October 2, 2024 • 66 mins
Could a gag order against a former president redefine the boundaries of the First Amendment? Join us as legal expert Ron Berutti unravels the complexities of a controversial legal battle challenging this very issue. Berutti, representing a media client, argues that the gag order in Donald Trump's case not only veers away from its intended purpose of ensuring a fair trial but also threatens press freedom. Together, we dissect the constitutional arguments, look into potential biases within the judiciary, and ponder the ramifications on upcoming elections, underscoring the significance of this case for our democratic principles.
Our conversation shifts gears to the intricate landscape of media bias and its influence on public perception. Are certain narratives purposely left in the shadows? We scrutinize the slant of mainstream media, suggesting a possible left-leaning tilt while acknowledging scrutiny faced by outlets like Fox News. With references to figures such as Tim Walz and Liz Collins, we explore how news can be skewed, drawing parallels with Orwellian themes of distorted truths. The impact of this media bias, especially in relation to the gag order on Trump's First Amendment rights, offers a thought-provoking discussion on the integrity of information in today's society.
Governmental overreach and the erosion of personal freedoms emerge as crucial topics in our episode. From contentious mask mandates and vaccine policies to the broader implications of constitutional rights, the challenges faced by individuals in confronting authority. Personal stories of legal battles and historical reflections, including a family's escape from communist Yugoslavia, highlight the enduring struggle for justice and freedom. In advocating for civil discourse and engagement, we champion the power of peaceful advocacy in preserving our inalienable rights, urging listeners to reflect on the constitutional processes essential to a just and equitable society.
Certified Firearms Instructor - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Thank you for listening to this episode of HuttCast, the American Podcast. We hope you enjoyed today's discussion and gained valuable insights. To stay updated on our latest episodes, be sure to subscribe to our podcast on your preferred listening platform. Don't forget to leave us a rating and review, as it helps others discover our show. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for future topics, please reach out to us through our website or social media channels. Until next time, keep on learning and exploring the diverse voices that make America great.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
2, 3, 4.
2, 3, 4.
Secretly recorded from deepinside the bowels of a
decommissioned missile silo, webring you the man, one single
man, who wants to bring light tothe darkness and dark to the
lightness.
Although he's not always right,he is always certain.
So now, with security protocolsin place, the protesters have
(00:28):
been forced back behind thebarricades and the blast doors
are now sealed.
Without further delay, let meintroduce you to the host of
HuttCast, mr Tim Huttner.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Thank you, sergeant-at-arms.
You can now take your post.
The views and opinionsexpressed in this program are
solely those of the individualand participants.
These views and opinionsexpressed do not represent those
of the host or the show.
The opinions in this broadcastare not to replace your legal,
medical or spiritualprofessionals.
(01:04):
Broadcasts are not to replaceyour legal, medical or spiritual
professionals.
Welcome to the podcast today onthe show via phone to my
undisclosed bunker location, ronBerruti and Ron, are you there?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I am.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Give us a sneak peek real quick.
We're in intro, but who are wetalking about today?
But who?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
are we talking about today?
Well, today we are talkingabout my submission to the
United States Supreme Court.
In particular, it's going toJustice Sotomayor and the
petition is designed.
It's an emergency applicationseeking to get the Trump gag
order stayed on behalf of mymedia client, whose First
(01:48):
Amendment rights have beenviolated by it.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Okay, all right, you guys want to stand by for this
one?
Tune in, get some popcorn.
It's going to be a show.
We'll be right back.
Buying a gun is no ordinarypurchase.
Whether you're a hunter,competitive shooter or
self-defense is your priority.
There are many kinds of gunsand many kinds of training
(02:14):
programs.
You use your brain all the time.
You will rarely need to useyour gun Before you find
yourself in a situation whereyou need to make a critical
decision.
Make sure your training is thebest you can get.
It could be the differencebetween life and death, or
freedom or detention.
For the best quality training,check out PermitToCarryus.
(02:34):
If you live in Minnesota orWisconsin or even Florida, give
Gene German a call 612-388-2403.
That's, permit to Carry US orcall Gene German at 612-388-2403
.
Welcome back to HUTCAST.
(02:57):
Ron Rudy is here and he has gotsome way.
Big information.
Ron, you had said in pre-rollthat this emergency stay for
Donald Trump's client, mediaclient.
Where are we going with this?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Well, this is actually my media client.
We are not working with theTrump, donald Trump or the Trump
campaign.
My media client is a podcastermuch like you, good Logic LLC.
Good Logic does legalpodcasting based out of New
Jersey, new York.
My client, good Logic's owner,is Joe Nierman.
(03:39):
He's an attorney also, but nota constitutional attorney, and
Joe retained me to represent,retained my firm, to represent
his entity and to bring claimsin the New York Court of Appeals
or New York appellate courts totry to against Judge Mershon,
(04:00):
who went with the gag order,seeking to get the courts to
compel Judge Marchand to stayhis order and allow President
Trump to speak.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Wow.
So, in a nutshell, yourcustomer, your client is being
gagged himself.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
No.
So under the First Amendment,there's a news gathering right
and one of the things that thegag order has done is it's
prevented news organizationsfrom actually going to the
source to get news.
There's a First Amendment right.
(04:40):
Has there been before PresidentTrump in the federal case in DC
?
Never have we found a casewhere there's been a gag order
imposed against a criminaldefendant for the purpose of
gagging that criminal defendant.
Usually, or every time in thepast, gag orders have been
(05:00):
imposed to protect the integrityof the trial, so that the
criminal defendant will get afair trial.
Um, so what they've done is byentering this gag order and
typically, of course, thecriminal defendant has every
opportunity and every right todeclare his innocence, speak
about the trial, speak about thejudge, speak about whatever he
wants, because it's his liberty,potentially life that is on the
(05:24):
line, okay, and the press hastherefore a right to report it.
And by entering the gag order,the right of the press the free
press to report on these thingswe claim, has been violated.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Wow, that sounds like a pretty big battle.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
It's been really an amazing battle to see how things
transpired in the New Yorkcourts and to now see now to be
taking it to the United StatesSupreme Court.
It's exciting and I think wehave a very, very good case.
And whether Justice Sotomayorsees it that way or some other
(06:06):
justice which could be the caselater on, you know we don't know
, but we think we're making veryimportant legal arguments,
constitutional arguments, andthis is not a frivolous thing at
all.
This is we're very serious withthis application we're bringing
.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Right, you want everybody to hear about this.
This is how we got together andwe're in 101 countries.
We've got a whole lot oflisteners, but a lot of our
people are overseas.
I would say 40% are onshore,which is a pretty good number.
How do you want them tointerpret this?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
How do you, how do you want them to interpret this?
So what I want is I want that Iwant the court to be aware that
(07:08):
felonies by a judge who we saywas irreconcilably conflicted,
and the judge caused criticismof him to be tamped by entering
this gag order because we thinkhe was conflicted because of his
daughter and his wife, who havewhat we say are conflicts of
interest, or caused him to haveconflicts of interest which
(07:30):
should have required him torecuse himself under New York
law.
He should never have been thepresiding judge.
Yet he was, and President Trump, in an unprecedented, in
something that's completelyunprecedented in American
history, was convicted offelonies in New York.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
So if it's that big of a conflict of interest, can't
you call him out on that andcan't you change venue at that
point?
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, look, I was not the attorney for President
Trump.
I do believe that they triedthat.
I haven't seen their papers,but Judge Mershon obviously
disagreed.
And then Judge Mershon gaggedPresident Trump and it was
around that same time that newsreports came out about Judge
(08:18):
Mershon's daughter, who weunderstand.
News report since the trial hasindicated that his daughter,
for those who don't know, is, Ithink she's a publicist.
She has a publicist company andone of her clients is none
other than the Biden Harriscampaign, or was the Biden
Harris campaign?
(08:39):
Ok, so you know, you can't.
You can't make this stuff up.
And this last quarter, whenthey're the quarter during which
the trial was occurring,no-transcript.
And it seems that there's apecuniary benefit from having
(09:01):
your father being the trialjudge for Donald Trump, benefit
from having your father beingthe trial judge for Donald Trump
, and that's exactly the kind ofconflict that we're saying
required Judge Mershon to recusehimself.
Furthermore, his wife, judgeMershon's wife works for Letitia
James.
Letitia James is the attorneygeneral of New York.
She campaigned and there is avideo of her campaigning,
(09:26):
talking about Donald Trump in abullhorn.
Lock him up, lock him up.
Well, again, if that's not aconflict of interest for Judge
Mershon, I don't know what is.
So he has this two prongedconflict of interest and what he
did is he gagged PresidentTrump from talking about his
wife and his daughter.
So the person with the biggestmicrophone in the world is
(09:50):
President Trump.
I'd say there's probably no onewho's ever had a larger media
presence than Donald Trump, andI put this in my papers.
And, of course, when youprevent that person from
speaking out about this conflictof interest, the public is
largely uninformed.
Many of your listeners, maybeyou yourself, are hearing this
for the first time right now.
Right, why is that right?
(10:11):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (10:12):
because president trump was gagged I knew there
was a gag order in place, but Idon't know what for, and this is
what it's for yeah, that's,that's what we say.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Supposedly, the gag order was put in place because
President Trump was saying wordsthat were dangerous.
He was going to scare peoplefrom coming to be witnesses and
he was going to make peopleuncomfortable and it was going
to upset the trial.
Well, that's not a reason togag someone.
Trial well, that's not a reasonto gag someone.
(10:46):
Under the supreme courtprecedent, there must be a clear
and present danger, an imminentthreat to the trial.
And the only way uh, I'veargued in the supreme court that
the only way that a a criminaldefendant can be gagged, um, for
the purpose of gagging him, Iwould say is if there there is
some indication that perhaps thedefendant is intending to
(11:09):
tamper with the jury with words.
And let's just take a case of amobster hey, I'm going to have
you killed if you go against me.
I could see gagging.
That that's something that'sthreatening the case completely
and it could be potentiallyimminent.
But here there was nothingimminent.
The court didn't go through theprocess that it was required to
(11:31):
go through to determineimminence and rather and it
didn't even apply that standardit applied a lesser standard
because it wanted to gagPresident Trump and it relied
upon the standard that had beenimposed against him in the
district.
The DC court.
The federal court in DC was thefirst court to enter an order
(11:53):
like this, but there was noconflict like there is in New
York.
So we've argued.
There's been, there have beenin the past.
There have been other cases.
The district, the DC court wentto the DC Circuit Court, which
the appeals court.
They upheld it.
They affirmed the DC Circuit.
And in the past there's anothercircuit court has said if
there's trial publicity and it'sinconvenient for the defense,
(12:16):
tough luck.
This isn't about making lifeeasy for the defense.
This is about protecting thecriminal defendant's rights.
We say that that circuit courtgot it right, the DC circuit got
it wrong and New York courtcould not rely upon the DC
circuit because the DC circuitgot it wrong.
And so that's basically thegist of the argument.
And on top of that, the layeron top of that is that this
(12:39):
particular gag order was reallyin an effort to really protect
judge mershon against thecriticism of his conflict of
interest, which was a grossviolation of new york law.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We allege who else is bringing this out?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
um, well, nobody.
Uh, you would think that, andand this is good logic and Joe
Nierman, this was his idea, andhe said wait a minute,
something's very wrong with thispicture.
And why isn't the whole media,why aren't all the media coming
out and banging on pots and pansand saying you can't do this?
(13:20):
And saying you can't do this?
Well, because I think we knowthat the uh legacy media is has
become something uh similar topravda, where they're, they're
cheerleading, and so they're notgoing to go do it.
They didn't.
You know, no one's, no one hasuh reported on these conflicts
(13:42):
in the major news mediaorganizations, so they're
certainly not going to go andtry to, you know, argue that
it's a violation of theirconstitutional rights.
And then many other people justdidn't think about it.
So Joe Nierman thought about itand I think it was brilliant.
And here we are.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Doesn't Fox have any teeth in this?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
They do not Nobody.
Joe Nierman, any teeth in this?
They do not, nobody.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Are they?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
aware, a little guy, sorry.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Are they aware of this?
Fox News.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
I do not know.
I don't have contacts with FoxNews and they should certainly
be aware of it.
You know, again, they're amajor news organization.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
They should be.
They should certainly be awareof it.
You know, again, they're amajor news organization, right,
it's hard, it's hard to it'shard to fathom how major news 10
, 20 years where the media hasbecome something very different
than what a lot of us grew upwith, right, these are the
things you know.
When I was a kid we used to seePravda and you'd see the Soviet
(15:02):
Union news and you'd almostlaugh at what they're saying.
But you wonder if these poorpeople in the Soviet Union, like
, even believed it or what.
But you see, now here in theUnited States they're doing the
same thing.
It's a lot of propaganda and wehave a country divided with the
news media that is pumping upone side or maybe the other with
(15:25):
propaganda a lot of times, sure, and news stories are not being
discussed.
You used to have pointcounterpoints on news programs
right Right right.
You know, let's think about JaneCurtin and Dan Aykroyd, right,
you would have a pointcounterpoint and you'd have
debate and you'd have argument.
You know the people decide.
You know who's right, who'swrong.
Are they both wrong?
(15:46):
Are they both right?
You don't have that anymore,you just have.
You know, you have biased newsin the main media organizations
for the most part, and the realnews stories that really need to
be peeled back the layers needto be peeled back are not being
handled many times, many cases.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
You feel that's a Democratic thing, or do you feel
it's both and everybody'staking a little bit of ownership
there?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Well, look, I think that it's primarily on the left.
But you know, look, I thinkthat there's certainly I think
Fox News has, I think a lot ofthings that Fox News never
answered for with what happenedin 2020.
And you know the other again,there are other major news
organizations too.
You know, where's Newsmax,where's OAN on this?
(16:35):
I haven't seen it.
Maybe they've talked about it.
I haven't seen it and it'sagain.
It's a major story.
The news is out there.
There are some journalists outthere who have reported on it.
I know Laura Loomer is the onewho pointed out the wife
conflict.
There are some people who haveactually reported on this story,
but they don't have themegaphone, you know, and they're
(16:59):
considered to be fringe andthey're treated as being people
who are not serious, but they'reactually raising the serious
questions.
You know there's a conspiracytheory.
So you see that all the timethat, that, that the conspiracy
theories seem to be coming trueright, actually almost every
time, more and more, every timeyou turn around it's conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Oh no, it ain't.
It's.
Uh, you just haven't seen ityet.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
It's extraordinary.
Yeah, and like I said, youcan't write this.
No, no, it's really 1984 stuff.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Yes, some Orwell.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
It really is Total, orwell, yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
And if nobody's read the book Orwell, you need to.
You need to just go back andand read it and just you're
going to be floored now 1984,yeah, yeah I, I know that, uh,
in our our presidential debatelast night, our vice
presidential debate, vancehanded him his ass.
Totally it was, it was, it was.
It wasn't even fair.
But a lot of people don't knowwhat we know here in Minnesota
(18:04):
about waltz and the news Pleasetell us?
What's that?
Please tell us.
Yeah, I've got a lot oflisteners at our state capitol
that are on this program, andone in particular, and this is
just to cement your positionabout the news and how.
You don't hear nothing and thenmagically delicious stuff
(18:24):
happens Behind the veil Paul EGazelka.
He is the Senate MajorityLeader of Minnesota for many
years.
He has been toe-to-toe with TimWalz and he can tell you some
stories in his new book he justreleased here two weeks ago.
He was on the show.
He says guys, you don'tunderstand until you've actually
(18:46):
been in a room with this guy.
Things the news didn't kick outthere, things that happened.
Liz Collins she is a WCCO wasexcuse me, let me correct, that
was an anchor for WCCO.
Now she's running Alpha Newsand she was on the show.
Her husband was the guy on thephone when George Floyd's police
(19:11):
was on his neck.
I mean Derek Chauvin was on hisneck.
I mean Derek Chauvin was on hisneck.
Chauvin's on the phone.
He's talking to this guy andthis guy he's talking to is her
husband.
He's the Minneapolis PoliceUnion rep.
The news totally destroyed thatUse of force was authorized.
(19:33):
He was doing the right thing.
The only thing that got Derekin trouble was he didn't flip
him over and make sure he wasstill breathing.
If he was still breathing, orat least tried to, I don't think
those guys would be in trouble.
My point is the news just spunthis around their lying to us
was her book.
She released it on this showand it was a killer book, no pun
(19:56):
intended.
Yeah, incredible.
So I can see your point withthis, or your client's point.
And what is the hope I mean?
So they lift the gag order andthey can talk about it then Well
, if they lift the gag order,President Trump can talk about
it.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So in a strange way, we're actually making arguments
for President Trump.
It's not really by proxy.
Again, we're not working.
Yeah, it's really, it's acollateral attack.
They call it on this order.
Okay, and the attack is basedinitially on our client's First
(20:33):
Amendment, right to free press.
But tangentially and probablyoverarching really is how this
particular gag order violatedPresident Trump's First
Amendment rights and in doing soit violated his Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to afair trial, to a fair trial.
(20:57):
So if, if good logic had beenable to, and good logic had put
questions to President Trumpabout, about conflicts, and good
logic had requested a, aninterview with President Trump,
and good logic was turned downbecause of the gag order.
So good logic has standing toto raise these issues and it was
its rights.
Rights were violated by the gagorder.
And once it raised the issues,then it also brings into focus
(21:21):
what happened with PresidentTrump, and I know President
Trump, his people, have filed inthe New York courts, have
sought to argue that the gagorder was illegal and
constitutional.
I haven't really seen arguments.
They've gone nowhere so far inthat and I don't know how
focused they are on at thispoint.
I mean, they're 34 days awayfrom an election.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
But look, at the end of the day, the American people
are going to be casting whatcould be the most important
electoral votes in our nation'shistory.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Or maybe as far back as 1864 or something like that.
Yeah, but this is a big one andthey should be informed
properly or they should be ableto reach their own conclusions
as to what actually happened inthis criminal trial.
And my take, my personal take,is that what happened is that
(22:16):
this was a sham, that PresidentTrump was, this was a, the
convictions were, the goose wascooked before the fire was
turned on, you know, and I thinkthat he stood no chance and
they did everything they couldto make sure that he stood no
chance.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
And the they's are who.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
I think the courts, I think it's really, I think it's
a look.
I argued in New York.
I'm a New York attorney and.
I'm a very firm believer in ourlaw and in the rule of law,
believer in our law and in therule of law.
I don't think that the appellatecourts wanted to touch this and
I don't believe that this judgewas unbiased.
And I think it's a terriblelook for the New York courts not
(23:05):
to have done something to stopthis from happening because
ultimately it damages theintegrity of every single case,
as I see it, before the courts.
It adds the question is theoutcome political, and that's
not what courts exist to do.
(23:25):
And if we can't have a courtthat we believe in, a court, the
judicial system that we believeis going to be fair, unbiased
and neutral, then our entirerule of law is going to be on,
unbiased and neutral, then ourentire rule of law is going to
be on the brink of collapse andthat's really very dangerous.
And that's why this particularcase we think needs to be heard
by the Supreme Court and needsto be examined very closely
(23:47):
because again, our institutionsare under attack and this is a
grave injustice that occurredand a grave danger to our
constitution I.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
You struck a chord there.
You said our institutions areunder attack.
What's new?
We're always under attack asconservatives but it's not just
conservatives.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I, I think that it's, I think, if you look really
across our society and again,this isn't what my case is about
, but you know, I'm also anobserver of and I I have a lot
of very yeah a lot of big casesagainst a lot of uh powerful
entities and people.
um, that's what I do uh.
You see that uh everywhere,from uh our religious
(24:31):
institutions to our corporateinstitutions, history, small
business, everything is underattack.
And my grandfather escapedcommunism in 1948.
And I learned he riskedeverything.
He put his family on a10-horsepower boat and went
(24:53):
across the sea.
One of the first people toescape.
He just had to be free.
He couldn't live in a societythat was false and that didn't
allow him to be a free person.
He had to risk everything to doit.
And I look now and I say youknow, where are we going in this
(25:15):
country and where are my kids?
Where do my grandkids go?
Where do they?
Where's?
where does their 10 horsepowerboat, take them to yeah, this is
the you know, as, as I think itwas Reagan who said this is the
last best hope on earth youknow, and, and, uh, we, we have
to fight to preserve it.
I, and that's what, that's whatI do every day, uh, pretty much
(25:36):
in my job.
I, I fight to preserve ourinstitutions, I fight to
preserve what I think is theconstitutional, uh, correct, uh,
applications of the law, and,uh, and, and this is a big one,
this is a very big, big one.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So what do you see?
Where did you come from thefamily?
Speaker 3 (25:58):
My family yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Your grandfather.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, so my grandfather was Yugoslavian At
the time.
He was Croatian, but at thetime it was Yugoslavia 1948.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
It was right after World War II.
My grandfather's my hero he had.
He was a phenomenal, phenomenalpastry chef and also chef, and
he just wanted to work and hegot ended up running a hotel on
an island in Croatia, thenYugoslavia, and it's kind of off
(26:34):
the beaten path from the war,but it's.
At one point the SS came to theisland to get all the
able-bodied men and mygrandfather outsmarted the SS to
avoid capture and then he hadto leave the island and then he
ended up with the partisans whowere communists and he hated
them just as much and hedeserted the communists and he
hid the rest of the war up inthe attic of his home.
(26:55):
But then when he came out herefused to join the Communist
Party and they took his hotelaway and then they told him that
they were going to take hishome away because he wouldn't
join the party and he was goingto leave his family homeless.
And he figured a way to escape.
And he's going to leave hisfamily homeless and he figured a
way to escape.
(27:15):
And just an amazing human beingand to talk to him about it.
He was very humble about it.
He goes.
That's just one story.
There's so many stories and henever really thought there was
anything really special aboutwhat he did.
But boy.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
It was there, you know, when I first started this
about four years ago.
Four and a half years ago, Ihad a gal on and one of our
first shows was uh, the year Imet adolf hitler.
Now this gal's in her 90s ishand she's spry as can be, and
the memories that go back are sosuch a scar and I'll tell you
(27:53):
what I mean.
She's 97 years old.
I felt like a total crud, likehey, let's talk about this and
and it was so like yesterday forher.
My point, my point with this is, you know, if we don't study
the past, we're certainlycondemned the future.
It's nothing new to that.
And how can we, we as a society?
Again, you crossed uponlisteners.
(28:14):
You might have some of this inyour world, but how do we as a
society say enough of this andstomp our feet?
I mean, do we have to have aJanuary 6th?
I mean, you tell me what makessense.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Well, listen, I believe in the rule of law and I
believe in our Constitution andI believe in our courts.
Still, and I believe that theUnited States, with all of its
flaws, still is the best systemand it's the one that has made
people the freest and thereforethe most prosperous and,
ultimately, the happiest peoplein the history of the world, and
(28:49):
it's.
You know, one thing that I'mkind of fascinated about is that
there's so very few attorneyswho are fighting the fights that
I fight.
You know you have entities youhave like America First Legal,
or you have, you know, variousorganizations that bring
lawsuits, say, for vaccines orfor DEI, whatever, and I'm doing
(29:14):
all those things, but it'sthere are very few, because and
people don't want to, peopledon't want to work for my firm.
They think, oh, you're aright-wing conspiracy.
I'm just a person who is.
I'm just a regular guy and Ijust went to.
I went to a pretty humble lawschool.
I think that I'm pretty smartand I think that I make good
(29:34):
arguments.
But you know, I'm not an IvyLeague guy and I didn't have the
great thinkers as my professors.
But here I am.
I understand that my role insociety as a lawyer is to do
what I took an oath to do, whichis to uphold the Constitution
and laws, and that's what Iasked the courts to do every day
(29:57):
.
And there's such reticence inthe community of laws now that
to even take these positionsbecause people are afraid of
being canceled.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
People are afraid of being mocked.
People are afraid of beingcanceled.
Yes, people are afraid of beingmocked.
People are afraid of beingdisbarred.
You know, in some states, allthese people, people who are
going against the vaccines, youknow, they're getting their bar
licenses threatened.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Yes, then what good's our law?
Speaker 2 (30:31):
What good's our law if we can't protect it with
ourselves?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Well, that's my point is look, I have an obligation
to continue fighting this fight.
I feel that it's my moral duty.
It's my duty to do this and Ican't spend my days worrying
about what if that happens,because I know what I'm doing is
ethical and I know what I'mdoing is legal.
(30:57):
I don't file frivolous claimsand if somebody wants to attack
me for that, I can't stop themfrom doing that.
But I'm not going to be bulliedinto refusing to defend or
failing to defend the rights ofmy clients and the Constitution
and laws of the United States.
And I do believe thatultimately, this is all going to
(31:18):
turn around.
I believe that in my heart thatthis is going to turn around,
and I believe the Supreme Courtis going to take a greater and
greater role in doing that.
And I think the last few termsof the Supreme Court I think
we've seen that, where the courtis starting to take some of
these issues on and starting toreally turn back this insanity
(31:44):
that's been going on in ourcountry.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
God, I hope so.
I hope so Because you know yousaid something about the guys
taking the jab.
Well, in Minnesota, here we hada candidate against Waltz and
an excellent candidate, a veryexcellent candidate, a doctor.
He's anti-jab, he's pro-patient.
He's in audience.
Dr Scott Jensen, he's been onthe show a couple times I've
(32:12):
spoken to Scott Jensen.
I know him sure oh okay, and allthey did was attack him.
They attacked him they, theybullied him.
They went after his licensetime and time and time again,
and I do believe he's fightingone of those in court right now
yeah, they, uh, that's what theydo.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
And again they have, they have the, the legacy media
on their side.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
You don't see uh unbiased reporting, you just see
you see what they want you tosee you're being programmed
theory.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory, and it's once
.
It's once.
They say it's a conspiracytheory.
It's a conspiracy theory oncethey say you're a right-wing
lunatic.
You're a right-wing lunatic, uh, you don't.
They don't tell you that you're.
They don't say I talk aboutleft-wing lunatics right, it's
not because there are noleft-wing lunatics not according
to them perfectly sane andsober people.
Um, you know it, it's, it's,it's, it's really, it's really
(33:14):
kind of frightening, you knowwhen you really boil it down.
And I worry about my kids andespecially, you know, I don't
have grandkids yet.
I'm 58.
I have three beautiful olderkids and I got two young guys at
home and I wonder, you know, Iwonder what their lives are
going to be like when they're 58, and and and where.
What are their kids going to befaced with?
(33:35):
Because I've just seen, fromthe time that my older kids to
the time now in school, thingshave changed so dramatically and
so much for the worse andthey've become schools, have
become these, these cesspools of, of, of left wing politics,
these cesspools of left-wingpolitics theory.
Indoctrinations yeah, we fight.
(33:58):
We have cases against a lot ofthe transgender madness in
schools.
My wife was arrested at aschool board meeting for not
having a mask on.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Really, we have a trial next week.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Yes we have a trial next week for her not having a
mask on Valentine's Day 2022.
We took that case all the wayup to the US Supreme Court.
Court didn't take it, but webelieve that she had an absolute
constitutional protest right tonot wear a mask.
After eight months of doing thesame thing, they finally
arrested her when the maskmandate was about to end because
(34:28):
they wanted to get their poundof flesh.
It's scary.
Her protest was for specialneeds kids and that's something
I remember watching the movieRain man right in 1989.
And I'd never heard of autism.
What is?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
this Dustin.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Hoffman yeah, this can't be real.
And well, you know, we've gotan autistic child and it seems
like two out of every threepeople I know is an autistic
child.
Now, and this is the BobbyKennedy thing and I'm so glad
that he he endorsed PresidentTrump because he's really a
brilliant guy and he's a reallyhe really cares about this issue
(35:09):
and he's at the vanguard ofthis issue and the vaccines and
everything else and we need to.
These are issues that need tobe dealt with and, um, nobody's
doing it and and no one wants totalk about it right, the media
doesn't?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
they all climb up, including some of the people you
just go out and talk to they.
They don't want to engage itright.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
The media said that vaccines don't cause injuries,
so vaccines don't cause injuries.
The politicians have saidvaccines don't cause injuries.
So vaccines don't causeinjuries.
There's no desire to peel backthe rhetoric and to look beneath
the surface and say, wait aminute, how can you say vaccines
don't cause injuries?
(35:53):
Say, wait a minute, how can yousay vaccines don't cause
injuries?
I don't know if you've everdealt with Steve Kirsch, for
instance.
Steve Kirsch is a very wealthyguy.
I think he invented the mousefor computers.
I think that was his biginvention.
But he got vaccinated and thenhe started looking into these
COVID vaccines and he is thesingle most the biggest anti-vax
(36:16):
advocate that there is.
He's willing to bet like I'llbet you a million dollars, you
and I have a debate and I'll winthe debate on the vaccines.
He gets all the information andhe aggregates it and he talks
about all these differentstudies, aggregates it and he
and he talks about all thesedifferent studies.
And you would think, with allthis massive information, that
(36:36):
there would be people ingovernment saying, well, wait a
minute.
You know this is a serious guyand this is a serious issue and
we need to really take a look atit.
No, they're trying to silencehim.
He's a conspiracy theorist,he's a nut.
That's's their take.
And of course he's not.
He's a brilliant man.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Waltz did some of that here in Minnesota.
I was on conversations withrestaurant owners, people,
places of gathering, and I hadmy docket was full of interviews
just on what happened, and theytried to arrest him, just like
your wife.
They couldn't pin it on them,but they did go through the
(37:18):
motions.
Did your wife get out of it, orhow did that end up?
Speaker 3 (37:23):
She was arrested.
We filed a she actually.
What's really interesting isshe actually filed a federal
lawsuit before being arrested,because the month before, at the
school board meeting, theycanceled the meeting so that she
couldn't speak and then theystarted threatening publicly
that anyone coming without amask was going to be arrested.
She'd been doing this for eightmonths, coming without a mask
(37:46):
and hadn't gotten arrested, asat other people.
But they just wanted to.
They wanted to to make peoplecomply.
This is their power grab.
Yep, and she said no, and herprotest was that the masks were
hurting her child.
Her child couldn't learn.
Another child was getting sickfrom licking the inside of the
mask.
It's a five-year-old, and theyhad doctor's notes and she had
(38:09):
gone through all the properchannels to try to, you know,
get some relief with medicalnotes, et cetera, and they just
ignored it.
And so her protest was to theschool board.
These are the people closest tothe.
You know, our system ofgovernment was designed that we
would be able to speak to thepeople closest to us, our
neighbors, because they wouldcare about us.
(38:31):
Well, here you have a schoolboard, and that we were supposed
to have a bottom-up governmentright, which, of course, now has
been completely inverted, whereeverything comes from the top
now and the people in the localschool board now are just little
pawns of some bigger machine,it seems.
So what happened here is shesaid, look, you need to contact
the governor and try to get somerelief, because kids with
(38:53):
special needs are being harmed,and there are a lot of them.
And so, like I said, she fileda lawsuit trying to get an
injunction preventing them fromgoing through with their arrest,
saying that she had aconstitutional right to protest,
et cetera.
And the police came and triedto force her to put on a mask,
(39:15):
which she politely refused shewas always polite, always
dignified and they just slappedcuffs on her and arrested her.
So, october 11th, we have atrial, after two years of
waiting.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Oh man, Two and a half years of waiting.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
So do you predict just a stay in movement?
Uh, how do you figure it'sgoing to turn out?
Speaker 3 (39:37):
oh, I don't, uh I'm certainly not going to predict,
uh, my client's fate.
Uh, it's also my wife.
We're gonna, we're gonna fight,we're gonna fight this.
Uh, there's a lot of interestin it.
I think that people are goingto show up.
Uh, I hope they do and uh, theyshould, because this, uh I
don't know about what's, I'msure it's happening, happening
in Minnesota, because I knowit's happening in pretty much
every state.
These school boards arebecoming tyrannical.
(39:59):
Oh for sure, and yeah, and thishas to happen.
We have to punch back.
We have to fight back legally,you know, peacefully, legally we
have to fight back.
We cannot allow them to justtrample our rights without
making them realize that peopleare not going to sit back and
(40:23):
take it, because once they takeyour right a little bit, then
they're going to take it alittle bit more.
It never stops.
That's the history.
That's the history of mankind.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
And they need a dollar.
So they ask for 10.
Negotiate it down to five, andall you want to do is give them
a dollar at that point, just toget them out of your way.
It's constant.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
They negotiate down to five, but they actually take
15.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
When they only needed a dollar.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
They didn't even need a dollar.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Yeah right, we have one of those in our city.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
They needed to give you a dollar is what they needed
to do.
Yes, yeah.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
And they're so over-grabbing.
Now I hope your wife gives themsome kung fu on this deal.
Speaker 3 (41:14):
Well, we have.
Our defense strategy is beingdeveloped and I'm certainly not
going to discuss it, but youknow, we certainly would love to
have people come down to thecourthouse in Cranford, new
Jersey, on October 11th, fridayat 9 am and come sit in the
courtroom and come give my wifesome support and me some support
(41:38):
, and give freedom some supporttoo, because that's what this is
really about.
Again.
It's.
It's about fighting for freedomand fighting for our children
and fighting for what's right.
And when a school board has aparent of a special needs child
arrested, taken away inhandcuffs because she doesn't
have a face diaper on,something's very wrong.
(42:00):
Something is very wrong.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
Yep you tell her we're rooting for her here at
HuttCast in my 101 countries,okay.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
You got it.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
And if you're in Jersey In every language.
In seven languages.
Yes, we're translating sevenlanguages, I know that for sure.
So, whatever that is, yeah, Ihope she just gives it.
That, just hammers it down onthem.
But you know, I talked to someDemocratic friends and you know
they're like old school Dems, sothey're like today's
(42:30):
Republicans.
They just don't know theirparty left them.
And I say, you know?
So we have constitutional talksall the time.
And I said, well, so what doyou think of our constitution?
Well, it's a living, breathingdocument.
I says since when?
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Well, it has to change as time changes.
Well, that's not a constitution, you know, and I will give
credit where it's due Mark Levin.
I've learned so much fromlistening to Mark Levin.
He's a really brilliantconstitutional guy and he says a
living, breathing constitutionis a dead constitution.
And he's right.
(43:08):
The constitution is essentiallya contract.
If you have a contract and theterms constantly change, well,
you don't have a contract.
And that's the same with theConstitution.
The Constitution has a fixedmeaning.
Just because times changedoesn't mean the meaning of the
Constitution changes.
It just means that the worldhas to govern, be governed, in
(43:30):
terms of what the Constitutionrequires.
Govern, be governed in terms ofwhat the constitution requires.
And it's a.
It's a.
It's a constitution designed tolimit government.
Um, you can't be free withoutlimited government and if you
want to change that, then youneed to.
There's a constitutionalamendment process and the 14th
amendment was great for that itdid.
(43:51):
It made vast changes to ourcountry in 1865 or 64, I think
it was 65 was passed.
It changed things verydramatically because there had
been a civil war.
Right, yeah, but that still,ultimately, the 14th Amendment
still is a fixed constellation.
(44:11):
It's a fixed constellation,it's not a moving target and we
have to respect the Constitutionor we have no government at all
, if you have any more, becausethey tend to not want to be your
(44:34):
friend anymore once they findout what you believe or what you
think.
We've lost tons of friends andfamily.
Two very close family havestopped talking to us and it's
just part of the deal.
Like okay, I'm sorry, that'sthe way you feel.
You can't get politics out ofthe way.
We can't have an honestdisagreement.
But you ask them what is thelimit of government?
(44:58):
What is the federalgovernment's limit?
What can the federal governmentnot do?
And you'll be very hard pressedto get an answer.
Well, they can't tell you youhave to have an abortion or you
can't have an abortion.
Well, so let's let's pretendthat's right.
But how about in terms ofspending?
How about in terms of passinglaws to affect the country?
(45:19):
How about in terms of ofanything?
Speaker 2 (45:21):
setting policy.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
They believe in unlimited government, right, and
what they believe in is istyranny.
Yes, it's tyranny they believein.
Yeah, that's what they believein.
They believe in dictatorshipand tyranny.
And if you don't have a limitedgovernment, you don't.
Yes, it's tyranny they believein.
Yeah, that's what they believein.
They believe in dictatorshipand tyranny, and if you don't
have a limited government, youdon't have freedom.
It's that simple.
Everything the government does,every law passed, takes a
(45:44):
little bit of freedom away.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (45:46):
Every single law, every single regulation takes a
little bit of someone's freedomaway.
That's the absolute reality.
And here we have thesealbatross laws and these masses
of regulations and there's noend to them, because nobody is
holding government to account interms of its limitations, its
(46:12):
constitutional limitations.
I shouldn't say nobody, butit's very difficult.
Speaker 2 (46:16):
Right.
We have a good group here inMinnesota.
The right side is right, andthere's a lot of guys on the
left side who are still fightingfor the right stuff too.
I mean, it's the progressivecrazies, the socialist communist
left party.
That is just out of control.
They just out of control.
They're out of control.
Speaker 3 (46:36):
Yeah.
And I do believe that Wallaceis one of those from what I've
read and seen, I I you know he'scoming across as the folksy
common guy.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Wrong wrong.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
You know that's, that's, that's, that's, that's
the facade, and I think that youcan kind of see.
You can kind of see that facademelting away yesterday at times
when you didn't seem to have ahe couldn't, he couldn't find
that pre-program a knucklehead.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
Right, exactly, and if we're listening to him as
long as I have, he's probably 40miles from us in this
undisclosed location and he'sjust, he don't get it.
He don't get it.
And when he started imposingthese restrictions on businesses
around here, he started doinghim and the Mayor Fry, mayor Fry
(47:23):
, jacob Fry, would for thisGeorge Floyd thing.
You know, it's too bad.
The guy died, I get it, but thecops didn't call themselves to
that location.
And then he goes out and callsFry, calls the cop a killer, I
mean day one, and he sat back.
(47:43):
Then the riots started.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Yeah, look, that was like my take on it all is that
the greatest disservice done wasthose cops did the greatest
disservice to our country,because look what happened.
I mean you know it was foolish.
I don't pretend to know all thefacts, but you just see that
the fallout has been horrificfor our country, Incredible.
(48:09):
What I find, what I do, what Ihave heard, is that your
governor's wife said that sheopened the windows to the
governor's mansion because shewanted, she was happy, to smell
the burning city.
I mean that, to me, isunconscionable and it tells you
everything you need to know.
Speaker 2 (48:31):
Yeah, she'd change her mind if it was her building
burning.
Speaker 3 (48:37):
I wouldn't be married to that person.
You know, if I didn't believethat way, I wouldn't be married
to that person, right?
So you have to.
That, to me, tells meeverything I need to know about
Governor Walz, right there, andI don't like it one bit.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Yeah, no, no, and we don't.
We've known this for yearsaround here, but all of a sudden
, first of all, camilla wasinstalled.
You don't go from number 11 inthe DNC to not having a DNC to
being picked because yourpresident, who mentally couldn't
make it in the first place, isall of a sudden Now she's.
The magic trick is going to beeverybody thinking their job is
(49:18):
to make everybody think that shewas the right pick, that she
was picked when she was actuallyinstalled.
Speaker 3 (49:23):
She's the chosen one.
She was chosen for this, wasn'telected.
She was chosen.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Then the democratic process is no good.
Speaker 3 (49:31):
Well, that's again.
It's unlimited government.
It's complete lack of respectfor the Constitution and for the
people Right.
That's what that is and that'sthe party.
That's the party, and they callthemselves Democrats.
There's nothing democraticabout it.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
Not at all.
Speaker 3 (49:49):
It is.
You know, I said years ago, ifyou looked at the CP USA website
, Communist Party USA website,and you saw the positions they
had, they are, you can you canalmost do an exact layover of
the Democrat policies.
They're the same policies, butthey just call themselves
Democrats, not communists.
(50:09):
Policy-wise there's not a wholelot of difference.
There's not a whole lot ofdaylight between them and it's
getting worse and worse with thecensorship and everything else.
But we do these cases all thetime.
This is what we do and I seeall these issues and I fight
(50:30):
these issues and, yeah,sometimes you think you're
pushing against a string, butother times you know you're
landing a punch here and thereand that's all we can hope for
playing punches Playing poolwith a wet spaghetti noodle huh.
Yeah, I could tell you about.
You know, I was one of my firstbig cases in the, my first big
(50:54):
constitutional case.
I really was a lawyer who didcomplex commercial work fraud
cases and racketeering cases andthat kind of thing and
racketeering cases and that kindof thing, one of my first big
constitutional cases.
We sued Mayor de Blasio in NewYork when he put in his vaccine
mandate to get into restaurantsand gyms, et cetera.
(51:15):
And what happened?
If you look at the court cases,we lost the case.
The case was ultimatelydismissed.
But what they did is it wasfiled in federal court and so
every time we got close togetting a hearing they would
withdraw a part of the mandateand say, ok, the case is moot,
(51:35):
now it has to be dismissed, youcan't, there's nothing to decide
.
And I said no way.
But there's this other mandate,that's the same thing.
So three times that happenedthat we got close to a decision
and they pulled a mandate.
They pulled another mandate,then they pulled a third mandate
and each time they argued thatit was moot.
The third time they finallysucceeded in federal court.
(51:56):
You have to have an activecontroversy.
If there's no controversyanymore, the federal court has
no jurisdiction.
So that's what they're tryingto moot it.
They're trying to say the courthas no jurisdiction because
they got rid of that mandate.
And I said, well, no, there'sanother mandate, like, for
instance, I have one eye on myMets game right here.
And I said, well, the baseballteams in New York are not going
(52:18):
to be able to have theirunvaccinated players play under
this other mandate that you have, and it's the same mandate as,
essentially, the one that youhave in a restaurant.
So the issue is not moot, itstill exists and it's likely to
happen again.
Boom, they made us.
Mayor Adams made a specialexemption for sports teams,
which was outrageous.
And then I said, well, you knowthis is moot, I go no, but wait
(52:40):
a minute.
You have this other mandate.
You have employees have to bevaccinated.
Employ, wait a minute you havethis other mandate.
You have employees have to bevaccinated, Employees of private
employers have to be vaccinated, and it's the same thing.
And boom, they pulled that oneaway.
Sure, sure.
So so you know, I feel like,well, you know, the record may
show that we lost, but I thinkwe won a lot.
I think we and that makes mefeel good you know, we did
(53:02):
something that was reallyimportant to the people and we
upheld constitutional rights.
It may be a little too late,but you know, we took that fight
to them and you can't be afraidto take the fight to them.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
For a takeaway what do you want people to know?
How do they engage at theirlevel?
We're not attorneys.
We're you know, we're we'redishwashers and we're gas
pumpers and we're we're we'reworkers.
So how do you want them, whatdo you want them to know, to
engage?
This?
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Uh, what I think.
Uh, and just just you know I'mgoing to play like a debate.
Well, let me tell you about mybackground.
Um, I, I went to, I went to toState University and I majored
in hotel restaurant management.
So, yes, I have been adishwasher and I did not work at
McDonald's, like Kamala Harrisdidn't work at McDonald's.
But I have worked inrestaurants.
I washed dishes, I bartended.
Speaker 1 (53:57):
I cooked tables.
Speaker 3 (53:58):
I did everything.
I know that business and I lovethat business and I love the no
tips thing.
No tax tips, but no.
So what's what's the takeaway?
Look, the takeaway is uh, again, I, I, I don't, I don't look at
myself as like a a fancy, uh,white shoe lawyer.
I look at myself as a guy whouh, came up from uh you know,
(54:22):
from I, I I saw my grandfatherand uh what he struggled to do
to be free and and I always, uh,I, I always uh sort of sided
with uh, you know, as a kid Icast my first vote for ronald
reagan and I saw him speak onthe day he opened his campaign
at liberty state park andliberty in 1980.
(54:42):
That's what changed.
That changed my also seeing himmake that speech and running
for office.
And at the end of the day, it'sjust citizen engagement, right,
go to the meetings, be heard, donot be afraid to speak out, do
not be afraid of being canceled.
They can't.
(55:06):
Their biggest fear is to haveto respond.
And so what do they do to avoida response?
Is they mock you?
And this is, you know, it's therules for radicals thing.
Right, you mock your opponent,rules for radicals.
You turn them into a yeah, youturn them into a cartoon of
themselves, and no, don't letthat happen.
Let them, when they turn youinto a cartoon, bring your
neighbor and make them turn thatperson into a cartoon of
himself.
And no, don't let that happen.
Let them, when they turn youinto a cartoon, bring your
(55:27):
neighbor and make them turn thatperson into a cartoon.
And make them turn.
They're so afraid of the peoplethey're supposed to represent,
uh.
And and then they they say ohwell, you're, you're violent,
you're this and of course you'renot.
You know, you go there andyou're violent, you're this and
of course you're not.
You go there and you'repeaceful, you state your case,
(55:47):
you state your issues.
You don't have to be a lawyerto have common sense, and common
sense is really whatconservatism is.
Talk, common sense, talk, thewisdom of the farm, or the
wisdom of the restaurant, or thewisdom, uh, whatever you do,
yeah, you have a certain amountof wisdom, uh, and common sense,
(56:09):
hopefully.
And if you don't have commonsense, then of course you're a
democrat, but that's a differentstory.
But, um, you know it's, it's,it's, uh, it's, it's really
simple.
Uh, it's, it's hard to be theone to stand up and speak, it's
hard to be the one to exposeyourself, to show your butt to
(56:32):
the enemy, right, yep, yep, butthere's a great amount of
satisfaction and power thatcomes with it.
If you do it the right way, youdo it civilly, the way we're
supposed to as Americans, orwherever you are in a democratic
society or, in this case, arepublic, when you're speaking
(56:53):
from your heart, from yourcommon sense for your family,
for the values of freedom, it'svery powerful.
Freedom, I found, is I've donetalks before on the Declaration
of Independence.
I used to read it every Fourthof July to groups and then I'd
(57:14):
have a conversation about whatdoes it all mean and,
essentially, what freedom is?
It's our right to.
We are born with our rights.
We are born as human beings.
We have human rights.
That's what human rights are.
Our rights are the things thatmake us human.
We speak freely.
We worship.
We don't worship.
We worship the way we want toworship.
(57:35):
We gather with friends.
We gather property to make ourlives better.
We defend ourselves.
These are the things you see inthe Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights.
Government can't just intrudein our homes that they were the
kings of our castle.
These are the basic needs ofhuman beings and the basic way
we operate.
The government cannot take thataway from us because that is in
(57:58):
aid in us, but they can repressit and that's where you lose
your freedom.
When I talk to people about whatfreedom is, I have lit up rooms
.
I did one to a group of collegekids in a Newark school, newark
(58:21):
, new Jersey, inner city countycollege, and it was a room
really full of minority kidsmostly out of Newark in the area
and I had this conversation andyou could literally see the
light bulbs going off in theirheads because they were hearing
things they hadn't heard, theyhadn't thought of.
(58:42):
And freedom is exciting.
I got so many great questionsand I was so excited when I was
done speaking with them and itwas such a great feeling.
Freedom connects us becausewe're all human beings and we
all understand it when we thinkabout it and talk about it.
And when you start doing thatall these policies that these
(59:02):
people want to impose upon usyou can start seeing that those
are not policies for free people, those are policies for the
oppressed and repressed.
And um, that's what, that'swhat these people are afraid of
to be exposed so I do right?
Speaker 2 (59:22):
no, you got it.
I mean, you nailed it right onthe head.
A firm believer, I firmbeliever.
I mean I'm drinking theKool-Aid.
Now what, when the politicsfail?
And I think it was von Klausthat said war is another
politics by other means.
And when do you?
January 6th, and they like tocall this insurrection, but
(59:43):
there was no insurrection.
When do you put your foot?
6th, and they like to call thisan insurrection, but there was
no insurrection.
When do you put your foot downand say, okay, talks, do us no
good, because you keep throwingout there the peaceful part, and
it ain't peaceful if it ain'tworking.
Speaker 3 (59:57):
I am a firm believer in our Constitution and our
constitutional process.
I think that there are veryserious constitutional arguments
that were being made, uh, in anon-violent manner, on january
6th.
I think that there's a realquestion.
Just because mike pence said itwas unconstitutional doesn't
(01:00:20):
mean it was unconstitutional,right right?
Alternate slave delegates, yeah, that that that's an unsettled
question of law and that's what?
Again, that's what lawyersexist to do.
That's why we have this system.
That case should have been taken.
And what happened again inthose cases?
A lot of times those cases weretaken and again the courts
(01:00:41):
would say, well, it's moot,because we don't have standing
and all these technical reasons.
Those questions were neveradjudicated.
It was always, they were alwaysthrown out.
Those cases were all thrown outon technicalities.
And so when you hear thesedebate moderators saying, well,
34 courts or whatever number itwas, all of a sudden it was not
(01:01:02):
true.
Well, that's not true.
That's not true.
No court said it wasn't true.
No court actually tooktestimony.
None of them did.
And ultimately, the SupremeCourt never decided on this idea
of alternate slaves of electors.
And if there was a belief offraud, and what should have
happened is that there shouldhave been a trial where the
(01:01:25):
evidence was brought out aboutthe fraud and the alleged fraud,
ok, and and the other sidecould have put in their opposite
, their opposite proofs, andthere could have been a decision
made by a fact finder as towhether or not there was fraud
in the election.
That that's the system thatwe're supposed to have and that
(01:01:47):
didn't happen.
And so of course, you getpeople who are upset.
Yes, people feel their rightsare being taken away because
they weren't.
Yep.
Even if they were wrong, evenif there was zero fraud, which I
think is facially false, I mean, of course there was fraud at
(01:02:09):
some level.
Maybe it wasn't enough, whoknows?
I'm not going to do that debateright now.
But even if they werecompletely wrong, if they
believed that they should havehad the opportunity and they had
some kind of good faith basisto do it, they should have been
able to bring that case andthere should have been a hearing
and there should have been dueprocess due process.
(01:02:31):
And and once you take that awayand you just call them
insurrectionists and you callthe people who believe these
things to be conspiracytheorists, you're doing such an
incredible disservice to theAmerican people, to the
constitution and to our systemof government.
Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
To the idea of the way it should have been.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, not a Jim Jones here, butI am drinking this Kool-Aid
with you and I'm totally gettingit.
I hear you five by five on this, and maybe, after you get your
(01:03:08):
wife's thing done, we'll havethat conversation too, if you
want to come back on the show,because that sounds like a heck
of an interesting case.
Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
Which one?
I had a lot of them.
Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
The one that includes your wife.
Speaker 3 (01:03:21):
Oh yeah, Well sure, I mean, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
I know people yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
Look, like I said, if anyone is in New Jersey or they
want to come to New Jerseypeacefully and come to a
courthouse a little towncourthouse and hear a trial, you
can watch me on trial defendingmy wife on October 11th at 9 am
Eastern time in CranfordMunicipal Court in New Jersey.
(01:03:52):
And yeah, it's going to be aninteresting day.
And again, it's a fight forfreedom in a civil and
constitutionally proper manner.
Speaker 2 (01:04:04):
I can only believe there are hundreds of cases
around the country that are justlike yours.
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
Very few people have been arrested at a school board
meeting.
Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Well, I mean just, being arrested, not wearing the
rag, the whole deal.
Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
Yeah, we're suing multiple school boards in new
jersey and new york becausewhat's going on at these school
boards is just outrageous.
What's happening in theseschools is outrageous.
Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
My daughter-in-law is a nurse and they says get the
jab or you're fired.
And and she says, well, you'regonna have to terminate me.
But then we started revvingstuff up and then they just kind
of shut up and went away.
Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
We confronted that well, good for you but yeah, um,
what are we?
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
oh, hour, one, holy cow, this, this time flies.
You were fascinating beyondanything.
Oh, thanks so much and uh Iwill get this I'll get this
edited up.
Um, I'll get my commercials inthere and I'll get my sponsors
and we'll do a.
Well, this will probably go outtonight yet, so you can, I'll
get I'll in there and I'll getmy sponsors and we'll do a.
This will probably go outtonight yet, so you can, I'll
send you a link directly to thephone.
Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
That would be great.
I really appreciate it.
I really enjoy the interview.
Thanks.
It was much more far reachingthan I expected.
Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
It went out there, didn't it?
Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Yeah, it did, it's good.
Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
Well, good luck on your 11th there and I hope
you're getting some Kung Fu.
And thanks for coming on andfor people out listening.
Yes, if this applies tosomething in your neighborhood
neck of the woods country, thenfeel free to reach out to us.
Hit us on the Facebook site,hit us on the.
We're all on social media.
I'm not hard to find.
Be well and we'll catch younext time on HuttCast.
(01:05:41):
And that's a wrap for HuttCastand that's a wrap for HuttCast.
Huttcast is again a pragmaticapproach to seeing things how
some people see them.
If you like our show, give us athumbs up on the Facebook site,
again for HuttCast.
Thank you again.
Have a wonderful evening you.
2, 3, 4.
2, 3, 4.
Secretly recorded from deepinside the bowels of a
decommissioned missile silo, webring you the man, one single
man, who wants to bring light tothe darkness and dark to the
lightness.
Although he's not always right,he is always certain.
So now, with security protocolsin place, the protesters have
(00:28):
been forced back behind thebarricades and the blast doors
are now sealed.
Without further delay, let meintroduce you to the host of
HuttCast, mr Tim Huttner.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Thank you, sergeant-at-arms.
You can now take your post.
The views and opinionsexpressed in this program are
solely those of the individualand participants.
These views and opinionsexpressed do not represent those
of the host or the show.
The opinions in this broadcastare not to replace your legal,
medical or spiritualprofessionals.
(01:04):
Broadcasts are not to replaceyour legal, medical or spiritual
professionals.
Welcome to the podcast today onthe show via phone to my
undisclosed bunker location, ronBerruti and Ron, are you there?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I am.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Give us a sneak peek real quick.
We're in intro, but who are wetalking about today?
But who?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
are we talking about today?
Well, today we are talkingabout my submission to the
United States Supreme Court.
In particular, it's going toJustice Sotomayor and the
petition is designed.
It's an emergency applicationseeking to get the Trump gag
order stayed on behalf of mymedia client, whose First
(01:48):
Amendment rights have beenviolated by it.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Okay, all right, you guys want to stand by for this
one?
Tune in, get some popcorn.
It's going to be a show.
We'll be right back.
Buying a gun is no ordinarypurchase.
Whether you're a hunter,competitive shooter or
self-defense is your priority.
There are many kinds of gunsand many kinds of training
(02:14):
programs.
You use your brain all the time.
You will rarely need to useyour gun Before you find
yourself in a situation whereyou need to make a critical
decision.
Make sure your training is thebest you can get.
It could be the differencebetween life and death, or
freedom or detention.
For the best quality training,check out PermitToCarryus.
(02:34):
If you live in Minnesota orWisconsin or even Florida, give
Gene German a call 612-388-2403.
That's, permit to Carry US orcall Gene German at 612-388-2403
.
Welcome back to HUTCAST.
(02:57):
Ron Rudy is here and he has gotsome way.
Big information.
Ron, you had said in pre-rollthat this emergency stay for
Donald Trump's client, mediaclient.
Where are we going with this?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Well, this is actually my media client.
We are not working with theTrump, donald Trump or the Trump
campaign.
My media client is a podcastermuch like you, good Logic LLC.
Good Logic does legalpodcasting based out of New
Jersey, new York.
My client, good Logic's owner,is Joe Nierman.
(03:39):
He's an attorney also, but nota constitutional attorney, and
Joe retained me to represent,retained my firm, to represent
his entity and to bring claimsin the New York Court of Appeals
or New York appellate courts totry to against Judge Mershon,
(04:00):
who went with the gag order,seeking to get the courts to
compel Judge Marchand to stayhis order and allow President
Trump to speak.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Wow.
So, in a nutshell, yourcustomer, your client is being
gagged himself.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
No.
So under the First Amendment,there's a news gathering right
and one of the things that thegag order has done is it's
prevented news organizationsfrom actually going to the
source to get news.
There's a First Amendment right.
(04:40):
Has there been before PresidentTrump in the federal case in DC
?
Never have we found a casewhere there's been a gag order
imposed against a criminaldefendant for the purpose of
gagging that criminal defendant.
Usually, or every time in thepast, gag orders have been
(05:00):
imposed to protect the integrityof the trial, so that the
criminal defendant will get afair trial.
Um, so what they've done is byentering this gag order and
typically, of course, thecriminal defendant has every
opportunity and every right todeclare his innocence, speak
about the trial, speak about thejudge, speak about whatever he
wants, because it's his liberty,potentially life that is on the
(05:24):
line, okay, and the press hastherefore a right to report it.
And by entering the gag order,the right of the press the free
press to report on these thingswe claim, has been violated.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Wow, that sounds like a pretty big battle.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
It's been really an amazing battle to see how things
transpired in the New Yorkcourts and to now see now to be
taking it to the United StatesSupreme Court.
It's exciting and I think wehave a very, very good case.
And whether Justice Sotomayorsees it that way or some other
(06:06):
justice which could be the caselater on, you know we don't know
, but we think we're making veryimportant legal arguments,
constitutional arguments, andthis is not a frivolous thing at
all.
This is we're very serious withthis application we're bringing
.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Right, you want everybody to hear about this.
This is how we got together andwe're in 101 countries.
We've got a whole lot oflisteners, but a lot of our
people are overseas.
I would say 40% are onshore,which is a pretty good number.
How do you want them tointerpret this?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
How do you, how do you want them to interpret this?
So what I want is I want that Iwant the court to be aware that
(07:08):
felonies by a judge who we saywas irreconcilably conflicted,
and the judge caused criticismof him to be tamped by entering
this gag order because we thinkhe was conflicted because of his
daughter and his wife, who havewhat we say are conflicts of
interest, or caused him to haveconflicts of interest which
(07:30):
should have required him torecuse himself under New York
law.
He should never have been thepresiding judge.
Yet he was, and President Trump, in an unprecedented, in
something that's completelyunprecedented in American
history, was convicted offelonies in New York.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
So if it's that big of a conflict of interest, can't
you call him out on that andcan't you change venue at that
point?
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, look, I was not the attorney for President
Trump.
I do believe that they triedthat.
I haven't seen their papers,but Judge Mershon obviously
disagreed.
And then Judge Mershon gaggedPresident Trump and it was
around that same time that newsreports came out about Judge
(08:18):
Mershon's daughter, who weunderstand.
News report since the trial hasindicated that his daughter,
for those who don't know, is, Ithink she's a publicist.
She has a publicist company andone of her clients is none
other than the Biden Harriscampaign, or was the Biden
Harris campaign?
(08:39):
Ok, so you know, you can't.
You can't make this stuff up.
And this last quarter, whenthey're the quarter during which
the trial was occurring,no-transcript.
And it seems that there's apecuniary benefit from having
(09:01):
your father being the trialjudge for Donald Trump, benefit
from having your father beingthe trial judge for Donald Trump
, and that's exactly the kind ofconflict that we're saying
required Judge Mershon to recusehimself.
Furthermore, his wife, judgeMershon's wife works for Letitia
James.
Letitia James is the attorneygeneral of New York.
She campaigned and there is avideo of her campaigning,
(09:26):
talking about Donald Trump in abullhorn.
Lock him up, lock him up.
Well, again, if that's not aconflict of interest for Judge
Mershon, I don't know what is.
So he has this two prongedconflict of interest and what he
did is he gagged PresidentTrump from talking about his
wife and his daughter.
So the person with the biggestmicrophone in the world is
(09:50):
President Trump.
I'd say there's probably no onewho's ever had a larger media
presence than Donald Trump, andI put this in my papers.
And, of course, when youprevent that person from
speaking out about this conflictof interest, the public is
largely uninformed.
Many of your listeners, maybeyou yourself, are hearing this
for the first time right now.
Right, why is that right?
(10:11):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (10:12):
because president trump was gagged I knew there
was a gag order in place, but Idon't know what for, and this is
what it's for yeah, that's,that's what we say.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Supposedly, the gag order was put in place because
President Trump was saying wordsthat were dangerous.
He was going to scare peoplefrom coming to be witnesses and
he was going to make peopleuncomfortable and it was going
to upset the trial.
Well, that's not a reason togag someone.
Trial well, that's not a reasonto gag someone.
(10:46):
Under the supreme courtprecedent, there must be a clear
and present danger, an imminentthreat to the trial.
And the only way uh, I'veargued in the supreme court that
the only way that a a criminaldefendant can be gagged, um, for
the purpose of gagging him, Iwould say is if there there is
some indication that perhaps thedefendant is intending to
(11:09):
tamper with the jury with words.
And let's just take a case of amobster hey, I'm going to have
you killed if you go against me.
I could see gagging.
That that's something that'sthreatening the case completely
and it could be potentiallyimminent.
But here there was nothingimminent.
The court didn't go through theprocess that it was required to
(11:31):
go through to determineimminence and rather and it
didn't even apply that standardit applied a lesser standard
because it wanted to gagPresident Trump and it relied
upon the standard that had beenimposed against him in the
district.
The DC court.
The federal court in DC was thefirst court to enter an order
(11:53):
like this, but there was noconflict like there is in New
York.
So we've argued.
There's been, there have beenin the past.
There have been other cases.
The district, the DC court wentto the DC Circuit Court, which
the appeals court.
They upheld it.
They affirmed the DC Circuit.
And in the past there's anothercircuit court has said if
there's trial publicity and it'sinconvenient for the defense,
(12:16):
tough luck.
This isn't about making lifeeasy for the defense.
This is about protecting thecriminal defendant's rights.
We say that that circuit courtgot it right, the DC circuit got
it wrong and New York courtcould not rely upon the DC
circuit because the DC circuitgot it wrong.
And so that's basically thegist of the argument.
And on top of that, the layeron top of that is that this
(12:39):
particular gag order was reallyin an effort to really protect
judge mershon against thecriticism of his conflict of
interest, which was a grossviolation of new york law.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We allege who else is bringing this out?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
um, well, nobody.
Uh, you would think that, andand this is good logic and Joe
Nierman, this was his idea, andhe said wait a minute,
something's very wrong with thispicture.
And why isn't the whole media,why aren't all the media coming
out and banging on pots and pansand saying you can't do this?
(13:20):
And saying you can't do this?
Well, because I think we knowthat the uh legacy media is has
become something uh similar topravda, where they're, they're
cheerleading, and so they're notgoing to go do it.
They didn't.
You know, no one's, no one hasuh reported on these conflicts
(13:42):
in the major news mediaorganizations, so they're
certainly not going to go andtry to, you know, argue that
it's a violation of theirconstitutional rights.
And then many other people justdidn't think about it.
So Joe Nierman thought about itand I think it was brilliant.
And here we are.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Doesn't Fox have any teeth in this?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
They do not Nobody.
Joe Nierman, any teeth in this?
They do not, nobody.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Are they?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
aware, a little guy, sorry.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Are they aware of this?
Fox News.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
I do not know.
I don't have contacts with FoxNews and they should certainly
be aware of it.
You know, again, they're amajor news organization.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
They should be.
They should certainly be awareof it.
You know, again, they're amajor news organization, right,
it's hard, it's hard to it'shard to fathom how major news 10
, 20 years where the media hasbecome something very different
than what a lot of us grew upwith, right, these are the
things you know.
When I was a kid we used to seePravda and you'd see the Soviet
(15:02):
Union news and you'd almostlaugh at what they're saying.
But you wonder if these poorpeople in the Soviet Union, like
, even believed it or what.
But you see, now here in theUnited States they're doing the
same thing.
It's a lot of propaganda and wehave a country divided with the
news media that is pumping upone side or maybe the other with
(15:25):
propaganda a lot of times, sure, and news stories are not being
discussed.
You used to have pointcounterpoints on news programs
right Right right.
You know, let's think about JaneCurtin and Dan Aykroyd, right,
you would have a pointcounterpoint and you'd have
debate and you'd have argument.
You know the people decide.
You know who's right, who'swrong.
Are they both wrong?
(15:46):
Are they both right?
You don't have that anymore,you just have.
You know, you have biased newsin the main media organizations
for the most part, and the realnews stories that really need to
be peeled back the layers needto be peeled back are not being
handled many times, many cases.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
You feel that's a Democratic thing, or do you feel
it's both and everybody'staking a little bit of ownership
there?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Well, look, I think that it's primarily on the left.
But you know, look, I thinkthat there's certainly I think
Fox News has, I think a lot ofthings that Fox News never
answered for with what happenedin 2020.
And you know the other again,there are other major news
organizations too.
You know, where's Newsmax,where's OAN on this?
(16:35):
I haven't seen it.
Maybe they've talked about it.
I haven't seen it and it'sagain.
It's a major story.
The news is out there.
There are some journalists outthere who have reported on it.
I know Laura Loomer is the onewho pointed out the wife
conflict.
There are some people who haveactually reported on this story,
but they don't have themegaphone, you know, and they're
(16:59):
considered to be fringe andthey're treated as being people
who are not serious, but they'reactually raising the serious
questions.
You know there's a conspiracytheory.
So you see that all the timethat, that, that the conspiracy
theories seem to be coming trueright, actually almost every
time, more and more, every timeyou turn around it's conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Oh no, it ain't.
It's.
Uh, you just haven't seen ityet.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
It's extraordinary.
Yeah, and like I said, youcan't write this.
No, no, it's really 1984 stuff.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Yes, some Orwell.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
It really is Total, orwell, yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
And if nobody's read the book Orwell, you need to.
You need to just go back andand read it and just you're
going to be floored now 1984,yeah, yeah I, I know that, uh,
in our our presidential debatelast night, our vice
presidential debate, vancehanded him his ass.
Totally it was, it was, it was.
It wasn't even fair.
But a lot of people don't knowwhat we know here in Minnesota
(18:04):
about waltz and the news Pleasetell us?
What's that?
Please tell us.
Yeah, I've got a lot oflisteners at our state capitol
that are on this program, andone in particular, and this is
just to cement your positionabout the news and how.
You don't hear nothing and thenmagically delicious stuff
(18:24):
happens Behind the veil Paul EGazelka.
He is the Senate MajorityLeader of Minnesota for many
years.
He has been toe-to-toe with TimWalz and he can tell you some
stories in his new book he justreleased here two weeks ago.
He was on the show.
He says guys, you don'tunderstand until you've actually
(18:46):
been in a room with this guy.
Things the news didn't kick outthere, things that happened.
Liz Collins she is a WCCO wasexcuse me, let me correct, that
was an anchor for WCCO.
Now she's running Alpha Newsand she was on the show.
Her husband was the guy on thephone when George Floyd's police
(19:11):
was on his neck.
I mean Derek Chauvin was on hisneck.
I mean Derek Chauvin was on hisneck.
Chauvin's on the phone.
He's talking to this guy andthis guy he's talking to is her
husband.
He's the Minneapolis PoliceUnion rep.
The news totally destroyed thatUse of force was authorized.
(19:33):
He was doing the right thing.
The only thing that got Derekin trouble was he didn't flip
him over and make sure he wasstill breathing.
If he was still breathing, orat least tried to, I don't think
those guys would be in trouble.
My point is the news just spunthis around their lying to us
was her book.
She released it on this showand it was a killer book, no pun
(19:56):
intended.
Yeah, incredible.
So I can see your point withthis, or your client's point.
And what is the hope I mean?
So they lift the gag order andthey can talk about it then Well
, if they lift the gag order,President Trump can talk about
it.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So in a strange way, we're actually making arguments
for President Trump.
It's not really by proxy.
Again, we're not working.
Yeah, it's really, it's acollateral attack.
They call it on this order.
Okay, and the attack is basedinitially on our client's First
(20:33):
Amendment, right to free press.
But tangentially and probablyoverarching really is how this
particular gag order violatedPresident Trump's First
Amendment rights and in doing soit violated his Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to afair trial, to a fair trial.
(20:57):
So if, if good logic had beenable to, and good logic had put
questions to President Trumpabout, about conflicts, and good
logic had requested a, aninterview with President Trump,
and good logic was turned downbecause of the gag order.
So good logic has standing toto raise these issues and it was
its rights.
Rights were violated by the gagorder.
And once it raised the issues,then it also brings into focus
(21:21):
what happened with PresidentTrump, and I know President
Trump, his people, have filed inthe New York courts, have
sought to argue that the gagorder was illegal and
constitutional.
I haven't really seen arguments.
They've gone nowhere so far inthat and I don't know how
focused they are on at thispoint.
I mean, they're 34 days awayfrom an election.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
But look, at the end of the day, the American people
are going to be casting whatcould be the most important
electoral votes in our nation'shistory.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Or maybe as far back as 1864 or something like that.
Yeah, but this is a big one andthey should be informed
properly or they should be ableto reach their own conclusions
as to what actually happened inthis criminal trial.
And my take, my personal take,is that what happened is that
(22:16):
this was a sham, that PresidentTrump was, this was a, the
convictions were, the goose wascooked before the fire was
turned on, you know, and I thinkthat he stood no chance and
they did everything they couldto make sure that he stood no
chance.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
And the they's are who.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
I think the courts, I think it's really, I think it's
a look.
I argued in New York.
I'm a New York attorney and.
I'm a very firm believer in ourlaw and in the rule of law,
believer in our law and in therule of law.
I don't think that the appellatecourts wanted to touch this and
I don't believe that this judgewas unbiased.
And I think it's a terriblelook for the New York courts not
(23:05):
to have done something to stopthis from happening because
ultimately it damages theintegrity of every single case,
as I see it, before the courts.
It adds the question is theoutcome political, and that's
not what courts exist to do.
(23:25):
And if we can't have a courtthat we believe in, a court, the
judicial system that we believeis going to be fair, unbiased
and neutral, then our entirerule of law is going to be on,
unbiased and neutral, then ourentire rule of law is going to
be on the brink of collapse andthat's really very dangerous.
And that's why this particularcase we think needs to be heard
by the Supreme Court and needsto be examined very closely
(23:47):
because again, our institutionsare under attack and this is a
grave injustice that occurredand a grave danger to our
constitution I.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
You struck a chord there.
You said our institutions areunder attack.
What's new?
We're always under attack asconservatives but it's not just
conservatives.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I, I think that it's, I think, if you look really
across our society and again,this isn't what my case is about
, but you know, I'm also anobserver of and I I have a lot
of very yeah a lot of big casesagainst a lot of uh powerful
entities and people.
um, that's what I do uh.
You see that uh everywhere,from uh our religious
(24:31):
institutions to our corporateinstitutions, history, small
business, everything is underattack.
And my grandfather escapedcommunism in 1948.
And I learned he riskedeverything.
He put his family on a10-horsepower boat and went
(24:53):
across the sea.
One of the first people toescape.
He just had to be free.
He couldn't live in a societythat was false and that didn't
allow him to be a free person.
He had to risk everything to doit.
And I look now and I say youknow, where are we going in this
(25:15):
country and where are my kids?
Where do my grandkids go?
Where do they?
Where's?
where does their 10 horsepowerboat, take them to yeah, this is
the you know, as, as I think itwas Reagan who said this is the
last best hope on earth youknow, and, and, uh, we, we have
to fight to preserve it.
I, and that's what, that's whatI do every day, uh, pretty much
(25:36):
in my job.
I, I fight to preserve ourinstitutions, I fight to
preserve what I think is theconstitutional, uh, correct, uh,
applications of the law, and,uh, and, and this is a big one,
this is a very big, big one.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So what do you see?
Where did you come from thefamily?
Speaker 3 (25:58):
My family yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Your grandfather.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, so my grandfather was Yugoslavian At
the time.
He was Croatian, but at thetime it was Yugoslavia 1948.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
It was right after World War II.
My grandfather's my hero he had.
He was a phenomenal, phenomenalpastry chef and also chef, and
he just wanted to work and hegot ended up running a hotel on
an island in Croatia, thenYugoslavia, and it's kind of off
(26:34):
the beaten path from the war,but it's.
At one point the SS came to theisland to get all the
able-bodied men and mygrandfather outsmarted the SS to
avoid capture and then he hadto leave the island and then he
ended up with the partisans whowere communists and he hated
them just as much and hedeserted the communists and he
hid the rest of the war up inthe attic of his home.
(26:55):
But then when he came out herefused to join the Communist
Party and they took his hotelaway and then they told him that
they were going to take hishome away because he wouldn't
join the party and he was goingto leave his family homeless.
And he figured a way to escape.
And he's going to leave hisfamily homeless and he figured a
way to escape.
(27:15):
And just an amazing human beingand to talk to him about it.
He was very humble about it.
He goes.
That's just one story.
There's so many stories and henever really thought there was
anything really special aboutwhat he did.
But boy.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
It was there, you know, when I first started this
about four years ago.
Four and a half years ago, Ihad a gal on and one of our
first shows was uh, the year Imet adolf hitler.
Now this gal's in her 90s ishand she's spry as can be, and
the memories that go back are sosuch a scar and I'll tell you
(27:53):
what I mean.
She's 97 years old.
I felt like a total crud, likehey, let's talk about this and
and it was so like yesterday forher.
My point, my point with this is, you know, if we don't study
the past, we're certainlycondemned the future.
It's nothing new to that.
And how can we, we as a society?
Again, you crossed uponlisteners.
(28:14):
You might have some of this inyour world, but how do we as a
society say enough of this andstomp our feet?
I mean, do we have to have aJanuary 6th?
I mean, you tell me what makessense.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Well, listen, I believe in the rule of law and I
believe in our Constitution andI believe in our courts.
Still, and I believe that theUnited States, with all of its
flaws, still is the best systemand it's the one that has made
people the freest and thereforethe most prosperous and,
ultimately, the happiest peoplein the history of the world, and
(28:49):
it's.
You know, one thing that I'mkind of fascinated about is that
there's so very few attorneyswho are fighting the fights that
I fight.
You know you have entities youhave like America First Legal,
or you have, you know, variousorganizations that bring
lawsuits, say, for vaccines orfor DEI, whatever, and I'm doing
(29:14):
all those things, but it'sthere are very few, because and
people don't want to, peopledon't want to work for my firm.
They think, oh, you're aright-wing conspiracy.
I'm just a person who is.
I'm just a regular guy and Ijust went to.
I went to a pretty humble lawschool.
I think that I'm pretty smartand I think that I make good
(29:34):
arguments.
But you know, I'm not an IvyLeague guy and I didn't have the
great thinkers as my professors.
But here I am.
I understand that my role insociety as a lawyer is to do
what I took an oath to do, whichis to uphold the Constitution
and laws, and that's what Iasked the courts to do every day
(29:57):
.
And there's such reticence inthe community of laws now that
to even take these positionsbecause people are afraid of
being canceled.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
People are afraid of being mocked.
People are afraid of beingcanceled.
Yes, people are afraid of beingmocked.
People are afraid of beingdisbarred.
You know, in some states, allthese people, people who are
going against the vaccines, youknow, they're getting their bar
licenses threatened.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Yes, then what good's our law?
Speaker 2 (30:31):
What good's our law if we can't protect it with
ourselves?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Well, that's my point is look, I have an obligation
to continue fighting this fight.
I feel that it's my moral duty.
It's my duty to do this and Ican't spend my days worrying
about what if that happens,because I know what I'm doing is
ethical and I know what I'mdoing is legal.
(30:57):
I don't file frivolous claimsand if somebody wants to attack
me for that, I can't stop themfrom doing that.
But I'm not going to be bulliedinto refusing to defend or
failing to defend the rights ofmy clients and the Constitution
and laws of the United States.
And I do believe thatultimately, this is all going to
(31:18):
turn around.
I believe that in my heart thatthis is going to turn around,
and I believe the Supreme Courtis going to take a greater and
greater role in doing that.
And I think the last few termsof the Supreme Court I think
we've seen that, where the courtis starting to take some of
these issues on and starting toreally turn back this insanity
(31:44):
that's been going on in ourcountry.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
God, I hope so.
I hope so Because you know yousaid something about the guys
taking the jab.
Well, in Minnesota, here we hada candidate against Waltz and
an excellent candidate, a veryexcellent candidate, a doctor.
He's anti-jab, he's pro-patient.
He's in audience.
Dr Scott Jensen, he's been onthe show a couple times I've
(32:12):
spoken to Scott Jensen.
I know him sure oh okay, and allthey did was attack him.
They attacked him they, theybullied him.
They went after his licensetime and time and time again,
and I do believe he's fightingone of those in court right now
yeah, they, uh, that's what theydo.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
And again they have, they have the, the legacy media
on their side.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
You don't see uh unbiased reporting, you just see
you see what they want you tosee you're being programmed
theory.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory, and it's once
.
It's once.
They say it's a conspiracytheory.
It's a conspiracy theory oncethey say you're a right-wing
lunatic.
You're a right-wing lunatic, uh, you don't.
They don't tell you that you're.
They don't say I talk aboutleft-wing lunatics right, it's
not because there are noleft-wing lunatics not according
to them perfectly sane andsober people.
Um, you know it, it's, it's,it's, it's really, it's really
(33:14):
kind of frightening, you knowwhen you really boil it down.
And I worry about my kids andespecially, you know, I don't
have grandkids yet.
I'm 58.
I have three beautiful olderkids and I got two young guys at
home and I wonder, you know, Iwonder what their lives are
going to be like when they're 58, and and and where.
What are their kids going to befaced with?
(33:35):
Because I've just seen, fromthe time that my older kids to
the time now in school, thingshave changed so dramatically and
so much for the worse andthey've become schools, have
become these, these cesspools of, of, of left wing politics,
these cesspools of left-wingpolitics theory.
Indoctrinations yeah, we fight.
(33:58):
We have cases against a lot ofthe transgender madness in
schools.
My wife was arrested at aschool board meeting for not
having a mask on.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Really, we have a trial next week.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Yes we have a trial next week for her not having a
mask on Valentine's Day 2022.
We took that case all the wayup to the US Supreme Court.
Court didn't take it, but webelieve that she had an absolute
constitutional protest right tonot wear a mask.
After eight months of doing thesame thing, they finally
arrested her when the maskmandate was about to end because
(34:28):
they wanted to get their poundof flesh.
It's scary.
Her protest was for specialneeds kids and that's something
I remember watching the movieRain man right in 1989.
And I'd never heard of autism.
What is?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
this Dustin.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Hoffman yeah, this can't be real.
And well, you know, we've gotan autistic child and it seems
like two out of every threepeople I know is an autistic
child.
Now, and this is the BobbyKennedy thing and I'm so glad
that he he endorsed PresidentTrump because he's really a
brilliant guy and he's a reallyhe really cares about this issue
(35:09):
and he's at the vanguard ofthis issue and the vaccines and
everything else and we need to.
These are issues that need tobe dealt with and, um, nobody's
doing it and and no one wants totalk about it right, the media
doesn't?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
they all climb up, including some of the people you
just go out and talk to they.
They don't want to engage itright.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
The media said that vaccines don't cause injuries,
so vaccines don't cause injuries.
The politicians have saidvaccines don't cause injuries.
So vaccines don't causeinjuries.
There's no desire to peel backthe rhetoric and to look beneath
the surface and say, wait aminute, how can you say vaccines
don't cause injuries?
(35:53):
Say, wait a minute, how can yousay vaccines don't cause
injuries?
I don't know if you've everdealt with Steve Kirsch, for
instance.
Steve Kirsch is a very wealthyguy.
I think he invented the mousefor computers.
I think that was his biginvention.
But he got vaccinated and thenhe started looking into these
COVID vaccines and he is thesingle most the biggest anti-vax
(36:16):
advocate that there is.
He's willing to bet like I'llbet you a million dollars, you
and I have a debate and I'll winthe debate on the vaccines.
He gets all the information andhe aggregates it and he talks
about all these differentstudies, aggregates it and he
and he talks about all thesedifferent studies.
And you would think, with allthis massive information, that
(36:36):
there would be people ingovernment saying, well, wait a
minute.
You know this is a serious guyand this is a serious issue and
we need to really take a look atit.
No, they're trying to silencehim.
He's a conspiracy theorist,he's a nut.
That's's their take.
And of course he's not.
He's a brilliant man.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Waltz did some of that here in Minnesota.
I was on conversations withrestaurant owners, people,
places of gathering, and I hadmy docket was full of interviews
just on what happened, and theytried to arrest him, just like
your wife.
They couldn't pin it on them,but they did go through the
(37:18):
motions.
Did your wife get out of it, orhow did that end up?
Speaker 3 (37:23):
She was arrested.
We filed a she actually.
What's really interesting isshe actually filed a federal
lawsuit before being arrested,because the month before, at the
school board meeting, theycanceled the meeting so that she
couldn't speak and then theystarted threatening publicly
that anyone coming without amask was going to be arrested.
She'd been doing this for eightmonths, coming without a mask
(37:46):
and hadn't gotten arrested, asat other people.
But they just wanted to.
They wanted to to make peoplecomply.
This is their power grab.
Yep, and she said no, and herprotest was that the masks were
hurting her child.
Her child couldn't learn.
Another child was getting sickfrom licking the inside of the
mask.
It's a five-year-old, and theyhad doctor's notes and she had
(38:09):
gone through all the properchannels to try to, you know,
get some relief with medicalnotes, et cetera, and they just
ignored it.
And so her protest was to theschool board.
These are the people closest tothe.
You know, our system ofgovernment was designed that we
would be able to speak to thepeople closest to us, our
neighbors, because they wouldcare about us.
(38:31):
Well, here you have a schoolboard, and that we were supposed
to have a bottom-up governmentright, which, of course, now has
been completely inverted, whereeverything comes from the top
now and the people in the localschool board now are just little
pawns of some bigger machine,it seems.
So what happened here is shesaid, look, you need to contact
the governor and try to get somerelief, because kids with
(38:53):
special needs are being harmed,and there are a lot of them.
And so, like I said, she fileda lawsuit trying to get an
injunction preventing them fromgoing through with their arrest,
saying that she had aconstitutional right to protest,
et cetera.
And the police came and triedto force her to put on a mask,
(39:15):
which she politely refused shewas always polite, always
dignified and they just slappedcuffs on her and arrested her.
So, october 11th, we have atrial, after two years of
waiting.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Oh man, Two and a half years of waiting.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
So do you predict just a stay in movement?
Uh, how do you figure it'sgoing to turn out?
Speaker 3 (39:37):
oh, I don't, uh I'm certainly not going to predict,
uh, my client's fate.
Uh, it's also my wife.
We're gonna, we're gonna fight,we're gonna fight this.
Uh, there's a lot of interestin it.
I think that people are goingto show up.
Uh, I hope they do and uh, theyshould, because this, uh I
don't know about what's, I'msure it's happening, happening
in Minnesota, because I knowit's happening in pretty much
every state.
These school boards arebecoming tyrannical.
(39:59):
Oh for sure, and yeah, and thishas to happen.
We have to punch back.
We have to fight back legally,you know, peacefully, legally we
have to fight back.
We cannot allow them to justtrample our rights without
making them realize that peopleare not going to sit back and
(40:23):
take it, because once they takeyour right a little bit, then
they're going to take it alittle bit more.
It never stops.
That's the history.
That's the history of mankind.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
And they need a dollar.
So they ask for 10.
Negotiate it down to five, andall you want to do is give them
a dollar at that point, just toget them out of your way.
It's constant.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
They negotiate down to five, but they actually take
15.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
When they only needed a dollar.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
They didn't even need a dollar.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Yeah right, we have one of those in our city.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
They needed to give you a dollar is what they needed
to do.
Yes, yeah.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
And they're so over-grabbing.
Now I hope your wife gives themsome kung fu on this deal.
Speaker 3 (41:14):
Well, we have.
Our defense strategy is beingdeveloped and I'm certainly not
going to discuss it, but youknow, we certainly would love to
have people come down to thecourthouse in Cranford, new
Jersey, on October 11th, fridayat 9 am and come sit in the
courtroom and come give my wifesome support and me some support
(41:38):
, and give freedom some supporttoo, because that's what this is
really about.
Again.
It's.
It's about fighting for freedomand fighting for our children
and fighting for what's right.
And when a school board has aparent of a special needs child
arrested, taken away inhandcuffs because she doesn't
have a face diaper on,something's very wrong.
(42:00):
Something is very wrong.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
Yep you tell her we're rooting for her here at
HuttCast in my 101 countries,okay.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
You got it.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
And if you're in Jersey In every language.
In seven languages.
Yes, we're translating sevenlanguages, I know that for sure.
So, whatever that is, yeah, Ihope she just gives it.
That, just hammers it down onthem.
But you know, I talked to someDemocratic friends and you know
they're like old school Dems, sothey're like today's
(42:30):
Republicans.
They just don't know theirparty left them.
And I say, you know?
So we have constitutional talksall the time.
And I said, well, so what doyou think of our constitution?
Well, it's a living, breathingdocument.
I says since when?
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Well, it has to change as time changes.
Well, that's not a constitution, you know, and I will give
credit where it's due Mark Levin.
I've learned so much fromlistening to Mark Levin.
He's a really brilliantconstitutional guy and he says a
living, breathing constitutionis a dead constitution.
And he's right.
(43:08):
The constitution is essentiallya contract.
If you have a contract and theterms constantly change, well,
you don't have a contract.
And that's the same with theConstitution.
The Constitution has a fixedmeaning.
Just because times changedoesn't mean the meaning of the
Constitution changes.
It just means that the worldhas to govern, be governed, in
(43:30):
terms of what the Constitutionrequires.
Govern, be governed in terms ofwhat the constitution requires.
And it's a.
It's a.
It's a constitution designed tolimit government.
Um, you can't be free withoutlimited government and if you
want to change that, then youneed to.
There's a constitutionalamendment process and the 14th
amendment was great for that itdid.
(43:51):
It made vast changes to ourcountry in 1865 or 64, I think
it was 65 was passed.
It changed things verydramatically because there had
been a civil war.
Right, yeah, but that still,ultimately, the 14th Amendment
still is a fixed constellation.
(44:11):
It's a fixed constellation,it's not a moving target and we
have to respect the Constitutionor we have no government at all
, if you have any more, becausethey tend to not want to be your
(44:34):
friend anymore once they findout what you believe or what you
think.
We've lost tons of friends andfamily.
Two very close family havestopped talking to us and it's
just part of the deal.
Like okay, I'm sorry, that'sthe way you feel.
You can't get politics out ofthe way.
We can't have an honestdisagreement.
But you ask them what is thelimit of government?
(44:58):
What is the federalgovernment's limit?
What can the federal governmentnot do?
And you'll be very hard pressedto get an answer.
Well, they can't tell you youhave to have an abortion or you
can't have an abortion.
Well, so let's let's pretendthat's right.
But how about in terms ofspending?
How about in terms of passinglaws to affect the country?
(45:19):
How about in terms of ofanything?
Speaker 2 (45:21):
setting policy.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
They believe in unlimited government, right, and
what they believe in is istyranny.
Yes, it's tyranny they believein.
Yeah, that's what they believein.
They believe in dictatorshipand tyranny.
And if you don't have a limitedgovernment, you don't.
Yes, it's tyranny they believein.
Yeah, that's what they believein.
They believe in dictatorshipand tyranny, and if you don't
have a limited government, youdon't have freedom.
It's that simple.
Everything the government does,every law passed, takes a
(45:44):
little bit of freedom away.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (45:46):
Every single law, every single regulation takes a
little bit of someone's freedomaway.
That's the absolute reality.
And here we have thesealbatross laws and these masses
of regulations and there's noend to them, because nobody is
holding government to account interms of its limitations, its
(46:12):
constitutional limitations.
I shouldn't say nobody, butit's very difficult.
Speaker 2 (46:16):
Right.
We have a good group here inMinnesota.
The right side is right, andthere's a lot of guys on the
left side who are still fightingfor the right stuff too.
I mean, it's the progressivecrazies, the socialist communist
left party.
That is just out of control.
They just out of control.
They're out of control.
Speaker 3 (46:36):
Yeah.
And I do believe that Wallaceis one of those from what I've
read and seen, I I you know he'scoming across as the folksy
common guy.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Wrong wrong.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
You know that's, that's, that's, that's, that's
the facade, and I think that youcan kind of see.
You can kind of see that facademelting away yesterday at times
when you didn't seem to have ahe couldn't, he couldn't find
that pre-program a knucklehead.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
Right, exactly, and if we're listening to him as
long as I have, he's probably 40miles from us in this
undisclosed location and he'sjust, he don't get it.
He don't get it.
And when he started imposingthese restrictions on businesses
around here, he started doinghim and the Mayor Fry, mayor Fry
(47:23):
, jacob Fry, would for thisGeorge Floyd thing.
You know, it's too bad.
The guy died, I get it, but thecops didn't call themselves to
that location.
And then he goes out and callsFry, calls the cop a killer, I
mean day one, and he sat back.
(47:43):
Then the riots started.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Yeah, look, that was like my take on it all is that
the greatest disservice done wasthose cops did the greatest
disservice to our country,because look what happened.
I mean you know it was foolish.
I don't pretend to know all thefacts, but you just see that
the fallout has been horrificfor our country, Incredible.
(48:09):
What I find, what I do, what Ihave heard, is that your
governor's wife said that sheopened the windows to the
governor's mansion because shewanted, she was happy, to smell
the burning city.
I mean that, to me, isunconscionable and it tells you
everything you need to know.
Speaker 2 (48:31):
Yeah, she'd change her mind if it was her building
burning.
Speaker 3 (48:37):
I wouldn't be married to that person.
You know, if I didn't believethat way, I wouldn't be married
to that person, right?
So you have to.
That, to me, tells meeverything I need to know about
Governor Walz, right there, andI don't like it one bit.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Yeah, no, no, and we don't.
We've known this for yearsaround here, but all of a sudden
, first of all, camilla wasinstalled.
You don't go from number 11 inthe DNC to not having a DNC to
being picked because yourpresident, who mentally couldn't
make it in the first place, isall of a sudden Now she's.
The magic trick is going to beeverybody thinking their job is
(49:18):
to make everybody think that shewas the right pick, that she
was picked when she was actuallyinstalled.
Speaker 3 (49:23):
She's the chosen one.
She was chosen for this, wasn'telected.
She was chosen.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Then the democratic process is no good.
Speaker 3 (49:31):
Well, that's again.
It's unlimited government.
It's complete lack of respectfor the Constitution and for the
people Right.
That's what that is and that'sthe party.
That's the party, and they callthemselves Democrats.
There's nothing democraticabout it.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
Not at all.
Speaker 3 (49:49):
It is.
You know, I said years ago, ifyou looked at the CP USA website
, Communist Party USA website,and you saw the positions they
had, they are, you can you canalmost do an exact layover of
the Democrat policies.
They're the same policies, butthey just call themselves
Democrats, not communists.
(50:09):
Policy-wise there's not a wholelot of difference.
There's not a whole lot ofdaylight between them and it's
getting worse and worse with thecensorship and everything else.
But we do these cases all thetime.
This is what we do and I seeall these issues and I fight
(50:30):
these issues and, yeah,sometimes you think you're
pushing against a string, butother times you know you're
landing a punch here and thereand that's all we can hope for
playing punches Playing poolwith a wet spaghetti noodle huh.
Yeah, I could tell you about.
You know, I was one of my firstbig cases in the, my first big
(50:54):
constitutional case.
I really was a lawyer who didcomplex commercial work fraud
cases and racketeering cases andthat kind of thing and
racketeering cases and that kindof thing, one of my first big
constitutional cases.
We sued Mayor de Blasio in NewYork when he put in his vaccine
mandate to get into restaurantsand gyms, et cetera.
(51:15):
And what happened?
If you look at the court cases,we lost the case.
The case was ultimatelydismissed.
But what they did is it wasfiled in federal court and so
every time we got close togetting a hearing they would
withdraw a part of the mandateand say, ok, the case is moot,
(51:35):
now it has to be dismissed, youcan't, there's nothing to decide
.
And I said no way.
But there's this other mandate,that's the same thing.
So three times that happenedthat we got close to a decision
and they pulled a mandate.
They pulled another mandate,then they pulled a third mandate
and each time they argued thatit was moot.
The third time they finallysucceeded in federal court.
(51:56):
You have to have an activecontroversy.
If there's no controversyanymore, the federal court has
no jurisdiction.
So that's what they're tryingto moot it.
They're trying to say the courthas no jurisdiction because
they got rid of that mandate.
And I said, well, no, there'sanother mandate, like, for
instance, I have one eye on myMets game right here.
And I said, well, the baseballteams in New York are not going
(52:18):
to be able to have theirunvaccinated players play under
this other mandate that you have, and it's the same mandate as,
essentially, the one that youhave in a restaurant.
So the issue is not moot, itstill exists and it's likely to
happen again.
Boom, they made us.
Mayor Adams made a specialexemption for sports teams,
which was outrageous.
And then I said, well, you knowthis is moot, I go no, but wait
(52:40):
a minute.
You have this other mandate.
You have employees have to bevaccinated.
Employ, wait a minute you havethis other mandate.
You have employees have to bevaccinated, Employees of private
employers have to be vaccinated, and it's the same thing.
And boom, they pulled that oneaway.
Sure, sure.
So so you know, I feel like,well, you know, the record may
show that we lost, but I thinkwe won a lot.
I think we and that makes mefeel good you know, we did
(53:02):
something that was reallyimportant to the people and we
upheld constitutional rights.
It may be a little too late,but you know, we took that fight
to them and you can't be afraidto take the fight to them.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
For a takeaway what do you want people to know?
How do they engage at theirlevel?
We're not attorneys.
We're you know, we're we'redishwashers and we're gas
pumpers and we're we're we'reworkers.
So how do you want them, whatdo you want them to know, to
engage?
This?
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Uh, what I think.
Uh, and just just you know I'mgoing to play like a debate.
Well, let me tell you about mybackground.
Um, I, I went to, I went to toState University and I majored
in hotel restaurant management.
So, yes, I have been adishwasher and I did not work at
McDonald's, like Kamala Harrisdidn't work at McDonald's.
But I have worked inrestaurants.
I washed dishes, I bartended.
Speaker 1 (53:57):
I cooked tables.
Speaker 3 (53:58):
I did everything.
I know that business and I lovethat business and I love the no
tips thing.
No tax tips, but no.
So what's what's the takeaway?
Look, the takeaway is uh, again, I, I, I don't, I don't look at
myself as like a a fancy, uh,white shoe lawyer.
I look at myself as a guy whouh, came up from uh you know,
(54:22):
from I, I I saw my grandfatherand uh what he struggled to do
to be free and and I always, uh,I, I always uh sort of sided
with uh, you know, as a kid Icast my first vote for ronald
reagan and I saw him speak onthe day he opened his campaign
at liberty state park andliberty in 1980.
(54:42):
That's what changed.
That changed my also seeing himmake that speech and running
for office.
And at the end of the day, it'sjust citizen engagement, right,
go to the meetings, be heard, donot be afraid to speak out, do
not be afraid of being canceled.
They can't.
(55:06):
Their biggest fear is to haveto respond.
And so what do they do to avoida response?
Is they mock you?
And this is, you know, it's therules for radicals thing.
Right, you mock your opponent,rules for radicals.
You turn them into a yeah, youturn them into a cartoon of
themselves, and no, don't letthat happen.
Let them, when they turn youinto a cartoon, bring your
neighbor and make them turn thatperson into a cartoon of
himself.
And no, don't let that happen.
Let them, when they turn youinto a cartoon, bring your
(55:27):
neighbor and make them turn thatperson into a cartoon.
And make them turn.
They're so afraid of the peoplethey're supposed to represent,
uh.
And and then they they say ohwell, you're, you're violent,
you're this and of course you'renot.
You know, you go there andyou're violent, you're this and
of course you're not.
You go there and you'repeaceful, you state your case,
(55:47):
you state your issues.
You don't have to be a lawyerto have common sense, and common
sense is really whatconservatism is.
Talk, common sense, talk, thewisdom of the farm, or the
wisdom of the restaurant, or thewisdom, uh, whatever you do,
yeah, you have a certain amountof wisdom, uh, and common sense,
(56:09):
hopefully.
And if you don't have commonsense, then of course you're a
democrat, but that's a differentstory.
But, um, you know it's, it's,it's, uh, it's, it's really
simple.
Uh, it's, it's hard to be theone to stand up and speak, it's
hard to be the one to exposeyourself, to show your butt to
(56:32):
the enemy, right, yep, yep, butthere's a great amount of
satisfaction and power thatcomes with it.
If you do it the right way, youdo it civilly, the way we're
supposed to as Americans, orwherever you are in a democratic
society or, in this case, arepublic, when you're speaking
(56:53):
from your heart, from yourcommon sense for your family,
for the values of freedom, it'svery powerful.
Freedom, I found, is I've donetalks before on the Declaration
of Independence.
I used to read it every Fourthof July to groups and then I'd
(57:14):
have a conversation about whatdoes it all mean and,
essentially, what freedom is?
It's our right to.
We are born with our rights.
We are born as human beings.
We have human rights.
That's what human rights are.
Our rights are the things thatmake us human.
We speak freely.
We worship.
We don't worship.
We worship the way we want toworship.
(57:35):
We gather with friends.
We gather property to make ourlives better.
We defend ourselves.
These are the things you see inthe Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights.
Government can't just intrudein our homes that they were the
kings of our castle.
These are the basic needs ofhuman beings and the basic way
we operate.
The government cannot take thataway from us because that is in
(57:58):
aid in us, but they can repressit and that's where you lose
your freedom.
When I talk to people about whatfreedom is, I have lit up rooms
.
I did one to a group of collegekids in a Newark school, newark
(58:21):
, new Jersey, inner city countycollege, and it was a room
really full of minority kidsmostly out of Newark in the area
and I had this conversation andyou could literally see the
light bulbs going off in theirheads because they were hearing
things they hadn't heard, theyhadn't thought of.
(58:42):
And freedom is exciting.
I got so many great questionsand I was so excited when I was
done speaking with them and itwas such a great feeling.
Freedom connects us becausewe're all human beings and we
all understand it when we thinkabout it and talk about it.
And when you start doing thatall these policies that these
(59:02):
people want to impose upon usyou can start seeing that those
are not policies for free people, those are policies for the
oppressed and repressed.
And um, that's what, that'swhat these people are afraid of
to be exposed so I do right?
Speaker 2 (59:22):
no, you got it.
I mean, you nailed it right onthe head.
A firm believer, I firmbeliever.
I mean I'm drinking theKool-Aid.
Now what, when the politicsfail?
And I think it was von Klausthat said war is another
politics by other means.
And when do you?
January 6th, and they like tocall this insurrection, but
(59:43):
there was no insurrection.
When do you put your foot?
6th, and they like to call thisan insurrection, but there was
no insurrection.
When do you put your foot downand say, okay, talks, do us no
good, because you keep throwingout there the peaceful part, and
it ain't peaceful if it ain'tworking.
Speaker 3 (59:57):
I am a firm believer in our Constitution and our
constitutional process.
I think that there are veryserious constitutional arguments
that were being made, uh, in anon-violent manner, on january
6th.
I think that there's a realquestion.
Just because mike pence said itwas unconstitutional doesn't
(01:00:20):
mean it was unconstitutional,right right?
Alternate slave delegates, yeah, that that that's an unsettled
question of law and that's what?
Again, that's what lawyersexist to do.
That's why we have this system.
That case should have been taken.
And what happened again inthose cases?
A lot of times those cases weretaken and again the courts
(01:00:41):
would say, well, it's moot,because we don't have standing
and all these technical reasons.
Those questions were neveradjudicated.
It was always, they were alwaysthrown out.
Those cases were all thrown outon technicalities.
And so when you hear thesedebate moderators saying, well,
34 courts or whatever number itwas, all of a sudden it was not
(01:01:02):
true.
Well, that's not true.
That's not true.
No court said it wasn't true.
No court actually tooktestimony.
None of them did.
And ultimately, the SupremeCourt never decided on this idea
of alternate slaves of electors.
And if there was a belief offraud, and what should have
happened is that there shouldhave been a trial where the
(01:01:25):
evidence was brought out aboutthe fraud and the alleged fraud,
ok, and and the other sidecould have put in their opposite
, their opposite proofs, andthere could have been a decision
made by a fact finder as towhether or not there was fraud
in the election.
That that's the system thatwe're supposed to have and that
(01:01:47):
didn't happen.
And so of course, you getpeople who are upset.
Yes, people feel their rightsare being taken away because
they weren't.
Yep.
Even if they were wrong, evenif there was zero fraud, which I
think is facially false, I mean, of course there was fraud at
(01:02:09):
some level.
Maybe it wasn't enough, whoknows?
I'm not going to do that debateright now.
But even if they werecompletely wrong, if they
believed that they should havehad the opportunity and they had
some kind of good faith basisto do it, they should have been
able to bring that case andthere should have been a hearing
and there should have been dueprocess due process.
(01:02:31):
And and once you take that awayand you just call them
insurrectionists and you callthe people who believe these
things to be conspiracytheorists, you're doing such an
incredible disservice to theAmerican people, to the
constitution and to our systemof government.
Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
To the idea of the way it should have been.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, not a Jim Jones here, butI am drinking this Kool-Aid
with you and I'm totally gettingit.
I hear you five by five on this, and maybe, after you get your
(01:03:08):
wife's thing done, we'll havethat conversation too, if you
want to come back on the show,because that sounds like a heck
of an interesting case.
Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
Which one?
I had a lot of them.
Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
The one that includes your wife.
Speaker 3 (01:03:21):
Oh yeah, Well sure, I mean, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
I know people yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
Look, like I said, if anyone is in New Jersey or they
want to come to New Jerseypeacefully and come to a
courthouse a little towncourthouse and hear a trial, you
can watch me on trial defendingmy wife on October 11th at 9 am
Eastern time in CranfordMunicipal Court in New Jersey.
(01:03:52):
And yeah, it's going to be aninteresting day.
And again, it's a fight forfreedom in a civil and
constitutionally proper manner.
Speaker 2 (01:04:04):
I can only believe there are hundreds of cases
around the country that are justlike yours.
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
Very few people have been arrested at a school board
meeting.
Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Well, I mean just, being arrested, not wearing the
rag, the whole deal.
Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
Yeah, we're suing multiple school boards in new
jersey and new york becausewhat's going on at these school
boards is just outrageous.
What's happening in theseschools is outrageous.
Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
My daughter-in-law is a nurse and they says get the
jab or you're fired.
And and she says, well, you'regonna have to terminate me.
But then we started revvingstuff up and then they just kind
of shut up and went away.
Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
We confronted that well, good for you but yeah, um,
what are we?
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
oh, hour, one, holy cow, this, this time flies.
You were fascinating beyondanything.
Oh, thanks so much and uh Iwill get this I'll get this
edited up.
Um, I'll get my commercials inthere and I'll get my sponsors
and we'll do a.
Well, this will probably go outtonight yet, so you can, I'll
get I'll in there and I'll getmy sponsors and we'll do a.
This will probably go outtonight yet, so you can, I'll
send you a link directly to thephone.
Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
That would be great.
I really appreciate it.
I really enjoy the interview.
Thanks.
It was much more far reachingthan I expected.
Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
It went out there, didn't it?
Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Yeah, it did, it's good.
Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
Well, good luck on your 11th there and I hope
you're getting some Kung Fu.
And thanks for coming on andfor people out listening.
Yes, if this applies tosomething in your neighborhood
neck of the woods country, thenfeel free to reach out to us.
Hit us on the Facebook site,hit us on the.
We're all on social media.
I'm not hard to find.
Be well and we'll catch younext time on HuttCast.
(01:05:41):
And that's a wrap for HuttCastand that's a wrap for HuttCast.
Huttcast is again a pragmaticapproach to seeing things how
some people see them.
If you like our show, give us athumbs up on the Facebook site,
again for HuttCast.
Thank you again.
Have a wonderful evening 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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.