GG80: No WAY They'll Appeal... Right?... RIGHT?!?

Transcript

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

0:00:25 Thomas: Gavel in, Gavelinos, it's Thomas and Lydia. How are you doing?

0:00:29 Lydia: Dang. I am excited for this one.

0:00:33 Thomas: Thrilling conclusion of the most brazen act of corruption in American history. We're finishing off with more of that amazing decision read by Judge Lydia.

0:00:44 Lydia: Thank you. Written by Judge Liddy, I'll tell you that.

0:00:48 Thomas: No, you couldn't have done that. Sorry. No offense to you.

0:00:50 Lydia: Not. Happy to read it. In case anyone was worried.

0:00:54 Thomas: I we're going to jump on with Matt here right after the break and we are going to get to the end of that. Then, like I said, we get a little epilogue surprise that kind of happened just today, actually. Well, I don't think I have anything more to say other than thanks so much for everyone listening and patrons have already heard this normies get on it you could have heard this so long ago ages ago in trump one you could heard this if you're a patron allegedly I don't know so patreon.com/gavelpod thanks so much to those who support the show and thanks to everyone for listening and we will take a break and be back on with matt uh in the thick of the judge Kathleen Williams' decision.

0:01:15 Lydia: Be in the know, be in the no. Oh, wow. Gravomen of the Settlement Agreement is to fun claims premissed on events including those arising from inter Alia the Mar a Lago documents case, and the events of January 6 2021. these two cases have been referenced as quintessential anti weaponization and lawfare claims. Instead of either recusing because of their previous representations or vigorously defending this lawsuit as required to do so by DOJ policies and procedures, these lawyers agreed to a settlement involving a staggering amount of money potentially benefiting former clients.

0:02:10 Matt: I want to note that in footnote 47, we have our first appearance of a truth social post, which end up on so many of these decisions and lawsuits when Trump is just telling it himself. Um.

0:02:17 Lydia: Yeah, I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just-announced anti-weaponization fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my tax returns and the equally illegal break -in, in all caps of Mar -a -Lago, for an absolute fortune. Instead, I'm helping others who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden administration receive, at long last, in ALL CAPS, JUSTICE.

0:02:41 Thomas: Saint you know we don't talk enough about how selfless he is it

0:02:45 Matt: This footnote has dropped in regard to what this government thinks that weaponization is and lawfare is, right? So I'm just making the point.

0:02:52 Lydia: The release order, signed only by Acting Attorney General Blanche, extends a blanket grant of immunity to all plaintiffs and their families and, quote, affiliates, and precludes all, quote,"current or possible investigations or actions before any other agencies or departments. The release order also purports to bar the IRS from conducting any future tax audits of President Trump, his sons, and their entities. Insane. This provision directly contravenes 26 U.S.C. subsection 7277 titled Prohibition on Executive Branch Influence over Taxpayer Audits and Other Investigations, which states, it shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer. Explicit text of the statute prohibits President Trump and his lawyers, one of whom was former White House counsel, from asking for or promoting termination of an audit directed toward him.

0:03:14 Thomas: Doesn't make sense yeah

0:03:55 Matt: Know, you wouldn't think there'd have to be a statute for that, but I'm glad there is.

0:03:56 Thomas: I would actually I would think when was

0:03:57 Lydia: I'm glad that there is. Jeez. Acquiescing to any such demand is wholly incompatible with the duties of DOJ attorneys, as well as CEO Bisignano for the IRS, to enforce the law and protect the public interest. The conferral of possibly millions of dollars in tax relief and corollary benefits potentially violates Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, a limitation surely known by former White House counsel and the current acting attorney general.

0:04:23 Matt: Would hope.

0:04:24 Lydia: Clause states, the president shall at stated times receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States or any of them. Sitting president has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits or any benefits that are near to him, his family, and associates. The failure of any attorney in this case to address on this docket the relationship of this Article 2 prescription with the benefits conferred by the settlement is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the lead plaintiff. Signal that adverseness was absent was Acting Attorney General Blanche's unilateral repudiation and severance of the purported quote anti -weaponization fund associated with this lawsuit. Weeks after the dismissal and in testimony before the House of Representatives, Acting Attorney General Blanch conceded the that the DOJ was, quote, not moving forward with the fund, period.

0:04:20 Thomas: Emoluments yeah I was gonna say interesting yeah

0:05:21 Lydia: Attorney General Blanche's decision, which has not been memorialized or adopted by plaintiffs or their lawyers, demonstrates his confidence that he could speak for and bind both sides of this matter.

0:05:31 Thomas: Isn't this a settlement how can you just not do that

0:05:34 Lydia: Certitude supports the conclusion that the parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse. Quote, a party may not unilaterally repudiate a settlement agreement once it is reached. Is Hornbook law requiring no citations of authority except common sense that a contract once entered into may not thereafter be uniliterally modified. Subsequent modifications require consent and, quote. A meeting of the minds of all of the initial parties to the contract whose rights or responsibilities are sought to be affected by the modification.

0:06:04 Thomas: I do like that she did cite something saying you don't need to cite it oh

0:06:07 Matt: Is a case. Yeah. Also, I love that she's just taking them up on the joke and being like, oh, you want us to call this a contract? Well, let's look at a contract.

0:06:16 Lydia: Attorney General Blanche's apparent capacity to speak for both plaintiffs and defendants, sign a settlement document on behalf of all parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case. This case, the president filed a lawsuit alleging reputational and financial harm from the unlawful disclosure of his tax returns. He sued the IRS and the Treasury Department, entities that are part of the executive branch headed by him, and more recently that have been directed to adhere to any interpretation of law advanced by him. While it is true that President Trump had a legal right to bring a suit for the unlawful disclosure, remedy would be circumscribed by the legal guardrails applicable to all litigants, the statute of limitations, naming the appropriate defendant, and pleading special recoverable damages. Notably, had President Trump and his then -lawyers Elena Haba and Todd Blanche brought this lawsuit in a timely fashion while he was a private citizen, this litigation understandably might have been resolved in a 109-day time span. That is not what happened. President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and his former lawyer and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the Anti -Weaponization Fund to prominent positions in the DOJ. These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States with his current lawyers, including his former White House counsel, to reach a settlement. Suggest that there was ever adverseness between the parties.

0:07:41 Thomas: I'd riz it it's totally risible

0:07:44 Lydia: Dismissing the non -party's claims of collusion, plaintiffs reveal the true position of the parties and say the quiet part out loud. Quote, this action, the government and plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties. Power to resolve was never a question before this court. Executive branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this court,

0:08:12 Matt: But she's sure making an issue now. I

0:08:13 Thomas: Wonder why yeah

0:08:15 Lydia: Question is whether the parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The a resounding no. lead plaintiff and the government are one, a fully realized unitary interest. Because, quote, plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the lead plaintiffs President Trump directs and controls the defendants, this, quote renders this lawsuit non -adversarial, collusive and jurisdictionally improper. Proper. Because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose to of judicial legitimacy for a settlement that had no viable basis in law or fact. Was observed in another matter brought in this district, quote, this case is part of Mr. Trump's pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.

0:09:04 Matt: And all you need to know is that is the case of Trump v. Clinton. Doesn't even matter which case of Trump v. Clinton, so

0:09:09 Lydia: Concluded that this action was presented for an improper purpose, the court now turns to the question of sanctions. This inquiry proceeds under two independent but overlapping frameworks, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and authority.

0:09:22 Matt: We don't have to go too much in the weeds on this, but Rule 11 governs sanctions, it governs attorney misconduct, or when you sign something you know isn't true, or when your bring a fraud before the court. Then she's also going to debate about her own inherent power to just recognize fraud and basically take care of it.

0:09:36 Thomas: Is uh not mincing words that was some forceful stuff and I I really also I just I mean we've been doing this a while obviously any lawyer has way more experience than this but we've been reading stuff like this for a while and judges are normally so the real ones not the trump ones they're normally so measured you know and this is just like no bs I love it yeah

0:09:39 Matt: That was great. Now it is. And also, I mean, yeah, there's so much going on here, and it's just so good to read it out loud.

0:10:00 Lydia: It? Is it good to read? I'm just kidding. Sorry. I'm reading a lot.

0:10:03 Matt: I'm enjoying it. She's also looking to see, because this is a question that's rarely raised for obvious reasons, just to summarize these couple of pages. Because it was a voluntary dismissal, does Rule 11 still apply? Because the case isn't before me anymore and because they chose to dismiss it. And of course she finds it does. You can still sanction people because obviously if there's a collusion, if there's a fraud in the court, you can always come back and review it.

0:10:22 Thomas: A lot of the reasoning is because obviously if this exact thing ever happened there would have to be some way to to deal with it yeah

0:10:29 Matt: Can't let them get away with this. That's pretty much the argument.

0:10:33 Lydia: This case presents unusual circumstances that distinguish it from the ordinary rule 11 dispute plaintiffs do not identify at what point during the abbreviated procedural history of this case the court realistically could have raised the issue of rule 11 monetary sanctions had the court done so before ordering briefing on the court's subject matter jurisdiction or after briefing was ordered but before the parties responded plaintiffs undoubtedly would have protested that the discussion was both unmerited and premature.

0:11:01 Matt: And they would've been right it because it's not even briefed yet.

0:11:04 Lydia: The advisory committee notes to Rule 11 explain that the reason monetary sanctions should be raised before a settlement is that a monetary resolution could be impaired by the threat of sanctions. The concern is not implicated here. The court need need not decide whether the circumstances of this case permit monetary sanctions the language of Rule 11c5b. That limitation applies only to monetary sanctions and does not prevent the court from determining whether Rule 11 has been violated or whether appropriate non -monetary sanctions are appropriate.

0:11:34 Matt: Of course, we don't want money here anyway. We just want justice. So I

0:11:37 Lydia: After considering the totality of the circumstances, including the record, the relevant law, the written submissions, and the factors identified Yeah,

0:11:59 Matt: Just want to point out what she's doing here, which is she's getting creative and crafting a Rule 11 sanction because the sanctions can be really within reason, whatever the court wants to impose on you. The fact that she's saying specifically that one of the reasons we have Rule 11 is for a deterrent purpose so that people don't do things like this again.

0:12:14 Matt: She's going to make an example out of them, as she should.

0:12:26 Lydia: Light of the findings and rulings made in this order. The clerk of court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the Florida Bar, of which attorney Alejandro Brito is a member. All future applications by Daniel Z. Epstein for admission pro hoc vice in the Southern District of Florida will be denied for one year or until further order of this court.

0:12:43 Matt: Just a year.

0:12:44 Lydia: That's, he's getting off easy. Three, the parties are prohibited from referring to the purported settlement agreement or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory arbitration or any other official proceeding as evidence of a settlement reached in this matter plaintiffs means the plaintiffs in this lawsuit president donald j trump donald j trump jr eric trump the trump organization llc and includes any of their agents representatives officers directors employees partners corporate agents subsidiaries affiliates

0:12:43 Thomas: Etc etc

0:13:14 Lydia: Or any another person acting in concert blah blah blah right

0:13:17 Matt: Now she's going going to consider inherent authority. We can skip a few pages here. It gets pretty legal. But going to page 50, she's going to explain why not only does she have the Rule 11 authority, but she has inherent authority as a federal judge. And she's drawing, I think, a lot from the briefing of the 35 federal judges, as she should be, because a lot of what they're talking about is just the inherent respect for the system and how we have to step in at some point. So we can go down to page 50 with the conduct of the parties.

0:13:42 Lydia: Conduct of the parties triggers the court's inherent authority. As to plaintiffs, they filed a multi -billion dollar lawsuit asserting claims that they knew, or should have known, were time -barred and for an amount of damages unsupported by facts or law. Plaintiffs could make no connection between the billions of dollars they sought and the recovery authorized under the governing statute.

0:14:01 Matt: Check out the footnote. I got a good one here.

0:14:02 Lydia: Even the fund amount, $1.776 billion, speaks of a, quote, branding effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful calculation of damages. Yeah, 1776, stupid. Generally, the purpose of a lawsuit must be to, quote, vindicate rights through lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights. It was brought to the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the parties were not adverse. Defendant's conduct is equally untenable. It is telling that the DOJ, which is tasked with enforcement of United States law, has remained conspicuously absent and silent when serious questions about this matter have been raised. When representatives did choose to expound on the department's conduct, they offered misleading explanations of the facts and the law. Abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States, the government entered into a, quote, settlement that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized as well as those specifically prohibited by law. These circumstances, the court may reasonably infer that the government failed to defend this lawsuit or to respond to the court's jurisdictional inquiry because its position would not withstand judicial scrutiny and because resolution of the threshold issues identified by the court would not have favored its preferred outcome to this case. Parties used the existence of federal litigation as a means of conferring legitimacy upon a course of action that they were unwilling to subject to judicial review. Context of the settlement, the relationships of the people involved in negotiating and approving it, the ethical implications of their conduct, and the party's swift efforts to dismiss this case after the court raised fundamental jurisdictional questions all support this conclusion. Accordingly, the court expressly finds that plaintiffs acted in bad faith. Finding is enough to invoke the court's inherent authority.

0:14:11 Matt: Love it. I just want to make the point for people who aren't used to this kind of stuff, this is huge, that you're finding that the plaintiff, the president, and his kids and his company has acted in bad faith. A huge finding. That's a really big deal for a court to find that. ThatS not a small thing. The question becomes, she basically found there's too much of an issue and I probably can't award monetary damages when a voluntary dismissal. It doesn't seem like the rules allow me to do that, but I can inherently. So here's is an expert.

0:16:16 Lydia: The court finds monetary sanctions appropriate under its inherent authority and prerogative to police the matters and litigants who avail themselves of its jurisdiction. These monetary sanctions would include the attorney's fees incurred by court -appointed amici in appearing before the court and briefing the jurisdictional questions identified by the court.

0:16:33 Matt: Out 67. There's a great little burn here.

0:16:35 Lydia: The court'S inherent authority extends all all parties and counsel who engaged in bad faith conduct, the court assesses monetary sanctions only against plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel.

0:16:46 Matt: Could against the defendants, is what she's very clearly saying. You got off easy, Todd Blanche. People who stepped up, because I appointed them, as we talked about before, to brief me, paid too. And she notes that, she says, nevertheless, the court-appointed amici have declined any reimbursement for their important services. Then she's talking about the next paragraph. This is great. This last paragraph of the page.

0:16:56 Thomas: Released you're free yeah

0:17:06 Lydia: Remained the initial amici whose appearance was not contested by any party and the 35 former federal judges whose briefing precipitated this order. Accordingly, these amici, if they wish, may file within 14 days of this order a memorandum regarding any appropriate reimbursement. Plaintiffs may file any response seven days thereafter. Finally, the clerk of court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Blanche is a member, and to the District of Columbia Bar, of whose Associate Attorney General Woodward is a member, where disciplinary proceedings are currently ongoing. Ongoing.

0:17:37 Matt: Again, huge. Yeah, I know. They're already in process. We joined this in process and

0:17:39 Lydia: She doesn't have to, yeah, like before, you know, with the other attorney, Brito, you know, she was like to open up investigation. She's like, oh, they're already being investigated. So just add this to the pile. Yeah.

0:17:46 Matt: Just throw it on the pile. Yep. Yep. And this

0:17:50 Lydia: That's good.

0:17:51 Matt: Again, for those who are not familiar with this kind of thing is extremely unusual for the judge to not only direct. And again, with British, you could do it because it's Florida Bar. It's local. You just report them directly to the bar. You're going to order the clerk to add this to the record of these pending disciplinary proceedings involving involving two of the top people in the Department of Justice at this moment as the time that she's writing. It's incredible.

0:18:13 Lydia: Now our conclusion. Adams warned, quote, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. Whatever maybe the party's wishes, inclinitions, or the dictate of their passion, they can not alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to plaintiff's concern, the court not have to, quote, sally forth to look for a wrong to right. Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here. Donald Trump is president. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department, Scott Besant, CEO Frank Bisignano, and all executive branch actors. President Trump through executive order subsection seven also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government's position, interest, or awareness of this matter. Defendant's actions are consonant with the the dictates of executive order, subsection 7.

0:19:18 Matt: Said geometric proof just about, I assume. I don't remember those, but something like that.

0:19:23 Lydia: Facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the settlement terms, the individuals who signed the settlement, as well as the putative beneficiaries of the settlement demonstrate a shared unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the, quote, fund component of the settlement demonstrate the fact that all parties were aligned and ultimately undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. Nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The president may be the functional, quote, dominus litus of the executive branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this court must discharge in light of the matter before it. Sum, the facts before this court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the parties. There was never a case or controversy, and there was never a question as to who would prevail. And ordered.

0:20:11 Thomas: We go again ah that was nice I like that a lot

0:20:41 Matt: And ordered. Kathleen Williams, good work. Beautifully done. Blanch indicated, of course, as we discussed at his confirmation hearing that they might be appealing this. I do not know. I am not really involved. Interesting if they did, if either party tried to appeal this, and maybe they will try. But I I mean, the way that he's talked about how dead this thing is, obviously Trump wants the immunity thing to stand, so they might still try to appeal it, but it's going to be pretty embarrassing for them if they do. And I can't even imagine this.

0:21:06 Thomas: Going to appeal and in what direction is what I want to know will they forget and then then the government will be appealing like hey wait we need to pay him money no that doesn't make sense crap yeah

0:21:16 Matt: Plaintiffs are supposed to do that. Never mind. Yeah.

0:21:18 Lydia: And wouldn't she be like, I said, you guys are clearly on the same side. Like, anything that they do is gonna be stupid. Like...

0:21:25 Thomas: I don't know what the appeal would be fantastic

0:21:27 Matt: Yeah. Yeah. This is going to stand. I think one way or another. I mean this is just a beautiful, beautiful document. Everything that DOJ has been doing and what the courts have been put through in the last time that we've been doing this, so good to see these judges taking these stands the way they are. This is a brave thing to do. I mean, it is her job. Obviously, she's supposed to be doing this, but just the tone and the firmness are just beautiful. I love it.

0:21:49 Lydia: Yeah. It's great.

0:21:53 Matt: Yeah, good reading.

0:21:51 Thomas: Well done judge lydia next slush fund

0:21:53 Lydia: So much. Thank -you. Thank...

0:21:59 Matt: True.

0:22:07 Thomas: Here we are for an epilogue uh actually left off talking about like oh well are they even gonna bother appealing and then what's funny is like who's gonna appeal you know which side, well, they appeal as the like wrong side, you know, forget which, which side should appeal. But they've appealed Matt.

0:22:23 Lydia: On the wrong mask. Yeah, not

0:22:26 Matt: Apparently Christopher G. Opperson of Miami, Florida found out that it was your birthday and

0:22:31 Lydia: Only that it was Thomas's birthday, but yeah, like literally we're all on vacation and Matt drops this in the slack and he's like, you guys. And we're like, all right, I guess we got to get on the mic.

0:22:31 Thomas: Wait, who's that? Yeah. Who's

0:22:40 Lydia: I guess. We got to do this.

0:22:41 Matt: I mean,

0:22:41 Thomas: Chris, Christian J. Opperson. What, what is that?

0:22:44 Matt: That's a great question. He is the only attorney to sign off on this document.

0:22:47 Thomas: Oh, I didn't get that far. No, I actually forgot to look at the the bottom page.

0:22:51 Lydia: Christopher G. Opperson. Yeah?

0:22:50 Matt: You remember that Alejandro Brito can no longer appear in front of this court, so they They've got to find a tag somebody else in from D .L .A. Piper. But yeah, we'll get there. We'll get There. Yeah. This is the plaintiff's request to stay the order. And it's going to explain about why Kathleen Williams is completely wrong. This is all very reasonable and fine.

0:23:12 Lydia: Incredible.

0:23:12 Thomas: Now, I read this, which I don't normally do, but I couldn't resist. I know that we also were trying to do a quick addendum because we're squeezing in recording time when we really shouldn't be. But thanks, Matt, for coming in here. So I wanted to read it just in in case, you know, maybe, maybe help out if I could. And I did want to report as the non -lawyer there's like 80 % of it seemed like stuff so dumb that I I'm pretty sure I could debunk. I'm not positive because I'm a lawyer, but like pretty sure, like some of the stuff is like, I'm sure it's also wrong, but I don't know like how, cause I don'T, you KNOW, I just DON'T have the background like, but they, confidence, you Know, I guess that's always how they do it in legal

0:23:17 Lydia: Confirm. Yeah yeah.

0:23:51 Thomas: Papers, but like, it is pretty funny to be so freaking confident when you've just gotten your ass handed to you so hard. Now is the 11th circuit shitty? It's not the fifth, but it's probably not great.

0:24:02 Matt: It can be. I mean, it's Florida. But generally, they haven't been crazy. They're not the fifth, certainly, like you said. Did slap Eileen Eileen Cannon down several times now in pretty dramatic ways, so they at least can oversee the judges.

0:24:13 Thomas: Makes me feel a lot better because this is, imagine I this is the kind of thing that you have to have Trump vision to, you know, MAGA vision to have any chance of agreeing with. If they were willing to slap strike her down, promising. That's But I was going to say, because Lydia is too pleasant and I'm more annoying, I should read this, but Lydia is a reader. I think that's why she's here. So we will have to allow ourselves to hear Todd Blanche as Lydia or whatever the hell, whoever this person is. Yeah.

0:24:39 Lydia: Official reader. Christopher.

0:24:44 Matt: Actually, I just sent you a picture. Also,

0:24:46 Lydia: Wait, I want to see this.

0:24:47 Matt: I've just realized his name is Christopher George O'Prison.

0:24:53 Lydia: Oh prison. Oh this is

0:24:55 Matt: His email

0:24:55 Lydia: A terrible smile. This is so bad. Just don't smile.

0:24:58 Matt: Is chris.oprison, and I just think that's funny. He's of the prison. He was made for this administration.

0:25:02 Lydia: Prison yeah

0:25:02 Thomas: Why isn't there an apostrophe? Yeah. It's of the prison is what it used to be.

0:25:07 Matt: That's right. He's not a bad looking guy, but that's not a great portrait.

0:25:12 Thomas: He looks like exactly what this lawyer would look like pretty much. Well good times I'm not imagining that lydia is that guy because it'll ruin our relationship so we'll

0:25:15 Matt: Pretty much what I... Yeah.

0:25:15 Lydia: Former marine corps captain yeah yeah divorce city that's where we would be headed yeah

0:25:28 Thomas: Stay together for the kids but there's not going to be much else

0:25:29 Lydia: Chris

0:25:31 Matt: You'll just hear the voice of Christopher O 'Prison for the rest of your life.

0:25:35 Thomas: Chriso prison what an interesting name all right well the introduction I don't know how much we can get through but the introduction I think you know gives you a teaser of all the dumb argument so we can at least go through that well

0:25:36 Lydia: So prison oh I love it you

0:25:47 Matt: Let's start and we can skip the pursuant to and everything to start right should explain what we are doing, what they're actually asking for before we get started, that's what that is. What that means is that they are asking for an expedited stay pending appeal because they're apparently anticipating an appeal here. And because the order invokes serious concerns regarding fundamental tenets of justice and cannot stand, it does actually invoke serious concerns regarding fundamental justice.

0:26:09 Matt: Absolutely correct. Just seeing it a little differently from you, Chris.

0:26:11 Lydia: Which is why the sanctions order is in place.

0:26:14 Thomas: And of course because I'm an idiot I did say an appeal but you're it's a they're asking for a stay to then do an appeal but it has a lot of like like, there are merits arguments in this, right? Like, I mean, there's not like there could be much more. There's, I don't know what they're going to come up with, but this has to be 112 % of it right

0:26:21 Matt: Appeal, right? For sure. They have to, to show that they have a case. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:26:28 Lydia: All right, let's do it. This case arose from the Internal Revenue Service's admitted failure to protect plaintiff's tax information from a convicted criminal.

0:26:44 Thomas: Away, right away already.

0:26:44 Matt: So yeah, already already we've got

0:26:47 Thomas: Already. Yeah. It's like, they make it sound like, yeah, the convicts found a way from a convicted criminal.

0:26:47 Matt: A problem with the timeline. Exactly. Yeah. Was kind of weird how IRS was outsourcing to Supermax for

0:26:49 Lydia: Ted Bundy.

0:26:59 Thomas: Yeah, it's so stupid right right away like it's it's man the gall like obviously this is a dumb thing but to start off with such an obvious overstatement of what it is

0:26:59 Matt: Audits, but here we are. Yeah right. Yeah.

0:27:12 Lydia: Poisoning the wall kind of thing, yeah.

0:27:13 Thomas: Obviously

0:27:13 Matt: And he wasn't convicted until after he did this. He was not convicted when they hired him, just to make the the point. I just want to be sure that we're going to overdo what we're talking about.

0:27:17 Thomas: That's what it makes it sound like yeah we're all on the same page it makes it sound they were so negligent that even a common criminal could come in

0:27:21 Lydia: Was to work for the IRS.

0:27:29 Thomas: Yeah he was in the like chain gang thing and like okay well you you you handle these you you know, records. A racist in the South on a horse looking after him while he did it

0:27:39 Lydia: Charles Littlejohn, deliberately stole and disclosed plaintiff's information, pled guilty, and went to prison. In addition to criminal penalties, Congress created a civil remedy for precisely that injury. Plaintiffs invoked it, the parties negotiated a compromise, and the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

0:27:46 Thomas: Apparently double convicted. Now, there you go. There you go, so that's so simple.

0:28:01 Matt: Are factually true statements. Yeah, those

0:28:03 Thomas: You negotiate a compromise between like, okay, my side is like, Matt, I might owe you one cookie and then we negotiate and you then owe me $1 .76 billion. That's it. We can to compromise.

0:28:18 Matt: Except that you're in the cookie jar and everything else. And also, this is like my wife.

0:28:21 Lydia: You withhold

0:28:21 Thomas: And it turns out I'm you when I take off a mask.

0:28:23 Lydia: Your OA paycheck.

0:28:24 Matt: Yeah, exactly. Yeah my right hand and left hand often don't negotiate very well, but that's pretty much what's going on here.

0:28:25 Lydia: That should have ended the case. Instead, the court transformed a completed statutory dispute into an improper sanctions proceeding. Proceeding

0:28:39 Matt: Statutory dispute.

0:28:39 Thomas: Completed statutory dispute.

0:28:41 Matt: Wow. Man, I love being a lawyer sometimes.

0:28:42 Lydia: Also an an improper sanctions proceeding when she like deliberately took the time to explain why it was proper for her to come in now incorrectly branded the litigation collusive mistakenly accused plaintiffs and counsel of bad faith threatened professional licenses and reputations imposed monetary sanctions and entered a sweeping injunction forbidding future reference to the settlement agreement. All of that was error. The sanctions order threatens free speech, professional livelihoods, and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

0:29:12 Matt: It's threatening one professional livelihood of one Todd Blanch, specifically.

0:29:16 Lydia: The rests on a grievous legal error that

0:29:20 Thomas: Here we go. Grievous legal error. Let's see. I

0:29:23 Lydia: Because President Trump supervises the executive branch, he and the United States necessarily possess the same legal interest and cannot be adverse to each other. That is wrong.

0:29:32 Thomas: Don't think that's entirely what it said.

0:29:35 Lydia: Trump asserted a personal claim arising from the theft of his own tax information. The IRS and the U .S. Department of the Treasury represented the sovereign's interests in public funds and federal law. Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization asserted their own independent claims. Presidential supervision did not erase those rights or merge those interests.

0:29:54 Matt: Can say that, I guess. That's what you can do.

0:29:56 Thomas: I'm waiting for like the, you know, the citation or whatever. Well, I guess this is the introduction. So this is giving us the teaser.

0:30:02 Matt: But even just saying it, okay, yeah.

0:30:05 Lydia: Sanctions order nevertheless erroneously treated its novel theory of adversity as the starting point.

0:30:10 Matt: You know why it's novel? Does anybody want to guess why it is novel?

0:30:13 Lydia: This kind of bullshit has never happened before, you guys. Guys. So dumb.

0:30:17 Matt: It's so funny. They do this all the time where they're like, well, this has never happened before. The courts have never treated us like this before.

0:30:21 Lydia: Because you guys are assholes. And you're the reason it's never happened before. And now it's happening. God, they're

0:30:27 Thomas: It's like Trump took the Washington Monument to Florida and like says he owns it now. And you try to slap him down. Well, their novel theory of monument ownership.

0:30:31 Matt: I mean,

0:30:37 Lydia: Coming up with this out of nowhere. Out of nowhere?

0:30:39 Thomas: Point to the precedent on this.

0:30:42 Matt: Not even a hypothetical. He did that with classified documents. He literally did exactly that. A little easier to transport than the Washington Monument, but

0:30:49 Thomas: That mine was more carmen san diego ask you know

0:30:53 Lydia: I was thinking I'm despicable me like it was like grew. Anyway, we've been spending a lot of time with the kids. Novel theory of adversity is the starting point and then refracted the facts through that mistaken lens. Settlement became proof of collusion, even though there was none. Potential, weak, in parentheses, defenses became proof that the claims were fictitious, which they were not. And ordinary professional relationships became proof of coordination, which did not exist.

0:31:18 Thomas: The potential weak defenses is fantastic because just to refresh that we all probably know that's them in any other case that other than trump on this having the obvious defense of a this is too late you shouldn't be doing this it's too late b this is not what the The fucking statute says you don't get to sue for a hundred billion or whatever the hell like and see through H. I don't even know. And then him being like, well, citing like potential weak defense. Those were so weak, you know, that they can't be proof of a fictitious claims.

0:31:19 Matt: So good. Yes, yeah. Also, the ordinary professional relationships is really killing me right Right. Now, that is so funny. The ordinary professional relationship that a president has with his treasury, his IRS, and his attorney general.

0:31:58 Thomas: It's the yeah, the normal president to attorney general slash supplicant relationship. That's just common, ordinary relationship.

0:32:09 Lydia: The sanctions order identified no pre -filing Sabrosa agreement, no false allegation, and no specific direction by President Trump controlling defendants' litigation decisions. OK. Predicate legal error thus supplied the conclusion causing the sanctions order to incorrectly recast entirely innocuous facts as misconduct. God, this is so obnoxious.

0:32:29 Thomas: That's so good.

0:32:30 Lydia: I'm sorry.

0:32:28 Matt: From the people who brought you, there was no evidence of this sexual assault. This is exactly the same kind of thing, right? There's no false allegation. There's no sub rosa agreement. You can't prove that there's something beneath the surface here. And no specific direction we don't have him on tape saying that he's controlling the litigation so what do you want here yeah

0:32:43 Thomas: Again,

0:32:42 Lydia: It's exhausting. This is so exhausting. Like all of these people are such freaking assholes. Like, God, I this is the first time I've read this. I know you guys have looked at this, but like I'm I'm like so annoyed right now for

0:32:53 Thomas: I just, yeah, it's amazing. Every time you hear this, keep in mind, and Matt, don't let me misstate it, but let, the timing, like, let's say it was timely. He was owed a thousand dollars, right? Or maybe like a thousand times a certain number for, yeah. Yeah. Who knows?

0:33:10 Lydia: For each.

0:33:12 Thomas: Every single time that they say anything like the judge just assumed this was corrupt for bad reasons. Remember that the settlement they came to was one side normally would be like you owe us $1 ,000 to $5 ,000 and the other side saying you owe nothing is what it should be. And the compromise was $1.776 billion, essentially, plus lifetime immunity from all this other bullshit. Shit.

0:33:11 Matt: I mean well yeah

0:33:32 Lydia: Yeah, I would even take I would honestly even take a thousand dollars per Trump entity that they cited. Right. If they said four hundred and eighteen whatever, you know.

0:33:43 Thomas: I mean, you shouldn't get it, but it should get, well, to your point, we said this toward the end. I said this, like if they had tried for that, like maybe if the IRS had had done a fake counter argument of like, all right, well, it seems like you're owed this. So, you Know, how about how about our counter offers like two hundred thousand dollars or something? But they didn't do anything. They didn't know anything.

0:33:44 Lydia: That's fine. If you want four hundred eighteen thousand dollars fine. I don't freaking care. But like this is so stupid. Stupid yeah yeah

0:34:09 Matt: Of course he hasn't yet mentioned the ridiculous immunity order either, which is, it

0:34:13 Thomas: I don't I don't think he ever does.

0:34:15 Matt: Does, I think it gets to it.

0:34:15 Lydia: They just want to pretend like it doesn't exist

0:34:16 Thomas: I'm pretty sure he never mentions that.

0:34:19 Matt: I mean, there's, there's no argument for that. So good luck.

0:34:19 Lydia: Pieces of shit. Unbelievable.

0:34:22 Thomas: Yeah, that's I didn't even think of that yeah

0:34:24 Lydia: Danger posed by the sanctions order is profound. Okay. The danger? I'm sorry. Danger? The Article 3 question, quote, oh.

0:34:37 Thomas: I'm just sped off it's like fuck this

0:34:38 Matt: I'm I've had enough of this getting on my hug. Here we go into the sunset.

0:34:44 Lydia: The called the Article 3 question, quote, unprecedented, appointed six amici, and devoted nearly 30 pages to resolving it. Yet it then declared the contrary position, quote. So obvious and so insurmountable that advancing it warranted career altering sanctions.

0:34:57 Thomas: This is the fundamental stupid fucking idiot thing, just again, I'm not the lawyer, so I'll take a crack at it. Matt, you tell me if I'm wrong.

0:35:03 Lydia: It on me.

0:35:08 Matt: Think you're going to get it. I thought you're gonna get it one. I have confidence here.

0:35:10 Thomas: The thing that she called on president and appointed amici and did all that stuff was what am I even supposed to do when the most corrupt administration ever has tried to pull one weird trick to like get out of my court and like voluntarily dismiss do I have the ability to like pull them back in in a way and just of my own accord that was what she needed the help with And then for him to say, oh, it was so obvious and so insurmountable advancing it weren't career altering sanctions. No, they wasn't what you got sanctioned for. You didn't get sanctioned for opposing her like authority to do this. You got sanction for the slush fund, asshole.

0:35:54 Matt: And And also think about what would have happened if she She did not do that. If she had just on her own said, well, this is clearly just a bad case. You guys suck. You're colluding. Here's my order. Obviously, she's doing exactly what a judge should do and appointing outside counsel to advise her to create a record to show that there's a bunch of people. And then you get these judges that jump in. I'm sure he's not really going to mention those either, federal judges, because they didn't have to get involved. They weren't even asked to get informed.

0:35:57 Thomas: That too I exactly and so I I think this makes an intuitive sense if you forget what happened here I think the argument they're going for which I don't think would work on lawyers but like for non-lawyers to say wait a minute they're getting sanctioned for something where she had to write all this page all these pages to resolving it but the thing they're being sanctioned correct me if I'm wrong we read through most of it uh was the one that I didn't read through let me read yeah there wasn't like that much ink devoted to okay here's why a settlement for 1.776 billion dollars and full immunity forever for stuff here's 왜 that's stupid there you didn't really have to devote that much time to that right because it was just it's obviously corrupt and so it your Your intuition is, well, wait, if something was subject to so much debate, how can it be so bad that it's sanctionable to even, you know, well it wasn't, that was the other thing, you Know?

0:36:38 Lydia: Read through most of it.

0:37:08 Matt: Yeah. Also, the way he says the contrary position, I've just read the sentence several more times while we've been talking. She called the Article 3 question unprecedented because it is about whether this is collusion between the two parties and then declared the contrary position so obvious and insurmountable. Okay, all right. He's just trying to be confusing.

0:37:18 Thomas: It is precedent being the contrary position. Yeah. The wording is way messed up there.

0:37:29 Lydia: Terrible. It's not clear what he's trying to say there yeah

0:37:31 Matt: I think that's the point.

0:37:32 Thomas: Wouldn't be the contrary. Position is not so obvious and so insurmountable. I get, well whatever.

0:37:34 Lydia: Chris get it together

0:37:39 Matt: It's not contrary to the sanctions order, but okay, all

0:37:42 Thomas: Is why you're of the prison.

0:37:46 Lydia: Converts disagreement into professional punishment and strikes at the integrity of the adjudicative process itself a system that sanctions lawyers for advancing positions on constitutional questions cannot sustain fearless advocacy or principled legal development but

0:38:00 Matt: Yep. This is just what they said about John Eastman too. He's just asking questions, just asking constitutional questions here.

0:38:07 Lydia: Like but it's so clear like you are you are putting stuff to mislead the court like why would not why wouldn't that be sanctionable yeah

0:38:14 Matt: Yeah, of course. And you're colluding. I was to say, this is like a distilled MAGA legal argument. This straight up 200 proof MAGA argument.

0:38:16 Lydia: It's so obvious copy paste yeah

0:38:24 Matt: Yeah, this isn't get into the heart of it yeah

0:38:26 Thomas: It's and there's a there's an idiot genius to it in a way not genius but there's an idiot thought process to to it which is like analogy though would be hey if it took you you months of being being in a courtroom to convince a jury that I did it, well, how could you punish me for whatever I did? Like that was, I mean, it was a close call. It's like, yeah, I means, yeah.

0:38:47 Matt: Clearly this is a case of controversy yeah yeah

0:38:50 Thomas: It is kind of what it is like where it is, like, yes, no, they wanted to make sure to be sure in terms of the, and again, that was going over and above to show that there was, obviously, like a collusive, um here for so many different reasons and then it's not like they're not being sanctioned for going against the reasoning that it was collusive they're being sanctioned for doing collusion and like doing a fraud on the court right

0:39:14 Matt: That's right that's right and and if like I said if she hadn't created that record the 11th she knows the 11th circuit is going to be reviewing this so of course she's going tobe as careful as she can that's what we want yeah

0:39:33 Lydia: Improper manner in which the sanctions were imposed heightens those concerns the court never ordered mr brito or mr epstein to show cause never identified much of the conduct it wrongly condemned and never disclosed that professional sanctions monetary sanctions and and a sweeping, unconstitutional speech injunction were under consideration. It relied on press reports and extra record material to infer motive and impose punishment without individualized findings of knowing misconduct, of which there was none. The sanctions order then compounded those errors with an unconstitional, content -based prior restraint dictating what private parties and federal agencies may say in future official proceedings.

0:40:08 Thomas: The stupidest thing I've ever heard yeah

0:40:09 Matt: That she said you can't call it a settlement agreement or proceed as if if it's a settlement agreement, because it was illegal. That's what she said.

0:40:16 Thomas: In future official proceedings is the part that matters yeah

0:40:19 Matt: Not prior restraint. That is just saying this is illegal. You can't do it.

0:40:23 Lydia: Was also super clear about why she was incorporating press reports, right? Right. And it was because the administration explicitly said like that that was a reasonable thing to do. Yeah.

0:40:32 Matt: We can do this. That's right. And you should look at press reports.

0:40:36 Thomas: So, yeah, in terms of the show cause crap, that's the 20 percent. I don't know. Like, is that anything like it did?

0:40:43 Matt: That potentially is the only thing I can see that's any kind of hook here in terms of the orders to the attorneys, because typically you would get an order to show cause of like, tell me why I shouldn't submit you for discipline.

0:40:53 Lydia: That opportunity.

0:40:54 Thomas: But if that were true, why would that be their last argument? And they pair it with the stupid free speech thing, which is obviously dumb. I don't know.

0:40:58 Matt: And mostly touches on the attorneys, right? So it's not really as important.

0:41:04 Lydia: That made more complicated because the case was dismissed? I mean, like like what kind of teeth would you have if you're not actually overseeing a case? You know, like I don't know. We talk about order of operations. Right with what happened here. Would that be an odd thing to say, you must show cause, but I have no jurisdiction over this case?

0:41:23 Matt: Not any more than her post -dismissal actions already were.

0:41:26 Lydia: Gotcha.

0:41:27 Matt: Because really, she has every right to issue an OSC and say, this appears to have been a fraud on the court. Give me one reason why it wasn't. Just show me. And they could have had a full hearing on that with evidentiary testimony and everything. But she also is completely, I think, in the right to just say, this is so obvious what's in front of me.

0:41:44 Matt: There's no question you have the same parties in front of me bringing a fake case."

0:41:48 Thomas: Like how how much time are you required to devote to something that was a fraud on the court to waste the court's time?

0:41:51 Matt: To waste. Exactly.

0:41:53 Lydia: Right.

0:41:53 Thomas: You know and profit from it

0:41:54 Matt: That any attorney who knows what they're looking at would not get involved with. I don't know.

0:41:59 Thomas: Interesting hmm and

0:42:00 Lydia: What happens then, I guess, and you're just kind of teasing that out, if that is an element where an appeals court says like, yeah, you probably should have given them, should have, you know, issued an OSC at this point to give them the opportunity to respond to that, then it would just get kicked back down to her. They would have the opportunity respond and then she could just basically like see, see above, you Know, with the order previously.

0:42:20 Matt: Well, because what they are really talking about is the bar sanctions, which don't have much to do with the plaintiffs, that's just incidental. And this attorney is also representing Epstein and Brito, way I saw in the end here so he's speaking for them and in that other issue yeah so this is sort of an omnibus stay request but I think that might be why it's the last issue because it doesn't really affect the plaintiffs directly uh only thing that really affects them is this order as they're complaining about that they can't call a settlement agreement or proceed as a settlement agreement because they want to be able to do that um

0:42:31 Lydia: Gotcha. So it's specific to them. Yeah, interesting. Interesting.

0:42:47 Thomas: So the show cause crap wouldn't really apply to that at all yeah

0:42:50 Matt: Yeah I don't think so I think she can do that without that for sure but again she has the authority to say, you can't come before this court again. I know what the individual rules are for that in federal court or in her federal court, but I she still has to have been within the rights. And I would think that somebody this thoughtful who wrote the thing we've just enjoyed reading last time would not rush through that. I think that if she knew she had to do it, she would do it. I don't think she had TO do it."

0:43:12 Lydia: Right. And then we close out the introduction with with them telling the 11th Circuit what they're going to do. The 11th circuit is overwhelmingly likely to vacate the sanctions order. A stay is necessary now to preserve meaningful appellate review before the sanctions order inflicts further constitutional professional and reputational harm that no later ruling can undo it

0:43:31 Matt: Incredible. It's incredible. If we can't have our stupid agreement, our payout fund for all of our our friends, and we can't have immunity for everything that Trump has ever done with any of his companies, then there's going to be a constitutional, professional, and reputational harm. I get it for the lawyers. I do understand that they're upset, but they shouldn't have gotten involved with this case. Don't see how that applies to the plaintiffs.

0:43:53 Lydia: Also like that no latter ruling can undo it absolutely can undo if you you up in investigation with the bar whatever for your license if a ruling comes out later saying like no no no everything's copacetic you know then absolutely you're fine then like that that would not show up necessarily on your license and no harm no foul you

0:44:13 Thomas: And we uh like I said this was an impromptu uh recording we probably don't have much more time I guess the only other thing that I saw that like gave me pause in terms of I don't know how it works is they make a thing of like hey you pretty much ignored the other plaintiffs you know as donald trump junior eric trump and trump organization I guess if I'm trying to like you this whole thing it's

0:44:38 Lydia: Like like she should have, like they should have been separable kind of thing, like with regard to Donald Trump, yes.

0:44:41 Thomas: Is it is it for sure that you can just assert they're also one in the same with the irs and the whatever like I I don't know how that works I don'T know if there's anything there but that was that was the other thing I'm like I guess I don' t immediately know what the answer to that that is especially when it came to like the well they were they received the irs notice later and all that stuff I I just don't I don' t know if that matters I don''t I don ''t know I wasn't sure what's

0:45:05 Matt: Yeah, and also the point that all of the president's family, friends, former colleagues, and affiliated businesses would not be able to exercise their private rights against the executive branch. Mean, yeah, that is true. I am not going to say that's not true. We have to be fair about this. He's pointing out, obviously, that hunter biden also sued the irs because uh there's unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns yeah

0:45:22 Thomas: But he didn't did he get a 1 .776 dollar billion settlement and an infinite like fucking immunity for it I'm this just came out um I'm sure if there's more to analyze later we can or maybe maybe well this is a teaser and then if they actually appeal somehow if there is a stay I don't really have to worry I guess but I guess when it comes to what they're looking at here which is the sanctions for trying to pull this fraud on the court I guess it doesn't really matter to say that like well while some of it wasn't a fraud, maybe that's what it is. Like it doesn't, if the thing they're trying to stay is these sanctions, right? Isn't it pretty much that? Then it doesn'T really matter that like, well, Eric Trump wasn't in cahoots with the IRS. It's like, yeah, but you tried to do a fraud. Like, you know, like, is that what it IS maybe?

0:46:06 Lydia: And, and like, he's like explicitly named in the settlement agreement too, right? That like nothing, nothing is going to be held against him. You know, there's going to be zero pursuit, yada, yadda, yedda.

0:46:18 Matt: And the whole theory remains that this was the whole thing was done just to benefit trump's family and friends so I mean at the end of the day I see the point I do uh and she did kind of sweep that in with everybody else but I don' think it matters that much

0:46:28 Thomas: I'm not sure it matters for, for the precise thing that's happening here. I think.

0:46:33 Matt: Yeah it's good cover that's what he's trying for

0:46:36 Lydia: If like, you guys, what if it if the 11th circuit is like we see your point about eric trump yes he should be considered separate because he's never like considered as part of the family um but everybody else like has to stay together so eric Trump yes you get the opportunity because nobody likes you

0:46:52 Matt: Order to show cause to eric trump what would you say you do here

0:46:56 Thomas: Man.

0:46:56 Lydia: It's so funny my crossed that the judges do do something like that they

0:47:01 Thomas: I love this too. Thing, but they, so proud of being like, Like, look, the whole thing about like the defenses that were potentially weak. You know, that whole thing when they go into more detail later, they make a big thing. Like, Look, other courts addressingthe same discosures likewise have held that materially similar allegations by unrelated plaintiffs plausibly established that Little John was a, quote, employee of the United States. It's like, cool, man. Here's a thousand fucking dollars, you asshole.

0:47:26 Thomas: Like, that's what that matters for. It doesn't matter for $1.776 billion in infinite immunity. God, it's so funny that they, like, bother with it. It was the same.

0:47:37 Matt: He also calls it the exact remedy congress supplied which is very funny because as we've established their theory appears to be that every time anybody uses the name the phrase trump tax returns at this point that they get a thousand dollars so 10 billion exact remedies

0:47:40 Lydia: Incredible

0:47:51 Thomas: So funny. End really got me because, you as we joked about, will they forget who they're even appealing as? Said, you want to read under the certificate of compliance with local rule 7 .1? Found that funny, which

0:48:07 Lydia: Undersigned council certifies that on july 31st 2026 council for movements conferred with council for defendants who do not oppose the relief sought in this motion yeah

0:48:15 Thomas: Is by the way, today.

0:48:16 Matt: You don't say they don't oppose go

0:48:17 Thomas: So the movement, that means that Trump conferred with Trump and Trump said, you know what? I don't oppose Trump, which was like, that's weird. Why would that be true if if they weren't in collusion.

0:48:24 Matt: For it yeah

0:48:31 Lydia: With With reservation of rights and waiver of none, the Undersigned Council certifies that it has made reasonable and good -faith efforts to confer with counsel for the initial amici, counsel for court -appointed amici and counsel for former federal judges, notwithstanding their all -non -party -sits action. Specifically, on July 30, 2026, Undersign Council emailed counsel for each amicus group at 11:19 p.m. Eastern Time.

0:48:50 Thomas: 1190 p .m. Eastern time. It's just funny, like how little notice they gave.

0:48:53 Matt: Great

0:48:55 Lydia: Incredible. Incredible.

0:48:55 Matt: And this was filed the next day presumably the next morning probably does

0:48:58 Lydia: Requesting their position on the relief sought in this motion. Counsel for initial Amici former government officials, Common Cause and Project on Government Oversight opposed the motion.

0:49:07 Thomas: Weird. Isn't it weird that they oppose it?

0:49:09 Lydia: Counsel for Initial Amici citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington and public citizens take no position on them. The motion probably.

0:49:15 Thomas: They're probably like, whatever.

0:49:16 Matt: That just mean they'd heard from them by now because I don't know hard to believe but that's

0:49:19 Thomas: That's interesting. I don't know. I could see them being like, look, this is about sanctioning the lawyers, whatever, I don' t care. Who knows?

0:49:25 Lydia: Yeah, I don't know. Norm Eisen, you don't think is going to going to have a thought about that council

0:49:29 Thomas: That's s interesting.

0:49:28 Matt: You'd think because it goes to the whole thing okay

0:49:31 Lydia: Counsel for the former federal judges opposed the motion.

0:49:33 Thomas: No shit.

0:49:34 Lydia: As of the filing of this motion, counsel has not received a response from the court appointed Amici, who have declined any fees. Given the exigent nature of the relief requested, move -ins file this motion now to avoid any delay.

0:49:34 Thomas: It yes he said it's so urgent

0:49:45 Lydia: Counsel will continue efforts to confer and will promptly advise the court of any position communicated after filing.

0:49:45 Thomas: I found that funny one I found it funny that was like well we asked them five seconds ago and we got three emails back or whatever and then also them just the first one being like the government's totally fine let's see it's just like so funny so indicative of what's happening there

0:50:04 Lydia: Matt, should we expect like formal oppositions to this filing from any of the Amici you think? Or okay they're

0:50:04 Matt: I think it's very possible. Yeah. Especially the judges. I think the judges are going to have a good one.

0:50:14 Lydia: Probably working on something right now

0:50:15 Thomas: Man wow we'll have to keep an eye on that that'll be fun fun yeah

0:50:15 Matt: They must be. But the exigent nature, like we've got January 6th people with pending sex offenses, we got to pay off as quickly as possible so they can pay off their victims, right? I mean, yes.

0:50:24 Thomas: Well it's we need we need whoever that is to be able to practice in court or whatever I think that's yeah that's true yeah oh man well matt thanks for the very short notice recording but we saw that hot off the presses and wanted to jump in for a bit of an epilogue so that was fun we're gonna uh an eye on that probably I would say if this gets denied I think you know we're probably good on this topic it it's so much fun but that would probably be enough if there's any more we'll have to see you know if because it you know it it will really worry me if somehow this stuff is reversed or something that that will suck so we'll see we'll

0:50:31 Matt: Also that, yeah, we only have so many Trump attorneys left. Yeah?

0:50:34 Lydia: Exactly the team is dwindling oh

0:50:44 Matt: Always here for it.

0:50:57 Lydia: Yeah oh

0:50:58 Matt: Oh, yeah. I want to read it. Even

0:51:05 Thomas: Keep an eye on it

0:51:05 Matt: Even just watching them argue it is going to be very entertaining if they really want to do that. So

0:51:08 Lydia: My gosh yes if they go to oral arguments you guys

0:51:10 Matt: We'll listen to those.

0:51:11 Thomas: Man yeah

0:51:11 Lydia: I'm kind of hoping for that now like I hope they take this on because I want to hear them I want to hear him try and explain this

0:51:13 Thomas: That'll be fun oh wow and we're guaranteed at least one federal judge that doesn't suck probably I wouldn't say guaranteed but likely you know there's gonna be like one that I'll be willing to say what needs needs to be said. Right. Well, thanks so much, Gavelheads and Matt and Lydia. And we'll see you next time.

0:51:32 Matt: Right, get one.

0:51:53 Thomas: Here's a thousand fucking dollars, you asshole. Like,