November 10, 2025 • 17 mins
On the Jim Colbert Show Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the state of Florida filing a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court taking up the case against Mississippi mail-in ballot voting laws.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Jim devis here. Hello, Jack is here as well. Yeah,
and every single money around this time. We have a
good friend drop By. He owns a law firm, guys,
TK Law one firm forlife dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
That's the website.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And if you have any legal matter at all, let's
say that your wife was married to a complete douchebag,
and twenty years ago this douchebag did something extremely douchey
h with your wife's name, and let's say that comes
back to haunt you.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Twenty years later.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
The guy you call is the guy that's like literally
eight feet from me, because once you give him the particulars,
he goes, I am on it like Superman, and off
he goes. You guys, give it up good loud for
mister Ray Trenley and guy, I'm gonna tell you all
the time that my family leans on this cat for
help for legal issues that we simply do not understand.
(00:51):
That is one hundred like Depkin confirm. We were just
sitting here before this talking about how we're supposed to
handle this case. And that story I just told you
is true. This is a debt that just came back
to haunt us from twin actually it's longer than that.
It's eight years ago during my wife's first marriage. And
what a nightmare, dude. This is the kind of stuff
you have to deal with like all the time though, right, you.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Know, the legal stuff, Yeah, I deal with all the time,
and I have very high expectations of how the legal
process should work, from the attorneys that are practicing law
to the judges that are presiding over cases. I expect
that everybody who's has a role, that they're doing their
job and they're fulfilling their role, and so you know,
(01:35):
cases like this factually legally shouldn't really be that big
of a deal if everybody does their job right. It's
the problem is that you get people that are lazy
and there's shuffling papers, and that's the reason why, you know,
lawyers get a bad name.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
And this is why you know.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
The legal process has its its flaws, is because people
don't always do what they're supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
And that's a hundred percent right. Actually, you are literally
doing their attorney's job for them, that's right. We just
talked about that. You because they're so unprofessional and how
they're handling this that they're sending over documents that don't
even really add up to what we're trying to achieve,
which is completely unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
That's correct, and you know, I wish I would say
that that's the rarity, right, I've never done that before,
but unfortunately it happens all the time, and you know,
sometimes it results in slam dunk wins, and sometimes it's
just a little bit of extra frustration, and you know,
we just kind of have to grin and bear it
a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
But uh, you know we're going to keep on fighting on.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah, we will.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Buddy Ray Trently is one firm for life dot com
tk Law. The offices are right there in Oltamunt Springs.
Like we said, he deals with a lot of things,
whether it's divorce, estate planning. Situation like I have something
to come back to haunt you from a long time ago.
You have no no idea of where even to begin
in you know, kind of looking at what this problem is.
So the great thing is is you have a lot
of knowledge in that and anybody can call you for
(02:53):
issues and you at least have some direction for them,
which is a big positive. Dude, I appreciate giant positive.
What do have first day?
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Big uh? So so two big things coming up.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
One is the State of Florida has filed a lawsuit
against Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
I don't know if you saw that lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Yeah, it dropped on Friday, and so the news is
kind of rolling out today.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
But yeah, State of Florida is suing Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
For deceptive language, for.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Fraud and misrepresentation and deceptive language. This is all part
of their safer than Thailand All campaign that they ran
a few years back.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Is the abortion pill thing.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
This is the abortion pill thing, and so they said
abortion was safer than Thailand all. And they've had several
social media posts, including one which you know, I thought
kind of colored the lossuit a little bit differently. They
attached it into their complaint was that that, you know,
safer than Thailand all. It was safer than it was
(03:54):
safer than your GOP representatives. And so that was allegedly
by some written by somebody that was not a representative
of a Planned PARENTO, just an individual, and it was
also siffer than viagra.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, because he says this quote from him, he says,
it's vile that Planned Parenthood cares more about lining their
pockets and providing women with factual information about the health
risks of chemical abortion drugs.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And so in the lawsuit they make reference to the
number of incidents of hospitalization including uses of tailanol and
it includes intentional overdoses, and compared that with the two
chemical drugs that are used for abortion, for chemical abortion.
And then they talked about the statistical relation between the
(04:43):
number of surgical abortions versus chemical abortions, how it's evolved
over the last ten years.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
And basically because the more chemical abortions are more.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Financially beneficial to planned parenthood, that they're prioritizing thesemical abortions
which have higher incidents of hospitalization and side effects. And
so they're suing for almost four hundred million dollars three
hundred fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
To be exact, just trying to put them out of business.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I mean, I could see that if this one goes
through and passes that you'll see similar lawsuits happening across
the country.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Well, it's a precedent, right, that's right, that's exactly what happened.
You need one case to base all that on. It
says chemical abortions are very profitable for planned parenthood, which
provides motivation for the organization to continue pedaling misleading information
as well as providing abortion pills via mail without even
conducting an in person consultation.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
And so one of the things that was interesting is
that these these chemical abortions have about a five hundred
percent return on their profit margin, and these executives for
Planned Parenthood are making seven hundred to eight hundred thousand
dollars a year for this nonprofit organization. And so there's
some pretty compelling really facts if they're true. Obviously haven't yeah,
(06:01):
you know, fact you know, done on the fact searching
on all of this, but some pretty compelling facts that
you know, could certainly lead to some liability. I think
there's a stretch here that they also followed a lawsuit
for basis of the violation of the Rico statute.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yeah, I saw that to the bottle.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
We saw with the.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Ditty stuff, and again we stereotypically see that in organized crime.
I think it's a stretch to say that Planning Parenthood
is organ involved in organized crime, right, But you know
we talked about with that case with the Ditty trial,
was we're seeing an expansion on how the prosecutors are
interpreting the statute, and so you know, maybe we continue
(06:38):
to see that as a form of liability in some
of these cases.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
That's really interesting because you know, at first, when you
look at this, it looks like a culture World War class.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
It doesn't really suit.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
It doesn't really look like something that has a lot
of validity, especially when you know, we we have had
medical professionals say over and over that a scene of
minefit tailand or whatever is perfectly safe.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
There's no issue.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
There's no evidence at all all that shows that it
affects any fetuses or well, I guess there is a
small it's a small percentage based on dosage when it
comes to a scene of benefit. But talanholl is a
safe drug. Even RFK, you know, said during a press
conference just the other day, there's no substantial evidence that
shows that tail and all is going to create autism
or anything like that at all. So if they're using
(07:20):
that as the basis of their argument, though, I mean,
that's gonna be a problem right off.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Rip.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
But I mean, if you have planned parenthood people taking
an eight hundred k because the margin on is a
mill of what's it, what's the drug called mill?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Is something I had to I saved it because I couldn't.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Yeah in the miss.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Yeah, that's it, you got it. Yeah, you're talking. It
is like the head to Planned Parenthood making that.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Uh, these are this is their executive board is making
seven hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 6 (07:44):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
I was kind of taking it back at that, but
I remember back when it was the Florida Blood Center.
Now it's one Blood that's a nonprofit. Yeah, you know
what their CEO makes, it's a whole bunch. It's almost
a million, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And and at the
time when we were talking about this fifteen years ago,
it was Ahinoda. She was making about six hundred thousand,
(08:07):
and everyone's like, wait, you're you're selling people's donated blood
and you're making you know, all of this money and
it's a nonprofit. And the argument is you got to
pay the people what they're worth that they can get
that at in the private sector. Then that that's the
going rate for someone to run an organization of that side.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Because it's a massive organization and it takes a it
takes a CEO of CEO brains to do stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
You got to pay them well.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
And I don't think that the pay is an issue legally.
We've seen that from nonprofits for a long time, right,
we don't think I don't think that's the issue. I
think though, that there was a I forgot what the
numbers were, but there was a there was a reference
in there about how much the doctor assisted surgical abortions
were and it was, you know, they make this much
(08:53):
money X dollars and then five hundred times that or
five hundred percent pay.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I mean you think about the overhead of having an
abortion medically as opposed to just popping a pill, right, yeah,
I mean you know you're not booking a room, you know,
no doctors involved, no NCZ involved, no other people involved.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
And then you know, essentially prioritizing profits over health because
they then they looked at the adverse health consequences, uh
to like a d n C versus the medication. Yeah,
And it was something like I think it was like
forty percent of cases have some type of side effect?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Oh do they really?
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And it was like I think it was twenty four
percent have hospitalization after them for the abortion pills for
the abortion pill.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Don't know that And again I haven't fact checked any
of this. This is just based off what I read
in the complaint of the lawsuit. But it's I if
that's true, and that.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
The State of Florida's yeah, yeah, that is what the
State of Florida is saying.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And if that's true, that's something.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
And if that's true, it's it.
Speaker 7 (09:48):
And again, assuming that the statistical rates including intentional overdoses
with tilan All were the numbers that they were listed
in the lawsuit, I mean, it seems pretty clear that
tailand All is safe than yeah, these medication.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, I don't even thin that's much of an argument.
That's actually shocking if those numbers are anywhere close. Yeah,
that seems like that seems irresponsible to put a product
out on the street that twenty percent of the people
who take it went up into hospitals.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It was like point zero one four percent in likelihood
of going to a hospital by taking talent on right,
when that includes the intentional overdoses.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
So it'll be an interesting lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
I don't see this as one that settles, which makes
it even more interesting to me because I think you
hit the nail on the head.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
There's definitely a political yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yeah, ideological motivation behind this, and so this one seems
like it's going to go somewhere. It'll be really interesting
to see what happens, because you know, if the courts
don't shut it down, and I think there's enough there
for to pass summary judgment and motions to dismiss, So
we might be talking about this in about a year
as this groundbreaking lawsuit in verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So yeah, it is interesting too when you these groups
that are politically motivated and how they look at things.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I mean, the facts are the facts.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
If they hold up to the case, you know, you
got to make the right decision to regardless of who's involved.
But you know, when you look at what Moms for
Liberty did for those few years and then look at
how they're doing in races politically now, I mean, they're
gonna be destroyed, right, They're gonna be literally destroyed. I
don't think they won one one position they were running
for over this last election cycle. So you wonder how
(11:24):
much of that will cycle in and out if it's
not accurate. But if it's accurate, though, you know, I
mean those numbers are insane. I mean I can imagine
any medication being improved by the FDA that has that
kind of those kind of numbers behind it.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Yeah, it's gonna be a battle of experts, right, if
this does from a jury, right, it'll be a battle
of experts, and there's gonna be people from both sides
that are gonna be, you know, testing the statistical probability
instead of the medications and saying well, at the time,
we relied on this data and this is how we
made that assertion.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
But you know, another thing that thought was really interesting
about this lawsuit was a lot of the assertions that
they are representing come from websites and from social media.
And I and I had a case probably about two
years ago, which at the time I had never seen
it done, where we referenced social media posts for a
misrepresentation case and in the court agreed with us that
(12:15):
that was an assertion just like anything else, and that was.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
It had to do with dogs and dog.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Breeders, which I don't know if you know much about those,
that they could be very competitive and uh and and
so I've seen this as something that the judges are
really latching on is when you're making these kind of
global public statements on social media, that they're going to
hold you accountable not accurate and true and This is
obviously a big opportunity.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
They followed this also in the Panhandle.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Interesting, So you know, it's conceptually it's going to be
a much more conservative jury than it would be let's say,
in West Palm.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Beach or County or even Orlando.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Yeah, for sure, Orlando, for sure.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
And so it'll be really interesting to see what happens.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, you have another case here it's interesting as well,
about the mailing voting in Mississippi.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Yes, so this is another one that came up.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
And you know, every time we talk elections, we taught
we start seeing stuff like this come in the news cycle.
But the United States Supreme Court accepted Cerciori, which is
their their panel of judges that will review these cases.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
This is a case that has to deal with these
mail in ballots.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
And so we saw this with the last presidential election
with Nevada and Arizona. They are still counting ballots days
after the election day. And and so apparently Mississippi also
had that problem. Though I don't remember Mississippi being much
of a problem because it turned red pretty quickly, but
apparently there's a lawsuit that had been filed. Uh Mississippi
(13:44):
has said that the laws unconstitutional that they cannot count
ballots that are coming and arriving after the election day.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
And this is something that the law was changed during
COVID when.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Everybody with memory outs and you know, state Supreme Court
has said that they're going to take this case up.
So we probably won't see this arguments until probably this
early spring, just in the midterms, just in time for
the midterms, and then probably by summer we'll get a ruling.
So it'll be really interesting to see what ends up
happening on this. This is one that is one of
(14:18):
those you know, let's let's listen and wait to see
how this is going to go, because this could change
election law in a very big way.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah. Sure, And you know, and just real quick, because
we have a couple of minutes ltime.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
I did want to ask you about what you thought
the Supreme Court was going to do with the tariff ruling.
Oh yeah, you know, I've heard eighty percent chance that
they overrule it, and they consider the tariff's taxes, which
would obviously defeat anything that he was doing.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
They fall under the congressional powers and not the executive power.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Which is what they're trying to discern right now. Anyway,
I'll tell you.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
Not for me to be political or not.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
I hope that's the outcome because I want to see
all the branches do the things that they're supposed to
do and not have an expansion of power.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Yeah, and that's what this is.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
This is, this is basically, this is a handcuff on
the expansion of power on top of a bunch of things.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But that's what this is.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
And just to be fair, I think every president that
I can recall from Clinton on has had some expansion
of power lawsuit that's gone to the Supreme Court. It's
just a very in size and intensity. But you know,
I'll tell you, I don't know. With the justices that
we have in Supreme Court now, they've come back with
some i'll call it interesting rulings. One that I did
(15:29):
not necessarily expect, and so the immunity one immunity was
one of them. You know, there's some other rights that
we had seen that we thought were going to be
in place for like fifty years that would change.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
So I don't know, I really don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
But we saw this Chevron, which doesn't mean anything to
anybody else. There's a Chevron case about executive power. That
got overruled after thirty eight years of precedent, and so
I'm thinking this will fall all the same direction, so
that eighty percent probability seems about accurate.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
I think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
And when you heard any of the arguments, which I
found fascinating. By the way, did you see who was
in the crowd because they were making a show about
the Supreme Court? No, John Mulaney, Oh really yeah. John
Mlaney's in the development of a TV show about the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Interesting, And it was very interesting to hear the arguments
from the justice as a matter of fact, so much
so I told the guys, specifically, Jack, I'm like, you
want to hear some fascinating stuff. Go hear the arguments
against this listener general for the White House and the
Supreme Court and how they're questioning and how they come
to conclusions. It is absolutely riveting, dude. And there's no video.
(16:37):
You're just hearing it.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
Audi.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
It's riveting.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
There was a really interesting one about two years ago
about Native American treaty rights, and the Supreme Court was
very active. You get a hot or cold bench sometimes
they were very actively discussing these treaties from two hundred
and fifty four hundred years ago, and you know, you're
laughing because you like, it doesn't seem like something that
(16:59):
they be really interested in, but it had. It has
a huge impact on law today. And so anyway, it
is cool when you get a hot when you get
a hot bench, right, listen to how they're asking questions, because, I.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Mean, this White House is using some stuff that hasn't
been used for seventy five years. I mean, so, I
mean we know that some of these cases were passed
in the twenties. Yeah, you know, so it's it's interesting
how they do use these acts that have been there
haven't been used for a while. So awesome stuff today, buddy,
thanks absolutely, all right four seven nine one six four
one text us seven seven zero three one deb news.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Yeah, we have a deadly deputy confrontation in Miami Dade.
Four year old twins are shot in Orange County and
Michael Jackson makes Billboard Hot one hundred history. Yep, we'll
talk about that next during you heard it here first,
I got it.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Don't forget grand is your six o'clock key where you
got about fifteen minutes to get over to real Radio
Dot of FIM and send that away for your chance
at one thousand bucks back in a second, Dev's News
and we'll get the hell out of here on a
Monday
I'm Jim devis here. Hello, Jack is here as well. Yeah,
and every single money around this time. We have a
good friend drop By. He owns a law firm, guys,
TK Law one firm forlife dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
That's the website.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And if you have any legal matter at all, let's
say that your wife was married to a complete douchebag,
and twenty years ago this douchebag did something extremely douchey
h with your wife's name, and let's say that comes
back to haunt you.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Twenty years later.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
The guy you call is the guy that's like literally
eight feet from me, because once you give him the particulars,
he goes, I am on it like Superman, and off
he goes. You guys, give it up good loud for
mister Ray Trenley and guy, I'm gonna tell you all
the time that my family leans on this cat for
help for legal issues that we simply do not understand.
(00:51):
That is one hundred like Depkin confirm. We were just
sitting here before this talking about how we're supposed to
handle this case. And that story I just told you
is true. This is a debt that just came back
to haunt us from twin actually it's longer than that.
It's eight years ago during my wife's first marriage. And
what a nightmare, dude. This is the kind of stuff
you have to deal with like all the time though, right, you.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Know, the legal stuff, Yeah, I deal with all the time,
and I have very high expectations of how the legal
process should work, from the attorneys that are practicing law
to the judges that are presiding over cases. I expect
that everybody who's has a role, that they're doing their
job and they're fulfilling their role, and so you know,
(01:35):
cases like this factually legally shouldn't really be that big
of a deal if everybody does their job right. It's
the problem is that you get people that are lazy
and there's shuffling papers, and that's the reason why, you know,
lawyers get a bad name.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
And this is why you know.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
The legal process has its its flaws, is because people
don't always do what they're supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
And that's a hundred percent right. Actually, you are literally
doing their attorney's job for them, that's right. We just
talked about that. You because they're so unprofessional and how
they're handling this that they're sending over documents that don't
even really add up to what we're trying to achieve,
which is completely unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
That's correct, and you know, I wish I would say
that that's the rarity, right, I've never done that before,
but unfortunately it happens all the time, and you know,
sometimes it results in slam dunk wins, and sometimes it's
just a little bit of extra frustration, and you know,
we just kind of have to grin and bear it
a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
But uh, you know we're going to keep on fighting on.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah, we will.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Buddy Ray Trently is one firm for life dot com
tk Law. The offices are right there in Oltamunt Springs.
Like we said, he deals with a lot of things,
whether it's divorce, estate planning. Situation like I have something
to come back to haunt you from a long time ago.
You have no no idea of where even to begin
in you know, kind of looking at what this problem is.
So the great thing is is you have a lot
of knowledge in that and anybody can call you for
(02:53):
issues and you at least have some direction for them,
which is a big positive. Dude, I appreciate giant positive.
What do have first day?
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Big uh? So so two big things coming up.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
One is the State of Florida has filed a lawsuit
against Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
I don't know if you saw that lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Yeah, it dropped on Friday, and so the news is
kind of rolling out today.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
But yeah, State of Florida is suing Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
For deceptive language, for.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Fraud and misrepresentation and deceptive language. This is all part
of their safer than Thailand All campaign that they ran
a few years back.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Is the abortion pill thing.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
This is the abortion pill thing, and so they said
abortion was safer than Thailand all. And they've had several
social media posts, including one which you know, I thought
kind of colored the lossuit a little bit differently. They
attached it into their complaint was that that, you know,
safer than Thailand all. It was safer than it was
(03:54):
safer than your GOP representatives. And so that was allegedly
by some written by somebody that was not a representative
of a Planned PARENTO, just an individual, and it was
also siffer than viagra.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, because he says this quote from him, he says,
it's vile that Planned Parenthood cares more about lining their
pockets and providing women with factual information about the health
risks of chemical abortion drugs.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And so in the lawsuit they make reference to the
number of incidents of hospitalization including uses of tailanol and
it includes intentional overdoses, and compared that with the two
chemical drugs that are used for abortion, for chemical abortion.
And then they talked about the statistical relation between the
(04:43):
number of surgical abortions versus chemical abortions, how it's evolved
over the last ten years.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
And basically because the more chemical abortions are more.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Financially beneficial to planned parenthood, that they're prioritizing thesemical abortions
which have higher incidents of hospitalization and side effects. And
so they're suing for almost four hundred million dollars three
hundred fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
To be exact, just trying to put them out of business.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
I mean, I could see that if this one goes
through and passes that you'll see similar lawsuits happening across
the country.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Well, it's a precedent, right, that's right, that's exactly what happened.
You need one case to base all that on. It
says chemical abortions are very profitable for planned parenthood, which
provides motivation for the organization to continue pedaling misleading information
as well as providing abortion pills via mail without even
conducting an in person consultation.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
And so one of the things that was interesting is
that these these chemical abortions have about a five hundred
percent return on their profit margin, and these executives for
Planned Parenthood are making seven hundred to eight hundred thousand
dollars a year for this nonprofit organization. And so there's
some pretty compelling really facts if they're true. Obviously haven't yeah,
(06:01):
you know, fact you know, done on the fact searching
on all of this, but some pretty compelling facts that
you know, could certainly lead to some liability. I think
there's a stretch here that they also followed a lawsuit
for basis of the violation of the Rico statute.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yeah, I saw that to the bottle.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
We saw with the.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Ditty stuff, and again we stereotypically see that in organized crime.
I think it's a stretch to say that Planning Parenthood
is organ involved in organized crime, right, But you know
we talked about with that case with the Ditty trial,
was we're seeing an expansion on how the prosecutors are
interpreting the statute, and so you know, maybe we continue
(06:38):
to see that as a form of liability in some
of these cases.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
That's really interesting because you know, at first, when you
look at this, it looks like a culture World War class.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
It doesn't really suit.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
It doesn't really look like something that has a lot
of validity, especially when you know, we we have had
medical professionals say over and over that a scene of
minefit tailand or whatever is perfectly safe.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
There's no issue.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
There's no evidence at all all that shows that it
affects any fetuses or well, I guess there is a
small it's a small percentage based on dosage when it
comes to a scene of benefit. But talanholl is a
safe drug. Even RFK, you know, said during a press
conference just the other day, there's no substantial evidence that
shows that tail and all is going to create autism
or anything like that at all. So if they're using
(07:20):
that as the basis of their argument, though, I mean,
that's gonna be a problem right off.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Rip.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
But I mean, if you have planned parenthood people taking
an eight hundred k because the margin on is a
mill of what's it, what's the drug called mill?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Is something I had to I saved it because I couldn't.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Yeah in the miss.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Yeah, that's it, you got it. Yeah, you're talking. It
is like the head to Planned Parenthood making that.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Uh, these are this is their executive board is making
seven hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 6 (07:44):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:44):
I was kind of taking it back at that, but
I remember back when it was the Florida Blood Center.
Now it's one Blood that's a nonprofit. Yeah, you know
what their CEO makes, it's a whole bunch. It's almost
a million, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And and at the
time when we were talking about this fifteen years ago,
it was Ahinoda. She was making about six hundred thousand,
(08:07):
and everyone's like, wait, you're you're selling people's donated blood
and you're making you know, all of this money and
it's a nonprofit. And the argument is you got to
pay the people what they're worth that they can get
that at in the private sector. Then that that's the
going rate for someone to run an organization of that side.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Because it's a massive organization and it takes a it
takes a CEO of CEO brains to do stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
You got to pay them well.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
And I don't think that the pay is an issue legally.
We've seen that from nonprofits for a long time, right,
we don't think I don't think that's the issue. I
think though, that there was a I forgot what the
numbers were, but there was a there was a reference
in there about how much the doctor assisted surgical abortions
were and it was, you know, they make this much
(08:53):
money X dollars and then five hundred times that or
five hundred percent pay.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I mean you think about the overhead of having an
abortion medically as opposed to just popping a pill, right, yeah,
I mean you know you're not booking a room, you know,
no doctors involved, no NCZ involved, no other people involved.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
And then you know, essentially prioritizing profits over health because
they then they looked at the adverse health consequences, uh
to like a d n C versus the medication. Yeah,
And it was something like I think it was like
forty percent of cases have some type of side effect?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Oh do they really?
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And it was like I think it was twenty four
percent have hospitalization after them for the abortion pills for
the abortion pill.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Don't know that And again I haven't fact checked any
of this. This is just based off what I read
in the complaint of the lawsuit. But it's I if
that's true, and that.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
The State of Florida's yeah, yeah, that is what the
State of Florida is saying.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And if that's true, that's something.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
And if that's true, it's it.
Speaker 7 (09:48):
And again, assuming that the statistical rates including intentional overdoses
with tilan All were the numbers that they were listed
in the lawsuit, I mean, it seems pretty clear that
tailand All is safe than yeah, these medication.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, I don't even thin that's much of an argument.
That's actually shocking if those numbers are anywhere close. Yeah,
that seems like that seems irresponsible to put a product
out on the street that twenty percent of the people
who take it went up into hospitals.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It was like point zero one four percent in likelihood
of going to a hospital by taking talent on right,
when that includes the intentional overdoses.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
So it'll be an interesting lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
I don't see this as one that settles, which makes
it even more interesting to me because I think you
hit the nail on the head.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
There's definitely a political yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yeah, ideological motivation behind this, and so this one seems
like it's going to go somewhere. It'll be really interesting
to see what happens, because you know, if the courts
don't shut it down, and I think there's enough there
for to pass summary judgment and motions to dismiss, So
we might be talking about this in about a year
as this groundbreaking lawsuit in verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So yeah, it is interesting too when you these groups
that are politically motivated and how they look at things.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I mean, the facts are the facts.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
If they hold up to the case, you know, you
got to make the right decision to regardless of who's involved.
But you know, when you look at what Moms for
Liberty did for those few years and then look at
how they're doing in races politically now, I mean, they're
gonna be destroyed, right, They're gonna be literally destroyed. I
don't think they won one one position they were running
for over this last election cycle. So you wonder how
(11:24):
much of that will cycle in and out if it's
not accurate. But if it's accurate, though, you know, I
mean those numbers are insane. I mean I can imagine
any medication being improved by the FDA that has that
kind of those kind of numbers behind it.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Yeah, it's gonna be a battle of experts, right, if
this does from a jury, right, it'll be a battle
of experts, and there's gonna be people from both sides
that are gonna be, you know, testing the statistical probability
instead of the medications and saying well, at the time,
we relied on this data and this is how we
made that assertion.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
But you know, another thing that thought was really interesting
about this lawsuit was a lot of the assertions that
they are representing come from websites and from social media.
And I and I had a case probably about two
years ago, which at the time I had never seen
it done, where we referenced social media posts for a
misrepresentation case and in the court agreed with us that
(12:15):
that was an assertion just like anything else, and that was.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
It had to do with dogs and dog.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Breeders, which I don't know if you know much about those,
that they could be very competitive and uh and and
so I've seen this as something that the judges are
really latching on is when you're making these kind of
global public statements on social media, that they're going to
hold you accountable not accurate and true and This is
obviously a big opportunity.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
They followed this also in the Panhandle.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Interesting, So you know, it's conceptually it's going to be
a much more conservative jury than it would be let's say,
in West Palm.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Beach or County or even Orlando.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Yeah, for sure, Orlando, for sure.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
And so it'll be really interesting to see what happens.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, you have another case here it's interesting as well,
about the mailing voting in Mississippi.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Yes, so this is another one that came up.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
And you know, every time we talk elections, we taught
we start seeing stuff like this come in the news cycle.
But the United States Supreme Court accepted Cerciori, which is
their their panel of judges that will review these cases.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
This is a case that has to deal with these
mail in ballots.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
And so we saw this with the last presidential election
with Nevada and Arizona. They are still counting ballots days
after the election day. And and so apparently Mississippi also
had that problem. Though I don't remember Mississippi being much
of a problem because it turned red pretty quickly, but
apparently there's a lawsuit that had been filed. Uh Mississippi
(13:44):
has said that the laws unconstitutional that they cannot count
ballots that are coming and arriving after the election day.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
And this is something that the law was changed during
COVID when.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Everybody with memory outs and you know, state Supreme Court
has said that they're going to take this case up.
So we probably won't see this arguments until probably this
early spring, just in the midterms, just in time for
the midterms, and then probably by summer we'll get a ruling.
So it'll be really interesting to see what ends up
happening on this. This is one that is one of
(14:18):
those you know, let's let's listen and wait to see
how this is going to go, because this could change
election law in a very big way.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah. Sure, And you know, and just real quick, because
we have a couple of minutes ltime.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
I did want to ask you about what you thought
the Supreme Court was going to do with the tariff ruling.
Oh yeah, you know, I've heard eighty percent chance that
they overrule it, and they consider the tariff's taxes, which
would obviously defeat anything that he was doing.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
They fall under the congressional powers and not the executive power.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Which is what they're trying to discern right now. Anyway,
I'll tell you.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
Not for me to be political or not.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
I hope that's the outcome because I want to see
all the branches do the things that they're supposed to
do and not have an expansion of power.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Yeah, and that's what this is.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
This is, this is basically, this is a handcuff on
the expansion of power on top of a bunch of things.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But that's what this is.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
And just to be fair, I think every president that
I can recall from Clinton on has had some expansion
of power lawsuit that's gone to the Supreme Court. It's
just a very in size and intensity. But you know,
I'll tell you, I don't know. With the justices that
we have in Supreme Court now, they've come back with
some i'll call it interesting rulings. One that I did
(15:29):
not necessarily expect, and so the immunity one immunity was
one of them. You know, there's some other rights that
we had seen that we thought were going to be
in place for like fifty years that would change.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
So I don't know, I really don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
But we saw this Chevron, which doesn't mean anything to
anybody else. There's a Chevron case about executive power. That
got overruled after thirty eight years of precedent, and so
I'm thinking this will fall all the same direction, so
that eighty percent probability seems about accurate.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
I think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
And when you heard any of the arguments, which I
found fascinating. By the way, did you see who was
in the crowd because they were making a show about
the Supreme Court? No, John Mulaney, Oh really yeah. John
Mlaney's in the development of a TV show about the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Interesting, And it was very interesting to hear the arguments
from the justice as a matter of fact, so much
so I told the guys, specifically, Jack, I'm like, you
want to hear some fascinating stuff. Go hear the arguments
against this listener general for the White House and the
Supreme Court and how they're questioning and how they come
to conclusions. It is absolutely riveting, dude. And there's no video.
(16:37):
You're just hearing it.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
Audi.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
It's riveting.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
There was a really interesting one about two years ago
about Native American treaty rights, and the Supreme Court was
very active. You get a hot or cold bench sometimes
they were very actively discussing these treaties from two hundred
and fifty four hundred years ago, and you know, you're
laughing because you like, it doesn't seem like something that
(16:59):
they be really interested in, but it had. It has
a huge impact on law today. And so anyway, it
is cool when you get a hot when you get
a hot bench, right, listen to how they're asking questions, because, I.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Mean, this White House is using some stuff that hasn't
been used for seventy five years. I mean, so, I
mean we know that some of these cases were passed
in the twenties. Yeah, you know, so it's it's interesting
how they do use these acts that have been there
haven't been used for a while. So awesome stuff today, buddy,
thanks absolutely, all right four seven nine one six four
one text us seven seven zero three one deb news.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Yeah, we have a deadly deputy confrontation in Miami Dade.
Four year old twins are shot in Orange County and
Michael Jackson makes Billboard Hot one hundred history. Yep, we'll
talk about that next during you heard it here first,
I got it.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Don't forget grand is your six o'clock key where you
got about fifteen minutes to get over to real Radio
Dot of FIM and send that away for your chance
at one thousand bucks back in a second, Dev's News
and we'll get the hell out of here on a
Monday
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.