Summary
âž¡ President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York, but there’s controversy over a gag order that prevented him from discussing the judge and prosecutor’s relatives. Critics argue this violated freedom of the press and Trump’s right to free speech, especially as they believe the judge had a conflict of interest that affected the trial’s fairness. This is the first time a former president has been tried and convicted of felonies, and the first time a criminal defendant has been silenced in this way. The case is now in the United States Supreme Court, raising questions about the fairness of the court system.
âž¡ The text discusses a case where Donald Trump was convicted on 34 counts for allegedly paying hush money to Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election. The author questions the fairness of the trial, suggesting that the judge had a conflict of interest and that the trial location was biased against Trump. The author also criticizes the double standards in the justice system, pointing out that other political figures with questionable actions are not held to the same scrutiny. The author concludes by expressing concern about the impact of politics on the justice system and the potential erosion of public trust.
âž¡ The article discusses the issue of gag orders in criminal trials, focusing on a case involving a former congressman. It highlights the differing views of two courts on the appropriateness of gag orders, which could lead to a Supreme Court review. The article also mentions the potential impact of these orders on the accused’s right to a fair trial and freedom of speech. Lastly, it discusses the possibility of the Supreme Court hearing the case, but notes that this is unlikely to happen before the upcoming election.
âž¡ The speaker believes that people in power should be held accountable for their actions, especially if they break the law. They emphasize the importance of an unbiased justice system and hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution as intended. They also mention a case they’re involved in, which may go to the Supreme Court, and the need for public support. Lastly, they express concern about the weaponization of the justice system and the Supreme Court, and the importance of protecting our rights and freedoms.
Transcript
If you’re on the wrong side of the political fence, so to speak. Experience the groundbreaking advancements of Leela’s quantum technology. Now backed by over 40 placebo controlled studies conducted by elite institutions and renowned universities worldwide, this revolutionary technology surpasses previous achievements, as confirmed by prestigious organizations such as the Emoto Institute in Japan. Scientific investigations reveal that Lela’s technology not only enhances blood health and circulation, but also neutralizes the adverse effects of electromagnetic fields, expedites wound healing, and elevates ATP production on human cells. Embrace the extraordinary benefits of Leela’s tech, as recognized and utilized by world class athletes, esteemed functional medicine practitioners, and leading figures in the field of biohacking.
Explore a range of transformative products, from the heal capsule, shielding you from harmful emfs, to the quantum block, allowing you to infuse frequencies into your cherished possessions. Dive into the realm of innovation and wellness@sarahwestall.com. shop or by following the link below. Welcome to Business Game changers. I’m Sarah Westall. I have Ron Barouti joining the program. He’s an attorney that’s trying to overturn the gag order that’s on President Trump. It’s at the Supreme Court right now, and it’s the stormy Daniels case, and the judge is highly compromised. And they want to bring that to the attention of the people, but they’re not allowed to.
And he’s going to share with you some of this judge’s compromise, which is insane. And I would say the attorney, if I was him, I’d be even more upset with what’s happening. But he’s trying to win a case, so he has to be, you know, really stick to what the law is and stuff versus giving his opinion. And I think that that’s what you’re going to see today. But just based on the law, it’s incredible what this judge was and how he was related to the, the Harris campaign and his daughter and his wife. And it’s incredible.
And it’s just a clear cut case that the judge is compromised. And that’s what Trump has gagged over is he can’t even mention that. And so in the stormy Daniels case, too, it’s about the hush money. And she admitted she wasn’t given hush money, which is incredible. How do you lose a case like that? But this is what has happened. So he’s a convicted felon because of Stormy Daniel’s hush money, which Stormy Daniels admits he, she never got. So it just seems really strange. And people are upset in general because we know the Clintons, we know the Biden’s, we know that these guys are dirty.
You know, they have more crimes against them than, I mean, it’s unbelievable. And, and so it’s just seems so one, it is, it just seems, it’s so one sided. And that is causing this anger in this country. Whether you like them or not, Trump or not, our justice system needs to be fair. And the way that we do this should be fair. It shouldn’t be one sided. And then you shouldn’t be happy and gleeful that one side is being persecuted, but your side is off the hook for everything. That is not a fair legal system no matter how you look at it, no matter who you like.
And that’s, this is really interesting to me. I think it’s really important because after all, it was a president of this country. So whether you like him or not, this is an important case. And I am a free speech advocate. I think there, nobody should be gagged and be able, why can’t he talk about the compromises that this judge has? So that’s why I wanted to talk to Ron today. And they have a goal fund me page. So if you’re interested in helping to donate to this case or if you just want to learn more about Ron, I also have his website below.
And I learned after we got off that he was, I think maybe at the end maybe you learned, I can’t remember if it was public or private that we talked about it, but he was kicked off LinkedIn, too, just like me. Well, he was doing it because of true information about the COVID vaccine. I got kicked off because I talked about the FDA statute, which using their own language, the title, everything was exactly what was in the statute. And they kicked me off. They reinstated that and then they kicked me off for all these posts that, claiming that I was selling unregulated product.
I’m like, since when is selling, and first of all, I don’t sell, I advertise. And since when is it illegal to advertise on unregulated product. They advertise more unregulated product than I do. But it looks like now I went to LinkedIn and they’re allowing me to log in saying that they reviewed the post, and after thorough review, they realized that I didn’t do anything wrong because I didn’t. But I’m in this endless loop, so I can’t get in anyways, I get login, it knocks me out, and then I have to redo it. And then they say that my post was okay and it just keeps.
And then I can’t contact anybody. So I, like, I don’t know what to do about LinkedIn. So, anyways, before we get into this, I want to remind you about gold and silver with Miles Franklin. I know you’re being bombarded with gold and with precious metals, and I really think you need to take it seriously. There are a lot of people talking about the reason why is because everybody’s trying to go to, should I say, the world. And I got to tell you, I spent a whole weekend with a banker that’s working on some global financial systems.
The world is moving to gold back systems, and the BRICS has 40% behind their system. They want to move to a full gold back. I’m telling you, gold and silver, especially silver, because it’s highly suppressed. It’s more than gold is. So there’s a better opportunity there with silver than there is with gold, but it’s highly, highly suppressed right now. And also, if there’s a reset, it protects your assets. I think that there’s a potential could go either way. The reset could go, it could slowly switch over and you might be fine with your assets, or it could go and you completely.
You’re going to be in bad situation. It can go either way based on all of my research that I’m going. So it’s really good insurance to be able to have assets in gold and silver. But it’s also an excellent investment opportunity. It’s usually not a good investment because it’s just protection in your assets. It’s not one where you’re going to make 100%, you know, over five years. It’s usually something that is just a good insurance policy, but right now, especially with silver, it’s really a good investment. And it also is an important insurance policy. I use Myles Franklin because they give you the best prices in the country.
They have a private price list that you can access. When you say that you’re with me, say Sarah sent you and they will share you share with you their private price list. That’s better than what you can get on their website and what’s available on the market. And it’s the best prices that is available. And they also give you amazing service. So again, infoilesfranklin.com, tell them that Sarah sent you and you will get access to the private price list, which is important. So, okay, let’s get into my interesting and important. It’s an important conversation with Ron Barouti, who currently has a case at the Supreme Court with the Trump gag order.
Okay, here’s Ron. Hi, Ron. Welcome to the program. Hi, Sarah. Thank you for having me. So you are, you have a case at the New York Supreme Court against the gag order that’s against Trump. You’re disputing this. It’s actually the United States Supreme Court. United States Supreme Court. I thought it was a New York Supreme Court. You’re all the way up to the very top. Okay. Yeah, we started New York Supreme Court. Our motion is in the hands of Justice Sotomayor and the United States Supreme Court. Oh, excellent. I just saw something that hit the docket on Friday.
I thought it was on the New York, but that must have been on the Supreme Court. Okay, so the, can you talk about what this gag order is against Trump that happened in New York and then where you’ve been fighting this? So can you first explain to people what this thing is? Sure. So I represent a media client, Goodlogic, LLC. GoodLogic does podcasting, legal analysis of various litigation cases that are in litigation. And Joe Nearman is the man behind Goodlogic, and he’s a co plaintiff with his own entity. They’re members of the New York press. When President Trump was on trial in New York City for felonies, he was indicted on 34 different felonies.
Joe thought about this idea that basically there’s a gag order on President Trump, but he’s not permitted to speak about the relatives of the judge and prosecutor. And he said that’s a violation of the freedom of the press, that the press has a right to get the information from the source, and that President Trump had a First Amendment, free speech right to speak about things that related to the case. And in this particular instance, the gag order about Judge Mershon, who is the presiding judge’s family, was very important because we claim that his family members caused him to have a conflict of interest, which made it impossible for him legally to sit as the trial judge under New York law.
So he gagged the criticism so that he never had to confront that issue and ultimately, President Trump was convicted in Judge Mershon’s court of 34 counts of felony. And we say he didn’t receive a fair trial and that ultimately it’s going to have to be vacated because of Judge Mershon’s conflicts. Well, he gagged. Is it okay to gag anybody? I mean, what the heck? I thought we lived in a country where you can speak, gagging somebody. Is that okay? Is that a legal president? Is it okay to do this? Yeah. So, yes and no. This is the second gag order against President Trump.
President Trump was also gagged in the federal court in Washington, DC. The federal court, the appellate court over the federal court in Washington, DC, affirmed that gag order against him. These are the so. And then New York followed suit with Washington, DC, but these are the first courts ever that we can find that have successfully gagged a criminal defendant for the purpose of keeping the criminal defendant quiet. Historically, gag orders are permitted in situations where third parties, such as prosecutors, or maybe the press, would be speaking in a manner that may cause prejudice to the defendant, to the trial, the right to receive a fair trial.
There is some case law from the New York, New. Sorry, that. From the new. The United States Supreme Court. Excuse me, that says that, yeah, a criminal defendant can be gagged under certain circumstances where there is a clear and present danger of an imminent threat to the trial by virtue of that person’s speech. Extremely narrow, and it’s never been done before. And the only time I can imagine that it would potentially be feasible and legal, constitutional, would be a situation, say, where the criminal defendant’s words may have a serious impact upon the. Upon the jury’s willingness to serve fairly and honestly, such as threats being made.
But I have never seen a case, actually, other than President Trump’s, where the criminal defendant was gagged for the purpose of keeping the criminal defendant himself quiet. Well, and people are pretty angry. I mean, this is really causing. Even if, even if Trump had issues, we see what Biden’s issues are, we see what Clinton’s issues are, and they haven’t been prosecuted for any of their crimes, which many people believe is, are worse. Anybody who’s done some real investigation are appalled at what you find criminally with them, and they aren’t even touched, but yet they’re going after Trump.
And so it seems, it’s obvious, law fair. This is the first time a former president has ever been put through these kind of scenario. Yes, it’s the first time a president was ever put on trial, criminal trial, in the history of, excuse me, in the history of our country. And it’s also the first time that a prison that a, also. I got to put my phone on silence. I apologize. It’s also the first time that a president has been found guilty of felonies. It’s unprecedented. And one of the things we argue is that this is the most, probably the most sensational trial in american history in many ways.
And yet the criminal defendant here has been silenced from raising issues with the press. He has the biggest microphone in the world, and he’s silenced from raising issues that would help him in his defense, which is that the trial judge himself was conflicted. So we’ve argued that this is a real black eye on the New York court system and that the New York court system, that the appellate courts should be quick to vacate its gag order and send it back to Judge Mershon to investigate whether or not I, he had a conflict of interest that required him to recuse himself.
But the New York courts didn’t do that. And that’s why we’re up in the United States Supreme Court now. Well, many people believe that the courts have been weaponized against the people. And then you see stuff like this going on in New York, and it’s, it just seems like it is. Well, look, I certainly have my opinions about that, and I think that it’s certainly the fact that this gag order was allowed to stand. I think, and I’ve raised this with the New York courts. It breaks my heart because I’m an attorney and I believe in our system.
But when you start seeing the court not take a look at these issues like gagging the president of the United States, who’s a criminal defendant, former president, also a candidate for office, and not paying attention to the conflicts of interest that the judge had, you really have to start wondering whether or not the courts are going to present a, give you a fair shake if you’re on the wrong side of the political fence, so to speak. Our courts are not meant to be tools of politics. They’re meant to be tools of justice. And when political decisions are made, which I think it’s a very fair statement that you’re making, that this seems like it’s political, then the court’s integrity is really put into question.
Well, a lot of people that have a disdain for Trump, which is almost chunk of the country, that almost irrational disdain for him, feel that this is justified because he actually is a criminal. And I’m asking you, based on what you’ve seen, is he a criminal? And is he, would this gag order allow him to not defend himself? You know, is this a justified situation, even if the gag order wasn’t in place? Well, look, I, my personal opinion about the case is that it’s unprecedented. And frankly, I think it was frivolous. That’s my personal opinion. But there was an indictment and there was a trial, and President Trump was convicted.
And as an attorney, I have to respect that that’s the outcome, that he’s a convicted felon now. But that being said, every criminal defendant has a right to a fair trial. And that’s the really important thing here, that this isn’t just about President Trump. This is about the general right to a fair trial for every single citizen in the New York court. Every single criminal defendant. Defendant has a right to speak his or her mind about the case. If they believe that there is a conflict that the judge has, they have a right to speak about it.
But only President Trump was gagged. And why is that? They claim it’s that his words might have been hurtful or might have scared witnesses, but there was no immediate impact that would justify that kind of ruling. There’s no showing that anything he said was going to cause an immediate problem for the trial. That’s really the standard, a clear and present danger of an imminent interference with the trial. Well, hold on 1 second, because he was going after the judge, saying the judge wasn’t appropriate in this case. So the judge can say, well, if they’re going after me, then that’ll affect the trial because I’m going to side against him.
So. But that’s just not how it works. Right? Well, the judge has an obligation under New York law to recuse himself if within six degrees of separation of him, a person, a family member or a person who’s close to him has a significant financial or other interest in the outcome. So here, Judge Mershand’s daughter, shockingly, was, I think, a publicist for the Biden Harris campaign. And so obviously, she had an interest in the outcome of this being favorable to the prosecution and against Donald Trump. Secondly, Judge Mershand’s wife worked for Letitia James, who was the New York attorney general, and Leticia James ran for office.
There’s video footage of her doing so yelling into a bullhorn about President Trump. Lock him up. Lock him up. Obviously, these are people very close to judge Mershon who created what appears to be a conflict. My client asked Donald Trump to, to respond to questions about these conflicts. My client was not permitted to get responses because Donald Trump was gagged. My client asked Donald Trump. For an interview on these issues. Donald Trump had to turn down the interview because he was gagged. Donald Trump has probably the highest, the loudest microphone in the world. He probably has a greater media impact than any person who’s ever come before him.
And obviously, the fact that, that he was silenced on this issue really took it out of play in terms of something that was within the public knowledge. I’m sure maybe you and probably most people listening to this had no idea about the conflicts of interest that that Judge Mershon had as he sat in judgment of Donald Trump. But he did. And why does, why do people not know? Because this is. He silenced President Trump. One of the most consequential lies of history is that Karl Marx put forth an economic theory or doctrine. He did not. He put forth a totalitarian religion.
This was a rape of the body of Christ. He said the ultimate objective was to destroy Christianity. Those were his words. And Khrushchev bragged about it. We’ll take America without firing a shot. Hi, I’m here to impoverish, enslave and murder you. They were actual communists. The result, you can see we have to say woe. There are ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing all over the place. And what was this specific case in New York about? Because I know there was multiple ones, just so the people know. Yeah. So this is, this is a case where Donald Trump was actually convicted and on 34 counts.
And the general gist of the, of the case was that he had paid hush money to stormy Daniels to affect the outcome of his election in 2016. Now, there are a lot of problems with this. Legally. Again, I wasn’t part of the case, but just looking at it from a perspective of an attorney, this is a state court, which is prosecuting someone under state law for doing something to impact a federal election. Allegedly, the state court probably had no jurisdiction over that. And I think ultimately, regardless, the United States Supreme Court is going to throw these convictions out just on that ground alone.
The state had no business trying these things. But, you know, you also had, Stormy Daniels had admitted that she wasn’t paid hush money. There’s all sorts of, there’s all sorts of it just make the whole case made no sense other than within the realm of politics. So you may hate Donald Trump, you may think he’s a terrible guy, but this really is, it’s really, to me, an abusive abuse of power by the prosecution and ultimately by the judge who sat in judgment with what we believe is a conflict of interest. Was there a jury or just a judge.
This was a jury case. Again, it was in Manhattan. The president or President Trump sat, and it was in a jurisdiction where he probably never could have gotten a fair trial. It’s the number of people who despise him and who voted against him and would probably, some would probably want to do bad things to him, harm to him. In Manhattan, it’s impossible with those kinds of numbers for President Trump to get a fair trial. I do believe he tried to have the venue changed. I do believe that Judge Mershon overruled that objection and forced this trial in Manhattan as he sat, as we say, in conflict.
How does he, how does one lose a case when the actual person they claim got paid the hush money says that they didn’t even, they didn’t, how does that even happen? Look, again, I didn’t, I didn’t try the case. I wasn’t part of the case. I don’t represent Donald Trump, and I know he has very fine lawyers, but, so I don’t pretend to know all the details of the trial. But again, I think that you’re dealing with a jury pool in New York that’s not going to come in for Donald Trump, 999 out of 1000 times.
And I just don’t think it’s a fair case. And when you get a jury pool that is going to be obviously being infected by the media, by their knowledge and everything else by their neighbors, and then they’re put in charge of determining the fate of somebody who is a despised figure by them and by the people they know and love. In most cases, probably in Manhattan, you’re just not going to get a fair outcome. Well, and you look at this case, the hush money case, she said that he never paid her. And, you know, she’s a porn star.
It’s pretty awful that he was even around someone like that. But you look at the opposite side and there’s so many things they’ve done as well, but there’s, they don’t get held to the same level of scrutiny. Why do you believe that Clintons and the Bidens and all these guys who have so much dirt on them, why are they never held to the same standards? Oh, look, again, this is an opinion of mine based upon observation. And I think probably you already know the answer to this question. We have biased media that doesn’t cover those issues.
We have biases in prosecutors offices. Look, this was in New York. New York was a historically anti Donald Trump state. It wouldn’t have happened in Texas. Yet in Texas, they’re not prosecuting Joe Biden, say, for crimes he might have committed, that his son might have committed with limited liability companies or things like that. And I just think that it’s, the left in our country will use any tool necessary to win. And this is what they felt would be a sure fire winner for them. And frankly, I think it’s backfired. I don’t think that people, I think that it’s very detrimental to what I do.
The practice of law. Law is supposed to be, again, the administration of justice to create just outcomes. When politics infects the decisions being made on any level, there’s going to be a diminishment of justice and people’s trust in the system is going to disappear. So it really harms the practice of law and it harms our nation in really monumental ways when, when you, when you can’t trust the system is going to be fair and it’s going to be neutral. Well, there are crimes that I have found on Biden and Clinton that probably does warrant cases, you know, so it, I agree.
I mean, it’s, it’s not hard to see that they had, what, 70 limited liability companies to which foreign money went. Why would a legitimate business need 70 shell companies? Why was his son not prosecuted for being a foreign agent when say, yeah, he was on the Burisma board and they impeached Donald Trump for having a conversation with Zelenskyy, you know, the ukrainian situation. And, but yet his son was on the board of Burt’s ma who were funneling money and blackmailing people. Right. And then Vice President Joe Biden bragged about a billion dollar, withhold a billion dollars in aid if the prosecutor wasn’t fired.
I mean, if that’s not, that’s not what they call a prima facie case of, of criminal activity. I don’t know what is. But again, two standards. This is the system, right? This is the system that’s now, that’s now developing. It’s a double standard. Look, the Washington DC is another place and a lot of these cases would have to originate in DC. Well, you’re just not going to get a fair, fair trial in prosecuting a Democrat. In DC. They’ll throw every Republican in jail, probably the 999 out of 1000 juries, but they won’t throw a Democrat in jail.
So how do you even prosecute? And we see that with all of Trump’s people who were indicted, many were convicted. And then people like Eric Holder never even get indicted when they do things that, that appear to be beneath the law. Well, and I was gonna say, there seems to be a lot of Republicans, especially at the high, the DC level republicans that are pretty dirty, too. And we’re seeing a lot of them defect and going, joining the Democrat, the Cheney’s, the bushes, they’re all supporting them. Yeah, well, I don’t know about the Cheney’s and Bushes having committed any crimes.
I haven’t seen that. I didn’t say they’re supporting. Well, I’ve seen some things behind the scenes, but the fact that they’re joining forces, well, that’s just, that’s politics. And I think that that tells you a lot about, about, you know, what they’re really all about. And they’re, they’re afraid of President Trump. I mean, they’re afraid of what he’s going to do to their power, their old school network of lobbyists and the money train and the power train is going to go away under President Trump. And that’s why they’re joining forces with Democrats they hate. And frankly, look, they like the people they serve less than they like the power that they have.
And that’s why they’re joining the Democrats who will help them preserve that power, I believe. Well, I think even zooming out, whether you like Trump or not, this is an important case just for a fair trial and cleaning up, I think our justice system is broken personally. So in your opinion, how, why is this case important? Well, yeah, and that’s really what I’m here for. Everything else is really just opinions. But this is a case we brought because it’s not really just about President Trump. As I was saying before, it’s about every criminal defendant in the state of new York.
If a criminal defendant can be gagged because the judge is afraid of what may come out in terms of how the judge is acting and how the judge may be acting improperly, then you’re going to start seeing more and more criminal defendants lose their right to a fair trial by being gagged improperly. They’re first, they have a First Amendment right. They are the accused. And here’s an important point. I mentioned how the federal court, the appellate court in DC, affirmed the DC trial court’s gag order. And it was unprecedented at the time. Well, there was another case out in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals out of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, where it was United States versus Harold Ford.
Harold Ford. People who watch Fox News election coverage will know how Harold Ford or the debate coverage, whatever. He was a congressman and he was charged with mail fraud, I think, in bank fraud. And the trial judge there wanted to gag. Then Congressman Ford and the case went up to the appellate court, and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal said, no, you cannot gag the criminal defendant if the publicity you get is inconvenient for the prosecution and for the judge. Well, that’s too bad. It’s not. The point of a trial is not to make things easy for the prosecution and for the trial court.
The point of a criminal trial is to make sure that the criminal defendant has every opportunity to defend himself and to get a fair trial, because that criminal defendant’s life, and potentially life and certainly liberty is at stake. And gag orders are inappropriate, except under the most extreme of circumstances. And so there’s a split into circuits. Six circuit court of appeals and the federal court of Appeals in DC both have different views now as to the propriety of a gag order over a criminal defendant for purposes of silencing the criminal defendant. That’s called a circuit split.
And that’s the kind of case that Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, likes to take. The Supreme Court typically doesn’t take many cases. A very small percentage of cases go there. But the ones that often go up to the Supreme Court are when there is a circuit split. So this is an important issue. It involves a very important person, obviously the candidate for president of the United States. And I’m hoping that the United States Supreme Court is going to take this case, hear it, and render a quick decision, determining that essentially the 6th Circuit, and not the DC circuitous, was the proper, has the proper idea about gag orders, that there never should have been a gag order in this case, because criminal defendants, every single one of them, is entitled to a fair trial.
And that when you gag and take away their First Amendment rights, you not only you’re violating the defendant’s First Amendment rights, you’re violating their 6th and 14th Amendment rights to a fair trial. And in this case, you’re violating the rights of the press and of the people who have a right to hear from the. From the person who’s being tried as to their position regarding the fairness of that trial. And do you think, because the rhetoric is that he’s a convicted felon, they say it all the time in their media. Do you think that this case will be tried by the Supreme Court before the election goes through? And what kind of ramifications will that have on the election again? I mean, the case has been tried, and President Trump was, but I mean, tried it or looked at at the Supreme Court.
It doesn’t appear right now that this is going to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. In fact, I don’t think that President Trump even has a right yet to go to the United States Supreme Court because he hasn’t even been sentenced as of yet. So you first would have to exhaust his remedies, probably in the New York court of Appeals or New York first of all, New York first Department appellate court, and then from there, the New York court of Appeals. And then from there, the United States Supreme Court. It’s a slow process. It’s not going to get done before the election.
Certainly. That’s some, that’s one of the interesting things about what we’re doing. We’re seeking to have this very critical issue heard immediately. Now, because my client’s rights were violated, my client has already exhausted his remedies of going to the New York court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals rejected his United States constitutional arguments, and that gave him standing, therefore, to seek relief in the United States Supreme Court. We filed an emergency petition seeking to have a temporary stay of the order, the gag order entered pending the full review by the Supreme Court. That has to go to one justice.
The justice who’s in charge of the New York courts from the United States Supreme Court is Justice Sotomayor. So Justice Sotomayor has our petition. And as you know, we understand her to be generally a First Amendment absolutist. We hope that she upholds that. We also know that Justice Sotomayor, in the past, when she was sitting on a circuit court of appeals, rendered an opinion in a case where there was a gag order against a criminal defendant, and she vacated that order because it did not meet the standards of the United States Supreme Court, the very strict standards for imposing a gag order, just like this case hasn’t.
So I’m hoping that Justice Sotomayor will look at this for what it’s for. The law that we’ve submitted, the very serious arguments that we’re making constitutionally, will enter a stay which would then free President Trump to speak prior to the election, hopefully. And also then we’ll put this case before the United, the whole court, the United States Supreme Court. We then have to brief it and eventually argue it, but in the interim, hopefully, the gag order would be lifted. Well, they’re trying to fix the election or trying to sway the election by making him look like a convicted felon.
Like I said, he is a convicted felon. Right. I mean, you can’t. That’s undeniable. That’s the, that’s, that’s the, that’s the, the outcome. But then again, President Trump should be able to say, look, I’m a convicted felon by a trial court that was presided over by a judge whose daughter was working for the Biden Harris campaign. In fact, there’s a media report that we’ve cited that says in the quarter, in the quarter of the year during which Judge Mershon presided over this trial, his daughter’s company earned $12.4 million more than it had done in the same quarter the prior year.
So obviously, it raises a serious question that there’s an incredible, incredibly lucrative financial interest of Judge Mershon’s daughter to have him preside over President Trump’s trial when her clients were at the time the Biden Harris campaign. And she’s probably, you know, Mal, represent Harris campaign. So you think he’s dirty? I, I don’t want to say I think he’s dirty, but I do think that there certainly is probably some self interest in entering this gag order because it protected him from having to answer those questions. Okay, so if you weren’t an attorney on this trial, would you talk more openly about it? You know, I mean, being an attorney on the trial, you have to be very, you know, you have to make sure you keep yourself.
But if you weren’t an attorney, you’d have be a little bit more open on some of these opinions. It’s not about being open or not being open. I, you know, I don’t speak, I try to speak in straight talk and not try to go out of bounds with things. But I think that I’ve raised this in the papers with the court of appeals, the highest court in New York. This creates a serious question as to the entire credibility of the judiciary in New York, and it absolutely does. When people have a legitimate reason to believe that a trial judge is tainted, yet he gets away with doing it any kind of consequence, then I think you have a serious question as to whether or not the system itself is broken, and that’s really detrimental to our society and certainly to the state courts of New York, where I’m proudly licensed.
Well, and I don’t think necessarily being convicted of a felony if you think the thing is dirty, actually affects an incubator. I mean, you look at people like Nelson Mandela, who is the really highly respected by the left, and he was put into prison for his activism. So there’s people all through history that have been persecuted for what they’ve been doing. And to Donald Trump’s supporters, that’s what it looks like. Look, not only that, but, you know, do we want to have a system where maybe in Texas they start prosecuting Democrats because it’s politically helpful. That’s right.
No, although I would like to see them do, sorry, let me interfere. I would like to see them do it when there’s clear, like the Clintons and things where they’re clearly committing crimes and Biden. But go ahead. The justice system shouldn’t, first of all, they really had to search for a crime for create a crime for president. That’s right. And that’s, I think, ultimately going to result in this thing being vacated, these convictions being vacated. But of course, it’ll be long after the election occurred and therefore, it’s truly election interference. Okay. If that’s the case, we deserve better than that as citizens the United States.
But, yeah, look, when somebody, no one should get special favors because they’re in a position of power. In fact, if you’re committing crimes or in a position of power, I submit that you should be indicted, even should be more carefully scrutinized. And you should have to be basically fundamentally honest if you’re going to be representing the interests of the people because there’s a lot of responsibility and power that comes with it. So anybody who’s breaking the law in a serious way should certainly. And purposeful way profiting for themselves in a manner that violates the law. Yeah.
I think that no matter where they are and who they are, Democrat, Republican, Green Party, conservative party, I don’t care. They should probably be indicted and tried and then an unbiased jury and an unbiased judge preside over that and then let the chips fall where they may. That’s not what happened here based upon what it appears occurred. So how can people, what are you asking for from the public? How can people support this case? Well, again, I know my client has a give send go. I don’t, it’s partially to pay me. So I’m not here to promote that.
I’ll put that link below. But you have, you know, I’m not here to promote that, but it’s also to raise funds. We do anticipate if we go to the United States Supreme Court and get to argue that, we will have my clients going to hire a Supreme Court litigator who has experience arguing before the court to handle the argument. It’s an important issue, and I’ve never argued before the United States Supreme Court, though I’m admitted to the bar. But this is not the kind of case to cut your teeth on, just too important of a matter.
And I would prefer to have someone who’s highly skilled and has been successful before the United States Supreme Court make these arguments before the justices. So that’s something that would be a cost to my client as well. And so that’s what he can do. But look, I just think that it’s important for every person to continue standing up, speaking out, speaking rationally, not crazy, not in a threatening manner. And we have to protect our rights. We have to protect our freedoms. And having an unbiased court system is essential to our freedoms. It’s one of the checks and balances that we have built into our system that has kept us free and prosperous for what, almost 250 years now.
And we just have to, it’s very important that we not be afraid of being marginalized or cartoonized or canceled, because once you allow them to do these things to you, you’re essentially getting steamrolled and you’re letting them walk. You know, it’s like, it’s like I was going to make, it’s going to make a comparison I probably shouldn’t make, but it’s like, you know, allowing the foreign enemy to walk through your capital and take it over. Well, if we don’t have a functioning justice system, you know, I’ve heard a lot of people saying we need to fix the justice system because then the whole system will self correct.
And the fact that our, so I believe our justice system isn’t operating properly because it’s been weaponized. And in order for our, if you, if we fix that, things can self correct. I’m a big believer in our United States Supreme Court. I think that this court ultimately is going, it’s shown the last few terms that it is willing to take on some, not all, but some of the serious issues that we have. And it’s willing to look at them carefully and to scrutinize them under the Constitution the way it was written, in, the way it was intended to be read.
And I think that, you know, people say that you have to have a living, breathing constitution. But as Mark Levin says, that’s actually a dead constitution. When a constitution changes with the, with the wind, then you don’t have a constitution. You just have basically men and women in black robes who are making decisions for us and are unelected. The Constitution is a fixed star and has to, we have to get back to that. I believe that our United States Supreme Court is working to make sure that the Constitution is that fixed star and that we are grounded in law.
I hope so. You know, people claim the Supreme Court is themselves have been weaponized a bit, and they’re too political instead of really looking at the constitution. So I hope she will do that. Look, and I don’t. Look, let’s face it. Supreme Court justices are human beings, just like you and me and the viewers. We all get up in the morning, we put our pants on. Whatever we do, they’re all the same. We’re all human beings. And so we all have our biases, and we all have our favorite things and this kind of thing. But at the end of the day, it’s the judge’s obligation and the justice’s obligation to try to put those things aside and to try to examine cases in the context of the law as written and the constitution is written.
And I think that in most cases, I think that the Supreme Court is doing that. I’m hoping that Justice Sotomayor does that. I know I’ve been very. She’s. You know that there’s always this talk about courts being liberal or I conservative. If you look closely, if you’re a court watcher, as I am, you’ll see that justices will switch sides in terms of what the expected outcome is. Very often, Justice Sotomayor is not just a one dimensional person, just like Justice Thomas is not a one dimensional person. And so, at the end of the day, I believe that these arguments that we’ve made should be something that every single member of the Supreme Court looks at and says, yeah, good logic is right, that this should not have been a gag order here.
And at the question of Judge Mershon’s conflict of interest should have been something that President Trump was allowed to speak about to good logic and other members of the press. I truly believe that that’s the proper constitutional argument. And I do believe that, given a good faith review, I think that that’s the way the court should go on this case. Well, we’ll see. We’ll see. So thank you so much for joining the program. Where can people find more information on you and this case? I’m not a big social media person. I have a website, MNB law firm.com.
mary Nancy Bob, mnblawfrum.com. i have my own personal facebook, but I was kicked off LinkedIn banned for life for being honest about, uh, like, my vaccine information that I had. Well, join the club. You’re one of the few people that’s been kicked off LinkedIn, like me. Anyways. Yeah, we. We had, uh, we sued Mayor de Blasio at one point early on when he put his vaccine mandate. And I had a lot of information on the vaccines and how they were not effective. They always knew they weren’t effective and put that information up and it was just a red flag.
And we got banned by my partner and I got banned repeatedly. And we had huge following and suddenly we’re gone. So there you go. Yeah. Well, okay. But you have a website. What’s your website? Mnblawfirm.com. thank you. Go on. Thank you for having me. Yeah. Thanks for joining the program. I really appreciate it. It’s very insightful for people to know what’s going it’s important for people to know what’s going on. So thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.
[tr:tra].
Author
