4-17-25 - 8am - Deportation Orders

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael Lion heard even months ago that Trunk was deporting citizens,
and it always seemed to me that's absolutely completely laughable
and unapprovable. There's not deporting citizens to ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Laughable, unprovable. But again shows how why I focus so
much on language, the language, because subliminally that gets into
a non discerning consumer of news is a person's brain,
and they think, oh, yeah, I heard that. I heard

(00:40):
that Trump's deporting citizens. Now he's deporting you know Mexicans,
He's deporting you know, Guatemalins.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
It's it's all, it's it's utterly.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
One good thing about taking a break, even though I
was obviously working, but it's something I love doing, is
when you step back from all of this, I can
tell you that I'll be very personal here. While I

(01:19):
love what I do and I love bringing these stories
to you and analyzing them and talking about them, it's
really tiring, and I don't I have a horrible habit
of not self recognizing.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
That I need a break.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
So you know, I finished the show Monday, run home,
grab some stuff, go to the airport, sit in the
United Club for a while, and just I'm reading something
totally unrelated to work, and I find it so refreshing

(02:04):
because this stuff gets really old on this side of
the microphone. I know, and I appreciate that you tune
in and you you want to hear my take on
whatever I've chosen to be the stories of the day,
which you know, I've got a bazillion of them, but
I'm only going to choose four or five of them

(02:26):
at most. I realized this morning as I was coming
in that I'm tired of this crap. I'm tired of
the democrats, I'm tired of the media, I'm tired of
stupid people. I'm tired of a lot of this. And

(02:49):
it was really tempting just to like call dragon and say, oh,
I'm really sick, get a hold of get a hold
of temper of somebody. I'm going I'm going back home
and go back to bed, because because it is this
constant barrage of trying to convince you that the world's
going to hell in a hand basket, or that what

(03:10):
you know based on what you read yourself. Because this audience,
I know each of you is a discerning consumer of
the news, and so you I'll give you an example.
I have an email that let me read it to
you really quickly. Michael, did you see this story? I

(03:32):
saw several posts about it, but have not vetted it yet. Supposedly,
under Biden, the FBI directed the Tennessee Highway Patrol to
release kill Mar the guy we're talking about, after he
was detained. Well, I haven't looked at the story yet,
but the email caught my eye because it said I've
seen posts about this, but I have not vetted it yet. Well,

(03:57):
that's exactly the kind of audience that I want, want
an audience that yourselves will vet these stories. But oh,
my gosh, to think that we have to spend not
not not not that we shouldn't vet everything in life
and make sure that we're fully comprehending everything that's going

(04:20):
on around us. But it does, at some point just
get the tiring. It's like yesterday on the plane reading
I mean again, because I is a lawyer, reading through
the court's order is interesting to me. But trying to

(04:40):
figure out how to explain to you, non lawyers why
I think this order, despite some of the language in it,
is an order of desperation. I think the judge Judge
of Boseburg, for example, has so overreached and has so,
I mean talking about defying the courts. I mean the

(05:02):
United States Supreme Court unanimously said that this case does
not belong in his courtroom. The venue is improper. The
venue is in the state of Texas, whatever appropriate federal
district court it would be in Texas. And so, really, Judge,
you don't have any jurisdiction here. Yet he continues to

(05:29):
put it in layman's vernacular. He's defying the US Supreme Court,
not Trump. But if you listen to the dominant media,
if you listen to the cabal, then have you believe that,
Oh my gosh, we're facing a In fact, one of
the stories I have done I'm not going to get
to today because I yeah, it is a story from

(05:52):
a left wing source about how we truly are about
to face a republic ending constitutional crisis because Trump is
going to defy and ignore the US Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (06:09):
No, he's not.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
In fact, if anybody's defying the US Supreme Court right now,
it's it's Judge Boseburg, who way overstepped his bounds by
taking this case in the first place. When I think
back to my federal practice, it was always it was

(06:32):
incumbent on both the prosecution if you were in a
criminal case, or and the defense, and it was also
incumbent upon both the plainest and defendants if you were
involved in the civil case, that you established, that you
established to the court that you're in the proper court,

(06:52):
that this is the not only the proper court, but
the proper venue, meaning that you're in the proper location,
the geographic location, in addition to the fact that this
particular court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, or has
jurisdiction over the parties involved, or both. And none of
that was done here. But instead, what's the story. The story,

(07:17):
if you listen to the cabal, is that we're disappearing
individuals and as Elizabeth Warren, who frankly, as far as
I'm concerned, can just shut up and sit down. I'm
so sick of this woman always yelling about you know,
Trump's trying to he's gonna tax the middle class to
give tax breaks to the billionaires. Now, Bernie's gotten smart.
Bernie no longer talks about millionaires and billionaires because he

(07:41):
is a millionaire, so he's got to be very careful here.
It's all about the billionaire class. I despise these people,
I truly despise them, and this judge just happens to
be an example of somebody that I happen to despise
for the way he is behaving. And by the way,
just to give you a little cherry on top of

(08:03):
this Sunday here, he is the chief judge of the
d C District Court. So of all the judges, he's
the one. He's the one that they kind of select
administratively to handle all of the court room and all
of the clerks and everything else. He's kind of the manager,
you might say, the chief judge. So where's this national

(08:26):
conversation going. Well, it's revolving around accusations that Trump is
defying court orders by refusing to return an illegal alien
who is a El Salvadoran national. The left claims he's
just a Mariland father and the Trump administration is disappearing him,

(08:51):
which is what communists, fascist Marxist regimes do. And then
Boseburg Yesterday's sweeps in with this lengthy opinion accusing the
Trump administration of criminal contempt, and he in a gosh,
I want to say it was forty eight pages long

(09:13):
or something.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
It was fairly lengthy. Order.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
He decided, which I think is kind of a stretch,
that it was criminal contempt for ignoring the orders. And
I'm using the term ignore you loosely. Hear ignoring a
set of orders that he issued back on March fifteen.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
So where are we.

Speaker 4 (09:36):
Go?

Speaker 2 (09:37):
Back to March fifteen. In a series of fast paced,
hasty decisions, on that day, Judge Boseburg, in another instance
of for TUIs timing for the opponents of the Trump administration,
halted the deportation of illegal Venezuelans covered by the President's

(10:03):
Alien Enemies Act proclamation, which Trump had signed the night before,
and just to jump ahead a little bit, which the
Supreme Court ruled he has the authority to do so.
So during emergency hearing held back that Saturday night, Boseburg

(10:23):
also issued what he described as an oral command. That
oral command which has issued about six forty five pm.
And the order was to return planes carrying the what
I would describe as the newly designated class of illegal aliens.

(10:44):
He said this at the hearing quote, any plane containing
these folks that is going to take off or is
in the air needs to be returned to the United States.
However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not
embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by

(11:05):
this on the plane. I leave to you, but this
is something that you need to make sure is complied
with immediately. Now there's a problem with that, And the
problem is that he appears to have known at the
time he said that that the two planes that were
carrying the Alien Enemies Act subjects had already departed and

(11:31):
and were already outside US territory. In other words, he
had no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Courta's order that he.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
Had no venue.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
Now, his oral command, in my opinion, was impossible to
obey and had no enforceability whatsoever. And one reason why
is because of this, which nobody seems to want to
talk about. His oral command was not included in the

(12:06):
written order that he published forty minutes later. So what
the lawyers in the courtroom are given an oral command,
but lawyers are waiting for the order. I would have
done the same thing, okay, Judge, Well, all right, put
it in your order. You say you're going to go
back and put your order together. Right now, we're all

(12:28):
sitting here waiting. Do you bring us the order and
we'll follow the order. The oral command to turn around
the planes was not in that written order that was
published forty minutes later.

Speaker 3 (12:43):
Now, I don't know. I suppose you could prove by going.

Speaker 2 (12:46):
To flight Aware or the FAA or somebody it's tracking,
you know, air traffic. But if they were outside of
particular air traffic controls area of operations, I forget what
they call it their zones. If that plane was already
out in international waters, he doesn't have any jurisdiction over

(13:10):
that plane any more than the FAA has any jurisdiction
over a plane that's no longer under their flight command. So,
the alleged defiance of two written orders, which both were
vacated on April seven by the US Supreme Court after
a majority concluded that his court room was the wrong jurisdiction,

(13:33):
the wrong venue, and after the American Civils Civil Liberties
Union sought the wrong kind of relief and his oral
command what what? Just represents the basis of Bosberg's contempt allegations.
Now he appears prepared to name a court appointed attorney

(13:56):
if the Trump Department of Justice refused to bring charges
against the yet unidentified officials that he accuses of contempt. Now,
the opinion doesn't name the individuals, so he just says that,

(14:17):
and I don't I didn't print it out, so I
don't have the order in front of me, But as
I recall reading it, he says the as of yet
unidentified individuals and then specifies that the government needs to
go identify the individuals well on a basis. Well, apparently

(14:41):
those who defied an order, which I guess would be
the pilots of the planes who have no access to
the orders. They don't have there's there's not a fax machine.
They apparently have email. Did someone email them the order?
I don't know is that the person who emailed the order?

(15:02):
Did they wait until they were outside US jurisdiction? Well,
I mean, it's just it's so convoluted and so full
of holes that to somehow claim that someone's going to
be held in criminal contempt for not following his orders
when all of the facts, because you have to have

(15:24):
facts upon which to base a criminal contempt, are all
pretty much either vague or in dispute, or don't fit
criminal contempt. As he has an other orders, this judge

(15:45):
once again blasts the Trump administration for failing to do
what to anticipate what he might decide, and then preemptively
halt the deportation flights before he could act. In my note,
I pulled out this quote from the opening hours of Saturday.

(16:05):
The government's conduct betrayed a desire to outrun the equitable
reach of the judiciary.

Speaker 3 (16:13):
What's he saying?

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Well from them from the beginning early morning hours of Saturday,
what the government was trying to do was to get
the planes out of Texas, out across into international waters
on the way to Al Salvador before he could write
his order. Okay, well, so what.

Speaker 4 (16:34):
To that?

Speaker 3 (16:35):
I really say?

Speaker 2 (16:35):
So what the government is operating to remove based on
orders that they may be old, but nonetheless they're still
valid orders from I n S judges or I should
actually say ICE CBP judges who have administrative law judges

(16:56):
who have ordered the removal of these defendants. Okay, so
they're just following the orders. Now you've got a conflict. Well,
I've got this judge telling me to remove them. I
got another judge who at some point may tell me
not to do so. But I'm gonna go ahead and
take off. I got my flight plans. I'm gonna take

(17:18):
off at you know, O six hundred or whatever the
hour is, and I'm gonna head on my flight path.
And if I'm out in the international waters, well sucks
to be you, judge. Hey, let's go over to Gary
at the Retirement Planning Center of the Rockies. Gary, how
are you today?

Speaker 4 (17:34):
Hey, good morning, Michael. I'm doing well. How are you doing? Oh?

Speaker 2 (17:37):
I just ye know, I'm doing well, just kind of
watching the market. I need to go see a chiropractor
orthopedic guy now to get my neck put back in
the position.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
Ups and downs, ups and downs.

Speaker 4 (17:50):
So well, I tell you, there's a lot of people
who have been standing on the edge of the brim
of the canyon here to jump off the last week
or two. That's for sure.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
Let's let's talk them off the lead.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
So, with all those market swings, how does your five
peak process help your clients and hopefully your new clients
navigate all that craziness.

Speaker 4 (18:13):
Well, you know, the beauty of the approach that we
use is we take complicated things and make it real simple.
For example, in a well designed plan, you should have
safe money, which is liquid money that's designed to allow
you to have the resources you need for emergencies and
cash on hand and those kinds of things, and most

(18:35):
times will typically have ten to fifteen to twenty percent
of their assets in cash. You also better identify what
portions of the portfolio will be designed to generate income.
And then the last piece, of course, would be the
money that's in the growth component or the market driven accounts.
And the frustration folks run into right now, Michael, is

(18:58):
with the movements in the market and our clients isn't
a concern because of the way we build their plans,
at least not as a concern there as much as
it is with most advisors. But as long as we've
got places that are guaranteed to provide the income folks
need that are not subjected to market risk, which income
accounts are the way we design them, the growth account

(19:21):
can move up and down all at once because we
don't have to go in and withdraw money. Where folks
get into trouble is when this sequence of returns, or
the fact that the markets are moving up and down
is they've got to take money out for income from
a market driven account when the markets are really low.
That can be really a double edged sword that hurts

(19:43):
twice as bad. So we build plans. What's the intent.
Let's guarantee the income in the income account without market risk,
thus securing income that's headed for inflation, with the concept
that then we can let and sit those market driven
accounts fluctuate up and down and do as they may,

(20:05):
and we'll harvest them when the times are good. But
we don't have to take money out when times are
bad or volatile like they are right now. So that's
the approach we use.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
And I love your use the term harvest. We don't
have to harvest those others, you know, when when things
are crazy. You've built the income of time to do
what's supposed to do.

Speaker 3 (20:25):
All the time.

Speaker 4 (20:27):
I spent a lot of time driving John Dear tractors.
I think we got we go out to harvest to
fill the end of July, eary, August, and the weeks
down because the rain we don't harvest. Yeah, we try
to let the weed dry out and stand back up
a little bit. And you've got to harvest when the
time is right, and you've got to leave it alone

(20:48):
when the time is wrong. And then a well designed plan,
which is the way we build our plans. We want
to make sure you've got your your your base is
covered regardless of what the market conditions you're doing.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
And the real reason I recommend the Retirement Planning Center
of the Rockies is because anybody that knows how to
drive a John Deere tractor and when to go harvest
and not harvest is exactly the guy that you want
to do your retirement planning. So if you haven't called
Gary and his team at the Retirement Planning Center of
the Rockies, and you've wanted a reason to call them,

(21:23):
there's the reason to call them right now. So pick
up the phone, call them, and you tell what Michael
brown sents you nine seven zero six six three thirty
two eleven. Nine seven zero six six three thirty two eleven.
Or go check out the picture of Gary on the
website on that tractor at rpcenter dot com. Okay, so

(21:44):
let's get back to the judge for a moment, because
who's really defying orders here? Who's the party that is
really creating a constitutional crisis? According to Judge boseburg A.
And I'm going to use the term lowly here, and

(22:07):
I don't mean lowly because I have respect for federal
district judges. I've been in front of a lot of them,
really good ones and some really bad ones. But who's
creating the crisis? According to Judge Boseburg, a trial judge,
just happens to be the DC Circuit, which is an
important circuit because of who they have jurisdiction over. According

(22:31):
to this judge, the United States Supreme Court's nullification of
his orders, it's completely irrelevant. In fact, he wrote in
the order, this is the other thing I wrote down.
The fact that the Supreme Court determined that this is
him writing.

Speaker 3 (22:52):
The fact that the.

Speaker 2 (22:53):
Supreme Court determined that this court's temporary restraining orders suffered
from a venue defect does not affect, let alone moot
the compliance inquiry presently teed up here. Really, so the
Supreme Court said that your restraining order is vacated, it's

(23:16):
null and void. And he's saying in his contempt order,
the fact that you determine US Supreme Court that my
order suffers from a defect of venue of being in
the proper court, well, you know what tough theses. Something

(23:37):
tells me that when this finally gets up to the
US Supreme Court, they'll probably have something to say about that.
So who's really creating the crisis now? What happens if
the Trump officials don't follow his non existent temporary restraining

(23:57):
because it's nonexistent. He's trying to hold them in contempt
for a temporary restraining order that's been vacated by the
US Supreme Court. Well, apparently he is prepared, as he's
indicated an earlier hearing, to proceed with even more hearings,
more testimony, more depositions.

Speaker 3 (24:16):
Now, if he finds.

Speaker 2 (24:17):
Sufficient evidence throughout all of that stuff, that there's sufficient
evidence to pursue these criminal contempt charges. And if Attorney
General Pam Bondi does not comply, he's threatened to go
full steam ahead by appointing some other lawyer to prosecute

(24:40):
the contempt charge.

Speaker 3 (24:43):
Where does he get the authority to do that? All?

Speaker 4 (24:47):
Right?

Speaker 2 (24:48):
Some would argue that it stems from this particular rule,
Rule forty two a two of the Rules of Federal
Criminal Procedure. Now, that is the same rule that was
cited by Judge Emmitt Sullivan, his colleague on the DC
bench when they were trying to hold Michael Flynt in
contempt back in twenty twenty, after Trump's Department of Justice

(25:10):
was trying to dismiss that perjury plea. Well, Boseburg has
instructed the DOJ to file its plan to purge that's
the word he used, purge the contempt by April twenty third,
less than a week, a week from yesterday.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
Now if the Department of Justice doesn't.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Plan to follow Boseburg's again nonexistent temporary restraining order. He
ordered the Department of Justice to do this, to file
declarations identifying the individuals who, with knowledge of the Court's
class wide temporary restraining order, made the decision not to

(25:52):
halt the transferred class members out of US custody on
March fifteen and sixteen, twenty twenty five. Now, clearly the
Trump administration is going to quickly appeal this order to
the DC Court of Appeals and ultimately to the US
Supreme Court. It's it's difficult for me to see how

(26:16):
the DC Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals is going
to uphold this ruly.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
But but.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
The hardcourt democrat that calls January sixth an insurrection and
attended Trump's arrangement on federal charges in August of twenty
twenty three has fulfilled his immediate goal. Oh, by the way,
who's that democrat that would be Judge Bosberg. Yes, yes,

(26:48):
he attended Trump's arrangement on federal charges in AUGUSTA, twenty
three and twenty three. And he's the same Democrat that
calls January sixth an insurrection. So he's fulfilled what his
real goal is here, bolster the prevailing narrative, bolster the
kabal's narrative by Democrats, the cable channels, all these who

(27:15):
Chris van Hollend ran off to El Salvador to try
to arrescue.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
He's already been turned down.

Speaker 2 (27:20):
But I love the fact that the US senator is
running to Al Salvador and things that somehow he's going
to get to see the President of Al Salvador and
demand the release of a citizen of El Salvador from
an l salvador in prison. That would be like Marco
Rubio going to Russia and demanding to sit down with

(27:46):
Vladimir Putin and demanding the release of a Russian citizen
from a Russian prison.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
Putina just laugh at him.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
He might even say, well, it's but you might also say,
mister secretary, I have all kinds of respect for you,
but you don't have any jurisdiction is not the word,
but you don't have any reason to do this. You
could have sent me an email. I'd have told you no.

(28:21):
You could have written me a letter I told you no. Sorry,
you flew all the way here for me to tell
you no. But I'm going to tell you no. But
the goal of Boseberg is to bolster, is to give
to the cabal the talking points, and that is the
talking point is very simply put this way. The White

(28:44):
House is engaged in what Boseberg wrote is the quote
willful disobedience of judicial orders. Now, he may have thought
that Chief Justice Roberts may have come is rescue and
issued another statement like he did a few weeks ago

(29:05):
about you know, it is incumbent upon you know, people
to obey the orders of the court. You know why,
Justice Roberts probably will not do that because who's not
obeying though, Who's willfully disobeying the orders of.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
The US Supreme Court?

Speaker 2 (29:26):
Judge Boseburg because his temporary restraining order was vacated by
the US Supreme Court. So you see how this is
all twisted around. When the media tells you that Donald
Trump is creating constitutional crisis, one, I think that phrase

(29:47):
is way overused because that presupposes that our system doesn't
eventually work through all these kinds of crises. It normally does.
It always has, and I think it. I think it
always will. But what's really going on here is the
judge is engaged just like Democrats always do, which shows

(30:11):
you how partisan he is. In deflection. Oh, I haven't
done anything wrong. It's Donald Trump in particular, and I'm
going to hold him in criminal contempt. And if the
Department of Justice refuses to prosecute criminal contempt, well that
I'm just going to on my own appoint somebody to

(30:33):
prosecute the Trump administration for criminal contempt.

Speaker 3 (30:37):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Talk about an absolute mockery of the separation of powers.
You are an Article three judge. The people that make
the decision whether or not to prosecute a criminal contempt
charge is the Department of Justice in this case, because

(31:00):
it's in.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
A federal court.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
Under what authority do you have to appoint somebody else
to prosecute the executive branch. He's way out of his
legue on this one.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
Michael.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
Maybe it's just me, but I think this judge Bowsburg
has gotten way too big for his britches. And he's
not the.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
Only one amen. So one of the interesting things that
happened while I was in Chicago Tuesday and Wednesday was
on the way to back to the hotel, which sits
on the campus. I had an Uber driver and we
were just talking about stuff in general, and it was

(31:45):
early evening, it wasn't totally dark yet. But he's going
through a construction zone where Lake Shore Drive abruptly comes
to an end, and we're trying to make our way
around it, and he mutters under his breath that damn
Obama library.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
And I was like, what what what did you say?

Speaker 2 (32:08):
And he goes right over here on the left, that's
where Obama's building his his library.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
I said, I was slow down. I want to look.
I want to look.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
So I scooed over the other side and I rolled
the window down. I'm looking at at it, and you know,
he can't see much because of the construction fence fencing
around it, but it's He starts telling me about how
and I had read about the controversy. Uh, it's in
Jackson Park. So it's that's that's a famous park in
this on the south side of Chicago, near Hyde Park,

(32:35):
and it's it's it's a total disaster. It's it's behind schedule,
it's way over budget, and it's not being built or run.

Speaker 3 (32:47):
Or operated by the National Archives.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
And I start trying to explain to this uber driver
that it's not going to be like a typical presidential library.
It's not going to have like a research Now this
may have changed, but the original plan was it was
not going to have a public research library. It was
not going to be the Archives.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
He was going to be more.

Speaker 2 (33:10):
Of a I don't know, a scholarly center. And it
kind of looks like, at least based on the structure
that's up so far, it looks like a stereotypical office building.
And the black owned minority construction firm that was originally
hired is involved in some forty million dollar lawsuit because

(33:33):
they're being sued for discrimination.

Speaker 3 (33:36):
So it's a total cluster.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
And I'm telling the guy about it, and this is
I'm not sure that he was either. He was certainly
dark skin, so I don't know whether he was black, hispanic,
or what. But he was not a white guy. And
oh my god, did I get an earfull about Barack Obama?

(33:59):
Now that will be he does he didn't live here anymore,
and here he is tearing up the city. And when
I explained to me about no archives not run by
the National Archives, but all run by a private foundation,
Obama's private foundation, he was even more liberal. Oh I
can't wait to tell my wife about that. Oh, she'll
be even more liber So not all of Chicago.

Speaker 3 (34:21):
I found an uber driver to despises black

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Obama kind of made my e between pizza and that
uber driver has having a good time.