July 17, 2025 • 41 mins
Love to hear from you; “Send us a Text Message”
What happens when the government tells churches to close their doors? During the pandemic, attorney Jeffrey Trissell found himself at the center of an unprecedented legal battle for religious freedom that would take him to the Supreme Court three times in a single year.
The fight began when California implemented severe restrictions on religious gatherings while allowing "essential" businesses to operate with fewer limitations. As Trissell explains, the constitutional implications were profound: if hospitals remained open because they were "absolutely necessary," shouldn't worship—which believers consider essential to spiritual wellbeing—receive similar consideration?
What makes Trissell's account particularly compelling is his perspective on courage in the face of pressure. Drawing inspiration from St. Thomas More, he reflects on how standing firm in one's convictions often means facing opposition not just from expected adversaries, but sometimes from friends, family, and even religious leaders.
Get your copy Here! Unlocking the Churches, The Legal Victory against Califorbia;s Pandemic-Era Religious Discrimination
Jacks Latest Blog Young Men United in the Eucharist: Heroically Rebuilding the Three Necessary Societies
Follow us and watch on X: John Paul II Renewal @JP2Renewal
Subscribe to our Newly Resurrected YouTube Channel!
Sign up for our Newsletter: https://jp2renew.org/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Welcome to the Become who you Are podcast, a
production of the John PaulTurin Newell Center.
I'm Jack Riggert, your host.
You know, while the attack onour freedoms, especially those
with traditional Christianvalues, has been going on for
some time, anyone payingattention knows that the COVID
pandemic gave the so-calledelite and rulers of this present
age the catalyst they sought tofurther consolidate power,
(00:36):
silence and even censor, ofcourse, opposing voices.
Most people that I know, youknow, like sheep being led to
the slaughter, simply fellsilent and got in line, and
we've seen this many, many timesduring history.
But there's always a few voices, those who not only saw the
threat clearly but had thecourage to stand up and fight
against the tyranny and theevils of our modern age.
(00:57):
One of those voices is with ushere today to share his
firsthand account here today toshare his firsthand account.
Jeffrey M Trissel is an attorneywho fought on the front lines
in the heroic legal battlesduring the 20 and the 2021
COVID-19 pandemic and he wrote abook about it Unlocking the
Church as the Legal VictoryAgainst California's
Pandemic-Era ReligiousDiscrimination, detailing the
(01:21):
unprecedented lockdown ofchurches in the United States.
Jeffrey is a civil litigationattorney in private practice
with the law firm LeMandry andJonah.
He obtained his bachelor ofarts degree in French and
philosophy as a fourthgeneration cowboy attending
Oklahoma State University andobtained his Juris Doctorate
(01:42):
from the George WashingtonUniversity Law School in 2013.
He resides in San Diego,california, with his wife and
two daughters.
The vast majority of his legalwork is devoted to
constitutional rights, includingFirst Amendment, litigation,
redistricting, defamation andeducation rights.
Mr Trissel, thank you so much,sir, for being with us.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
I should probably also mention, because I love
them, the Thomas More Society.
You work as special counsel forthem, Thomas More our audience
is pretty familiar with them andthe ADL and these wonderful
firms that stand up againstreally religious tyranny that we
see all over.
You made a number ofappearances in courts and three
(02:29):
trips to the US Supreme Courtwithin a year and a permanent
injunction ended up beingentered against Governor Newsom
in the state of California.
You were a busy man.
I love the book.
I love the way you started outwith some terms.
For those of us who are notlegally minded, I really
recommend not going throughthose early, let's say,
(02:49):
introduction and chapter, noteven a whole chapter, but
defining what the court systemsare like, and so thank you for
doing that.
You set it up beautifully Well.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Thank you, as I've gotten more feedback since it
was written.
I've actually been surprised byhow many people greatly enjoy
the sometimes tiresomedescription of how the law works
, because if you don't gothrough that chapter you can't
really understand a lot of thebook.
But once you do, it's reallyrewarding and then you can
really understand how thingsprogress.
It also explains you know hownovel this situation was.
(03:20):
Most of my cases are not over,right, like I've been working on
cases from 2016, 2020, andwe're in 2015 now right, I mean
2025 now and those cases arestill ongoing.
The reason I could write thebook was because this story came
full circle in a year and endeddefinitively, which I don't
usually have cases that do that.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yeah, that's true, isn't that something?
It just lingers on and on andon.
Well, we saw and I don't knowhow you would describe this, but
it was.
I guess that when I look backand you make clear in your book,
and even though you may notstate it like this so I don't
want to put any words in yourmouth, especially since you're
an attorney, so you could stopme and correct me but the
hypocrisy was amazing.
(04:00):
The hypocrisy and the way theyused the law to go after
churches and small businessesand other things and really
twisting and distorting this.
It was really something to see.
And so the question becomes youknow, when they step in, the
government steps in and takespower like this, it's very
difficult, especially for smallbusinesses, for individual
(04:21):
churches, to fight back becauseyou know they have an unlimited
resource, right?
They have people on theirpayroll that can come after you,
the government can.
They have our tax dollars, andthen they know we're limited
because we only have the rest ofour tax dollars to pay and
defend ourselves.
And there's always fear, right,there's always fear.
Who am I?
I'm just a little guy, and thewhole state of California is
(04:43):
coming after me.
Who am I?
I'm just a little guy, and thewhole state of California is
coming after me.
So what's that?
Like to fight against that, andshould really?
What is it when the pandemicstrikes?
Does the governmenthave—because they're always
going to come up with an excuseof some sort right, there's a
war, there's this, there's this,there's this.
Are there limits to this?
And I think that's really whatyou're working at here with the
(05:05):
book.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Right, in most of my cases we can recover our
attorney's fees at the end ofthe case and to do that we got
to document how much time we'vespent and I've done probably
half a dozen attorney's feesmotions and we usually have
three 4,000 hours incurred right, which even if you, you know,
(05:27):
at regular attorney rates,that's a lot of money, right,
that's a lot of money, and so ittakes really the support of the
Thomas More side and othernonprofit law firms to help us
do that.
My firm will do a little bit probono, but we're a small firm of
, you know, 10, 12 attorneys andwe can't work for 3,000 hours
without getting paid.
We'd love to help people whohave don't have the means to
(05:50):
actually pay for attorneys, butwithout, you know, without that
aggressive pushback of three4,000 hours of attorney time,
we're not going to beatCalifornia or the United States
government.
I mean, they're, they're,they're continuing going and you
know the department of justice,united States government, I
mean they're, they're, they'recontinuing going, and you know
the department of justice,california has like a $1.6
(06:11):
billion budget, right.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
It's, it's a huge enterprise and they just throw
money at things and they havepeople on staff and they can
just say, hey, jack, you go thatway and attack that guy, and
you go that way, and, and, and,do this, you know, and, uh, and
so, yeah, you look at, I was inbusiness most of my life as an
entrepreneur and really saw whatwas going on and you would get
sued over something and the timeand the money and the resources
(06:34):
and the nervous energy it wouldtake, you know it's really can
suck the energy out of you.
And especially when you'repouring your blood into these
businesses and these churchesand things, is religious liberty
becoming a second tierconstitutional right that the
government can be free just toignore.
That's what seems to happenduring this and if this is going
(06:55):
to happen again and we want tokind of know how we should be
handling this from looking atyour bad cases so if you could
bring us forward a little bitand up to speed on some of the
work that you did, Right, so thebook itself.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
It talks about the legal fights in 2020, right, my
law firm filed three lawsuitsand we won at the US Supreme
Court in one of the three andthe other two they were mooted
out because that one victory.
And when I wrote the book, Iwanted to both detail the
history and provide a lot of myown commentary, because I spent
(07:30):
a whole year almost doingnothing but COVID litigation and
had a lot of thoughts on it.
And when I wrote the bookactually it didn't take me that
long to write, because that'swhat I do, I'm a writer but I
sat on it for a while because Ifelt like we were in this period
after the pandemic where wewere still trying to figure out
what it meant right, and peoplewere tired of hearing about the
(07:52):
pandemic.
And now that we have you know,we're five years on I felt like
it was time to publish the bookand to feel like my comments
could be not just instinctivereactions but maybe more
measured and well thought out.
And so I do think now we'regetting a little bit of,
hopefully, a renaissance, athird great awakening.
(08:12):
I think the pandemic had a hugepsychological effect on our
nation, you know, in terms ofrealizing that, hey, we can't
let our religious rights becompletely trampled.
I'm feeling more optimisticfive years out.
Our religious rights becompletely trampled.
I'm feeling more optimisticfive years out.
When I wrote the book originallyI was a little bit.
I was pessimistic because ofhow significant the trampling of
our religious rights was.
But I think I'm not the onlyone who saw that, and so I'm
(08:35):
looking forward.
I mean, we'll see.
I mean there's the paradigmshifts in the Republican Party
are quite fascinating and howthings are switched from a.
In my mind, the most importantshift was really the Dobbs
decision that kind of took thefocus away from the federal
fights to the state fightsacross all the culture, war
(08:56):
issues, including religiousliberty.
Obviously, now with the Trumpadministration, I only have to
sue Governor Newsom, I don'thave to sue President Biden,
which is, you know, that alwaysis the next four years.
It's going to be a completelydifferent litigation for me, but
at least even when we have ayou know four, eight years from
now, a President Newsom orwhoever I don't know, I feel
like there's a tone shift andI'm hoping that we won't have to
sue the federal governor asmuch anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah, well, I'll tell you what.
And I meant to take that Trumphat down I hope I don't offend
you and I meant to take it down.
And I tell you why I put it upbecause we have an apostle that
Mr Trussell on it, calledClaymore.
It's the big sword behind me.
It's for young men, it's Gen Zmen who stood up and voted for
Trump.
And I just had a show and wehung it there and what they saw
(09:39):
is kind of what you'redescribing here.
You know, they saw.
They didn't know exactly whatit was, but something was wrong,
something was something wasoppressive, something was wrong
in their own hearts and in theculture itself.
And when without getting intothe weeds here when they saw
Trump stand up, they thoughtsomebody was fighting for them
and they saw a window ofopportunity.
They didn't know why.
(09:59):
So it's a great time, anyways,for us to evangelize.
So again, I'm sorry I forgotabout that up there, but that's
the mood that changed and Ithink it woke people up.
I hope so, even though I'll askyou this I saw a lot of fear.
I was amazed by people that Iknew.
You know, men that I knew thatI thought were men, you know,
(10:20):
and, you know, mad at me becauseI didn't always wear a mask
properly or, you know, keep mysix foot distance, or whatever.
Or I was pushing back.
You know, with the John Paul IIRenewal Center, we were pushing
back on the Catholic Church forclosing all these churches and
I couldn't believe how muchvitriol we got.
I mean, I'm sure you got thattoo.
How did you feel about that?
People that would normally bebehind you.
(10:42):
You're fighting them at thesame time, in essence, that
you're fighting, you know, theother side.
How did you feel about that?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, not to get too personal, but my own religious
faith was a little bit shakenright.
Not in the sense of you everreally truly doubted, right.
Like I'm a devout Catholiccradle Catholic I will always be
, no matter what my personalconfidence in the hierarchy of
the church was a little bit lesslike.
Well, you know, I'm supposed tobe looking up to you and I'm
supposed to try to be obedientand try to be deferential and
(11:10):
respectful and, come on, youknow, you guys, this, this is
not right.
And when you're trying to justbe humble as a good Catholic, it
can be very frustrating whenyou don't have good leaders.
Yeah, have good leaders.
So, yeah, I personally was veryfrustrated with the lack of
strength by Catholic leaders,and whether they're, you know,
(11:33):
bishops or priests, you know orjust lay male leaders, you know,
I attend men's groups.
I think men's spirituality is avery important thing for men to
study.
And, yeah, it was challenging.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And unfortunately look, I didn't mean to go and
take you in the weeds here, butI mean particularly, it was the
Vatican, you know.
I mean, you know it seemed tobe led by Pope Francis
unfortunately, these are mywords, not yours, but it was led
by him, you know, with thechurch lockdowns and then the
vaccine mandates and everythingright in the Vatican.
But here's what it did.
(12:11):
I think it, you know, just puteverybody back on their heels a
little bit.
You know people that would havehad the courage.
I think of John Paul II wasthere, knowing communism and
what they did and the tyrantsand the totalitarianism and the
dictatorships.
I don't think he would have putup with that and that would
have changed it.
You know, because let's talkabout the cases that you had,
because these were smallerchurches, they weren't Catholic
(12:35):
churches, obviously, and theywere standing up very courageous
, very courageous.
Can you tell us a little aboutthem and how that was to work
with them, because I'm reallyenamored with the work that you
did and also with the bravery ofthose pastors, right?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
We decided to file a lawsuit, really in mid-April
2020.
My firm, you know, we're abunch of devout Catholic men who
are led by Charles Lemandri,who is a bulldog not afraid of
anything, and he basically saidthe reopening that Governor
Newsom had announced was notfair.
And we discussed it, thepartners and I, and roundtabled
(13:13):
it and decided we needed to filea lawsuit and we had to find a
plaintiff, right?
That was really the initialthought was we need a plaintiff
to sue.
And so we called all theCatholic churches we knew, right
, and we know the EasternCatholic churches, we know the
Diocese of San Diego there'squite a few Eastern Catholic
churches in San Diego actually,that we work with.
Everybody said no, right.
(13:35):
And then we started calling theProtestant churches that we
knew, because we had defended alot of them over the years, and
everybody said no.
It was really like we couldn'tfind anybody.
We couldn't find anybody to sueuntil one person connected us
with Pastor Hodges, BishopHodges of the South Bay
Pentecostal Church, and he wasthe first person who really said
I think we need to stand up,and so we recruited him to join
(13:59):
the lawsuit.
Now he was eager to join thelawsuit but, frankly, we had
never represented a Pentecostalchurch before.
I mean, we'd represent a lot ofevangelical megachurches in
their fights against the state,but we had never represented
Bishop Hodges.
He was just not one of ourprior contacts but he was
willing to stand up.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And he had already taken a stance that he was not
going to close.
Did he take that prior, bishop?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Hodges like everybody else.
Yeah, he closed the church hischurch.
At that point we wanted to takeas safe a case as possible.
So we were basically sayingwe're not open yet.
We want an order from the courtsaying we're allowed to open
and if we do that we willenforce all of the safety
requirements social distancing,you know which the theory of
(14:47):
that case was.
We wanted to say, look, we'redoing everything we can, you
know, everything possible.
There's no reason we shouldn'tbe open, even though we didn't.
Anyway, that was a theory ofthat case.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Because there were, because, to your point, I mean
you know and we know becausethere were stores and different,
you know, retail spaces etcetera, liquor stores, et cetera
, that were allowed to be open,Right, and well, even frankly,
we would say, even hospitalsright, hospitals are allowed to
be open because they'reabsolutely necessary.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Well, worship is absolutely necessary, right,
it's life-saving, right, it's noless necessary than open heart
surgery because it's absolutelynecessary.
It's just not something thatcan be given up.
And so, after we filed alawsuit on behalf of Bishop
Hodges in early May 2020, by theend of May, we had our loss by
the US Supreme Court five tofour loss, which was very, very
(15:38):
disheartening for me.
I had spent to get to the USSupreme Court in three weeks.
I had to actually do the firstand first all-nighter I'd ever
done, where I wrote a 8,000-wordbrief from 9 pm to 4 am and
then sent it to my partners andsaid please edit this and file
it.
I'm going to sleep.
And we did that three timesovernight to get to the US
(15:59):
Supreme Court, and then we got a5-4 loss.
Wow, and that was very, verydisheartening.
And the scary thing about thatwas we then got an announcement
to the whole world that theSupreme Court was not on our
side, and that's when we startedgetting a lot more pushback.
That's when we started gettingthe prosecutions right, where
the government was coming afterchurches who had just ignored
(16:20):
what the government was saying,because, yeah, there are plenty
of churches that just opened up.
Depending on your localjurisdiction, that could have
been fine.
Here in San Diego, we are apurple city.
We used to be very red and nowwe're becoming more blue.
Now we're pretty much blue, butI still think of us as purple.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You're an optimist, right?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Yeah, I'm.
We had a red mayor and therewere no county officials or city
officials coming after placesthat were open Towards the end
of 2020,.
We got a blue mayor and thingsstarted to change.
So you know, that's when I hadthe case on Grace Community
Church.
On the case on behalf of GraceCommunity Church started in LA
over the summer because theyjust decided to reopen and the
County of Los Angeles decidedwell then, we're going to come
after you and, uh, that became avery different, very different
(17:10):
type of law.
Right, where you're, you're,you're on the run and you're
defending against, well, a citythat is bigger than like 40 of
the States, right, 10 millionpeople city.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, yeah, 10 million people county.
And what kind of pressure dothey put on those churches,
jeffrey?
And you know when you say theycome after them.
You know, and again, I was inbusiness, so I have a sense of
this.
But for our audience that maybewasn't.
It can be very, very rattlingfor people that aren't used to
this.
How did they take that?
And I always wonder how thepastor himself and the people
(17:48):
around him they have a realconviction for this and how far
are they willing to go, becauseit's not easy, is?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
it.
So the first thing is youshould definitely reach out to a
non-profit law firm wheneveryou're dealing with the
government in this context,because the initial thought is
you can just ignore it.
You push back and stand up andbe strong and be a man, and
that's probably the right answer.
But you also need somebody totell you what the risks are.
So Father Burfitt, who werepresented in Los Angeles
County also, he got a citation.
(18:15):
When he the citation says youknow, approximately 11 people
were seen leaving the church andit was just like this.
This really, you know, it'sjust like a county health
citation.
It's fine, probably $250.
It was left at his residence.
Because he left the churchunlocked.
People could come in and prayif they wanted to.
Depending on your personality,that citation could be
(18:39):
intimidating or you could say itwas 250 bucks, who cares?
You know I'm going to leave mychurch unlocked.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
We're going to ask you to join us by helping us get
the word out.
So if you could make sure yousubscribe and then hit like.
No matter which platform you'reon, remember that the Become
who you Are podcast is on audioon any music or podcast app.
We're up on Rumble YouTube.
You can find us on X.
When you do subscribe, hit thelike button.
(19:07):
A couple of things to share withpeople.
Love Ed.
Love Ed is just such animportant apostolate, so it's
within our apostolate, the JohnPaul II Renewal Center.
This helps parents give thetalk to their children.
We're trying to push back onall these gender ideologies and
the porn culture and givechildren the truth and do it
(19:30):
through their parents, and wehelp them do that.
The other one is really takenoff too.
It's Claymore.
Miletus Christi, soldiers forChrist.
That's where you see the swordbehind me.
That's the big sword.
That's our logo for Claymore.
Militants Christi, soldiers forChrist.
That's where you see the swordbehind me.
That's the big sword.
That's our logo for Claymore.
That's a Claymore sword.
And this is for young people,especially young men Gen Z, high
school, all the way through,let's call it, till they're 30
(19:51):
years old or so.
They're starting to reallyunderstand that something
nefarious, very toxic is goingon in the culture, and so
they're stepping into the churchand we're discipling them.
So we want to help get the wordout about those things and,
lastly, consider financiallysupporting us.
Everything's in the show notes.
Hey, god bless you.
Thanks again.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
And for a lot of the churches who got citations like
that, that was fine.
You just you pay the citationor you ignore it and eventually
you know whatever the pandemicends.
You know there's one case of achurch in California that I was
following closely and I talkabout in the book where I think
their ultimate fine was $3,000.
Even after they were hauledinto court and they got a
(20:32):
judicial order saying you haveto close.
The judge at the end of the dayonly slapped them on the wrist.
But that's not every case,right you?
talked about Santa Clara and thechurch up there was getting
whacked, right I mean it was inthe millions, wasn't it Millions
(20:52):
of dollars in fines, and youknow, there's a pastor in
Louisiana who was placed underhouse arrest with an ankle
bracelet, right.
That's as far as I've seen themgo in America, which was thank
goodness, but obviously inCanada there were stories of
churches being condemned and youknow fences Pastors were thrown
in jail up there right.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Do we have any pastors thrown in jail here?
Do you know?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
The only one I know of is Pastor Spell in Louisiana,
who was under house arrest.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Okay, so Father is a Burfitt that you had just
mentioned.
So he's a Catholic priest,right, he's SSPX, okay, sspx.
And he was over five churchesand were they all basically
closed, but the door was openand people could go in and pray,
but he wasn't trying to say,hey, I'm offering a worship
(21:39):
service.
From my recollection, right,right.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
So he oversees five parish communities.
So in Los Angeles he has hischurch where his residents and
the other priests and residents,but in San Diego, for example,
they were renting a church.
I think it might have been likea—because in San Diego we're a
big military town.
We have these old militarychurches that they no longer use
and they just rent out.
So I think he was renting achurch but they were no longer
(22:05):
able to rent it right, and thegovernment shut down and so that
one was just closed.
And I don't really know allthat much about what was
happening in the other counties.
A lot of them were ruralcounties where I presume the
church was just open.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Was anybody in the diocese there?
So he fell mostly in the LA, inthe Los Angeles diocese.
So was the bishop there, thearchbishop there, was there any
support for him?
I mean, did they come out andsupport them vocally,
financially, I mean anything atall?
Did you have a sense ofanything like that?
Speaker 2 (22:38):
No, there was definitely no public vocal
support in terms ofbehind-the-scenes support, not
from the Los Angeles archbishopor the bishops there.
We were getting support frombehind the scenes from some
bishops, but nobody was willingto stand up.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Yeah, how sad is that .
Because if the Catholic Churchwere to put their weight behind
this, more of these otherpastors know pastors too in the
evangelical churches, et cetera,would have had even more
confidence.
You know, you know it justshows you when we back down, you
know, and we take that, youknow, put your head between your
legs, cowardice type ofposition.
(23:13):
You know it doesn't bode wellfor the rest of you know, all of
us fighting for religiousfreedom does it, and I know you
have to.
You should be careful and Ishouldn't ask you stuff like
that.
And so just plead the fifth ifyou want to.
When I do that, I'm justmystified myself and I get.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
I do think there's truth to the statement that if
you stand up, you get your headcut off right, and so you have
to be very careful in thesecases and, for the most part,
before I file a lawsuit, mycases are very, very well
thought out, you know, in termsof choosing venue, trying to
find a conservative venue,trying to find a conservative, a
proper framing of the case anda theory about how we're going
(23:52):
to win on appeal.
It was this case.
These cases were much more like.
Well, this is life and death.
Right, you know the emergencyprocedures that we used.
The clerks who handle them areusually called the death clerks
because they're dealing withemergency death penalty cases.
Right, those are the ones whereyou say I need a ruling in less
than eight hours.
When the Ninth Circuit says youlose at noon on Saturday and I
(24:14):
say I want to open up my churchon Sunday, Well, the clerk who
deals with you know a turnaroundthat fast is the death clerk.
And so, like calling up thedeath clerk and saying we need
to open our church for the on mynormal case, right, they're not
the one that has this huge rush.
Yeah, it's very important tothink things through very
carefully, and that's why it'sin my mind.
It's been great.
I feel like we've seen anexplosion of religious liberty
(24:35):
law firms in the past 15 years,including the Thomas More
Society, because if you thinkthese things through, they're
winnable.
If you don't, if you just standup and you're being sued in San
Francisco County State Courtand your appeals process is the
(24:55):
First District Court of Appealand the California Supreme Court
, you're just going to stand upand get your head cut off.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well, I think that's what really makes the rest of us
nervous.
Look, we have an apostolatehere.
We're not all that big and youknow, we would, you know, go
into churches and we werespeaking to people etc.
And you know, you do you feelvery man.
It's just like, you know,without armor, it almost seems
like you know that you canreally get picked off.
(25:20):
So I think that's, you know,it's good to be talking to you
and it's good to be, you know,reading books like yours, and
I'll make sure, of course, I putthis in the show notes.
But, you know, because we haveto get confidence, we have to
get conviction.
So the first thing you'rerecommending is we found, you
know, can we get?
Will somebody pick up the phone?
For most of us?
And, like you said, there aremore.
You know the Alliance DefendingFreedom, of course, is out there
(25:43):
at Thomas More Society.
Now, I'm from Chicago, so theyhave a big office right here in
Chicago, so that's wonderful.
Is it Liberty Council?
There's a couple really gettingmore and more well-known for
this.
Is it individual donors andpeople that are trying to fund
this?
In other words, if I call themup and I don't have unlimited
resources right, they're goingto do their best to work with me
(26:07):
, but who's helping all of thesefirms underneath?
I mean, are these patriots?
Are these, you know, Christians?
Christian patriots, probably,you know, but, and there's got
to be others.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Yeah, it's for the most part small donors sending
in payments to the law firms,which amazes me.
My mother works for a, or shemanages a crisis pregnancy
center in Virginia, or a seriesof them, and comparing the
fundraising practices of hergroup and our group, you know
it's very similar and verydifferent, you know.
(26:41):
But you know, in a sense, thatwe're all just trying to do our
best to help people, and I helppeople who need a lawyer, and so
donations really just ensurethat I can spend 3,000 hours
helping somebody when yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
It's a lot of work.
It's a lot of work.
So you said you feel optimisticabout the future here.
I mean, I think most of thepeople that I talk to,
especially with young familiesand stuff, really feel that the
culture itself is under attack.
You know marriage, the family,children of course, things like
that.
So you know the Catholic socialteaching.
(27:16):
I always look at it almost likea pyramid in front of you, like
a triangle, like a pyramidshape in front of us.
So, with marriage and thefamily, christ and the church,
you know, is holding up thebottom, and then we go out to
your realm there, which is, youknow, taking this out into
polity, taking this out into theway we, you know, organize our
societies, you know, all the wayup into our laws, and our laws
(27:39):
have to be just.
We really saw an attack on this.
Will you keep it up?
Will you keep working now thatyou have this?
You know, you have thisknowledge, now you have this
background?
It's an amazing amount of workand things that you've gone
through and you specialize inthose things.
Is that your cup of tea?
You know our constitutionalrights, of course, but you also
mentioned education in there andI wanted to ask you a question
(28:01):
about that and what you'reseeing in the educational realm
too, because we're beingcensored there right now.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Parents are being censored there, so I am right, I
work for a private law firm, sowe do pretty much everything.
But because I knowconstitutional law very well,
because I tend to specialize inFirst Amendment litigation free
speech, exercise of religionthat translates into the
education context pretty welland most of my education cases
have actually been on the not onthe nonprofit side trying to
help foster kids navigate thesystem in California and the
(28:30):
foster education rights inCalifornia, but in terms of
education in general, especiallyunder the religious liberty
context, the way I think of itis, the Supreme Court has the
final say and they're moving inthe right direction, but they
don't want to be pushed too hard.
So all the religious libertyattorneys and all the religious
liberty law firms are basicallytrying to push the Supreme Court
(28:50):
in the right direction and theSupreme Court says we're taking
our steps, but we're going to doone at a time at a time, we're
not going to jump to head of theline.
So there was a verydisappointing case at the US
Supreme Court this yearregarding whether a Catholic
school can operate a charterschool and be publicly funded,
(29:12):
and the US Supreme Court decidednot to decide the issue and
kicked it back down to the lowercourts and you know I was
really optimistic because inCalifornia I'd love to have a
conservative Catholic charterschool funded by the state
that's run by, you know,catholic church.
But they are going to citeanother education case in a
couple of days, presumablyregarding the rights of parents
in schools.
(29:32):
So right now there is kind of asplit regarding how strong the
parental right is past thethreshold of a schoolhouse door.
A lot of courts want to saythat you get to decide whether
to send your kid to a publicschool or a private school or
homeschool.
But once you send your kid tothe public school you pretty
much lose all your rights andthat's just not right.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
You know, if you're in the and that was never the
intention was it of schools totake away a parent's rights, you
know Right.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, the weird thing is that we had these really
great Supreme Court wins in the1920s and 30s and as a result,
we got all these statutoryprotections.
We passed laws saying like inCalifornia we have a very
comprehensive opt-out scheme.
You don't want to have your kidlearning about weird sex stuff?
You have a right under theeducation code to opt your kid
out of it.
But because we had such acomprehensive statutory scheme
(30:27):
for the past 100 years, wehaven't had to have cases
litigating it, and it's onlycoming up again now when in
California we have cases whereyour kid requests.
In the California law, genderidentity is defined as the
asserted gender identity of theperson asserting it without
regard to any statement byanybody else, including the
person's parents.
This was a very circulardefinition whose only point is
(30:48):
to say the kid gets to say whattheir gender identity is.
Parents have no say, anddiscrimination on the basis of
gender identity includes notusing your preferred pronouns.
So as soon as the kid requests,all the teachers and staff have
to start referring to the kidby their alternate pronouns and
they can't tell the parentsbecause that would violate the
kid's privacy and it's absurd,right, I mean, just from a
common sense perspective it'stotally absurd.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But we know what's happening and that's why I
mentioned spiritual battle,because they want to drive a
wedge between parents andchildren themselves.
It's really something.
These are important cases.
These are important cases tofight because the ultimate goal
is—I don't want to make aperfect analogy here, which I,
you know, I mean, you know, butit's not exactly the same but we
had the Hitler youth camps.
(31:30):
You know, we had this inMarxism.
They always knew that if theycould get the children away from
the parents, teach them whatthey wanted to teach them, they
can indoctrinate them.
And you know, lenin, in a veryshort time, said you know, just
give me a few years with themand I will change, I'll begin to
change this whole society.
And this is the danger we'reunder today.
(31:51):
We could see.
It's very clear, actually, ifyou have eyes to see it isn't it
Right?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
There's not a lot of.
Unfortunately, it feels likenot a lot of people can see it.
Even on the liberal sidethere's so many people who I
feel like, wait, you actuallybelieve your own propaganda.
You do realize that'spropaganda, right?
It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
It's amazing.
I have to smile, because if Idon't smile and laugh about this
once in a while, I would goinsane, and I'm sure you would
too.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
But yes, they've, especially in California, and
that's where I have my family.
The way the education system isset up, it does seem like it's
procedurally brilliant in termsof setting up parents to fail
and for the state to steal yourkids.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Yes, Well, I'm in the belly of the beast here in
Illinois.
So you know we're right, youknow we are competing with you
to see who can ruin children andindoctrinate them and separate
and knock down marriages and thefamilies faster.
And so, yeah, we're competing.
I don't know who's winningright now, but maybe California
by just by a nose, you know.
(32:49):
But yeah, it's brutal here.
And so that question tonight,if you don't mind.
So tonight I have apresentation called Stolen
Innocence.
I'm giving in this area andChicagoland area and it really
talks about the stealing, theinnocence of children,
obliterating their moralimaginations, driving a wedge
between parents and the kids.
And we're fighting that rightnow here.
What would parents do?
I'm just waking up and I'mstarting to recognize that
(33:12):
there's something wrong.
Finally, and we're trying toget them to move, we do two
things.
One thing is to actually takeresponsibility and teach their
own children about sex education, et cetera, and opt out.
But the problem with theopt-out agreements now.
So we have to do more, becausethe problem with the opt-out
agreements is that these genderideologies, et cetera, critical
race theories, they permeatedevery subject.
(33:34):
I mean, you know they're inmath, now they're in everything.
And so we have to all stand upand just really have to stand up
and be counted.
But what can I tell them?
From a legal standpoint?
You know that somebody willhave their backs if they go to a
school board.
You know we saw this with theBiden administration where they
actually harassed people the FBIharassed people.
(33:56):
This is really scary, scary forpeople.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
One of my education cases that is ramping up right
now is all about gender identityand kids who are socially
transitioned at school withouttheir parents' knowledge or
consent, and when that casefirst came across my desk as a
potential, I was very anxiousbecause I had studied a lot of
these cases and there werealready a dozen or half a dozen
(34:19):
across the country that had beenfiled and lost, and so I was
like, well, I don't have anotherloser, and we actually got one
of the very first wins in thecountry, and probably the
strongest win, and so I wouldsay that Was that fairly
recently.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Congratulations.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Well, we just got the preliminary injunction, which
is a preliminary win,essentially in September of 23.
And that, I think, reallyhelped move the ball forward for
a lot of other cases.
And now we're going to bemoving for final judgment later
this year.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Oh, we'll have to follow you on that.
Keep it, you know we're goingto follow you on that one.
Are you feeling?
Well, I don't want to giveanything away.
We're feeling optimistic.
Yeah, good, good, good, good.
Well, I'll tell you what Ireally recommend people get your
book.
Again, I'll put this in theshow notes.
I'll put a good picture up onthe screen as we're talking
(35:06):
about it, because it's veryimportant.
Up on the screen as we'retalking about it, because it's
very important.
It's very important for peopleto be more familiar.
If you want to stand up againstsome of this pressure, this
tyranny I don't want to overusethe word, but that's what we
feel a lot it's really aspiritual battle and if you want
to have conviction to stand up,I think you need to know the
law, at least the basics of it,so that when I contact you I
(35:27):
kind of have an idea of some ofthe things that you're going
through.
You did a great job with that.
You also did a great.
You know it's very interestingall those cases.
You know, in the limited timewe have, you know we couldn't
really unpack a lot of thoseidiosyncrasies, but it was
really interesting.
But I love this and maybe, aswe go out here and I'm cognizant
of your time Talk about Thomas,st Thomas More, because that's
(35:49):
how you end.
It's a great way to end becauseit's talking about to have the
conviction to stand up, and canyou talk a little bit about that
and what that meant to youpersonally?
Speaker 2 (36:00):
One of my favorite essays about Thomas More was
written by Hilaire Belloc and inthat essay he talks about how
it would be one thing if ThomasMore were being applauded by his
friends saying, wow, if only wewere as great as him, as strong
and brave and courageous.
But no, his friends were sayingthis guy is crazy.
They were saying this guy, whocan be a little bit odd and
(36:21):
wrote a socialist book calledUtopia when he was in his youth,
is now deciding to sacrificeeverything over the objection of
his wife, his kids, all of hisfriends.
And yet now we think of ThomasMore as a great man and that he
was obviously in the right.
But even the people of goodwillwere saying he was in the wrong
right, even the devoutCatholics.
And I think that was what thepoint I wanted to emphasize in
(36:42):
that last chapter was that youdo need to step back and think
things through and know thatyou're in the right and then
stand by it right, regardless ofthe pressures you get from your
family, from your priests.
Right, and I think that's alsowhy I liked writing the book in
the way I did is to educatepeople about how the legal
system works so they can sitback, think it through and say,
(37:03):
okay, I do know I'm in the rightBecause, yeah, half of the book
is just a story of the cases.
The other half of the bookreally is me doing my very best
to explain the legal system forthe layman so that they can
follow these cases well.
And once they know how tofollow the cases, they can think
them through for themselves andknow where they'll go and go,
no further.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yes, yes, yes.
In order to do that, you haveto educate yourself and you have
to understand not only the lawhere, but you also and when I
say understand, at least have asense of it and some of the
legal terms that you outline.
But you also have a personalconviction, and I think you know
what you said earlier is notenough.
People recognize what was goingon, and I think this comes from
(37:44):
that lack of faith.
You know, lack of personalconviction, lack of
understanding and knowledge ofour own faith, because if you
don't have that, you won't standup either.
You know, I think you said it sowell in the book and again,
this is a statement from StThomas More is that we're all
going to die.
We're all going to die right,and there's no, it's inevitable.
And so I die today, you dietomorrow and in essence, you
(38:07):
know, you make the statement,you know what do you live for,
what do you live for?
It's very meaningful and weshould all be pondering that.
Are you pondering that asyou're going about your work?
You know you're a father withkids.
You know, as a dad, we want toleave this legacy down, don't we
?
We want to say, hey, dad stoodfor something.
Dad had courage to be a man inhis profession, you know, and et
(38:33):
cetera, et cetera.
I think that's important to allof us, and it should be, don't
you think?
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Well, I think the legacy that each of us needs to
leave behind isn't really alegacy, right?
I don't care that I went to theUS Supreme Court.
I don't care.
To a certain degree, yes, Ilove my clients because I have
very, very good clients and Ilove helping them protect their
religious liberty, but at theend of the day, what's most
important to me is my ownrelationship with God, and all
of these things help that.
(38:57):
You know we will all beforgotten.
I mean, I can personally namethe most important Supreme Court
litigators right now, right,and I follow them and I respect
their work.
I'm sure none of your listenersknow who any of them are, and
it's you know, and there's noneed to right as long as they're
doing, because the reasonthey're doing their good work is
not to build their name.
The reason they're doing theirwork is to build their own
(39:17):
personal relationship withChrist and to know that they're
doing everything they can tohelp the world and know that by
helping the world, they'rebuilding up their own
relationship with Christ.
And I think it's just importantto keep our priorities straight
.
And that's what I was focusinga lot on at the end of it,
because obviously I did patmyself on the back after winning
at the US Dream Corps right.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
We got to take our wins when we find them, don't we
?
Because it's brutal, it couldbe brutal out there.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
But at the same time, you know it was okay, but don't
, as my boss Charles Mandrylikes to say, don't steal glory
from God.
Right, it wasn't my glory, itwas God's glory.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Yeah, and he left us hanging on a cross, right, I
mean.
So he wasn't after that either.
And I think the legacy that Ithink, as a man, we want to pass
down is our faith right, andour conviction and what's good.
You know what's true, good andbeautiful the transcendentals
and the beautiful faith of ours,and I think that's our legacy
right, because when we pass thatdown, it's going to go from
(40:10):
generation to generation togeneration, and that's a
beautiful thing, huh?
So our Catholic faith meanssomething, doesn't it?
And I could tell, from when Iread your book too, that your
faith meant a lot to you.
It was important for us and ourlisteners to read your
perspective on that, and you dida really, really nice job.
So thank you so much, thanksfor bringing it.
(40:31):
Where are we going to buy thebook from?
Speaker 2 (40:33):
So the best place is sophiainstitutecom forward slash
unlocking, but I would alsocall your local Catholic
bookstore and see if they haveit.
You should always support yourlocal bookstores and, if not,
ask them to order it and thenbuy it from them.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, good, and not that you want anybody reaching
out to you personally, but yousaid you do a lot of writing.
Is it all legal writing or isthere some place we could follow
you?
Do you do any writing for thegeneral?
Speaker 2 (40:57):
public.
This was my first endeavor atthat.
Each appellate brief is usually14,000 words, so that's all I
do every day, Gosh yes, hey well, god bless you.
Speaker 1 (41:07):
Thank you so much.
Thanks for being with us.
Thanks everyone, thanks forjoining us.
Go out and get Unlocking theChurches.
It's a wonderful read.
Bye-bye, thank you.
Welcome to the Become who you Are podcast, a
production of the John PaulTurin Newell Center.
I'm Jack Riggert, your host.
You know, while the attack onour freedoms, especially those
with traditional Christianvalues, has been going on for
some time, anyone payingattention knows that the COVID
pandemic gave the so-calledelite and rulers of this present
age the catalyst they sought tofurther consolidate power,
(00:36):
silence and even censor, ofcourse, opposing voices.
Most people that I know, youknow, like sheep being led to
the slaughter, simply fellsilent and got in line, and
we've seen this many, many timesduring history.
But there's always a few voices, those who not only saw the
threat clearly but had thecourage to stand up and fight
against the tyranny and theevils of our modern age.
(00:57):
One of those voices is with ushere today to share his
firsthand account here today toshare his firsthand account.
Jeffrey M Trissel is an attorneywho fought on the front lines
in the heroic legal battlesduring the 20 and the 2021
COVID-19 pandemic and he wrote abook about it Unlocking the
Church as the Legal VictoryAgainst California's
Pandemic-Era ReligiousDiscrimination, detailing the
(01:21):
unprecedented lockdown ofchurches in the United States.
Jeffrey is a civil litigationattorney in private practice
with the law firm LeMandry andJonah.
He obtained his bachelor ofarts degree in French and
philosophy as a fourthgeneration cowboy attending
Oklahoma State University andobtained his Juris Doctorate
(01:42):
from the George WashingtonUniversity Law School in 2013.
He resides in San Diego,california, with his wife and
two daughters.
The vast majority of his legalwork is devoted to
constitutional rights, includingFirst Amendment, litigation,
redistricting, defamation andeducation rights.
Mr Trissel, thank you so much,sir, for being with us.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
I should probably also mention, because I love
them, the Thomas More Society.
You work as special counsel forthem, Thomas More our audience
is pretty familiar with them andthe ADL and these wonderful
firms that stand up againstreally religious tyranny that we
see all over.
You made a number ofappearances in courts and three
(02:29):
trips to the US Supreme Courtwithin a year and a permanent
injunction ended up beingentered against Governor Newsom
in the state of California.
You were a busy man.
I love the book.
I love the way you started outwith some terms.
For those of us who are notlegally minded, I really
recommend not going throughthose early, let's say,
(02:49):
introduction and chapter, noteven a whole chapter, but
defining what the court systemsare like, and so thank you for
doing that.
You set it up beautifully Well.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Thank you, as I've gotten more feedback since it
was written.
I've actually been surprised byhow many people greatly enjoy
the sometimes tiresomedescription of how the law works
, because if you don't gothrough that chapter you can't
really understand a lot of thebook.
But once you do, it's reallyrewarding and then you can
really understand how thingsprogress.
It also explains you know hownovel this situation was.
(03:20):
Most of my cases are not over,right, like I've been working on
cases from 2016, 2020, andwe're in 2015 now right, I mean
2025 now and those cases arestill ongoing.
The reason I could write thebook was because this story came
full circle in a year and endeddefinitively, which I don't
usually have cases that do that.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yeah, that's true, isn't that something?
It just lingers on and on andon.
Well, we saw and I don't knowhow you would describe this, but
it was.
I guess that when I look backand you make clear in your book,
and even though you may notstate it like this so I don't
want to put any words in yourmouth, especially since you're
an attorney, so you could stopme and correct me but the
hypocrisy was amazing.
(04:00):
The hypocrisy and the way theyused the law to go after
churches and small businessesand other things and really
twisting and distorting this.
It was really something to see.
And so the question becomes youknow, when they step in, the
government steps in and takespower like this, it's very
difficult, especially for smallbusinesses, for individual
(04:21):
churches, to fight back becauseyou know they have an unlimited
resource, right?
They have people on theirpayroll that can come after you,
the government can.
They have our tax dollars, andthen they know we're limited
because we only have the rest ofour tax dollars to pay and
defend ourselves.
And there's always fear, right,there's always fear.
Who am I?
I'm just a little guy, and thewhole state of California is
(04:43):
coming after me.
Who am I?
I'm just a little guy, and thewhole state of California is
coming after me.
So what's that?
Like to fight against that, andshould really?
What is it when the pandemicstrikes?
Does the governmenthave—because they're always
going to come up with an excuseof some sort right, there's a
war, there's this, there's this,there's this.
Are there limits to this?
And I think that's really whatyou're working at here with the
(05:05):
book.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Right, in most of my cases we can recover our
attorney's fees at the end ofthe case and to do that we got
to document how much time we'vespent and I've done probably
half a dozen attorney's feesmotions and we usually have
three 4,000 hours incurred right, which even if you, you know,
(05:27):
at regular attorney rates,that's a lot of money, right,
that's a lot of money, and so ittakes really the support of the
Thomas More side and othernonprofit law firms to help us
do that.
My firm will do a little bit probono, but we're a small firm of
, you know, 10, 12 attorneys andwe can't work for 3,000 hours
without getting paid.
We'd love to help people whohave don't have the means to
(05:50):
actually pay for attorneys, butwithout, you know, without that
aggressive pushback of three4,000 hours of attorney time,
we're not going to beatCalifornia or the United States
government.
I mean, they're, they're,they're continuing going and you
know the department of justice,united States government, I
mean they're, they're, they'recontinuing going, and you know
the department of justice,california has like a $1.6
(06:11):
billion budget, right.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
It's, it's a huge enterprise and they just throw
money at things and they havepeople on staff and they can
just say, hey, jack, you go thatway and attack that guy, and
you go that way, and, and, and,do this, you know, and, uh, and
so, yeah, you look at, I was inbusiness most of my life as an
entrepreneur and really saw whatwas going on and you would get
sued over something and the timeand the money and the resources
(06:34):
and the nervous energy it wouldtake, you know it's really can
suck the energy out of you.
And especially when you'repouring your blood into these
businesses and these churchesand things, is religious liberty
becoming a second tierconstitutional right that the
government can be free just toignore.
That's what seems to happenduring this and if this is going
(06:55):
to happen again and we want tokind of know how we should be
handling this from looking atyour bad cases so if you could
bring us forward a little bitand up to speed on some of the
work that you did, Right, so thebook itself.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
It talks about the legal fights in 2020, right, my
law firm filed three lawsuitsand we won at the US Supreme
Court in one of the three andthe other two they were mooted
out because that one victory.
And when I wrote the book, Iwanted to both detail the
history and provide a lot of myown commentary, because I spent
(07:30):
a whole year almost doingnothing but COVID litigation and
had a lot of thoughts on it.
And when I wrote the bookactually it didn't take me that
long to write, because that'swhat I do, I'm a writer but I
sat on it for a while because Ifelt like we were in this period
after the pandemic where wewere still trying to figure out
what it meant right, and peoplewere tired of hearing about the
(07:52):
pandemic.
And now that we have you know,we're five years on I felt like
it was time to publish the bookand to feel like my comments
could be not just instinctivereactions but maybe more
measured and well thought out.
And so I do think now we'regetting a little bit of,
hopefully, a renaissance, athird great awakening.
(08:12):
I think the pandemic had a hugepsychological effect on our
nation, you know, in terms ofrealizing that, hey, we can't
let our religious rights becompletely trampled.
I'm feeling more optimisticfive years out.
Our religious rights becompletely trampled.
I'm feeling more optimisticfive years out.
When I wrote the book originallyI was a little bit.
I was pessimistic because ofhow significant the trampling of
our religious rights was.
But I think I'm not the onlyone who saw that, and so I'm
(08:35):
looking forward.
I mean, we'll see.
I mean there's the paradigmshifts in the Republican Party
are quite fascinating and howthings are switched from a.
In my mind, the most importantshift was really the Dobbs
decision that kind of took thefocus away from the federal
fights to the state fightsacross all the culture, war
(08:56):
issues, including religiousliberty.
Obviously, now with the Trumpadministration, I only have to
sue Governor Newsom, I don'thave to sue President Biden,
which is, you know, that alwaysis the next four years.
It's going to be a completelydifferent litigation for me, but
at least even when we have ayou know four, eight years from
now, a President Newsom orwhoever I don't know, I feel
like there's a tone shift andI'm hoping that we won't have to
sue the federal governor asmuch anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah, well, I'll tell you what.
And I meant to take that Trumphat down I hope I don't offend
you and I meant to take it down.
And I tell you why I put it upbecause we have an apostle that
Mr Trussell on it, calledClaymore.
It's the big sword behind me.
It's for young men, it's Gen Zmen who stood up and voted for
Trump.
And I just had a show and wehung it there and what they saw
(09:39):
is kind of what you'redescribing here.
You know, they saw.
They didn't know exactly whatit was, but something was wrong,
something was something wasoppressive, something was wrong
in their own hearts and in theculture itself.
And when without getting intothe weeds here when they saw
Trump stand up, they thoughtsomebody was fighting for them
and they saw a window ofopportunity.
They didn't know why.
(09:59):
So it's a great time, anyways,for us to evangelize.
So again, I'm sorry I forgotabout that up there, but that's
the mood that changed and Ithink it woke people up.
I hope so, even though I'll askyou this I saw a lot of fear.
I was amazed by people that Iknew.
You know, men that I knew thatI thought were men, you know,
(10:20):
and, you know, mad at me becauseI didn't always wear a mask
properly or, you know, keep mysix foot distance, or whatever.
Or I was pushing back.
You know, with the John Paul IIRenewal Center, we were pushing
back on the Catholic Church forclosing all these churches and
I couldn't believe how muchvitriol we got.
I mean, I'm sure you got thattoo.
How did you feel about that?
People that would normally bebehind you.
(10:42):
You're fighting them at thesame time, in essence, that
you're fighting, you know, theother side.
How did you feel about that?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, not to get too personal, but my own religious
faith was a little bit shakenright.
Not in the sense of you everreally truly doubted, right.
Like I'm a devout Catholiccradle Catholic I will always be
, no matter what my personalconfidence in the hierarchy of
the church was a little bit lesslike.
Well, you know, I'm supposed tobe looking up to you and I'm
supposed to try to be obedientand try to be deferential and
(11:10):
respectful and, come on, youknow, you guys, this, this is
not right.
And when you're trying to justbe humble as a good Catholic, it
can be very frustrating whenyou don't have good leaders.
Yeah, have good leaders.
So, yeah, I personally was veryfrustrated with the lack of
strength by Catholic leaders,and whether they're, you know,
(11:33):
bishops or priests, you know orjust lay male leaders, you know,
I attend men's groups.
I think men's spirituality is avery important thing for men to
study.
And, yeah, it was challenging.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And unfortunately look, I didn't mean to go and
take you in the weeds here, butI mean particularly, it was the
Vatican, you know.
I mean, you know it seemed tobe led by Pope Francis
unfortunately, these are mywords, not yours, but it was led
by him, you know, with thechurch lockdowns and then the
vaccine mandates and everythingright in the Vatican.
But here's what it did.
(12:11):
I think it, you know, just puteverybody back on their heels a
little bit.
You know people that would havehad the courage.
I think of John Paul II wasthere, knowing communism and
what they did and the tyrantsand the totalitarianism and the
dictatorships.
I don't think he would have putup with that and that would
have changed it.
You know, because let's talkabout the cases that you had,
because these were smallerchurches, they weren't Catholic
(12:35):
churches, obviously, and theywere standing up very courageous
, very courageous.
Can you tell us a little aboutthem and how that was to work
with them, because I'm reallyenamored with the work that you
did and also with the bravery ofthose pastors, right?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
We decided to file a lawsuit, really in mid-April
2020.
My firm, you know, we're abunch of devout Catholic men who
are led by Charles Lemandri,who is a bulldog not afraid of
anything, and he basically saidthe reopening that Governor
Newsom had announced was notfair.
And we discussed it, thepartners and I, and roundtabled
(13:13):
it and decided we needed to filea lawsuit and we had to find a
plaintiff, right?
That was really the initialthought was we need a plaintiff
to sue.
And so we called all theCatholic churches we knew, right
, and we know the EasternCatholic churches, we know the
Diocese of San Diego there'squite a few Eastern Catholic
churches in San Diego actually,that we work with.
Everybody said no, right.
(13:35):
And then we started calling theProtestant churches that we
knew, because we had defended alot of them over the years, and
everybody said no.
It was really like we couldn'tfind anybody.
We couldn't find anybody to sueuntil one person connected us
with Pastor Hodges, BishopHodges of the South Bay
Pentecostal Church, and he wasthe first person who really said
I think we need to stand up,and so we recruited him to join
(13:59):
the lawsuit.
Now he was eager to join thelawsuit but, frankly, we had
never represented a Pentecostalchurch before.
I mean, we'd represent a lot ofevangelical megachurches in
their fights against the state,but we had never represented
Bishop Hodges.
He was just not one of ourprior contacts but he was
willing to stand up.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And he had already taken a stance that he was not
going to close.
Did he take that prior, bishop?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Hodges like everybody else.
Yeah, he closed the church hischurch.
At that point we wanted to takeas safe a case as possible.
So we were basically sayingwe're not open yet.
We want an order from the courtsaying we're allowed to open
and if we do that we willenforce all of the safety
requirements social distancing,you know which the theory of
(14:47):
that case was.
We wanted to say, look, we'redoing everything we can, you
know, everything possible.
There's no reason we shouldn'tbe open, even though we didn't.
Anyway, that was a theory ofthat case.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Because there were, because, to your point, I mean
you know and we know becausethere were stores and different,
you know, retail spaces etcetera, liquor stores, et cetera
, that were allowed to be open,Right, and well, even frankly,
we would say, even hospitalsright, hospitals are allowed to
be open because they'reabsolutely necessary.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Well, worship is absolutely necessary, right,
it's life-saving, right, it's noless necessary than open heart
surgery because it's absolutelynecessary.
It's just not something thatcan be given up.
And so, after we filed alawsuit on behalf of Bishop
Hodges in early May 2020, by theend of May, we had our loss by
the US Supreme Court five tofour loss, which was very, very
(15:38):
disheartening for me.
I had spent to get to the USSupreme Court in three weeks.
I had to actually do the firstand first all-nighter I'd ever
done, where I wrote a 8,000-wordbrief from 9 pm to 4 am and
then sent it to my partners andsaid please edit this and file
it.
I'm going to sleep.
And we did that three timesovernight to get to the US
(15:59):
Supreme Court, and then we got a5-4 loss.
Wow, and that was very, verydisheartening.
And the scary thing about thatwas we then got an announcement
to the whole world that theSupreme Court was not on our
side, and that's when we startedgetting a lot more pushback.
That's when we started gettingthe prosecutions right, where
the government was coming afterchurches who had just ignored
(16:20):
what the government was saying,because, yeah, there are plenty
of churches that just opened up.
Depending on your localjurisdiction, that could have
been fine.
Here in San Diego, we are apurple city.
We used to be very red and nowwe're becoming more blue.
Now we're pretty much blue, butI still think of us as purple.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
You're an optimist, right?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Yeah, I'm.
We had a red mayor and therewere no county officials or city
officials coming after placesthat were open Towards the end
of 2020,.
We got a blue mayor and thingsstarted to change.
So you know, that's when I hadthe case on Grace Community
Church.
On the case on behalf of GraceCommunity Church started in LA
over the summer because theyjust decided to reopen and the
County of Los Angeles decidedwell then, we're going to come
after you and, uh, that became avery different, very different
(17:10):
type of law.
Right, where you're, you're,you're on the run and you're
defending against, well, a citythat is bigger than like 40 of
the States, right, 10 millionpeople city.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, yeah, 10 million people county.
And what kind of pressure dothey put on those churches,
jeffrey?
And you know when you say theycome after them.
You know, and again, I was inbusiness, so I have a sense of
this.
But for our audience that maybewasn't.
It can be very, very rattlingfor people that aren't used to
this.
How did they take that?
And I always wonder how thepastor himself and the people
(17:48):
around him they have a realconviction for this and how far
are they willing to go, becauseit's not easy, is?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
it.
So the first thing is youshould definitely reach out to a
non-profit law firm wheneveryou're dealing with the
government in this context,because the initial thought is
you can just ignore it.
You push back and stand up andbe strong and be a man, and
that's probably the right answer.
But you also need somebody totell you what the risks are.
So Father Burfitt, who werepresented in Los Angeles
County also, he got a citation.
(18:15):
When he the citation says youknow, approximately 11 people
were seen leaving the church andit was just like this.
This really, you know, it'sjust like a county health
citation.
It's fine, probably $250.
It was left at his residence.
Because he left the churchunlocked.
People could come in and prayif they wanted to.
Depending on your personality,that citation could be
(18:39):
intimidating or you could say itwas 250 bucks, who cares?
You know I'm going to leave mychurch unlocked.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
We're going to ask you to join us by helping us get
the word out.
So if you could make sure yousubscribe and then hit like.
No matter which platform you'reon, remember that the Become
who you Are podcast is on audioon any music or podcast app.
We're up on Rumble YouTube.
You can find us on X.
When you do subscribe, hit thelike button.
(19:07):
A couple of things to share withpeople.
Love Ed.
Love Ed is just such animportant apostolate, so it's
within our apostolate, the JohnPaul II Renewal Center.
This helps parents give thetalk to their children.
We're trying to push back onall these gender ideologies and
the porn culture and givechildren the truth and do it
(19:30):
through their parents, and wehelp them do that.
The other one is really takenoff too.
It's Claymore.
Miletus Christi, soldiers forChrist.
That's where you see the swordbehind me.
That's the big sword.
That's our logo for Claymore.
Militants Christi, soldiers forChrist.
That's where you see the swordbehind me.
That's the big sword.
That's our logo for Claymore.
That's a Claymore sword.
And this is for young people,especially young men Gen Z, high
school, all the way through,let's call it, till they're 30
(19:51):
years old or so.
They're starting to reallyunderstand that something
nefarious, very toxic is goingon in the culture, and so
they're stepping into the churchand we're discipling them.
So we want to help get the wordout about those things and,
lastly, consider financiallysupporting us.
Everything's in the show notes.
Hey, god bless you.
Thanks again.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
And for a lot of the churches who got citations like
that, that was fine.
You just you pay the citationor you ignore it and eventually
you know whatever the pandemicends.
You know there's one case of achurch in California that I was
following closely and I talkabout in the book where I think
their ultimate fine was $3,000.
Even after they were hauledinto court and they got a
(20:32):
judicial order saying you haveto close.
The judge at the end of the dayonly slapped them on the wrist.
But that's not every case,right you?
talked about Santa Clara and thechurch up there was getting
whacked, right I mean it was inthe millions, wasn't it Millions
(20:52):
of dollars in fines, and youknow, there's a pastor in
Louisiana who was placed underhouse arrest with an ankle
bracelet, right.
That's as far as I've seen themgo in America, which was thank
goodness, but obviously inCanada there were stories of
churches being condemned and youknow fences Pastors were thrown
in jail up there right.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Do we have any pastors thrown in jail here?
Do you know?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
The only one I know of is Pastor Spell in Louisiana,
who was under house arrest.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Okay, so Father is a Burfitt that you had just
mentioned.
So he's a Catholic priest,right, he's SSPX, okay, sspx.
And he was over five churchesand were they all basically
closed, but the door was openand people could go in and pray,
but he wasn't trying to say,hey, I'm offering a worship
(21:39):
service.
From my recollection, right,right.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
So he oversees five parish communities.
So in Los Angeles he has hischurch where his residents and
the other priests and residents,but in San Diego, for example,
they were renting a church.
I think it might have been likea—because in San Diego we're a
big military town.
We have these old militarychurches that they no longer use
and they just rent out.
So I think he was renting achurch but they were no longer
(22:05):
able to rent it right, and thegovernment shut down and so that
one was just closed.
And I don't really know allthat much about what was
happening in the other counties.
A lot of them were ruralcounties where I presume the
church was just open.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Was anybody in the diocese there?
So he fell mostly in the LA, inthe Los Angeles diocese.
So was the bishop there, thearchbishop there, was there any
support for him?
I mean, did they come out andsupport them vocally,
financially, I mean anything atall?
Did you have a sense ofanything like that?
Speaker 2 (22:38):
No, there was definitely no public vocal
support in terms ofbehind-the-scenes support, not
from the Los Angeles archbishopor the bishops there.
We were getting support frombehind the scenes from some
bishops, but nobody was willingto stand up.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Yeah, how sad is that .
Because if the Catholic Churchwere to put their weight behind
this, more of these otherpastors know pastors too in the
evangelical churches, et cetera,would have had even more
confidence.
You know, you know it justshows you when we back down, you
know, and we take that, youknow, put your head between your
legs, cowardice type ofposition.
(23:13):
You know it doesn't bode wellfor the rest of you know, all of
us fighting for religiousfreedom does it, and I know you
have to.
You should be careful and Ishouldn't ask you stuff like
that.
And so just plead the fifth ifyou want to.
When I do that, I'm justmystified myself and I get.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
I do think there's truth to the statement that if
you stand up, you get your headcut off right, and so you have
to be very careful in thesecases and, for the most part,
before I file a lawsuit, mycases are very, very well
thought out, you know, in termsof choosing venue, trying to
find a conservative venue,trying to find a conservative, a
proper framing of the case anda theory about how we're going
(23:52):
to win on appeal.
It was this case.
These cases were much more like.
Well, this is life and death.
Right, you know the emergencyprocedures that we used.
The clerks who handle them areusually called the death clerks
because they're dealing withemergency death penalty cases.
Right, those are the ones whereyou say I need a ruling in less
than eight hours.
When the Ninth Circuit says youlose at noon on Saturday and I
(24:14):
say I want to open up my churchon Sunday, Well, the clerk who
deals with you know a turnaroundthat fast is the death clerk.
And so, like calling up thedeath clerk and saying we need
to open our church for the on mynormal case, right, they're not
the one that has this huge rush.
Yeah, it's very important tothink things through very
carefully, and that's why it'sin my mind.
It's been great.
I feel like we've seen anexplosion of religious liberty
(24:35):
law firms in the past 15 years,including the Thomas More
Society, because if you thinkthese things through, they're
winnable.
If you don't, if you just standup and you're being sued in San
Francisco County State Courtand your appeals process is the
(24:55):
First District Court of Appealand the California Supreme Court
, you're just going to stand upand get your head cut off.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well, I think that's what really makes the rest of us
nervous.
Look, we have an apostolatehere.
We're not all that big and youknow, we would, you know, go
into churches and we werespeaking to people etc.
And you know, you do you feelvery man.
It's just like, you know,without armor, it almost seems
like you know that you canreally get picked off.
(25:20):
So I think that's, you know,it's good to be talking to you
and it's good to be, you know,reading books like yours, and
I'll make sure, of course, I putthis in the show notes.
But, you know, because we haveto get confidence, we have to
get conviction.
So the first thing you'rerecommending is we found, you
know, can we get?
Will somebody pick up the phone?
For most of us?
And, like you said, there aremore.
You know the Alliance DefendingFreedom, of course, is out there
(25:43):
at Thomas More Society.
Now, I'm from Chicago, so theyhave a big office right here in
Chicago, so that's wonderful.
Is it Liberty Council?
There's a couple really gettingmore and more well-known for
this.
Is it individual donors andpeople that are trying to fund
this?
In other words, if I call themup and I don't have unlimited
resources right, they're goingto do their best to work with me
(26:07):
, but who's helping all of thesefirms underneath?
I mean, are these patriots?
Are these, you know, Christians?
Christian patriots, probably,you know, but, and there's got
to be others.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Yeah, it's for the most part small donors sending
in payments to the law firms,which amazes me.
My mother works for a, or shemanages a crisis pregnancy
center in Virginia, or a seriesof them, and comparing the
fundraising practices of hergroup and our group, you know
it's very similar and verydifferent, you know.
(26:41):
But you know, in a sense, thatwe're all just trying to do our
best to help people, and I helppeople who need a lawyer, and so
donations really just ensurethat I can spend 3,000 hours
helping somebody when yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
It's a lot of work.
It's a lot of work.
So you said you feel optimisticabout the future here.
I mean, I think most of thepeople that I talk to,
especially with young familiesand stuff, really feel that the
culture itself is under attack.
You know marriage, the family,children of course, things like
that.
So you know the Catholic socialteaching.
(27:16):
I always look at it almost likea pyramid in front of you, like
a triangle, like a pyramidshape in front of us.
So, with marriage and thefamily, christ and the church,
you know, is holding up thebottom, and then we go out to
your realm there, which is, youknow, taking this out into
polity, taking this out into theway we, you know, organize our
societies, you know, all the wayup into our laws, and our laws
(27:39):
have to be just.
We really saw an attack on this.
Will you keep it up?
Will you keep working now thatyou have this?
You know, you have thisknowledge, now you have this
background?
It's an amazing amount of workand things that you've gone
through and you specialize inthose things.
Is that your cup of tea?
You know our constitutionalrights, of course, but you also
mentioned education in there andI wanted to ask you a question
(28:01):
about that and what you'reseeing in the educational realm
too, because we're beingcensored there right now.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Parents are being censored there, so I am right, I
work for a private law firm, sowe do pretty much everything.
But because I knowconstitutional law very well,
because I tend to specialize inFirst Amendment litigation free
speech, exercise of religionthat translates into the
education context pretty welland most of my education cases
have actually been on the not onthe nonprofit side trying to
help foster kids navigate thesystem in California and the
(28:30):
foster education rights inCalifornia, but in terms of
education in general, especiallyunder the religious liberty
context, the way I think of itis, the Supreme Court has the
final say and they're moving inthe right direction, but they
don't want to be pushed too hard.
So all the religious libertyattorneys and all the religious
liberty law firms are basicallytrying to push the Supreme Court
(28:50):
in the right direction and theSupreme Court says we're taking
our steps, but we're going to doone at a time at a time, we're
not going to jump to head of theline.
So there was a verydisappointing case at the US
Supreme Court this yearregarding whether a Catholic
school can operate a charterschool and be publicly funded,
(29:12):
and the US Supreme Court decidednot to decide the issue and
kicked it back down to the lowercourts and you know I was
really optimistic because inCalifornia I'd love to have a
conservative Catholic charterschool funded by the state
that's run by, you know,catholic church.
But they are going to citeanother education case in a
couple of days, presumablyregarding the rights of parents
in schools.
(29:32):
So right now there is kind of asplit regarding how strong the
parental right is past thethreshold of a schoolhouse door.
A lot of courts want to saythat you get to decide whether
to send your kid to a publicschool or a private school or
homeschool.
But once you send your kid tothe public school you pretty
much lose all your rights andthat's just not right.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
You know, if you're in the and that was never the
intention was it of schools totake away a parent's rights, you
know Right.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Well, the weird thing is that we had these really
great Supreme Court wins in the1920s and 30s and as a result,
we got all these statutoryprotections.
We passed laws saying like inCalifornia we have a very
comprehensive opt-out scheme.
You don't want to have your kidlearning about weird sex stuff?
You have a right under theeducation code to opt your kid
out of it.
But because we had such acomprehensive statutory scheme
(30:27):
for the past 100 years, wehaven't had to have cases
litigating it, and it's onlycoming up again now when in
California we have cases whereyour kid requests.
In the California law, genderidentity is defined as the
asserted gender identity of theperson asserting it without
regard to any statement byanybody else, including the
person's parents.
This was a very circulardefinition whose only point is
(30:48):
to say the kid gets to say whattheir gender identity is.
Parents have no say, anddiscrimination on the basis of
gender identity includes notusing your preferred pronouns.
So as soon as the kid requests,all the teachers and staff have
to start referring to the kidby their alternate pronouns and
they can't tell the parentsbecause that would violate the
kid's privacy and it's absurd,right, I mean, just from a
common sense perspective it'stotally absurd.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But we know what's happening and that's why I
mentioned spiritual battle,because they want to drive a
wedge between parents andchildren themselves.
It's really something.
These are important cases.
These are important cases tofight because the ultimate goal
is—I don't want to make aperfect analogy here, which I,
you know, I mean, you know, butit's not exactly the same but we
had the Hitler youth camps.
(31:30):
You know, we had this inMarxism.
They always knew that if theycould get the children away from
the parents, teach them whatthey wanted to teach them, they
can indoctrinate them.
And you know, lenin, in a veryshort time, said you know, just
give me a few years with themand I will change, I'll begin to
change this whole society.
And this is the danger we'reunder today.
(31:51):
We could see.
It's very clear, actually, ifyou have eyes to see it isn't it
Right?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
There's not a lot of.
Unfortunately, it feels likenot a lot of people can see it.
Even on the liberal sidethere's so many people who I
feel like, wait, you actuallybelieve your own propaganda.
You do realize that'spropaganda, right?
It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
It's amazing.
I have to smile, because if Idon't smile and laugh about this
once in a while, I would goinsane, and I'm sure you would
too.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
But yes, they've, especially in California, and
that's where I have my family.
The way the education system isset up, it does seem like it's
procedurally brilliant in termsof setting up parents to fail
and for the state to steal yourkids.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Yes, Well, I'm in the belly of the beast here in
Illinois.
So you know we're right, youknow we are competing with you
to see who can ruin children andindoctrinate them and separate
and knock down marriages and thefamilies faster.
And so, yeah, we're competing.
I don't know who's winningright now, but maybe California
by just by a nose, you know.
(32:49):
But yeah, it's brutal here.
And so that question tonight,if you don't mind.
So tonight I have apresentation called Stolen
Innocence.
I'm giving in this area andChicagoland area and it really
talks about the stealing, theinnocence of children,
obliterating their moralimaginations, driving a wedge
between parents and the kids.
And we're fighting that rightnow here.
What would parents do?
I'm just waking up and I'mstarting to recognize that
(33:12):
there's something wrong.
Finally, and we're trying toget them to move, we do two
things.
One thing is to actually takeresponsibility and teach their
own children about sex education, et cetera, and opt out.
But the problem with theopt-out agreements now.
So we have to do more, becausethe problem with the opt-out
agreements is that these genderideologies, et cetera, critical
race theories, they permeatedevery subject.
(33:34):
I mean, you know they're inmath, now they're in everything.
And so we have to all stand upand just really have to stand up
and be counted.
But what can I tell them?
From a legal standpoint?
You know that somebody willhave their backs if they go to a
school board.
You know we saw this with theBiden administration where they
actually harassed people the FBIharassed people.
(33:56):
This is really scary, scary forpeople.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
One of my education cases that is ramping up right
now is all about gender identityand kids who are socially
transitioned at school withouttheir parents' knowledge or
consent, and when that casefirst came across my desk as a
potential, I was very anxiousbecause I had studied a lot of
these cases and there werealready a dozen or half a dozen
(34:19):
across the country that had beenfiled and lost, and so I was
like, well, I don't have anotherloser, and we actually got one
of the very first wins in thecountry, and probably the
strongest win, and so I wouldsay that Was that fairly
recently.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Congratulations.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Well, we just got the preliminary injunction, which
is a preliminary win,essentially in September of 23.
And that, I think, reallyhelped move the ball forward for
a lot of other cases.
And now we're going to bemoving for final judgment later
this year.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Oh, we'll have to follow you on that.
Keep it, you know we're goingto follow you on that one.
Are you feeling?
Well, I don't want to giveanything away.
We're feeling optimistic.
Yeah, good, good, good, good.
Well, I'll tell you what Ireally recommend people get your
book.
Again, I'll put this in theshow notes.
I'll put a good picture up onthe screen as we're talking
(35:06):
about it, because it's veryimportant.
Up on the screen as we'retalking about it, because it's
very important.
It's very important for peopleto be more familiar.
If you want to stand up againstsome of this pressure, this
tyranny I don't want to overusethe word, but that's what we
feel a lot it's really aspiritual battle and if you want
to have conviction to stand up,I think you need to know the
law, at least the basics of it,so that when I contact you I
(35:27):
kind of have an idea of some ofthe things that you're going
through.
You did a great job with that.
You also did a great.
You know it's very interestingall those cases.
You know, in the limited timewe have, you know we couldn't
really unpack a lot of thoseidiosyncrasies, but it was
really interesting.
But I love this and maybe, aswe go out here and I'm cognizant
of your time Talk about Thomas,st Thomas More, because that's
(35:49):
how you end.
It's a great way to end becauseit's talking about to have the
conviction to stand up, and canyou talk a little bit about that
and what that meant to youpersonally?
Speaker 2 (36:00):
One of my favorite essays about Thomas More was
written by Hilaire Belloc and inthat essay he talks about how
it would be one thing if ThomasMore were being applauded by his
friends saying, wow, if only wewere as great as him, as strong
and brave and courageous.
But no, his friends were sayingthis guy is crazy.
They were saying this guy, whocan be a little bit odd and
(36:21):
wrote a socialist book calledUtopia when he was in his youth,
is now deciding to sacrificeeverything over the objection of
his wife, his kids, all of hisfriends.
And yet now we think of ThomasMore as a great man and that he
was obviously in the right.
But even the people of goodwillwere saying he was in the wrong
right, even the devoutCatholics.
And I think that was what thepoint I wanted to emphasize in
(36:42):
that last chapter was that youdo need to step back and think
things through and know thatyou're in the right and then
stand by it right, regardless ofthe pressures you get from your
family, from your priests.
Right, and I think that's alsowhy I liked writing the book in
the way I did is to educatepeople about how the legal
system works so they can sitback, think it through and say,
(37:03):
okay, I do know I'm in the rightBecause, yeah, half of the book
is just a story of the cases.
The other half of the bookreally is me doing my very best
to explain the legal system forthe layman so that they can
follow these cases well.
And once they know how tofollow the cases, they can think
them through for themselves andknow where they'll go and go,
no further.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yes, yes, yes.
In order to do that, you haveto educate yourself and you have
to understand not only the lawhere, but you also and when I
say understand, at least have asense of it and some of the
legal terms that you outline.
But you also have a personalconviction, and I think you know
what you said earlier is notenough.
People recognize what was goingon, and I think this comes from
(37:44):
that lack of faith.
You know, lack of personalconviction, lack of
understanding and knowledge ofour own faith, because if you
don't have that, you won't standup either.
You know, I think you said it sowell in the book and again,
this is a statement from StThomas More is that we're all
going to die.
We're all going to die right,and there's no, it's inevitable.
And so I die today, you dietomorrow and in essence, you
(38:07):
know, you make the statement,you know what do you live for,
what do you live for?
It's very meaningful and weshould all be pondering that.
Are you pondering that asyou're going about your work?
You know you're a father withkids.
You know, as a dad, we want toleave this legacy down, don't we
?
We want to say, hey, dad stoodfor something.
Dad had courage to be a man inhis profession, you know, and et
(38:33):
cetera, et cetera.
I think that's important to allof us, and it should be, don't
you think?
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Well, I think the legacy that each of us needs to
leave behind isn't really alegacy, right?
I don't care that I went to theUS Supreme Court.
I don't care.
To a certain degree, yes, Ilove my clients because I have
very, very good clients and Ilove helping them protect their
religious liberty, but at theend of the day, what's most
important to me is my ownrelationship with God, and all
of these things help that.
(38:57):
You know we will all beforgotten.
I mean, I can personally namethe most important Supreme Court
litigators right now, right,and I follow them and I respect
their work.
I'm sure none of your listenersknow who any of them are, and
it's you know, and there's noneed to right as long as they're
doing, because the reasonthey're doing their good work is
not to build their name.
The reason they're doing theirwork is to build their own
(39:17):
personal relationship withChrist and to know that they're
doing everything they can tohelp the world and know that by
helping the world, they'rebuilding up their own
relationship with Christ.
And I think it's just importantto keep our priorities straight
.
And that's what I was focusinga lot on at the end of it,
because obviously I did patmyself on the back after winning
at the US Dream Corps right.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
We got to take our wins when we find them, don't we
?
Because it's brutal, it couldbe brutal out there.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
But at the same time, you know it was okay, but don't
, as my boss Charles Mandrylikes to say, don't steal glory
from God.
Right, it wasn't my glory, itwas God's glory.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Yeah, and he left us hanging on a cross, right, I
mean.
So he wasn't after that either.
And I think the legacy that Ithink, as a man, we want to pass
down is our faith right, andour conviction and what's good.
You know what's true, good andbeautiful the transcendentals
and the beautiful faith of ours,and I think that's our legacy
right, because when we pass thatdown, it's going to go from
(40:10):
generation to generation togeneration, and that's a
beautiful thing, huh?
So our Catholic faith meanssomething, doesn't it?
And I could tell, from when Iread your book too, that your
faith meant a lot to you.
It was important for us and ourlisteners to read your
perspective on that, and you dida really, really nice job.
So thank you so much, thanksfor bringing it.
(40:31):
Where are we going to buy thebook from?
Speaker 2 (40:33):
So the best place is sophiainstitutecom forward slash
unlocking, but I would alsocall your local Catholic
bookstore and see if they haveit.
You should always support yourlocal bookstores and, if not,
ask them to order it and thenbuy it from them.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, good, and not that you want anybody reaching
out to you personally, but yousaid you do a lot of writing.
Is it all legal writing or isthere some place we could follow
you?
Do you do any writing for thegeneral?
Speaker 2 (40:57):
public.
This was my first endeavor atthat.
Each appellate brief is usually14,000 words, so that's all I
do every day, Gosh yes, hey well, god bless you.
Speaker 1 (41:07):
Thank you so much.
Thanks for being with us.
Thanks everyone, thanks forjoining us.
Go out and get Unlocking theChurches.
It's a wonderful read.
Bye-bye, thank you.
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.