Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Attorney Roger banag Dar. Welcome inn, sir, Thank you, sir,
thank it's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for inviting me.
Do you know at a young age, was your mom like,
what you're going to grow out and be an attorney
one day? Quit arguing with me and get back in there.
It was very politely strongly suggested, and by politely I
mean demanded. I had two routes to go, supposed to
go to medical school or law school. I chose law school,
all right, and it was the right fit. Well, it's
(00:22):
it's worked for you. Just recap some of the big
cases you've worked on. I know you've worked downtown with
Bitwise and all those folks.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Sure, yeah, locally, the biggest class action that we've seen
here in the Central Valley I was over a nine
hundred member class of bit Wise employees that had there
there were victims of wage theft and were there were
violations of state and federal law with employment rights, with
termination rights. Who represented all those employees that everybody thought
(00:51):
they'd never see a dime and we managed to change
chase those folks out to the bankruptcy court back east
in Delaware and brought home some Justice or Fresnel family.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So that's something I'm quite proud of. Well good, you
could be really anywhere in the country. You grew up
here right in Clovis.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Local boy, born bred, left for a college in law
school and my bachelor's at you see San Diego in
my law degree at Santa Clara. But my whole family's here.
My heart's always been here, came home and raising my
own family here.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Now, you've been following the Sean Combs case. Fox News
had you on talking about it so to director Ryan
Nigel and me. That made you the expert on it, buddy,
So thank you for coming on today and to talk
about this. This is a sick thing that we're hearing about,
but I'm going to be asking you how much of
it is legal and how much of it's illegal? Roger,
(01:43):
I heard a lot of underage people. I was expecting
to hear some twenty two year old female witness say
when I was fifteen, this happened. That happen. That happened.
Are they waiting for surprise in this trial to launch
that kind of stuff because I haven't heard it. You know,
there was all of this rumor conjecture about there's going
to be nine to ten year olds twelve year old
(02:03):
showing up to testify about them being trafficked. If the
prosecution sitting on that, I sure as heck don't see
a point. You want to lead with your best evidence.
You want to lead with your strength, You want to
lead with the proof, because whether you're a plaintiff in
a civil suit or you're the prosecutor in a criminal case,
you need to immediately secure the jury's confidence that you
(02:26):
are the broker of truth and you're here for something
that matters. And in a case like this, if you
have tangible evidence, clear evidence that there were children trafficked,
those are the first two days of evidence and testimony.
You don't wait for that because you're going to lose
the jury. In what I've seen so far, which is
(02:46):
a lot of you know, I don't mean to be judgmental,
but I guess you know many people might construe John
Combe's sexual preferences as gross perverted. There's a bunch of
words we've heard about it. Right, I'm not here, here's
a sex counselor. I'm here as a legal expert, and
we've got a reco case pending in federal court.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
RECO cases are. What that stands for is the racketeer.
Excuse me, it's a racketeering Act. It's a racketeering statute.
And the whole point of that was to give federal
prosecutors the right and power to go into federal courts
and take out bad actors. It's the Racketeer Influenced and
(03:26):
Corrupt Organizations Act.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
I always think mafia.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
That's the wonderful example is the mafia. Another easy example
is gangs that traffic drugs across state lines or people
across the border, et cetera. Locally, you'll see our US
Attorney's Office prosecute people for RECO violations regularly, but those
violations are like MS thirteen gang members. They're different things
that you can kind of tangibly see a federal purpose.
(03:53):
There's a magical word called jurisdiction in law. Jurisdiction means
the right to take action. So under California Penal Code
California criminal law, our DA has the right to pursue
anybody in our county who's engaged in an offense with
a child. So it could be the battery of a child,
the sex offense of a child, et cetera. The Feds
don't have the right to come in and engage in
(04:16):
that investigation and in that prosecution unless they have jurisdiction
a federal hook.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So if they took that child to Reno, the FED,
that's out of state, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
If they took the child at arena, if they were
making improper, you know, illicit videos with the child and
distributing it online, that would.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Be a hook.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
But you need something beyond a criminal act that just
happened in the United States. If that was the case,
you wouldn't need a DA's office. And that's why there
are more things that are a crime under California state
law than they are under federal law. The whole there's
a separation of powers. The states are supposed to take
care of their homes and the Feds are supposed to
come in limited circumstances. So here they're taking a statute
(04:54):
which was initially intended to be used against like the
mafia or organized criminal elements, using it against Puff Daddy,
p Diddy, the Diddler. He's got all kinds of different names,
and they're using it to say that he's engaged in
an underlying felony across state lines. That underlying felony. The
only thing I've heard so far is the allegation that
(05:15):
he's sex trafficking. Now, sex trafficking traditionally means, or at
least in most context, means that you have some person
that you're transporting against their will across state lines. They're
engaging in sex acts, and there's some sort of criminal
enterprise enterprise. I mean, the phrase criminal enterprise is this?
You know, hearkens back to the Jerry maguire movie, right,
(05:38):
show me the Money. We haven't seen that yet. We
haven't seen this nexus of an enterprise where Diddy is
in making a deal with some other, you know, bad
actor in New York Miami? What have you to move
people across state lines for sex acts.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So far, we've heard a.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Lot of horrific detail about this other musician common known
as Cassie, who was who was in a relationship with Ditty,
and it was apparently abused by Ditty. I take no
issue with those conclusions.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
I mean, she saw the video in the elevator. You
saw that, and you've heard this woman sit there. I
can't even imagine. I feel awful for her.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I feel awful for her husband who's having to sit
there and listen to this in open court, to hear
of the degradation and abuse that while pregnant, while pregnant,
while you know, on her monthly, I mean all kinds
of stuff we've heard in gory, gory detail. And I'm
sitting there thinking, God, this is awful, and my heart
(06:35):
goes out to the woman and to her family. But
I'm wondering, what's the US attorney doing? What is all
You don't even need all this, You don't need it.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It doesn't need to be some lurid, complicated, disgusting sex
act for it to be sex trafficking. Why aren't they
trying to sway the jury with all these in pain
him as horrible as they can make him.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Look, sure, I get it, but you at some point.
I mean, look, I've never met a federal prosecutor that
I thought was dumb. They're always well educated, They're articulate there,
they're on top of their cases. Particularly locally. We can
I can tell you firsthand it's a it's a very
talented bench of lawyers we have locally, and I've had
cases all over the country. I've never met a US
(07:15):
attorney that wasn't smart. But I don't understand why they're
taking the evidence risk that they're doing here in this case.
When I say evidence risk, they put Cassie on. She's
testified for days about all of these lurid acts.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
And then they just they give the defense an alley oop.
They throw the ball right up to the rim so
that they can jump up and grab it and read
all of these text messages and ask her about events
that occurred after these, after all this alleged second part
of it that makes her look like a willing participant.
I'm not saying that she is. To be clear here,
I'm given analysis. These aren't conclusions. Didn't she cheat on
(07:50):
her husband with Shawn Combs.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
The testimony was that she had returned to Sean Combe's bed.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
To the scene of the crime, to rewrite history. I
guess is what you may maybe you want to call it.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
I don't know what the what the objective was, but
we've heard all this testimony that she engaged in these acts,
that she felt trapped, that she felt she was fearful
that she would that Combs would destroy her career. And
then the defense gets up and says, well, let's talk
about this text message about where you're saying, you can't
wait to do it again, how much fun it was,
how you want to take it to the next level,
(08:24):
how you want to go further this time.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
And that's so destructive. And if you have all of this.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Other damning and tangible evidence, like like you said, the
stuff with kids, if you have that, why diminish your case?
Why soiled your case with this? And in my view,
and this is I mentioned this on Fox as well.
I've been when I spoke with them. I think that
they they're setting themselves up for a risk of emotion
(08:50):
for a new trial because there's a lot all so,
just because evidence may be relevant doesn't mean it's admissible.
There's a tipping point where it's some point you can
layer on some very inflammatory evidence that doesn't actually isn't
necessary for an element of the offense. And you could say,
you know what, you just went so far that you
(09:11):
distracted the jury from the evidence that was necessary, so
that you've engaged their bias, You've inflamed their emotions, and
this defendant didn't get a fair trial.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
What's their angle? I don't know. Let me ask you this.
If they took out the let's take out the underage aspect,
they might be saving it, but you, like you say,
as an attorney, you would come out with shock and
all with that, Let's take out the rico charge. We
have the video of her and the elevator being hit
and abuse, But what have you heard that's illegal right
now in these three weeks.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
So if you believe, if the jury believes that Cassie
was taken against her will across state lines to for
the purposes of these sex acts, then you're I think
you're I think you have the underlying felony for a rico,
And the underlying felony means you have to have some
felonious acts, trafficking of drugs, trafficking of human of people,
(10:05):
stolen goods, wire fraud, bank fraud, some criminal enterprise that
extends over the state lines. If you believe that, then
they have an underlying felony. But the thing that they're
missing and we haven't heard anything about, and I don't
know why, is where what's the point what's in it
(10:27):
for Diddy to do all of this? What is he
getting out of this? What's the benefit that he traded
for transporting Cassie across state lines against her will to
do these sex acts.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
They're not factoring in recording artists that you come and
be involved with this and I'll get you a record
deal with that. That then could be an incentive business wise,
I mean, arguably, But we haven't. We haven't heard that evidence. Yeah,
we haven't.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
I mean what she testified to is she said, I
kept doing it, and I did the things he wanted
because he had these videos and I thought he would
destroy me if I didn't comply.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
That he would lead the videos of me doing these
gross things and I'd be ruined.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Okay, I hear you. But who is in this rico
contemplates more than one player? Conspiracy means an agreement between
two or more people to do a bad thing. Who's
the person he's agreeing with in his enterprise? Who is
his partner, who is his peer, who is his equal?
Who is also benefiting? I assume, and I'm left with assumptions,
(11:27):
which is troubling. I assume that they're going to argue
that the people that are within the Diddy camp that
are benefiting from him, you know, flying them around and
they're making money and they're making salaries, they're in on
it with him, and therefore these are his conspirators to
engage in this sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
So if I'm picking up what you're throwing down, they're
going to have to show and prove that there's a
Diddy family in Chicago, in New York, in Miami and
New Orleans, kind of like the mob right, that he
was somehow making money off of sex trafficking to different cities,
and that.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
There are others benefiting from it. There has to be
this group. There has to be there's a collective that's
contemplated by Rico. You can't you know, you can't be
you can't do the waltz alone, you know what I mean?
You need a dance partner. Who's this dance partner everybody
on his payroll. That's kind of thin, I don't That
doesn't really sell, and that's not usually what we see
(12:21):
federal prosecutors do. Look, people can be into you know,
everyone who's listening right now can can has heard probably
at least some tidbit about what this guy was into sexually,
and the people that are around him. Judge him all
you want, if you'd like there, that's fine. The question becomes, though,
if by analogy, let's say you have there are two
(12:41):
people and they are into having sex with strangers when
they travel. Just making this up, Okay, hypothetically, there are
these two people. They hang out together all the time,
they're a couple, whatever, and they decide that every time
they go on vacation, one of them is going to
engage with a stranger in a sex act and they're
going to record it, or they're going to pay a
(13:03):
stranger for a sex act and they're going to record it.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Is the federal.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Government now going to step in and prosecute that every
time it occurs.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Let's say it's a really rancid sex act. Let's say
it's just to where.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It involves one of them ultimately getting injured, but it's
something they wanted to do.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Is that rico? Are we going to call that rico? Now?
That's I mean, that's not what the statute was creating.
They had to know. That's all they had going in,
if they didn't have all the underagents to come out
with shock and all. Because you're saying, as an attorney,
that's how you would have started had that been the
first words out of your mouth.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
When you are when you're facing a jury, I don't
care if it's a civil trial or a criminal trial.
You lead with strength because you want the jury from
the moment you stand up to look at you and
say that guy is the broker of truth. The evidence
rests on this side of the table, not that side.
(13:57):
I want to know what this guy says. And then
you've brought out.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
That strong just.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Just I mean, I'm talking if they had this stuff
with the kids, if you're bringing that, if you have
that stuff in pocket and you don't lead with it,
you are wasting your best opportunity to tell the jury
that they're here for something that matters. You're here for justice,
ladies and gentlemen, justice for X, Y and Z children
that were subjected to this type of abuse. There is
(14:26):
no reason to sit on that now. Granted, everything needs context.
You have to sometimes build up to your ultimate points
so that people understand where you're coming from. As a lawyer,
you live with a case for years before you go
to trial, so to you, everything's old hat. You know
every detail, you know where every comma goes, you know
where every period, every sentence says. You've read every record,
(14:48):
and to a jury, this is all fresh to them.
They haven't heard any of it. They haven't heard the
fights that you've had with the posing counsel in front
of the judge about what's coming in and what's not.
So you have to go in it being able to
give the jury some text about what it is they're
going to hear so that they can put the pieces
together to meet the elements. Because in a jury trial,
the judge tells the jury these are the six things
(15:12):
that the plaintiff or the prosecution has to prove. You
have to find these things, and there's a form called
a verdict form. You go down at step by step.
Question one, did this person you know, traffic a human?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Yes or no?
Speaker 2 (15:26):
The answer is no, and the questionnaire and sign the
bottom if the answer is yes, who did they traffic?
For example? Question number two and this person and you
move on down the questionnaire. They have to go down
this list. So, if you're the prosecutor, if you're the plane,
if you want to load up on that strong early,
because in the beginning you have the highest level of
their attention. These are all just human beings. They all
(15:48):
have lives, they all have things going on. You need
to grab their attention, give them what they need so
that they can be with you when you ask for
a verdict.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
I have a question about Sean Combs and not getting bail.
I'll ask Iternie Roger banac Dar next, this is.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
The Tremor Cherry Show on the Valley. He's power Talk.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Believe you said, Jalo, that cracks me up. Somebody sent
me a meme the other day. Jalo took the time
to warn us about Donald Trump, but she didn't say
anything about Diddy and che was with him for how long?
I have the meme. I got to send it to
you when we get off. You got to post it
on you on your Facebook.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Myan studio guest attorney Roger banac Dar wasn't uh. I
thought maybe he'd be released on bail. We see child
predators and even murderers get released on bail, Yes, sir.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And in the federal system the bail is actually even
more in favor of release than it is in state court.
So in the federal system, the weight of the evidence
is a factor in deciding whether to give somebody bail,
but it's it's not the deciding factor. So you could
have a case where the guy's caught on video and that,
and just because he's abundantly guilty, doesn't mean you can
(16:51):
deny him bail. And here they did deny did he
bail despite the fact that he's self surrendered, was willing
to surrender his passport, and I can't remember how many
million in cash bond he was willing to post. But
the reality of it is is he's looking at a
very significant prison commitment if he's convicted. How long is
it is it it could be twenty five years just
on one count, and if well that's almost a life.
(17:14):
It was fifty it's it is it is to me,
it would be life, you know, if if if you
look at it that way. But uh, yeah, he was
denied bail. Had every has a great lawyer, talented talented
legal uh legal team, top flight. Those guys were fighting
tooth and nail from the moment where they hit his house.
But there's also some interesting things that were that have
happened in this trial, and I haven't heard anything anybody
(17:35):
talk about.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
To the Obama pills. The Obama pills.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That was that was truly funny to me, and I
thought it was I thought it was a.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
I thought of Fred Funston instantly. My vitamins as a kid.
They looked just like, yeah, they had ecstasy pills ahead
Obama's face on it. They're not just ecstasy. So thet
the allegation is that these little so he had, these
these freak offs were two and three days long, and
so he came up with his own This is the
allegation that he came up with his own cocktail of
drugs that were MDMA, ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, and I can't
(18:09):
remember as a whole host of different things that they
packed into these pills. And he had the pills pressed
into the shape of a smiling Obama. So it looks
like Obama's face smiling. And that's pretty interesting. And I
hadn't said anybody what Walter White doctor put all that together.
Is he coming under any scrutiny. It'd be nice to see,
It'd be nice to hear. I'd be entertained to hear
(18:29):
about it. That.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
And then the other thing that has been truly that
threw me for a loop is that the Trump Drale
shooter is related to this case. In twenty eighteen, there
was a guy who went.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
He took the guy that went into the hotel and
shot up Eric tried to he so I watched his
interrogation on YouTube. Exactly. They all thought he was crazy.
And he's talking about Diddy and sex exactly, you're having
sex with Cassie and exactly.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So the guy's name is Jonathan Odio.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
This guy was arrested at the at the Durrau at
the Durrau Trump Hotel, Trump Hotel. He had came in
there screaming a bunch of anti Trump rehntic and was
going to shoot the place up.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Ends up and he fired some rounds off. He was armed.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
He got shot in the legs. He broke his They
broke his arm too, and they took him down and
then they take him into for his statement, and and
he sits down on video and he gives a statement
to the cops and he says, I'm I'm in with Diddy.
I've been trafficked by Diddy. His words were, I was
a sex slave.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
He would fly me to a B and C and
I would have sex with Cassie and he would watch
and he would do this and that and he and
he also said he says that Diddy is part of
the black boulet, and they they haven't funny thing, wasn't it? Exactly?
So the black the Black Bulet is supposed to be
a group of black people which serve the Illuminati. So
(19:51):
their goal is to be the top, the top, most
influential people within their community to then use them as
tools for the Illuminati. And so this guy, when he
gets arrested, they just figure he's out of his mind.
He's taking one too many again. So people can go
on YouTube and what this is. The whole interrogation's up there.
It's up there, you go to.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I mean, Candice Owens just reported on it too, if
they want to check out her stuff. But his name's
Jonathan Odie O D d I. And so this guy
gets charged with multiple different offenses. He gets taken into custody.
I think he's still serving time in Miami Dade. But
at the time people just thought he was crazy. But
Cassie testified that she in fact had sex with this
guy who was a male escort, and that he was
(20:33):
brought to her by Diddy. And so at the time,
everybody thought this guy was a looney bird, just going nuts.
And he and he and part of what he described
in his confession or in his admissions came out in
this trial.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
One he afraid of his life, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
He said he had to do certain things, and he
told the officers he was doing it under dress, but
everybody thought he was just crazy and.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Approved it by going into a hotel lobby screaming with
a gun.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Right right, I mean you're asking for it, right, I
mean as that suicide by cop I think is the saying.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You know.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
But in any event, it's just in remarkable to see
these different things come together in this trial because you again,
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Who
is it that didd he's in with? Who is it
that he's been see?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Bigger names? Where are they? Trevor? Tell me, I'm warning,
no names at these parties? Who you know? If there
was underage we deserve to know who knew and didn't say?
Where's the Epstein list? You got the flight log? I mean,
I don't. I don't. I mean stay until midnight? Man,
we can, we can't. Let's do Let's do it. I
want to come back and talk about the mess rosiling
fight school District. It's in with a lawsuit filed by
(21:39):
coach a Rax. They could be out a lot of money.
We'll talk about that with attorney Roger Banactar in studio.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Next, This is the Trevor Cherry Show on The Valley's
Power Dog Studio.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Guest Roger Banactar, thank you for all the diddy stuff.
Man gave us a whole lot of insight there on
racketeering and and rico. And it doesn't look like they're
proven it. Maybe they'll get there, it's not there yet.
President to Fight School District Trustee Keisha Thomas, she's running
for city council. She made this statement to GV Wire
on their podcast. We'll just go listen to it and
(22:13):
I'll come back and ask how you would handle this.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I haven't been to Bullert High School as a student
in thirty years.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
But then my son, my.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Middle son, goes to football practice where he has a
RAX calling him and he decides he's not playing for
Bullet anymore, okay, and he ends up playing it.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Could you tell audience, he said a rax? Who is
a rax?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
Yep?
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Oh, he's a football coach at Bullet.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
He was in, Uh, take us back here how this
actually got started. That's Trustee Thomas right there making that
statement on the podcast and coach a Rax. He kept
his coaching job for a little while didn't he and
then they decided to terminate that.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
And then they took action based on this allegation.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
It sounds that's a bad alley, that's a bad thing,
and somebody did that trusting to a child exactly. I
mean it.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
It's so obviously in this day and age, racially charged
language and a racial epithet is going to get you
in hot water. Now take that and apply it, execute
it against a child, a child with whom you are
entrusted to educate and to better and to show things
like morals and team and team values. And say that
(23:27):
you degraded and verbally beraided a thirteen year old boy
with it. That is a death now, I mean you
might as I mean, it is a verbal guillotine for
a person, both socially and professionally. So I mean, right now,
Fresno Unified is sitting in the living room of a
(23:50):
burning house that it owns. The doors are locked and
the keys are in their pocket. The question is do
they want to be there when it comes down on
their head or do they want out? They need to
get out. The trustees need to. I mean the root
word of the in the in the title trustee is
trust they are entrusted with a fiduciary duty to the
(24:14):
district to make decisions to navigate the good, the good
times and the bad. And right now this isn't so good.
So you need to manage the downside risk for the
district and find an exit because if this goes south,
and from everything I've seen, it nearly has to mean
a court case. Right it's already in litigation, So I
mean to break it down historically very shortly. So that
(24:37):
video you just played is from when Trusty Thomas was
invited onto gv Wire in her capacity at least it
appears to be the jury's going to decide this obviously,
that she's on there as a trustee to talk about
things affecting presne Unified, including but not limited to race issues.
And at that point have you gone back?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Director Ryan Nigel got that cut for me, right there
was she introduced trustee Keisha Thomas.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Yes, and from what I've gathered from my independent investigation,
she was invited on. She even allegedly went to the
superintendent and advised him that she was invited on as
a trustee to go and speak.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
You see her on the screen.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
She has her official title emblazoned I mean, I'm willing
to bet dollars to donuts. She asked for that to
elevate her because the reality of it is is and
I don't mean to be crass. Who cares what she
thinks unless she's someone in a position of authority and trust. Right,
when someone in a public position makes an allegation like that,
(25:39):
it is significantly more explosive, more harmful than someone who's
just you know, Jane Doe on the street. This this,
you know, that interview with with trustee Thomas is not
her at save mart Or Vaughan's walking out with a
gallon of milk and a carton of eggs, where they
just hey, bystander, what do you think of this? This
is a person who he's going on there and has
(26:01):
been given the microphone strictly because of her title, and
she's there to talk in her capacity as a trustee.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
So the way the law.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Works is that if you're acting on behalf of someone else,
the Latin term is respondiat superior. The superior is liable
for his agent. If Amazon has a driver out delivering
boxes in someone's neighborhood, and god forbid, they hit and
kill someone, Amazon is responsible for what the damage the
(26:31):
driver caused. Here Fresnel unified is Amazon and trustee, and
the trustee here is the driver. So and she just
got out of the truck and said, oh man, I
only had two beers at lunch. I mean this is bad.
I mean, I mean, you really don't have any way
to soften this. And a from a planeff's perspective, from
an attorney's perspective, will I would take the clip that
(26:54):
they aired on GV wire where it juxtaposed where it
first plays the interview from twenty twenty two and her deposition,
which was like a month ago. That's my opening. I
play it twice, maybe three times if the judge allows it,
you know, so it's not too redundant. And I look
at the jury and I say, ladies and gentlemen, you
saw what I just saw. I'm not sure why we're here.
(27:15):
I respect and value your time, but maybe the guys
on the other side of the table will have some explanation.
I rest my case, I mean almost. It's I mean,
you have to build up his damages, right. But the
issue in defamation is there a statement one? Two is
it false?
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Three? Was it intentional? And four? Was their harm. She's
very explicit that wasn't an accidental I think the guy
was a rax. She says, hell's a horrible story that
happened to her family, and very specific. And when she's
under oath, hand to God say oh she's got to
take When she's on the stand, she says, it didn't happen. Well,
(27:52):
let me ask attorney Roger Bernagdar the price tag when
you start to total loss of job, damage to reputation,
I mean, the list goes on and on.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
So when you're talking about damages in the context of
a defamation case, which is exactly what coach a Yax
is suing for, there's a whole lot of layers to that.
Onion the first layer most people would automatically think of
his economics, Right, Okay, did you lose your job?
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Did you get demoted?
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Like?
Speaker 2 (28:16):
What happened to you financially? So we're going to hear
about that. He, according to the lawsuit, once he initiated
the initiated acclaim, excuse me, After she made this allegation
and it came to light, his coaching status changed, He
then files the lawsuit and things start to snowball worse
for him.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
There and all as players and the students, did you
really say something like that? You know, you almost have
to go around constantly defending yourself. And here's the truth.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And you know this better than anybody else doing what
you do as a professional. Bad news spreads like wildfire,
and good news trickles out like droplets out of like
droplets out of a thimble. It's so hard to get
correction out there. It's easy to get the injury done.
(29:04):
And that's what happens here. And when I say the
layers of the onion, you're gonna have testimony on damages
that go from everything from the sideways glances that his
wife might have gotten at the store, that his kids
may be treated differently. I mean, all of that would
be out there on the table and they're going to
show it all to the jury and they're going to
(29:25):
hear about how every time he walked into a room
full of his peers, that the first thing he's going
to have to do is dispel the idea did you
say it?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Did you? I mean, every time he goes to the
limelight or elbow or whatever, Hey, did you say it? Coach?
Did you say it? But that's gotta be awful because
it's not just a word in this context. You're talking
about it being directed at a child to hurt a child.
That's reprehensible conduct, and we're gonna pay the taxpayers, it
(29:54):
sounds like.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
So the way the law works is this. In a
defamation case, you have damages and punitive damages. Damages means
enough to compensate the person for the harm. Punitive damages
is to punish and.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Deter the bad actor.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
So you got to understand that the district is not
going to be liable for punitive damages. That's the law
in California. Okay, even if even if it's proven, even
if the defamation case is proven, and even if the
number on the base damages is huge, they won't be
liable for the punitives. But the punitives aren't what I
would be afraid of. The general damages are what I'd
be afraid of if I'm the district, because I'm automatically
(30:33):
on the hook for it. So it let's say the
jury comes down and tags her with number X, and
if the jury answers the question and on the questionnaire,
was she acting in her course and scope as a trustee,
in her capacity as a trustee. If they mark yes,
then the number, the top line number on his damages.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Bam.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
That is nailed onto the district. There's no getting out
of it.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
It's done. There's no new question. You don't need the
superintendent to stand up and.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Say yeah I knew, yeah, I approve. You don't need
the rest of the trustees to say, oh, we have
her back, we support her. You don't need anything they
could all. There is no unwinding that. So they're one
hundred percent on the hook for that. So letting this
litigation go forward is just saying I want to know
how many gallons I'm gonna bleed before I die, right,
how many gallons of blood are in my body?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
I want to see it all drained. So they stopped
the bleeding with the settlement.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Right now, I think that the trustees currently have a
duty to find an expedient and the cheapest exit that
they can get. Now, I don't think it's going to
be a low number that they're going to have to pay.
Judgments in this state for things of this context, in
this context are big. I'll park me well, I'll give
you an example. So the lawyer that's handling this case
(31:50):
is a guy named Brian Wheeland. Okay, he had a case.
He was involved in a case against US Bank in
Sacramento County a couple of years ago, twenty two to
twenty three million. There was another case recently in twenty
twenty four against Zurich American eighty two million, not eighteen
(32:11):
point two eighty two million, base damages, not punitives, base damages.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
So how much would this personally affect her financially? I mean,
the thing of it is is hard to get a
job in the future, you would think, but go ahead.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
I mean, well, the thing this is a prime example
of of where I say, where people say, hey, your
vote matters, and who represents you in the community matters.
You really need people that are that don't need the
job in government seats, right. You need people who don't
need the job being trustees on school boards, being in
(32:49):
city council, being, you know, being in official capacities in
the local community, because you end up with somebody who
knows better and who understands that their words matter and
that their deeds matter, and that if they screw up,
they're not just screwing up for themselves, they're screwing up
for us and that's what happened here.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Now, isn't her attorney representation being paid for by the
school district at which means tax payers are paying for that.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
And as a matter of fact, and this is public record,
anybody can go pull it. There are these court filings
that are out there where the city where the district
filed a motion to dismiss the case to get itself out,
saying that Thomas's acts and her words were privileged under
the statute called an anti slap. I won't bore you
(33:35):
with what that means, but the bottom line of it
is is that it's essentially a to have her be
liable or the district be liable with chill free speech
of an official in their official capacity. So they've taken
the position in a prior court filing that yeah, this
is our person. They were doing it on our behalf,
and because they were doing it on our behalf, neither
one of us can be liable. So in my view,
(34:00):
I mean, they just put on cement, you know, cement
flippers to go swimming. I mean, this is not a
good position to be in if you're the district, because
how do you explain any of this away? She's all
I mean says she didn't really mean it, she didn't really.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Know what was gonna hurt. None of that's a defense.
And you know how I feel sitting right here. I
want coach A racksually get as much money as he
can get, and then I'm thinking we're paying for it.
So it's a bittersweet kind of a feeling.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I think, Well, I mean, you know there is truth
to that, right, So every municipality, every major organization, they
have insurance, and President Unified is no exclusion to that.
There is insurance involved here. But who pays for that insurance?
Speaker 1 (34:39):
We do? Who pays for the South idiot insurance?
Speaker 2 (34:42):
I mean it, I mean you could call it that.
Those are your words about mine. I have to be polier.
You won't let me back on or.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
No, Roger, listen, it's been good to get to know
you this past year. A lot in common. Go round, Paul,
go Rampaul, Let's do it. God bless America. Hey, listen,
I appreciate your time and the all the explanation gave
to the power talk listeners over Diddy, and you might
see that coming back to a second court case, you're thinking, maybe.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I mean, I think there's more to go on. We'll
see where this gets. Let's see who these co conspirators are.
Who do you think they are? We didn't hear about
him in Gilaine Maxwell's case. Are we gonna hear about
him here?
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Where are they? Where are all these people behind the
curtain that are involved in auditorious pig? He's gone? So yeah,
well we'll keep watching it and following it, thank you,
and as it progresses, maybe we'll have you back on
at the end and give another recap on it if
you're willing. Always a pleasure and a privilege, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
This is the Tremor Carry Show on the Valleys, Power Talk.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
The Love Hates The new bill requires people to work
for their benefits. One good, big aspect of the one
big beautiful bill, which we'll talk about more next hour.
And thanks again to Tony Roger Banagtar. That was good stuff.
But as you hear all the Democrats, how about how
it claims to rob the poor to put all that
money with the wealthy. Yes, this bill does give tax
(35:57):
really for working families. It has a simple requirement though,
if you're gonna get government benefits, you need to work
to qualify. Imagine promoting responsibility. Public aid has to be
tied to some kind of kind of effort. It shouldn't
be just handed out willy nilly. You think about it,
(36:19):
Imagine being an able body American and being told you
need to work if you want to eat guys. That's
the Bible says that the Left hates that new bill
because of that twelve point three million individuals listed age
one hundred and twenty plus those removed them, although that
(36:40):
money was being sent somewhere.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
This assistant Trevor Jerry show Mondo Valley's power Dog
Attorney Roger banag Dar. Welcome inn, sir, Thank you, sir,
thank it's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for inviting me.
Do you know at a young age, was your mom like,
what you're going to grow out and be an attorney
one day? Quit arguing with me and get back in there.
It was very politely strongly suggested, and by politely I
mean demanded. I had two routes to go, supposed to
go to medical school or law school. I chose law school,
all right, and it was the right fit. Well, it's
(00:22):
it's worked for you. Just recap some of the big
cases you've worked on. I know you've worked downtown with
Bitwise and all those folks.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Sure, yeah, locally, the biggest class action that we've seen
here in the Central Valley I was over a nine
hundred member class of bit Wise employees that had there
there were victims of wage theft and were there were
violations of state and federal law with employment rights, with
termination rights. Who represented all those employees that everybody thought
(00:51):
they'd never see a dime and we managed to change
chase those folks out to the bankruptcy court back east
in Delaware and brought home some Justice or Fresnel family.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So that's something I'm quite proud of. Well good, you
could be really anywhere in the country. You grew up
here right in Clovis.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Local boy, born bred, left for a college in law
school and my bachelor's at you see San Diego in
my law degree at Santa Clara. But my whole family's here.
My heart's always been here, came home and raising my
own family here.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Now, you've been following the Sean Combs case. Fox News
had you on talking about it so to director Ryan
Nigel and me. That made you the expert on it, buddy,
So thank you for coming on today and to talk
about this. This is a sick thing that we're hearing about,
but I'm going to be asking you how much of
it is legal and how much of it's illegal? Roger,
(01:43):
I heard a lot of underage people. I was expecting
to hear some twenty two year old female witness say
when I was fifteen, this happened. That happen. That happened.
Are they waiting for surprise in this trial to launch
that kind of stuff because I haven't heard it. You know,
there was all of this rumor conjecture about there's going
to be nine to ten year olds twelve year old
(02:03):
showing up to testify about them being trafficked. If the
prosecution sitting on that, I sure as heck don't see
a point. You want to lead with your best evidence.
You want to lead with your strength, You want to
lead with the proof, because whether you're a plaintiff in
a civil suit or you're the prosecutor in a criminal case,
you need to immediately secure the jury's confidence that you
(02:26):
are the broker of truth and you're here for something
that matters. And in a case like this, if you
have tangible evidence, clear evidence that there were children trafficked,
those are the first two days of evidence and testimony.
You don't wait for that because you're going to lose
the jury. In what I've seen so far, which is
(02:46):
a lot of you know, I don't mean to be judgmental,
but I guess you know many people might construe John
Combe's sexual preferences as gross perverted. There's a bunch of
words we've heard about it. Right, I'm not here, here's
a sex counselor. I'm here as a legal expert, and
we've got a reco case pending in federal court.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
RECO cases are. What that stands for is the racketeer.
Excuse me, it's a racketeering Act. It's a racketeering statute.
And the whole point of that was to give federal
prosecutors the right and power to go into federal courts
and take out bad actors. It's the Racketeer Influenced and
(03:26):
Corrupt Organizations Act.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
I always think mafia.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
That's the wonderful example is the mafia. Another easy example
is gangs that traffic drugs across state lines or people
across the border, et cetera. Locally, you'll see our US
Attorney's Office prosecute people for RECO violations regularly, but those
violations are like MS thirteen gang members. They're different things
that you can kind of tangibly see a federal purpose.
(03:53):
There's a magical word called jurisdiction in law. Jurisdiction means
the right to take action. So under California Penal Code
California criminal law, our DA has the right to pursue
anybody in our county who's engaged in an offense with
a child. So it could be the battery of a child,
the sex offense of a child, et cetera. The Feds
don't have the right to come in and engage in
(04:16):
that investigation and in that prosecution unless they have jurisdiction
a federal hook.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So if they took that child to Reno, the FED,
that's out of state, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
If they took the child at arena, if they were
making improper, you know, illicit videos with the child and
distributing it online, that would.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Be a hook.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
But you need something beyond a criminal act that just
happened in the United States. If that was the case,
you wouldn't need a DA's office. And that's why there
are more things that are a crime under California state
law than they are under federal law. The whole there's
a separation of powers. The states are supposed to take
care of their homes and the Feds are supposed to
come in limited circumstances. So here they're taking a statute
(04:54):
which was initially intended to be used against like the
mafia or organized criminal elements, using it against Puff Daddy,
p Diddy, the Diddler. He's got all kinds of different names,
and they're using it to say that he's engaged in
an underlying felony across state lines. That underlying felony. The
only thing I've heard so far is the allegation that
(05:15):
he's sex trafficking. Now, sex trafficking traditionally means, or at
least in most context, means that you have some person
that you're transporting against their will across state lines. They're
engaging in sex acts, and there's some sort of criminal
enterprise enterprise. I mean, the phrase criminal enterprise is this?
You know, hearkens back to the Jerry maguire movie, right,
(05:38):
show me the Money. We haven't seen that yet. We
haven't seen this nexus of an enterprise where Diddy is
in making a deal with some other, you know, bad
actor in New York Miami? What have you to move
people across state lines for sex acts.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So far, we've heard a.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Lot of horrific detail about this other musician common known
as Cassie, who was who was in a relationship with Ditty,
and it was apparently abused by Ditty. I take no
issue with those conclusions.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
I mean, she saw the video in the elevator. You
saw that, and you've heard this woman sit there. I
can't even imagine. I feel awful for her.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I feel awful for her husband who's having to sit
there and listen to this in open court, to hear
of the degradation and abuse that while pregnant, while pregnant,
while you know, on her monthly, I mean all kinds
of stuff we've heard in gory, gory detail. And I'm
sitting there thinking, God, this is awful, and my heart
(06:35):
goes out to the woman and to her family. But
I'm wondering, what's the US attorney doing? What is all
You don't even need all this, You don't need it.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It doesn't need to be some lurid, complicated, disgusting sex
act for it to be sex trafficking. Why aren't they
trying to sway the jury with all these in pain
him as horrible as they can make him.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Look, sure, I get it, but you at some point.
I mean, look, I've never met a federal prosecutor that
I thought was dumb. They're always well educated, They're articulate there,
they're on top of their cases. Particularly locally. We can
I can tell you firsthand it's a it's a very
talented bench of lawyers we have locally, and I've had
cases all over the country. I've never met a US
(07:15):
attorney that wasn't smart. But I don't understand why they're
taking the evidence risk that they're doing here in this case.
When I say evidence risk, they put Cassie on. She's
testified for days about all of these lurid acts.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
And then they just they give the defense an alley oop.
They throw the ball right up to the rim so
that they can jump up and grab it and read
all of these text messages and ask her about events
that occurred after these, after all this alleged second part
of it that makes her look like a willing participant.
I'm not saying that she is. To be clear here,
I'm given analysis. These aren't conclusions. Didn't she cheat on
(07:50):
her husband with Shawn Combs.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
The testimony was that she had returned to Sean Combe's bed.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
To the scene of the crime, to rewrite history. I
guess is what you may maybe you want to call it.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
I don't know what the what the objective was, but
we've heard all this testimony that she engaged in these acts,
that she felt trapped, that she felt she was fearful
that she would that Combs would destroy her career. And
then the defense gets up and says, well, let's talk
about this text message about where you're saying, you can't
wait to do it again, how much fun it was,
how you want to take it to the next level,
(08:24):
how you want to go further this time.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
And that's so destructive. And if you have all of this.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Other damning and tangible evidence, like like you said, the
stuff with kids, if you have that, why diminish your case?
Why soiled your case with this? And in my view,
and this is I mentioned this on Fox as well.
I've been when I spoke with them. I think that
they they're setting themselves up for a risk of emotion
(08:50):
for a new trial because there's a lot all so,
just because evidence may be relevant doesn't mean it's admissible.
There's a tipping point where it's some point you can
layer on some very inflammatory evidence that doesn't actually isn't
necessary for an element of the offense. And you could say,
you know what, you just went so far that you
(09:11):
distracted the jury from the evidence that was necessary, so
that you've engaged their bias, You've inflamed their emotions, and
this defendant didn't get a fair trial.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
What's their angle? I don't know. Let me ask you this.
If they took out the let's take out the underage aspect,
they might be saving it, but you, like you say,
as an attorney, you would come out with shock and
all with that, Let's take out the rico charge. We
have the video of her and the elevator being hit
and abuse, But what have you heard that's illegal right
now in these three weeks.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
So if you believe, if the jury believes that Cassie
was taken against her will across state lines to for
the purposes of these sex acts, then you're I think
you're I think you have the underlying felony for a rico,
And the underlying felony means you have to have some
felonious acts, trafficking of drugs, trafficking of human of people,
(10:05):
stolen goods, wire fraud, bank fraud, some criminal enterprise that
extends over the state lines. If you believe that, then
they have an underlying felony. But the thing that they're
missing and we haven't heard anything about, and I don't
know why, is where what's the point what's in it
(10:27):
for Diddy to do all of this? What is he
getting out of this? What's the benefit that he traded
for transporting Cassie across state lines against her will to
do these sex acts.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
They're not factoring in recording artists that you come and
be involved with this and I'll get you a record
deal with that. That then could be an incentive business wise,
I mean, arguably, But we haven't. We haven't heard that evidence. Yeah,
we haven't.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
I mean what she testified to is she said, I
kept doing it, and I did the things he wanted
because he had these videos and I thought he would
destroy me if I didn't comply.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
That he would lead the videos of me doing these
gross things and I'd be ruined.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Okay, I hear you. But who is in this rico
contemplates more than one player? Conspiracy means an agreement between
two or more people to do a bad thing. Who's
the person he's agreeing with in his enterprise? Who is
his partner, who is his peer, who is his equal?
Who is also benefiting? I assume, and I'm left with assumptions,
(11:27):
which is troubling. I assume that they're going to argue
that the people that are within the Diddy camp that
are benefiting from him, you know, flying them around and
they're making money and they're making salaries, they're in on
it with him, and therefore these are his conspirators to
engage in this sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
So if I'm picking up what you're throwing down, they're
going to have to show and prove that there's a
Diddy family in Chicago, in New York, in Miami and
New Orleans, kind of like the mob right, that he
was somehow making money off of sex trafficking to different cities,
and that.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
There are others benefiting from it. There has to be
this group. There has to be there's a collective that's
contemplated by Rico. You can't you know, you can't be
you can't do the waltz alone, you know what I mean?
You need a dance partner. Who's this dance partner everybody
on his payroll. That's kind of thin, I don't That
doesn't really sell, and that's not usually what we see
(12:21):
federal prosecutors do. Look, people can be into you know,
everyone who's listening right now can can has heard probably
at least some tidbit about what this guy was into sexually,
and the people that are around him. Judge him all
you want, if you'd like there, that's fine. The question becomes, though,
if by analogy, let's say you have there are two
(12:41):
people and they are into having sex with strangers when
they travel. Just making this up, Okay, hypothetically, there are
these two people. They hang out together all the time,
they're a couple, whatever, and they decide that every time
they go on vacation, one of them is going to
engage with a stranger in a sex act and they're
going to record it, or they're going to pay a
(13:03):
stranger for a sex act and they're going to record it.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Is the federal.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Government now going to step in and prosecute that every
time it occurs.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Let's say it's a really rancid sex act. Let's say
it's just to where.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It involves one of them ultimately getting injured, but it's
something they wanted to do.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Is that rico? Are we going to call that rico? Now?
That's I mean, that's not what the statute was creating.
They had to know. That's all they had going in,
if they didn't have all the underagents to come out
with shock and all. Because you're saying, as an attorney,
that's how you would have started had that been the
first words out of your mouth.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
When you are when you're facing a jury, I don't
care if it's a civil trial or a criminal trial.
You lead with strength because you want the jury from
the moment you stand up to look at you and
say that guy is the broker of truth. The evidence
rests on this side of the table, not that side.
(13:57):
I want to know what this guy says. And then
you've brought out.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
That strong just.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Just I mean, I'm talking if they had this stuff
with the kids, if you're bringing that, if you have
that stuff in pocket and you don't lead with it,
you are wasting your best opportunity to tell the jury
that they're here for something that matters. You're here for justice,
ladies and gentlemen, justice for X, Y and Z children
that were subjected to this type of abuse. There is
(14:26):
no reason to sit on that now. Granted, everything needs context.
You have to sometimes build up to your ultimate points
so that people understand where you're coming from. As a lawyer,
you live with a case for years before you go
to trial, so to you, everything's old hat. You know
every detail, you know where every comma goes, you know
where every period, every sentence says. You've read every record,
(14:48):
and to a jury, this is all fresh to them.
They haven't heard any of it. They haven't heard the
fights that you've had with the posing counsel in front
of the judge about what's coming in and what's not.
So you have to go in it being able to
give the jury some text about what it is they're
going to hear so that they can put the pieces
together to meet the elements. Because in a jury trial,
the judge tells the jury these are the six things
(15:12):
that the plaintiff or the prosecution has to prove. You
have to find these things, and there's a form called
a verdict form. You go down at step by step.
Question one, did this person you know, traffic a human?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Yes or no?
Speaker 2 (15:26):
The answer is no, and the questionnaire and sign the
bottom if the answer is yes, who did they traffic?
For example? Question number two and this person and you
move on down the questionnaire. They have to go down
this list. So, if you're the prosecutor, if you're the plane,
if you want to load up on that strong early,
because in the beginning you have the highest level of
their attention. These are all just human beings. They all
(15:48):
have lives, they all have things going on. You need
to grab their attention, give them what they need so
that they can be with you when you ask for
a verdict.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
I have a question about Sean Combs and not getting bail.
I'll ask Iternie Roger banac Dar next, this is.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
The Tremor Cherry Show on the Valley. He's power Talk.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Believe you said, Jalo, that cracks me up. Somebody sent
me a meme the other day. Jalo took the time
to warn us about Donald Trump, but she didn't say
anything about Diddy and che was with him for how long?
I have the meme. I got to send it to
you when we get off. You got to post it
on you on your Facebook.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Myan studio guest attorney Roger banac Dar wasn't uh. I
thought maybe he'd be released on bail. We see child
predators and even murderers get released on bail, Yes, sir.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And in the federal system the bail is actually even
more in favor of release than it is in state court.
So in the federal system, the weight of the evidence
is a factor in deciding whether to give somebody bail,
but it's it's not the deciding factor. So you could
have a case where the guy's caught on video and that,
and just because he's abundantly guilty, doesn't mean you can
(16:51):
deny him bail. And here they did deny did he
bail despite the fact that he's self surrendered, was willing
to surrender his passport, and I can't remember how many
million in cash bond he was willing to post. But
the reality of it is is he's looking at a
very significant prison commitment if he's convicted. How long is
it is it it could be twenty five years just
on one count, and if well that's almost a life.
(17:14):
It was fifty it's it is it is to me,
it would be life, you know, if if if you
look at it that way. But uh, yeah, he was
denied bail. Had every has a great lawyer, talented talented
legal uh legal team, top flight. Those guys were fighting
tooth and nail from the moment where they hit his house.
But there's also some interesting things that were that have
happened in this trial, and I haven't heard anything anybody
(17:35):
talk about.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
To the Obama pills. The Obama pills.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That was that was truly funny to me, and I
thought it was I thought it was a.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
I thought of Fred Funston instantly. My vitamins as a kid.
They looked just like, yeah, they had ecstasy pills ahead
Obama's face on it. They're not just ecstasy. So thet
the allegation is that these little so he had, these
these freak offs were two and three days long, and
so he came up with his own This is the
allegation that he came up with his own cocktail of
drugs that were MDMA, ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, and I can't
(18:09):
remember as a whole host of different things that they
packed into these pills. And he had the pills pressed
into the shape of a smiling Obama. So it looks
like Obama's face smiling. And that's pretty interesting. And I
hadn't said anybody what Walter White doctor put all that together.
Is he coming under any scrutiny. It'd be nice to see,
It'd be nice to hear. I'd be entertained to hear
(18:29):
about it. That.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
And then the other thing that has been truly that
threw me for a loop is that the Trump Drale
shooter is related to this case. In twenty eighteen, there
was a guy who went.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
He took the guy that went into the hotel and
shot up Eric tried to he so I watched his
interrogation on YouTube. Exactly. They all thought he was crazy.
And he's talking about Diddy and sex exactly, you're having
sex with Cassie and exactly.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So the guy's name is Jonathan Odio.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
All Right.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
This guy was arrested at the at the Durrau at
the Durrau Trump Hotel, Trump Hotel. He had came in
there screaming a bunch of anti Trump rehntic and was
going to shoot the place up.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Ends up and he fired some rounds off. He was armed.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
He got shot in the legs. He broke his They
broke his arm too, and they took him down and
then they take him into for his statement, and and
he sits down on video and he gives a statement
to the cops and he says, I'm I'm in with Diddy.
I've been trafficked by Diddy. His words were, I was
a sex slave.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
He would fly me to a B and C and
I would have sex with Cassie and he would watch
and he would do this and that and he and
he also said he says that Diddy is part of
the black boulet, and they they haven't funny thing, wasn't it? Exactly?
So the black the Black Bulet is supposed to be
a group of black people which serve the Illuminati. So
(19:51):
their goal is to be the top, the top, most
influential people within their community to then use them as
tools for the Illuminati. And so this guy, when he
gets arrested, they just figure he's out of his mind.
He's taking one too many again. So people can go
on YouTube and what this is. The whole interrogation's up there.
It's up there, you go to.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I mean, Candice Owens just reported on it too, if
they want to check out her stuff. But his name's
Jonathan Odie O D d I. And so this guy
gets charged with multiple different offenses. He gets taken into custody.
I think he's still serving time in Miami Dade. But
at the time people just thought he was crazy. But
Cassie testified that she in fact had sex with this
guy who was a male escort, and that he was
(20:33):
brought to her by Diddy. And so at the time,
everybody thought this guy was a looney bird, just going nuts.
And he and he and part of what he described
in his confession or in his admissions came out in
this trial.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
One he afraid of his life, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
He said he had to do certain things, and he
told the officers he was doing it under dress, but
everybody thought he was just crazy and.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Approved it by going into a hotel lobby screaming with
a gun.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Right right, I mean you're asking for it, right, I
mean as that suicide by cop I think is the saying.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You know.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
But in any event, it's just in remarkable to see
these different things come together in this trial because you again,
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Who
is it that didd he's in with? Who is it
that he's been see?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Bigger names? Where are they? Trevor? Tell me, I'm warning,
no names at these parties? Who you know? If there
was underage we deserve to know who knew and didn't say?
Where's the Epstein list? You got the flight log? I mean,
I don't. I don't. I mean stay until midnight? Man,
we can, we can't. Let's do Let's do it. I
want to come back and talk about the mess rosiling
fight school District. It's in with a lawsuit filed by
(21:39):
coach a Rax. They could be out a lot of money.
We'll talk about that with attorney Roger Banactar in studio.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Next, This is the Trevor Cherry Show on The Valley's
Power Dog Studio.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Guest Roger Banactar, thank you for all the diddy stuff.
Man gave us a whole lot of insight there on
racketeering and and rico. And it doesn't look like they're
proven it. Maybe they'll get there, it's not there yet.
President to Fight School District Trustee Keisha Thomas, she's running
for city council. She made this statement to GV Wire
on their podcast. We'll just go listen to it and
(22:13):
I'll come back and ask how you would handle this.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I haven't been to Bullert High School as a student
in thirty years.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
But then my son, my.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Middle son, goes to football practice where he has a
RAX calling him and he decides he's not playing for
Bullet anymore, okay, and he ends up playing it.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Could you tell audience, he said a rax? Who is
a rax?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
Yep?
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Oh, he's a football coach at Bullet.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
He was in, Uh, take us back here how this
actually got started. That's Trustee Thomas right there making that
statement on the podcast and coach a Rax. He kept
his coaching job for a little while didn't he and
then they decided to terminate that.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
And then they took action based on this allegation.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
It sounds that's a bad alley, that's a bad thing,
and somebody did that trusting to a child exactly. I
mean it.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
It's so obviously in this day and age, racially charged
language and a racial epithet is going to get you
in hot water. Now take that and apply it, execute
it against a child, a child with whom you are
entrusted to educate and to better and to show things
like morals and team and team values. And say that
(23:27):
you degraded and verbally beraided a thirteen year old boy
with it. That is a death now, I mean you
might as I mean, it is a verbal guillotine for
a person, both socially and professionally. So I mean, right now,
Fresno Unified is sitting in the living room of a
(23:50):
burning house that it owns. The doors are locked and
the keys are in their pocket. The question is do
they want to be there when it comes down on
their head or do they want out? They need to
get out. The trustees need to. I mean the root
word of the in the in the title trustee is
trust they are entrusted with a fiduciary duty to the
(24:14):
district to make decisions to navigate the good, the good
times and the bad. And right now this isn't so good.
So you need to manage the downside risk for the
district and find an exit because if this goes south,
and from everything I've seen, it nearly has to mean
a court case. Right it's already in litigation, So I
mean to break it down historically very shortly. So that
(24:37):
video you just played is from when Trusty Thomas was
invited onto gv Wire in her capacity at least it
appears to be the jury's going to decide this obviously,
that she's on there as a trustee to talk about
things affecting presne Unified, including but not limited to race issues.
And at that point have you gone back?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Director Ryan Nigel got that cut for me, right there
was she introduced trustee Keisha Thomas.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Yes, and from what I've gathered from my independent investigation,
she was invited on. She even allegedly went to the
superintendent and advised him that she was invited on as
a trustee to go and speak.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
You see her on the screen.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
She has her official title emblazoned I mean, I'm willing
to bet dollars to donuts. She asked for that to
elevate her because the reality of it is is and
I don't mean to be crass. Who cares what she
thinks unless she's someone in a position of authority and trust. Right,
when someone in a public position makes an allegation like that,
(25:39):
it is significantly more explosive, more harmful than someone who's
just you know, Jane Doe on the street. This this,
you know, that interview with with trustee Thomas is not
her at save mart Or Vaughan's walking out with a
gallon of milk and a carton of eggs, where they
just hey, bystander, what do you think of this? This
is a person who he's going on there and has
(26:01):
been given the microphone strictly because of her title, and
she's there to talk in her capacity as a trustee.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
So the way the law.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Works is that if you're acting on behalf of someone else,
the Latin term is respondiat superior. The superior is liable
for his agent. If Amazon has a driver out delivering
boxes in someone's neighborhood, and god forbid, they hit and
kill someone, Amazon is responsible for what the damage the
(26:31):
driver caused. Here Fresnel unified is Amazon and trustee, and
the trustee here is the driver. So and she just
got out of the truck and said, oh man, I
only had two beers at lunch. I mean this is bad.
I mean, I mean, you really don't have any way
to soften this. And a from a planeff's perspective, from
an attorney's perspective, will I would take the clip that
(26:54):
they aired on GV wire where it juxtaposed where it
first plays the interview from twenty twenty two and her deposition,
which was like a month ago. That's my opening. I
play it twice, maybe three times if the judge allows it,
you know, so it's not too redundant. And I look
at the jury and I say, ladies and gentlemen, you
saw what I just saw. I'm not sure why we're here.
(27:15):
I respect and value your time, but maybe the guys
on the other side of the table will have some explanation.
I rest my case, I mean almost. It's I mean,
you have to build up his damages, right. But the
issue in defamation is there a statement one? Two is
it false?
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Three? Was it intentional? And four? Was their harm. She's
very explicit that wasn't an accidental I think the guy
was a rax. She says, hell's a horrible story that
happened to her family, and very specific. And when she's
under oath, hand to God say oh she's got to
take When she's on the stand, she says, it didn't happen. Well,
(27:52):
let me ask attorney Roger Bernagdar the price tag when
you start to total loss of job, damage to reputation,
I mean, the list goes on and on.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
So when you're talking about damages in the context of
a defamation case, which is exactly what coach a Yax
is suing for, there's a whole lot of layers to that.
Onion the first layer most people would automatically think of
his economics, Right, Okay, did you lose your job?
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Did you get demoted?
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Like?
Speaker 2 (28:16):
What happened to you financially? So we're going to hear
about that. He, according to the lawsuit, once he initiated
the initiated acclaim, excuse me, After she made this allegation
and it came to light, his coaching status changed, He
then files the lawsuit and things start to snowball worse
for him.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
There and all as players and the students, did you
really say something like that? You know, you almost have
to go around constantly defending yourself. And here's the truth.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And you know this better than anybody else doing what
you do as a professional. Bad news spreads like wildfire,
and good news trickles out like droplets out of like
droplets out of a thimble. It's so hard to get
correction out there. It's easy to get the injury done.
(29:04):
And that's what happens here. And when I say the
layers of the onion, you're gonna have testimony on damages
that go from everything from the sideways glances that his
wife might have gotten at the store, that his kids
may be treated differently. I mean, all of that would
be out there on the table and they're going to
show it all to the jury and they're going to
(29:25):
hear about how every time he walked into a room
full of his peers, that the first thing he's going
to have to do is dispel the idea did you
say it?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Did you? I mean, every time he goes to the
limelight or elbow or whatever, Hey, did you say it? Coach?
Did you say it? But that's gotta be awful because
it's not just a word in this context. You're talking
about it being directed at a child to hurt a child.
That's reprehensible conduct, and we're gonna pay the taxpayers, it
(29:54):
sounds like.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
So the way the law works is this. In a
defamation case, you have damages and punitive damages. Damages means
enough to compensate the person for the harm. Punitive damages
is to punish and.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Deter the bad actor.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
So you got to understand that the district is not
going to be liable for punitive damages. That's the law
in California. Okay, even if even if it's proven, even
if the defamation case is proven, and even if the
number on the base damages is huge, they won't be
liable for the punitives. But the punitives aren't what I
would be afraid of. The general damages are what I'd
be afraid of if I'm the district, because I'm automatically
(30:33):
on the hook for it. So it let's say the
jury comes down and tags her with number X, and
if the jury answers the question and on the questionnaire,
was she acting in her course and scope as a trustee,
in her capacity as a trustee. If they mark yes,
then the number, the top line number on his damages.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Bam.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
That is nailed onto the district. There's no getting out
of it.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
It's done. There's no new question. You don't need the
superintendent to stand up and.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Say yeah I knew, yeah, I approve. You don't need
the rest of the trustees to say, oh, we have
her back, we support her. You don't need anything they
could all. There is no unwinding that. So they're one
hundred percent on the hook for that. So letting this
litigation go forward is just saying I want to know
how many gallons I'm gonna bleed before I die, right,
how many gallons of blood are in my body?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
I want to see it all drained. So they stopped
the bleeding with the settlement.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Right now, I think that the trustees currently have a
duty to find an expedient and the cheapest exit that
they can get. Now, I don't think it's going to
be a low number that they're going to have to pay.
Judgments in this state for things of this context, in
this context are big. I'll park me well, I'll give
you an example. So the lawyer that's handling this case
(31:50):
is a guy named Brian Wheeland. Okay, he had a case.
He was involved in a case against US Bank in
Sacramento County a couple of years ago, twenty two to
twenty three million. There was another case recently in twenty
twenty four against Zurich American eighty two million, not eighteen
(32:11):
point two eighty two million, base damages, not punitives, base damages.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
So how much would this personally affect her financially? I mean,
the thing of it is is hard to get a
job in the future, you would think, but go ahead.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
I mean, well, the thing this is a prime example
of of where I say, where people say, hey, your
vote matters, and who represents you in the community matters.
You really need people that are that don't need the
job in government seats, right. You need people who don't
need the job being trustees on school boards, being in
(32:49):
city council, being, you know, being in official capacities in
the local community, because you end up with somebody who
knows better and who understands that their words matter and
that their deeds matter, and that if they screw up,
they're not just screwing up for themselves, they're screwing up
for us and that's what happened here.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Now, isn't her attorney representation being paid for by the
school district at which means tax payers are paying for that.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
And as a matter of fact, and this is public record,
anybody can go pull it. There are these court filings
that are out there where the city where the district
filed a motion to dismiss the case to get itself out,
saying that Thomas's acts and her words were privileged under
the statute called an anti slap. I won't bore you
(33:35):
with what that means, but the bottom line of it
is is that it's essentially a to have her be
liable or the district be liable with chill free speech
of an official in their official capacity. So they've taken
the position in a prior court filing that yeah, this
is our person. They were doing it on our behalf,
and because they were doing it on our behalf, neither
one of us can be liable. So in my view,
(34:00):
I mean, they just put on cement, you know, cement
flippers to go swimming. I mean, this is not a
good position to be in if you're the district, because
how do you explain any of this away? She's all
I mean says she didn't really mean it, she didn't really.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Know what was gonna hurt. None of that's a defense.
And you know how I feel sitting right here. I
want coach A racksually get as much money as he
can get, and then I'm thinking we're paying for it.
So it's a bittersweet kind of a feeling.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I think, Well, I mean, you know there is truth
to that, right, So every municipality, every major organization, they
have insurance, and President Unified is no exclusion to that.
There is insurance involved here. But who pays for that insurance?
Speaker 1 (34:39):
We do? Who pays for the South idiot insurance?
Speaker 2 (34:42):
I mean it, I mean you could call it that.
Those are your words about mine. I have to be polier.
You won't let me back on or.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
No, Roger, listen, it's been good to get to know
you this past year. A lot in common. Go round, Paul,
go Rampaul, Let's do it. God bless America. Hey, listen,
I appreciate your time and the all the explanation gave
to the power talk listeners over Diddy, and you might
see that coming back to a second court case, you're thinking, maybe.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I mean, I think there's more to go on. We'll
see where this gets. Let's see who these co conspirators are.
Who do you think they are? We didn't hear about
him in Gilaine Maxwell's case. Are we gonna hear about
him here?
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Where are they? Where are all these people behind the
curtain that are involved in auditorious pig? He's gone? So yeah,
well we'll keep watching it and following it, thank you,
and as it progresses, maybe we'll have you back on
at the end and give another recap on it if
you're willing. Always a pleasure and a privilege, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
This is the Tremor Carry Show on the Valleys, Power Talk.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
The Love Hates The new bill requires people to work
for their benefits. One good, big aspect of the one
big beautiful bill, which we'll talk about more next hour.
And thanks again to Tony Roger Banagtar. That was good stuff.
But as you hear all the Democrats, how about how
it claims to rob the poor to put all that
money with the wealthy. Yes, this bill does give tax
(35:57):
really for working families. It has a simple requirement though,
if you're gonna get government benefits, you need to work
to qualify. Imagine promoting responsibility. Public aid has to be
tied to some kind of kind of effort. It shouldn't
be just handed out willy nilly. You think about it,
(36:19):
Imagine being an able body American and being told you
need to work if you want to eat guys. That's
the Bible says that the Left hates that new bill
because of that twelve point three million individuals listed age
one hundred and twenty plus those removed them, although that
(36:40):
money was being sent somewhere.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
This assistant Trevor Jerry show Mondo Valley's power Dog
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
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.