10-21-25 - 7am - Private Judges & Courts

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, dragon, it's quarter to six mountain time, Tuesday morning,
and I still can't leave a talkback.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
How long before you get that talkback system up and
running again for you?

Speaker 3 (00:10):
It's never going to be back. It's never going to
be back. Yeah, sorry, you know, I thought we blocked
that number from the text line. I don't know how
to block from the talkback.

Speaker 4 (00:19):
Oh okay, yeah, all right.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Well, maybe maybe you reach out to support it, and
next year we'll get an answer about that. This is
one of those stories that I'm almost embarrassed to talk
about because some of you may already know about this,
and maybe I knew about it and I forgot about it,
because the story truly originates in nineteen eighty two. But

(00:44):
it's one of those things that maybe when it passed,
I heard about it, didn't think much about it, and
then suddenly, boom, something pops up and I start digging
into it and I realize, holy crap, this is.

Speaker 4 (00:58):
Just wrong, absolutely wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
It all started because doing show prep yesterday, one of
the places I go, in particular to look for the
Michael Brown minute, you know, for the to promote the
nationally syndicated program over on Freedom I oftentimes which I
read anyway, but in particular for the minutes, I'll go
to complete colorado dot com Calderas site. I don't tell

(01:25):
him I do that, just you know, I don't even
think that. I think it's a good site, but I
do use it. And down below in the local news
stories below their own independent reporting, is a story from
the Colorado Freed Freedom of Information Coalition.

Speaker 4 (01:42):
Now that's an organization that I'm well aware of. They
do great work, and they really work to.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
Make Colorado government more transparent. There's a story day to
October seventeen, four days ago. Here's the first paragraph. A
private judge, a private judge has granted a request from
the Colonial Freedom of Information Coalition to intervene in a

(02:13):
divorce case in which a suppression order makes the entire
court file and the order itself unavailable to the public. Now,
the first thing that hit me when I read that was,
what do you mean a private judge? This is you say?
This is a divorce case. So now you know, as

(02:36):
I'm thinking ahead reading the story, I'm trying to anticipate
what I'm about to read. Am I reading about a
divorce case where the parties agreed? Maybe there was a
pre nup, and they agreed to go to arbitration as
opposed to going to district court for their divorce. So
that's what I'm thinking. That's got to be what it

(02:56):
is a private judge. That's just something that I don't know.
That's not my vernacular. The second paragraph former Denver District
Court Judge William Meyer of the Judicial Arbiter Group. Now
my head's spinning. So this guy is the private he's

(03:18):
a private judge. He's a former Denver District judge. He's
a member of something called the Judicial Arbiter Group. Now
I'm thinking, what's going on here?

Speaker 4 (03:30):
That guy?

Speaker 2 (03:31):
That judge set in October twenty seven, next week a
hearing to consider the Coloradter Freedom of Information Coalition's motion
to open the case of Kaufman versus Kaufman.

Speaker 4 (03:48):
Quote with only truly sensitive.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Private non public information redacted there from. In a filing
submitted to Meyer on Friday, First Amendment Attorney and President
Steve Zandsberg quoted the nineteen ninety four Colorado Court of
Appeals opinion to argue that quote, in all civil cases,

(04:13):
including those involving domestic relations, the public is entitled to
inspect and or copy all records on file with the
court unless and until a judicial finding has been made.
That quote, the harm to the privacy of a person
in interest outweighs the public interest in accessing judicial records.

(04:36):
So it goes on to talk about, you know, they
filed this motion in this divorce case. I'm still thinking,
is this an arbitration? Do they agree to mediate the divorce?

Speaker 4 (04:52):
No?

Speaker 2 (04:54):
It goes in the next paragraph cites a Denver Gazette
investigative series which talks about these private judges. The third
list see this will be the one, two, three, fourth
fifth paragraph says private judges hired to handle divorce cases

(05:16):
under this system. And I'm thinking, wait a minute, Oh,
what what is am we talking about? I continue reading
throughout the story, and I obviously I'm going to go
back to the Denver Gazette investigative series, which I eventually do,
but I finished reading the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

(05:39):
story about the motion they filed in this divorce case.
This divorce case involves a deputy Attorney General in the
Colorado Attorney General's.

Speaker 4 (05:49):
Office who is going through a divorce. Kaufman v.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Kaufman. Stephen Kaufman objects to the unseiling of the records
in his case, claiming that through his attorney, that there
is no compelling public interest in this dissolution matter. The
potential harm to the parties as it concerns their respective
personal and confidential information in the public sphere outweighs the
public's interests in having access.

Speaker 4 (06:15):
To the file.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
Now now I'm beginning to think, Okay, I've got to
go see what the Denver Gazette wrote. So I go
back to the Denver Gazette story, and sure enough, it
turns out that Colorado has a private court system. It
is a private court system. It operates in pretty much secret,

(06:43):
in parallel with our judicial system. It's a private court
system of judges that are either appointed or approved by
the Colorado Supreme Court, who can hear cases outside the
you of the public, and whose records are prohibited from

(07:04):
disclosure under Colorado's Freedom of Information Act. So I want
to know does this system exist, and if so, what
kinds of cases are heard by these so called private judges,
and how in the world is that equal protection under
the law. So I dig I'm doing some research. Now

(07:26):
here's why I feel stupid about this. Now, I haven't
practiced civil procedure law in Colorado in a decade or longer,
so I don't keep up with the minutia of the
rules of civil procedure. But I obviously if there's a
case that I'm studying or reading, or I'm going to

(07:46):
come and talk to you about, I go check you
know whatever particular rules, like, you know, the criminal rules
or the civil rules, whatever it might be. I might
check the case law. I tell you, I often refer
to Lexus and Nexus to research cases. So it's not
like I'm ignorant of the law. But I have to
admit this just kind of went right over my head.

(08:08):
The answer is yes, Colorado operates a little known private
judge system that is authorized under the Colorado Rule of
Civil Procedure one twenty two. That rule effectively allows for
a form of private courts within the state's civil system. Now,

(08:29):
I want to make clear from the outset. I'll explain
civil system in just a minute. This has nothing to
do with criminal law. There is no private criminal court
system in Colorado.

Speaker 4 (08:42):
This is all civil. But that's actually worse.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Than you think it is. I'm glad we don't have
it for criminal courts. That would be obviously unethical, inappropriate,
and I believe unconstitutional. But this civil system, I think
is tetering unconstitutionality and certainly may violate the Equal Protection clause.

(09:08):
The system is officially called appointment of former judges as
referees appointment of former judges as referees, but in practice
it functions as a parallel, quasi private judicial process. Here's
how the system works. This is under Rule Civil Civil

(09:33):
Procedure one twenty two. Both parties in a civil case. Now,
I will tell you at the outset. Most commonly this
involves divorce or domestic relation cases. You know, custody cases,
divorce cases, child support cases, that sort of thing. But
it is, as i'll explain in a minute, it's really

(09:54):
any civil case, a contract dispute, a malpracticed anything that's civil,
anything you can possibly imagine. It's a civil case that's
not a criminal case. The parties may jointly petition to

(10:15):
have a retired judge appointed to hear their case privately.
The Chief Justice must approve each appointment, a process that
the Denver Gazette, according to their investigative report, is largely
a rubber stamp. There have been no denials reported in
recent years. So parties and their lawyers say, oh, we

(10:40):
don't want to we don't want the public to know
about our case. So let's petition jointly to have this
heard under this private court system. And so they go
to the colorI of Supreme Court and the Chief Justice
just routinely rubber stamps it, appoint somebody, probably from this

(11:01):
judicial arbiter group, of which this former Denver District judge
is a member, and so they get paid by the
litigants to hear their case. But I want to emphasize
these are real cases that should be heard in front
of a real active judges, not a retired judge that's

(11:22):
part of a company that offers their services to hear
these civil cases, and in many cases they end up
making more money than they were as a judge. These
hearings occur outside the public court rooms. They're often heard
in a law office or a private facility, and they

(11:43):
are not subject to the same transparency rules as public
civil proceedings. Now, the same rules of evidence apply, they
have the same appeal rights, the same judicial ethics supply
on paper. But the oversight, the best I can tell,
oversight is a minimal The litigants. Both parties pay the

(12:04):
judge directly. Colorado Politics reports that's typically around four hundred
and fifty dollars an hour. Now, there is a presumption
in Colorado of open judicial records. In other words, you
can go down to the courthouse and you can do

(12:25):
a search for a if you want to see any
cases that then involve iHeart, for example, you can go
down and you can do a search for either as
plain it or defendant. Actually you can do it online too,
to find out if iHeart is involved in any sort
of civil dispute, maybe a former employee, or they've got
a contract dispute with somebody doing renovations.

Speaker 4 (12:47):
Whatever it is.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
Because those are public records, but not if you decided
to use a private judge. The Colorado Freedom of coal
has protested the practices of making these cases inaccessible to
the public or to the press. You have a parallel

(13:14):
private court system operating in Colorado, the records of which.
Now this is what's being tested in this divorce case
by the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition. This is what's
being tested. They're trying to keep their divorce records private.
Oh so, because just to kind of give you a

(13:36):
hint of where I'm going with this. So, because you're
rich enough, or wealthy enough, or you have something that
you really do want to keep out of the public eye,
you might agree with the other party takes mutual agreement
to go to this private court system, and then the

(13:56):
records get sealed and we never know what's going on. Now, again,
this is in the divorce case, but I'm going to
emphasize that this private court system applies to virtually any
kind of civil dispute. In some instances, again, according to
the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, entire divorce files, including

(14:22):
the docket, have been sealed, which prevents any record inspection
even under the Colorado Open Records Act. Now, since these
proceedings and filings exist in what is legally considered the
judicial branches domain these cases and this system is actually
considered a part of the Colorado judicial system, but it

(14:45):
falls out the Colorado Open Records Act disclosure requirements. Now,
like the Federal Freedom of Information Act, the Colorado Open
Records Act does not apply to judicial case files or rulings,
only who administrative records maintained by government agencies. I think
that's wrong, and I think the cutal Freedom of Information

(15:06):
Coalition is right in acting to try to get these
divorce records unsealed. But let's get to the point of
what kind of cases can be heard civil matters. Now,
primarily it's been wealthy divorce cases or other related kind
of financial disputes, but occasionally other domestic or civil disputes

(15:26):
that require confidentiality that according to the parties not according
to me, such as high profile business dissolutions or dispute
in a trust. Now, criminal cases are expressly excluded from
the program. Okay, well that's great. But if iHeart, let's

(15:47):
just say iHeart and John Malone's company of I forget
what the name of John Malone's company is. John Malone's
a big shareholder and iHeart right now, you know he
and I have any brain fark They start a lot
of the cable channels that the cable companies in Colorado.

(16:08):
But let's just say that Malone and iHeart are in
a dispute. Let's say it's a shareholder dispute and the
venue is in Colorado. Well, iHeart, and I'm not saying
they are or that they would. I'm just using it
as as an example. Malone and iHeart to decide, Hey,
we don't want the public to know about this fight
we're having, so let's agree to go hire a private judge,

(16:30):
and let's ask the Supreme Court to appoint a judge,
and we'll pay the private judge. That way that nosy
Michael Brown can never go downtown or go online and
look at the file and see what the fight's about.

Speaker 4 (16:45):
I find this utterly despicable.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
I find despicable the fact that this has been going
on since nineteen eighty two. Since nineteen eighty two, I'll
explain why.

Speaker 5 (16:59):
Now, Michael, I feel you brother. As Jimmy Hendrix once
said before he fatally puked ninety miles an hour, baby

(17:20):
is the speedy drive.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
It's fascinating to look at the text messages. I think
Dragon would even admit that this time I'm right in here.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
It looks to be the way I am in the
minority on this one. I just leave with appropriate amount
of time. But it seems like so many people out
there who are just going to King Soupers a block
and a half away need to put it in their
GPS to get directions. That's fine, that's okay.

Speaker 5 (17:47):
I'm the weird one.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
I'm the weird one.

Speaker 2 (17:50):
That's okay, I forget what I forget the name of
that type of argument. But what you're doing there is
you're taking the extreme example and trying to apply it
to the broader context in which we actually use GPS
to avoid backups, wrecks, et cetera. If I'm going to
crumble cookie or king soupers, which is, you know, a

(18:12):
half a mile from my house, I don't use the maps.
Sure you don't, because I've got options. I can pull
off on any street and go around whatever is blocking
a street. But before I take an on ramp, I
want to make sure that once I get on that
on ramp that I can keep driving and that I
don't immediately hit a backup.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
Sure, when you leave for work every morning and you
punch in the iHeart building that you've been for almost
every day for the past twenty years, that you need
to punch that in to make sure you get there.
Sure that's fine. Yep, I'm the weird one that just
gets in my car and drives.

Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yes, fine, you're totally refusing to miss the point. I
don't plug in. For example, I don't plug in the
iHeart destination. I just open my maps, because my map
shows my current location, and then before I get to
four to seven, I can just scroll up to see
how four seventy traffic is and if it's greened, and

(19:04):
I'll get on. I'll get on the highway. If it's
not green, if it's red, no, shut.

Speaker 4 (19:10):
Up and listen to me.

Speaker 5 (19:11):
Get it.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
Shut up and listen to me. If it's red. Why
would I get onto the on ramp and then run
the risk of not showing up until six thirty in
the morning. And have you mock me because well, I
didn't check the traffic before I go down to the interstate.
But I could have just driven up University and cut
over on Bellevue. Duh, that's why I do it, Not
because I'm looking for directions. I'm looking to see that, oh,

(19:33):
is my usual route clear this morning.

Speaker 3 (19:35):
It's not like you go live on the air every
day at the same time, So you would give yourself
enough time to get to work, whether or not your
car ran out of gas, flat tire, change tire, any
of that. No, No, that's fine. You go ahead and
you punch in your map and you figure out how
to get to work a place you've been.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
If do you know what your problem is, you dirt bag.
Your problem is that you know that we're right and
we're logical and rational and doing this, and because you're
finally in the minority on something, you can't handle it.

Speaker 5 (20:01):
I'm the weird one.

Speaker 4 (20:02):
I totally understand. I get it.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
I just get my.

Speaker 4 (20:05):
Car and drive.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
That's fine, don't I don't even have a map function
in my car. Two thousand and seven nissanics Terra.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
You have your player, you have your phone, which I
know is an iPhone.

Speaker 3 (20:18):
I'm the weird one. Okay, yep, I get I'm I'm
the crazy one. I'm I'm the weird one.

Speaker 4 (20:25):
It's okay. I pray, Dear Lord Jesus, please.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Let me drive and get on the way tomorrow morning,
and then it be backed up and he'd be late
to work tomorrow. Please Lord, let it happen. Please Lord.

Speaker 3 (20:40):
There have been a number of times where the exit
from two twenty five to twenty five south has been
blocked and I've had to go north and come back
around that. I still made it to work on time.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
Because you're driving, Because you're driving eighty miles an hour
through neighborhoods, running stop signs, doing everything trying to get here.

Speaker 3 (20:59):
You just leave with ample amount of time. It's fine,
It's no okay, yep, I'm the weird wy not.

Speaker 5 (21:05):
I'm the minority here.

Speaker 4 (21:07):
It's okay.

Speaker 3 (21:07):
I'm used to it.

Speaker 4 (21:08):
I'm a redhead.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
Oh now, oh now, now we're gonna start. We're gonna
start playing the oh poor pitifol me thing. You're just
you know, my sympathy is missus Redbeard. I you know,
bless her little peepick in the heart. She just dealing
with you. I just have to do it four hours
a day, the plus you know, a little before the
little laughter. Other than that, just holy cow. But then

(21:33):
I'm having to deal with everybody up here. Why are
you so wrapped around the axle about divorce cases? Why
do you nobody cares about divorce cases? But what about
Judge Judy? What about Judge Judy? Amen, let me finish
the damn story.

Speaker 3 (21:45):
They've got a little bit of a point, but it's
the caliber of the judgment or the case. So it
does make a little bit of sense. But where do
you draw that line?

Speaker 2 (21:56):
So let me let me let me first explain the
television judges. Those are limited solely to small claims cases.
Which I forget what the jurisdictional amount is in Colorado.
I think it's fifteen hundred dollars. So it has to
involve a dispute less than fifteen hundred dollars, and both
parties have to agree. It's like, according to arbitration, they

(22:17):
have to agree that in exchange for whatever they do,
that they'll follow the judges, you.

Speaker 4 (22:22):
Know, ruling.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
They probably I don't know whether they get compensated for
going on the program or not, but they want to
do because they want to be on TV. So that's
an entirely different scenario. It's also, for example, I have
an arbitration agreement with iHeart that says that we will
arbitrate our disputes before I can or they either party

(22:46):
can take it to district court. But here's what's important.
I'm only I only told you about the divorce case
because that's what brought it to my attention. But let's
say let's play the divorce case scenario out for a moment.
Let's say that it's a divorce case that involves, oh,

(23:08):
I don't know, say the mayor of Denver. So it's
Johnston versus Johnston, and it's that missus Johnston is divorcing
mister Johnston because she's found out that mister Johnson is
having an affair with his chief of staff, or that
mister Johnston has she's found text messages in which he

(23:30):
has said, you know, I'm glad that that Charlie Kirk
was murdered, or that I would like to kill you know,
the city council. I want to go in there and
just take an AR fifteen and blast away the city council.
And now she thinks he's backcrabed crazy and she wants
a divorce from him that is of the public interest,
because that affects whether or not he's fit to serve
in office. Let's take another example. Let's say that Jared

(23:53):
and Marlon the Polices want to get divorced, and it's
because Marlon has filed for divorce because he's discovered that
Jared has been kicking the dog. And so now the
animal rights activists. Of course, I think anybody should be
upset about kicking the dog, but the animal rights activist
is really pissed off because we have a governor that
kicks the dog all the time. But they don't want

(24:16):
the public to know that, and they don't want the
public to know that because that might affect his political future.
So let's go to the private judge and let's have
a private divorce. See, sometimes divorces are in the public interest,
whether you want, you know, mine's not, yours probably isn't.
But who cares. Nobody knows. I mean, I don't have one.
I'm just saying if I were don't have one, doesn't

(24:37):
make any difference. But that's not the point. Quit focusing
on the divorce. The scope of civil matters that are
eligible for this private court system include, but are not
limited to, the following. Obviously, domestic relations, divorces, legal separations, annulments,
child custody, parenting, time, property divisions. Let's say that the

(24:58):
you know, the uh Walton families are that you know
the here, the owners of the broncs they're getting they're
getting divorced, they or they got a contract dispute.

Speaker 4 (25:07):
I bet you'd be interested in that.

Speaker 2 (25:09):
Probate proceedings, administration of the state's contested wills, conservatorships, guardianships,
red flag laws, as far as I can tell, that
might be involved in here, water law cases, property and
contract disputes like a breach of contract or real estate conflict,
construction law issues. There's there's a construction company that builds

(25:30):
most of the condos in Colorado, and they're involved in
a construction defect case and they don't want you to
know about that, so they agree with the parties to
go to the private system. I don't think that's in
the public interest. Personal injury, tort cases, negligence, defamation. Oh,

(25:54):
let's say that someone sues me for defamation. I convince
the other side. Hey, let's kind of keep this quiet
because I don't want iHeart, or I don't want anybody
to know that I'm involved in the defamation case. So
now I can go I can convince the other side. Hey,
this would do this in a in a private way.
You don't think that iHeart wouldn't be interested to know
that I'm involved in a defamation case. Of course they

(26:16):
would be, So don't give me this crap. A belis
none of our business. The judicial system is all of
our business. Part of due process is the public's right
to know about what goes on in the court system.
Their non delinquency, juvenile matters can be done under this,

(26:37):
including dependency and neglect. Okay, let's think about that there
is a neglect case that involves, once again, a politician
or some muckety muck industrial guy. You know, some big
businessman or something. Maybe you don't want to do business
with that big business man because he's been involved in
some sort of neglect case or juvenile delinquency case involved

(27:00):
as children.

Speaker 4 (27:01):
Yeah, you'd want to know about that.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
In effect, this means that Rule one twenty two can
cover nearly all areas of civil law, everything from high
value divorce cases to multimillion dollar business disputes, so long
as both parties agree and it doesn't involve criminal prosecution
or actual juvenile delinquency. Now here's the thing that bugs

(27:26):
me about this. This has been in place. The polit Bureau,
the legislature approved this in nineteen eighty two. Now, granted,
I haven't practiced law in twenty years, but and I
don't get into the weeds about the rules of civil procedure.
But discovering this, wait a minute, it just seems to
me that we are creating a separate system for people

(27:53):
who are wealthy enough to be able to afford to
pay the judges to have a private matter and then
have those records sealed so that you never know about it.
Do you think that's fair. I think that's a violation
of the Protection Clause. I think that's a violation of
the due process clause because part of our judicial system

(28:16):
is that it is open to everybody. We know that
everybody's treated the same. Well, apparently not here, because if
you can afford to go to the private judge, I can't.
And I think that's a violation of the Constitution. And
don't get hung up on the damn divorce cases, although
I think those are important too.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
Good morning gays, hostility and old folks and using GPS
to go to the bathroom that happens. Welcome, this what
we're in.

Speaker 4 (28:51):
Good day.

Speaker 2 (28:55):
Rochelle asked Mike, I have a question. How much traffic
do you encounter on your way to work at five
A that requires you to look at GPS? True, it's
it's not the traffic. You know what they do on
four seventy and twenty five. They've got construction going on
like a Lincoln in twenty five, which is the opposite
direction of which direction I'm going. But sometimes they will

(29:15):
just randomly decide to shut down the flyover that goes
from four to seventy to north back to the northbound
twenty five, and so that starts to back up traffic,
and I can see that and make a decision before
I get onto.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
The on ramp.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
There's nothing more frustrating than to get on the on
ramp because you can't really I even do that. I
even have this habit of as I'm approaching a highway
interchange and the traffic is on an overpass, I look
to see if the traffic's moving before I decide to
get on that on ramp. I don't think there's anything
more frustrating than, you know, getting up to speed on

(29:52):
an on ramp and realizing that, Oh, get a slam
on my brakes because nobody's moving.

Speaker 5 (30:00):
Don't worry, I'm the weird one.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Let's see that happened to me last Wednesday night, says
seventy eight twenty seven. I always take I seventy to
the twenty five to get home, and the seventy was
closed at the entrance I get on. If I checked GPS,
I would have gotten home fifteen minutes earlier than I did.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Ooh fifteen minutes, you say.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
Dragon, When you're old as dirt, every minute counts.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Just like the talk back in the bathroom every second
count I need the GPS in the bathroom every.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
Exactly when you when you get to be our age one,
you're lucky to be able to go, and two, when
you can go, you don't want to miss that chance.
You don't want to miss the chance of going. So
back to this whole private court system. One, I was
surprised I didn't know about it because I just haven't
been paying attention to doubt that detail. But don't get

(30:55):
hung up on the divorce cases, even though I think
there is a very legitimate reason to know. In fact,
somebody pointed out on the text line that it was
when Obama ran for here thirty one ninety eight. You
might recall that Obama succeeded in obtaining and exposing similar
sealed divorce records of his Republican opponent in the race

(31:17):
for the Senate in two thousand and six in Illinois,
which made a difference. So don't just think because you
don't think that your divorce records are important, they probably
aren't any more than my mind would be important if
I were getting divorced.

Speaker 4 (31:31):
So they're not.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
But in some cases it is. It's just like text messages.
You don't think, which gets back to the whole early
voting and the Attorney General's race in Virginia. I think
that guy, look that guy, what was his name's Ray
Ray Roy or Roy Ray or Ray Jones, whatever his
name is, it's running for the Attorney general in Virginia.

(31:55):
Who actually, even after being asked, hey, you don't really
mean that, Yes, I do mean that.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
What do I mean?

Speaker 2 (32:01):
I want to kill my opponent's children until they suffer,
they won't really know the effects of their policies. That guy,
if he was applying for the job to be an
assistant Attorney General in the AG's office in Virginia, he
couldn't pass the background check because of that, Yet he's
running for age. Sometimes things that we think are private

(32:23):
and none of the public's business, when you cross that
magic line into the public domain, suddenly it does become
the public's business. Which is why I always ask people
when they come to me for advice about running for
public office, it's are you ready for the rectail examination?
Because trust me, you're going to have everything possibly that

(32:47):
you can ever imagine examined. And even though what they
examine may say one thing, they may report a different thing.
I can prove that to you right here, oh Michael
Brown light on his resume. No, he actually did not,
and it's over here, and here are all the affidavits

(33:08):
proving that I did not plus fulfilled background investigations by
the FBI. They lie anyway, The cabal lies regardless