7-9-25 - 8am - Planned Parenthood Restraining Order

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, I think that more than anything else, the
whole Epstein thing and the failure to release and the
way that the Trump administration is dodging is really a
good reminder to all of us to avoid doing what
the Democrats do, and let's not make an idol out
of Trump but support him and his mission and remember

(00:23):
he is a fallible human.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Amen.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Absolutely, Amen on that one. You know, when you do
those rules of engagement. Just he kind of hit me.
We haven't heard from Neil fard over that Dakota is
in a long time. Actually, I think he sent in
a talkback yesterday that just wasn't played on the air.
Oh okay, I think he stated he got back from
another vacation. But then I don't want to hear from it.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
You're retired. Every day is a vacation.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
Yeah, I just shut up and just shut up and
sit down. So you're right, I don't care. I don't care.
All right, we're gonna we're gonna geek out this hour.
We're gonna go to law school. So I want you
to get out your big chief tablet and your crayons.
Because there was a filing done earlier this week, a

(01:12):
complaint in Federal Court by Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood
asked for and got a temporary restraining order a TRO
by a federal judge of Massachusetts enjoining the enforcement stopping.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
The There'll be some legalise here.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
I apologize stopping the enforcement of a statute passed by Congress,
and not one opportunity was given to the Department of
Justice to respond prior to the temporary restraining order being granted.

(01:55):
I want you to think about the sequence of events
that led up to this temporary restraining order.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
The OBI Square, the.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
One big beautiful bill that was passed by Congress on
July third, twenty twenty five, get signed into law by
the President the next day, on July fourth, twenty twenty five.
Now it should go without saying, but just to emphasize
the point, this is not an executive order. Much like

(02:26):
the other executive orders that have been subjected to all
these other tros trying to get one federal judge to
stop an executive order from being enforced nationally. This is
a statute passed by Congress after months of debate between
the House and the Senate, as well as debates between

(02:49):
the members themselves of the two different parties.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
They go through all the constitutional.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
Process, they pass a law, it gets delivered to the
President's desk, he signs it into law on July four.
Planned Parenthood has been out in the open announcing its

(03:15):
plans way before the bill was filed, before the bill
was signed into law, that they were going to target
and file a lawsuit if and when it ever did
become law. Why well, they're focused on section seventy one
one thirteen seventy one seventy one one thirteen seven three

(03:44):
ones in A three. That section includes a definition that attempts,
or I think does, disqualify any entity meeting the definition
that's in that section from receiving Medicaid reimbursement for its services.

(04:06):
Planned Parenthood meets that definition, So Planned Parenthood is now
disqualified from receiving Medicaid compensation for its services for lower
income patients who qualify for Medicaid coverage. Now in the complaint,
Planned Parenthood argues that almost fifty percent of all Planned

(04:29):
Parenthood patients are covered by Medicaid, to which I say
so what.

Speaker 4 (04:36):
So?

Speaker 3 (04:36):
On Monday day before Yesterday, July seventh, at eleven twelve am,
Planned Parenthood filed a civil complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was
uploaded to a newly created public docket at eleven thirty

(04:57):
four in the morning, So you got the timeline. The
bills debated for months and months. It finally passes on
July third. It gets to the President's desk on July fourth,
which was a Friday, he signs it. I think that
night before the big ceremony, the fireworks ceremony. So then

(05:21):
Saturday and Sunday or a holiday. On Monday, at eleven
o'clock in the morning, Planned Parenthood goes to a federal
court in Massachusetts files their lawsuit. It gets uploaded to
the docket at eleven thirty four a m At eleven
thirty eight, after Planned Parenthood got noticed that the complaint

(05:43):
had been accepted and uploaded to what's called the PACER
Docketing System. PACER is the the electronic filing system that
the federal courts have. At eleven thirty eight, they got
noticed that it had been accepted and filed and put
on the court's docket at eleven thirty four. At eleven

(06:06):
thirty eight, they got noticed that had happened. Planned Parenthood
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and related
supporting documents at eleven fifty seven. It is actually filed
at eleven thirty eight the minute, the very minute that

(06:27):
they got noticed, so they were standing in the courthouse
or they were actually standing at their sitting at their computers,
and the minute that notice popped up that the complaints
been accepted, they filed simultaneously. At eleven thirty eight, they
filed their temporary restraining order request. It was uploaded by

(06:49):
eleven fifty seven. Dam bam, bam, bam, bam bam. They
were ready to go. The case gets assigned to judge
Tell what judge in Dearra Tilwane. She was appointed to
the court in twenty thirteen by Barack Obama. Of the
ten full time district judges currently sitting in Boston, nine

(07:13):
were appointed by Obama and Biden. So I think the
planes were engaged in lawfare, knew that they.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
Were almost certain to draw.

Speaker 3 (07:25):
A friendly judge judge if they filed in that particular district.
Get a nine out of ten chance that you're going
to get a judge appointed by Obama or Biden. Now, interestingly,
the docket entry that names Judge Tilwane does not have
a time stamp on it. But the first comment that

(07:48):
I found on X noting that she was appointed to
the case was at one fifty two pm Eastern Time,
two hours after the case was docketed. Now that's not
unusual because the clerk's office will sometimes consult with the
assigned judge prior to making the entry in the docket,

(08:09):
so that the judge is actually aware that it has
happened before that fact is made public, just in case,
for whatever reason, I mean, there could be any number
of reasons, a judge and the clerks may look at
it and say, oh, you know what, we can't do
that case because we have a conflict of interest, or
we can't do that case because you know I've got
I'm already at my full load right now.

Speaker 2 (08:30):
I mean, just any number of reasons.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
But nope, they made sure that the judge was aware
of it, so that she knew that she was getting
the case before they made it public. Now bear with
I know this is a lot of legal ease, but
bear with me for a moment. When you're asking for
a temporary restraining order Rule fifty six real sick dyslex
it Rule sixty five of the Federal Rules of Civil

(08:55):
Procedure that requires any planeff including planned parenthood, to give
notice to the defendant. If you don't give notice to
the defendant, then the plantiff has to tell the court
that they have not given notice, along with an explanation
and a reason why you did not give notice to

(09:17):
the defendants. The form of the pleadings where you're asking
for the temporary restraining order must also give specific and
detailed factual claims for your request for temporary relief to
be granted. If you want to look it up, you
can go Google or know whatever you want to do.

(09:39):
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules sixty five Injunctions and
restraining Orders.

Speaker 2 (09:46):
Now, in.

Speaker 3 (09:49):
The issuing of a temporary restraining order without notice is
this paragraph specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movement the person asking for

(10:10):
the restraining order before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition, and paragraph B by the movement's attorney certifies
in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why you should not be required to give notice. Now,

(10:31):
note that in so far as Section A pertains to
preliminary injunctions, the case hadn't reached that stage yet it's
sub paragraph B. That's the problem. You have to the
lawyers have to certify in writing all the efforts that
you made to give notice and the reason why you

(10:52):
should not be.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
Required to give notice.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
So after issuing without notice, the rule says the judge
can do so only if there are very specific facts
in the affidavit or in the complaint itself that's verified
by the lawyers showing immediate and irreparable injury.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
Loss, or damage will result.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
If a restraining order is not issued before the defendants
the government can be hurt. So you have a simple
question here of whether notice was given and what does
notice mean. Well, it means the lawyers have to certify
in writing any efforts they made and the reasons why
it shouldn't be required. Now, attached to an emergency motion

(11:38):
for a temporary restraining order was a certificate of compliance
under their local rules regarding motions. In that certificate, the
plainest attorney actually refers back to Rules sixty five's requirement,
and they write this pursuing to local rules seven point

(11:58):
one A and Federal Rules Civil Procedure sixty five. Council
for Plane Off certify that they have contacted the following
individuals at the US Department of Justice by electronic mail
email to provide notice of this motion. And they list one, two, three,
four five different people. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General and

(12:20):
the Federal Programs, the co Director for the Federal Programs,
the co Director for the Federal Programs, the co Director
for Federal Programs, and the Chief of the Defensive Litigation
Civil Division for the District of Massachusetts. And they say,
as of the time of the filing, defendants have not responded.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
Well, do you sit at your desk and just watch.

Speaker 3 (12:47):
Remember when all used to say you have mail? Just
sitting there waiting for your computer to say you have mail. No,
they were probably working on some other briefs. They were
probably on the conference, they were probably in a meeting,
they were something. These lawyers had the audacity to say,
we notified them by email and they haven't responded, so

(13:11):
we should just be able to go ahead and get
this restraining order because they didn't respond. I don't know
how that complies with Rule sixty five. The certificate by
the lawyer states what was done and email was sent,
but otherwise it does not comply with the rule as
to why notice prior to the issuance of the restraining

(13:31):
order should not be required. And even in that really
getting in the weeds now, which I apologize for. But
their certification, the Planned Parenthood lawyer's certification doesn't even comply
with Rule seven point one for the local motion practice
sub Section two. No motion shall be filed unless council

(13:54):
certified that they have conferred and have attempted in good
faith to resolve when they're issue. Well, they clearly hadn't
done that. There was no good faith effort here. You
send an email, you didn't pick up the phone and
call you. You didn't send a second email and said, hey,
we're gonna ask for this tro I wanna make sure
you saw the notice.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
I'm gonna make sure you.

Speaker 4 (14:15):
You don't know.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
They didn't do any of that.

Speaker 3 (14:18):
But despite all those procedural shortcomings, I guess what I'm
trying to point out here is this is the extent
to which some group like Planned Parenthood will go to
ignore the laws because and the rules of civil procedure,
because they know they got a friendly judge. Now, notwithstanding
all these shortcomings, all of these things that I would

(14:39):
probably gotten my ass chewed out had I been the
lawyer for Planned Parenthood. Well though I probably wouldn't have
gotten my ass chewed out if I was the lawyer
for Planned Parenthood, because the judge, as you will soon hear,
actually doesn't care. No effort was ever made to speak
with any of the five Department of Justice officials listed.

(15:00):
So at five point twenty four pm, Judge Tilwane issued
a temporary restraining order without directing any order or instructions
to DOJ prior to doing so. She didn't even She
just issued the restraining order and didn't give any instructions afterwards.

(15:23):
The dock at Entry after she granted the tro is
an order from Judge Tilwane directing the Department the Justice
defile an opposition to a preliminary injunction by next week,
seven days away, and setting a hearing on the preliminary

(15:45):
junction for July twenty first. So my guess is that
the planets would claim and that the judge is going
to agree that sending emails to five DOJ officials satisfied
whatever minimal notice is required. Under Rule sixty five. Now
if it was conceded by the plainness or the court
that the TRO was actually issued without notice, as it

(16:07):
allows a whole series of procedural and substance shortcomings I
think would be obvious, because first, when a TRO is
issued without notice, the other rules require that a hearing
on a priminary injunction must be set at the earliest
possible time, taking precedents over all other matters except hearings

(16:31):
on older matters of the exact same character. She's set
the hearing fourteen days away, the maximum time that a
TRO can remain in place unless it gets extended for
good cause. There is no way July twenty first can
be justified as the earliest possible time for a hearing
that's required by the rule. And in addition to that,

(16:54):
don't forget that a TRO issue without notice must contain
specificity that is set forth in the restraining order that
is ultimately issued by the judge. But guess what her
orders only two pages long and let me just read

(17:14):
it to you just for the hell of it. Upon
consideration a plane of emergency motion for a temporary restraining
order in plimonary injunction and accompanying memoir of law and
supporting declarations and finding good cause shown bull Crown. It
is hereby ordered that the request for a temporary restraining
order is granted, and has further ordered that defendants, meaning

(17:35):
the government, and anyone acting in concert or participation with
the Government, are hereby enjoying from enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or
otherwise applying the provisions of Section seventy one one thirteen
of an Act to provide for reconciliation of the bill.

(17:55):
This is lawfare of the worst con it's doing everything
they can to get the issue, the tro issue, without
the government being given the opportunity to be heard. Planned
parenthood shame. Hey, let's go talk to Gary or with

(18:17):
the retirement planning of the Rockies. Happy mid year, Gary.
How are you doing?

Speaker 4 (18:23):
Yes, same to you, Michael. I'm doing very well. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
So I mentioned midyear because we are halfway through the year.
Is this a good time to do like a mid
year financial checkup, especially if you're approaching retirement or thinking
about retirement.

Speaker 4 (18:39):
You know, that's a great question, and honestly, midyear, Michael's
one of the best times to step back and evaluate
where you're at. You know, I always think of it
this way. You're halfway through the year, so you need
a mind reset. You've got six months behind and six
months ahead. This year, it's a perfect time to check
and see if your show on track or if anything

(19:00):
in your financial life might need to be adjusted. So
on our PC we encourage retires, especially those within a
five to ten year period before retirement, to use this
time to simply ask themselves, do I have a clip plan?
But am I just hoping when I have? Works? And
that seems to be what a lot of folks do,

(19:21):
and that's where our trade marked five peak process really
makes the difference, Michael. It gets people are structured and
a personalized view of all the key areas, for example,
things such as income planning, which are the five critical
pillars here. The income planning, you always ask yourself the
question will my income lasts as long as I do?

(19:44):
How about investments? Are your assets properly positioned for the
goals and things that are going on in the markets today?
And of course we know that's an interesting thing, especially
this year. And of course tax planning is a big
one where we do what we can. We had to
reduce tax liability now and in the future, you know,
rock conversions and those kinds of things, and when is

(20:06):
the right time to do that. And then healthcare planning,
of course are we prepared for these out of pocket
costs and are there better ways to do it? And
the last pillar, of course is is the legacy planning,
and that simply is your estate set up to properly
protect you and your family and the wishes that you have,

(20:27):
you know. And what I find interesting is a lot
of people go through this process and they say to themselves, yeah,
I wish I'd have done this sooner. And that's because
it takes the guesswork out and replaces it with a clear,
confident roadmap. So, you know, Mike, let our PC our
goal is to always make sure that people sleep well
at night. We call that the Swan approach.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, I will.

Speaker 3 (20:47):
I always find it interesting that people are reticent to
go do this. Why do you think that is?

Speaker 4 (20:53):
I think the unknown. I think some people will feel
embarrassed to share financial information. I think also, frankly, that
some people feel like they don't have enough money that
it justifies a visit and gush, I don't care whether
you've got a hundred million or one hundred thousand. We're
happy to visit with anybody and help you any way
we can to move your life forward in a good
way financially.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
That's actually, that's a really good thing to say, to
emphasize because I always talk about that that you guys
are willing to help anybody that seek can help, regardless
of their age and regardless of your income. So to
your point, when you've got one hundred thousand dollars, you
got a you know, one hundred million dollars, you can
work with anybody.

Speaker 4 (21:30):
Yeah, we sure can, and we've got clients in those ranges.
It just depends on their situation. So we're happy to
visit guys. Let's just have a talk and see if
we can help them.

Speaker 3 (21:39):
And one last thing about that, I always tell people
too that you know, just give you guys a call
and you'll meet with them, you know, at your offices,
or you'll come to their you'll go you'll meet anywhere.

Speaker 4 (21:50):
Right, Yeah, we'll go to their home. Well, we do
a lot of virtual meetings on the internet. We can
set up web meetings and web calls, and we were
happy to acommodate people and where we can. At some
point if we're going to engage and become clients. We'll
make sure we get face to face. Sure that's important too,
Sure you bet no, we're We're happy to assist you
know where we can excuse the only guys.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
All right, Well, I hope you're not out in the
tractors today because it's too damn hout. I'm sure you
got the fancy tractors, got the air conditioning and stereo
in it too.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
You go out there for the next two weeks starting
on money. We're doing wheat harvest. So yeah, things are pretty,
uh get pretty intense this time of the year. But
now it's a hey, if you got to do it,
you might as well do it in style. Michael.

Speaker 2 (22:34):
Yeah, that's exactly. You know. That's true about everything in life.
Just do it in style, Gary, just do it and stuff.

Speaker 4 (22:39):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
I love it, That's right. All right.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
Listen, everybody, if you have any questions about retirements, as
I've always said, just give these guys a call and
kind of get to know them. See if you like
them as much as I do. Because I really do
like them. I think they're great guys. They'll treat you right,
I promise you that. So pick up the phone, call them,
you tell them I sent you. That's Retirement Planning said
of the Rockies ninety seven zero six sixty three thirty

(23:03):
two eleven, ninety seven zero sixty sixty three thirty two eleven.
Or if you want to go check them out on
the website first, that's all right, rpcenter dot com. So
let's go back for a moment to this case, because
Planned Parenthood is now going to claim that the OBQ

(23:27):
the O one big beautiful bill that defunds any organize.
Let me let me just let me back up and
do it.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
A different way.

Speaker 3 (23:36):
The one big beautiful Bill in the specifics says that
let me find the language.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
There's a provision. This is this.

Speaker 3 (23:47):
This is the provision of seventy one one thirteen. It
prohibits Medicaid funding for one year to organizations that Let
me just emphasize that too. Everybody thinks that there's so
much in OBQUBE that is just in perpetuity. No, this defunding,

(24:09):
which is not directed although they plan Parenthood will argue
directed solely at them. I don't think that it is
is for one year. That's what section seventy one one
thirteen provides it prohibits medicaid funding for one year to
organizations listen closely that provide abortions, accepting cases of rape, incest,

(24:33):
or life endangering conditions, and who receive more than eight
hundred thousand dollars in federal medicaid funding in twenty twenty three.
So that does not specifically name or explicitly name Planned Parenthood.
It's actually crafted in a way that primarily affects Planned Parenthood.

(24:58):
It doesn't name them, but it does affect others. So
what's the legal theory in this lawsuit that it's a
bill of attainer? This is a bill of attainer. Well,
in the Constitution under Article one, Section nine, Clause three
for Congress and Section ten for the States, the Supreme

(25:19):
Court has outlined three elements that identify what a bill
of attainer is. You cannot pass a bill of attainder
which would a specifically target a specific individual or a
specific group it imposes or that the law itself that
you pass imposes a penalty like loss of property, loss

(25:43):
of rights, or privileges without any due process or judicial process,
to be more specific, and that the penalty imposed is
imposed by the Congress legislatively and it bypasses the judiciary.
That's the bill of attainder. And that's what they claim
that this does. Well, I don't think that it does.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Now.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
The provision while it, while it includes Planned Parenthood, their
criteria organizations providing abortions that received more than eight hundred
thousand dollars of medicaid funding, applies to a list that is, yes,
almost but not entirely comprised of Planned Parenthood or their

(26:30):
sub organizations. When you specify, now, that's not the right word.
When you draft the language that includes a group. But
within that group, let's say there's five organizations, but one

(26:52):
of those organizations is so much bigger than the other
four that it's overwhelmingly applies to them. Still applies to
the four others. Just because it applies to one big organization.
You can't ignore the fact that includes four others. So

(27:15):
in there was a case called Nixon versus Administrator of
the General Services.

Speaker 2 (27:21):
This is a nineteen seventy seven case.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
The Supreme Court held that a law is not a
bill of attainder if it applies to a broader class
and serves as a non punitive purpose. Well, I would
contend here that the Trump administration in pro right life
groups contend that this provision is a policy choice to

(27:45):
prevent federal funds from indirectly supporting abortion providers. It's not
a target attack on planned parenthood. Now, the specificity argument
planned parenthood claims is really applicable to us to plan
Parenthood because of the eight hundred thousand dollars threshold. Well,
that's because that certainly includes Planned Parenthood. But there are

(28:10):
other smaller organizations that do the same thing as Planned
Parenthood that are also going to be included in this bill. Now,
what's the argument in terms of punishment? How is it
punishment if you get funding from the federal government and

(28:31):
that funding has continued for year after year after year
after year, and then suddenly one year Congress decides we're
not going to fund you anymore. How's that different from
I mean, it is different, but not that much different
from a grant. You get a grant. It might be
a five year grant, but you don't comply with the grant.

(28:52):
In the third year, you get cut off, or you
get a five year appropriation, but it has to be
authorized each of the five years. In the second or
third year, Congress decides, you know, we're at war, or
we're in a depression, or we've got a really huge

(29:13):
budget deficit, we've got to start finding places to cut.
So even though you've authorized funding for Planned Parenthood or
Michael Brown, Inc. You're not going to appropriate money in
the third, fourth, and fifth years because you've got suddenly
other priorities. I don't think that this is a punishment

(29:33):
withholding medicaid funding is not punitive. It is actually a
legitimate exercise of Congress's spending power to prioritize certain policy
goals such as avoiding indirect support for abortion providers. That's
a policy goal. And if you suddenly decide that anybody that's,
you know, receiving more than eight hundred thousand dollars is

(29:57):
providing abortion services, we're not going to fund you anymore.
And that yes, Planned Parenthood may be the biggest animal
in that pen that you've put a fence around, but
there's other cows in there too. As long as there's
other cows, and you just happen to be the biggest
cow there, you're the big steer. Well sucks to be you.

(30:20):
The punishment element is contention.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Now.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Planned Parenthood claims that the funding cut is punitive because
of it's going to have a financial impact. Well, everybody
who loses federal funding suffers a financial impact, some greater
than others. So if if you receive more, let's say,

(30:45):
let's just say for round purposes, Planned Parenthood receives five
million dollars per year, but these other four organizations in
this corral only receive one million dollar. Well, yes, the
impact is greater on Planned Parenthood, just in terms of
raw dollars. Percentage wise, it may or may not be

(31:07):
greater or less, but it's not done to punish. It's
clearly within the authority and lack of a judicial trial. Yes,
they can impose the funding restriction legislative legislatively. They don't
have to have a judicial process to determine Planned parenthoods

(31:28):
culpability or eligibility for Medicaid funds. That's all done by
the bureaucracy. So the government can argue that no judicial
trial is required because the provision is a funding decision.
It's not criminal, it's not punitive. And in fact, in
nineteen sixty the Supreme Court upheld determination of social security

(31:48):
benefits for people who have been deported, finding that it
was not a bill of attainer because it was a
regulatory action, not a punishment requiring judicial process.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
But ah, hold.

Speaker 3 (32:00):
Your horses, because the judge has already issued a temporary
restraining order in violation of the rules, in my opinion,
because what she's going to do everything she can to
stop Congress. Now, of course this is also anti Trump,
but in this case it happens to be anti Republican.

(32:22):
And it's break time.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
Brings to South Dakota. Yesterday when I left that talk back,
at least they turned off the lawnmower, was my plight.
Does everyone have a great day? Just shut up and
go back to work. Work Gee?

Speaker 3 (32:37):
Great text message two zero five, Night nine. Regarding Planned Parenthood,
does the funding apply to all services to Planned parenthood
or just abortions? Someone told me they had to cancel
a bunch of pap smears because of the cut. I'm
just trying to get educated on this. Well, that's what
Planned Parenthood is going to do. Planned parent Hood has

(33:00):
total annual income of about two point zero two six billion,
more than two billion dollars a year. Where does that
money come from? Government funding is seven hundred and ninety
two million. Non government's three hundred and fifty million, private
contribution six hundred eighty four million, other just operating revenue

(33:22):
streams two hundred ten million.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
That's all fungible.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
So what Medicare will do will be like when the
government shuts down, they will choose, Oh, well, we're going
to find where the biggest pain is, so yeah, we'll
cancel pap smers in order to get support