff his family and affiliates I love that just so perfectly gets the corruption yeah yeah yeah even if they just took a dive and filed a really bad response right like yeah right right this

0:36:20 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Idiots. Oh, wow. Okay. Sorry. This entire page is a footnote, Matt. I did not consent to this.

0:36:40 Matt: Is a I know I know I'm trying to control myself right

0:36:40 Thomas: This is obscene. You can't, we're going to report you to HR. Yeah, you can't just bring people into your kink live on air. It's a footnote with bullet points.

0:36:49 Matt: Now yeah we're just looking at pornography together uh yeah this page 25 is a footnote uh but it's and we're not gonna read the entire footnote but it is so good which she goes through here and she's just like look here's a bunch of other extremely complicated civil cases which ended up settling but they took forever to resolve I

0:37:06 Thomas: Come on, you don't get to do that. Man. Yeah, well, in some states there are. We're going to need like, you know, the same marriage litigation for like recognizing the footnote kinks that Matt does. This is not OK in Alabama. You're lucky that we're in California right now.

0:37:06 Matt: Love it I love so many examples samples. But she's talking about cases like, oh no, absolutely. Well, we talked about that a couple of weeks ago. There can be. Yeah, that's right. Right. My freedom of a footnote. Yeah. But she's making the point that something like Deepwater Horizon, obviously, that actually caused catastrophic destruction and hurt people that

0:37:09 Lydia: I feel like there are no rules when it comes to footnotes, really. I mean, yeah.

0:37:35 Matt: Eventually went to a settlement, but it took years of litigation and motions and filings and pleadings. And she's saying all of this stuff required way more time to resolve. And like, you guys didn't even try.

0:37:46 Lydia: Yeah, considering the brief chronology, the silent docket and defendant's deviation from basic litigation strategies pursued in similar cases, the court must conclude that, I'm scrolling all the way down to the end of the page, defendants chose not to advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes President Trump's opinion regarding this lawsuit.

0:38:07 Matt: Again, just citing and quoting the executive order. I love it.

0:38:07 Thomas: Referencing that. Yeah.

0:38:10 Lydia: It is clear that obeisance to the mandate of his executive order has been fulfilled by defendants' actions, or more accurately, inaction, in this case. Therefore, not only does the executive order demonstrate President Trump's espoused control over defendants' conduct generally in litigation, it also demonstrates President Trump's actual control in this litigation. Adverseness is further defeated by President Trump's influence over the DOJ here. During an interview with The New York Times, President Trump publicly expressed his belief in his unequivocal control over the DoJ. However, and quotes here, I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. So clear. However, the DOJ is tasked with zealously representing the United States' interests and is trusted to remain insulated from political influence.

0:38:54 Matt: Just going to note this footnote here at 33. She gives a history of the Department of Justice and explains to them, the Department Of Justice, what their job is and how they're supposed to relate to the president. Love it.

0:39:04 Lydia: Fidelity to the rule of law can be achieved only when the DOJ is free to assess the facts and governing law of each case it reviews without the stain of political interference. There is, quote, an expectation that even the attorney general must be able to draw the line between political allegiance and fidelity to the people, as well as the fair administration of the law. And now we're into Section B, the conduct of executive branch actors demonstrates lack of adverseness and improper motive. Here, defendant's actions or inaction, as directed by the DOJ and the subsequent, quote, resolution of this lawsuit, leads the court to conclude the party's interests were, quote one and the same. In justifying the, quote unusual settlement to resolve plaintiff's claims, the DOJ and acting attorney general Blanche in a press release, and acting Attorney General Blanch's congressional testimony, respectively, cited Keeps Eagle v. Vilsack as the, quote, precedent for the unprecedented establishment of the $1

0:39:25 Thomas: Please reference the tarmac. Please.

0:39:58 Lydia: .776 billion fund.

0:39:59 Thomas: To be fair, though, he did wear the Harvey Two -Face suit while he did it. And like one side was like

0:40:03 Lydia: And he just kept changing which direction he was looking. Exactly. However, plaintiff's briefing is conspicuously silent as to this justification, making no mention of the Keeps Eagle case. Understandably so.

0:40:05 Thomas: Trump and the other side. Yeah.

0:40:16 Matt: That's incredible. Honestly, I just, the fact that we talked about this, I know a few weeks ago, but he was out there saying, it's like this Keeps Eagle thing, which wasn't a very complex settlement, which was administered by the court to pay back Native Americans who'd been cheated by banks and denied loans and like specifically for their ethnicity. And they don't cite it in the brief after using that as the public justification. I mean, it's just, it'S incredible. Yeah.

0:40:39 Thomas: Wow. Wow. Why oh we are gonna fight okay and

0:40:40 Lydia: Let's find out why. We're going to find out why. In Keeps Eagle, the parties, including the Department of Agriculture represented by the DOJ, engaged in a decade -long litigation regarding alleged discrimination perpetrated against thousands of Native American farmers and ranchers who had been illegally denied farm loans and access to benefit programs. As the presiding judge observed, quote, it was a major class action seeking to remedy what many felt was the latest chapter in the federal government's sordid history of mistreating Native Americans. There, quote, for nearly 10 years, the parties engaged in extensive and contentious discovery and motions practice, propounded notice to putative class members regarding a proposed class settlement, defined the mechanisms of class claims for recovery, and participated in an hours -long fairness proceeding where every person who attended was heard. The Keeps Eagle case history stands in stark contrast to the 109 -day sojourn of this matter where defendants never appeared, never challenged plaintiffs' claims, and never filed a single pleading.

0:41:38 Matt: This is so good.

0:41:39 Thomas: He was citing that as like to help

0:41:41 Matt: Yeah. That was the one thing they could try to reach to, even though nothing to do with it. Yeah, right, right. And then they knew better than to put it in their actual brief because it would be lying to the court. You know, that's not the same thing.

0:41:44 Lydia: This has happened before, you guys. Yeah. Ultimately, the DOJ has endeavored to justify its position to create the appearance of a case or controversy, quote, resolved under the aegis of the court. But the parties, most of whom are government actors, did not engage in any public discussion or judicial review regarding their, quote, unusual arrangement and whether they were legally adverse. Indeed, they actively avoided such an undertaking. And the extraordinary award fashioned by the parties for claims that were never litigated and have yet to be defined on behalf of unidentified third parties whose future remedies bear no relationship to the claims in this case indicates that real adverse interests were never before the court.

0:42:29 Matt: We've got footnote 38 here in which she expresses her extreme troubleman over something that Todd Blanche said in public, worth reading.

0:42:35 Lydia: In response to why the, quote settlement agreement had not been submitted to this court for review, he stated that, quote, there is no judge because the case had been dismissed and therefore there was, quote no mechanism for reviewing the agreement. While temporarily accurate, this answer is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The court was available to review any pleading by any party at any time during this lawsuit. And if acting attorney General Blanche had thought the dismissal was improvidently granted or thought plaintiffs misspoke when they said, quote no judicial analysis is appropriate, he only had to file an appearance and ask for relief.

0:42:49 Thomas: Himself oh interesting so

0:43:09 Matt: I was here the whole time.

0:43:11 Lydia: Yeah, all you had to do was ask.

0:43:12 Thomas: That's her saying if something had been wrong with the settlement where would you have gone who are you gonna call this judge you know like right so it's like that's I think that's what she's saying

0:43:16 Matt: Right. Well, and also the fact that he's telling Congress there's no mechanism to review the agreement. So, you know, it's out of our hands. We made the agreement and, you know, we took it out of court. But she's saying that if you wanted it done differently or you thought that when they said that there's no judicial analysis, that this shouldn't be reviewed, that the court should never look at it, you could have said something about that. But you didn't.

0:43:38 Thomas: Exactly and the point is even though it had quote unquote been dismissed she I think she's also saying like if you'd had any of these problems where where would you have gone? You would have gone to me. That means that there is a mechanism and it is still before me. Yeah.

0:43:47 Matt: Yeah. Right. Exactly. So it's me. Me. And also, I love the dare at the end there, and at the end of the footnote, that like, all you had to do was file an appearance. Just show up, Todd Blanche. Go ahead and come before me.

0:44:03 Lydia: The DOJ seems to have purposefully adopted the strategy of creating a quote slush fund disguised as a settlement and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the executive wants bankrolled. The court's conclusion regarding the party's shared interest is also underscored by the circumstances surrounding the execution of the quote settlement agreement. First, the quote quote, settlement agreement is signed on behalf of plaintiffs by Daniel Epstein, a former White House senior associate counsel and special assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Notably, Mr. Epstein was never counsel of record in this case. The complaint's signature block identified him as counsel for plaintiffs, but represented that his ProHoc application was, quote, forthcoming.

0:44:42 Lydia: Since no such application was filed with the court, and since in other matters pending in Florida and elsewhere, Mr Epstein sought ProHOC admission mission within weeks of filing the complaint, the court can only surmise that Mr. Epstein was aware that he would never need to appear and litigate the merits of plaintiff's claims.

0:44:57 Matt: I can't imagine just filing something and being like, yeah, I'll get permission to appear in your court later. That's what pro hoc vitae is if you're not in that court, right?

0:45:05 Lydia: Yeah.

0:45:06 Thomas: Yeah, yeah.

0:45:06 Matt: You have to get permission and work with another attorney. And he just did. She's so right. It just shows he knew he was never going to have to show up.

0:45:13 Lydia: Bar complaint. Jeez.

0:45:13 Thomas: The fact they didn't even, like, yeah, that seems like that should be something, right, Matt, for that person?

0:45:18 Matt: Well, check out the footnotes about who signed the complaint in 541 there.

0:45:21 Lydia: Mr. Brito signed the complaint. He is admitted to the Florida Bar and is admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Mr Brito did not sign the settlement agreement, but his name appears on it. Mr Epstein's name appears on the complaint but he did not and could not sign it. Mr. Epstein did sign the settlement agreement.

0:45:37 Matt: So yeah, standing off of duties here between these lawyers.

0:45:40 Lydia: Yeah. Second, the settlement agreement is signed on behalf of defendants. I'm just going to say for everyone listening, settlement agreement is always in quotes and I'm getting tired of saying quote because she talks about it a lot. Second, the settlement agreement is signed on behalf of defendants by Stanley Woodward Jr., the current associate attorney general at the DOJ, and acting attorney general Blanche. Before he went to the DOD, associate attorney general Woodward represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021 at the United States Capitol. He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump's personal aide and a co -defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar -a -Lago. Wow. Before his appointment to the DOJ, Acting Attorney General Blanche served as President Trump'S personal criminal defense attorney in several high -profile matters.

0:46:23 Matt: Is my favorite line, I think. My favorite phrase in this whole opinion is several high profile matters in which the future president of the United States was being put in criminal proceedings. And just to be clear with everybody who hasn't been following along, Todd Blanch represented Trump in all of the criminal cases except Georgia.

0:46:40 Lydia: While the court appreciates that attorneys successfully transition between private practice and government service, such transitions do not absolve counsel of their ethical obligations. For example, Rule 11.1c of the Southern District of Florida Local Rules incorporates the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct as ethical standards.

0:46:58 Matt: Now we can skip this part. It's just pretty much reiterating what you would expect that lawyers can't be doing things like this. And then she even notes in the footnote that it's not just Florida. It turns out these rules exist everywhere.

0:47:08 Lydia: And if someone wanted to file a bar complaint, here you go. Here's the exact rules you can cite.

0:47:21 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:47:21 Lydia: Literally.

0:47:21 Thomas: All right. Well, we've got a lot more where that came from. Actually, I would say a little bit more of the glorious decision read gloriously by Lydia Smith and then we've got an epilogue of sorts hot off the presses so so part four is chock full it's got plenty and a little surprise there so we're gonna pause for now and we'll see you all for part four thanks Gavalinos for listening just say

0:47:48 Lydia: Oh, I can't wait. To determine whether a justiciable is to fund claims premised on events, including those arising from Inter Alia the Mar -a -Lago. What?

0:48:18 Thomas: Justiciable sorry what did you say premised

0:48:22 Matt: That should be a premise, right?

0:48:23 Lydia: Oh, yeah. Thank you.