National Guard & Los Angeles | Surrogacy Scammers

(July 17, 2025)
Pentagon ends deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles. What happens to the kids when parents are deported? These families are making plans. 21 babies and kids rescued after couple ‘tricked’ surrogates across the nation to carry babies for them. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty KFI AM six forty. Bill Handle here and
the morning crew except for Neil who's on vacation. Thursday morning,
July seventeen, coming up at eight fifty, it's going to
be mo Kelly. We do not have Joel on today,

(00:21):
Joel Lars Guard, which we usually do, because Joel is
on vacation. I think he's in Hawaii and so, and
why don't you call him interrupt whatever he's doing and
still have him to a couple of segments because this
is far more important than anything he's doing with his
family in Hawaii. Come on, give me a break. What
happened during the protests in LA to fight what's going

(00:46):
on with Ice? Well, the President deployed, deployed the National
Guard to combat and I quote, violent insurrectionist mobs in
and around LA. And it was US Marines and the
California National Guard as against the wishes of Governor Newsom

(01:09):
and Karen Bass. Now the other major times that the
National Guard was brought out to guard the streets of LA.
We go back to the Rodney King event, and we
go back to not too long ago, the George Floyd

(01:31):
murder when there were some serious demonstrations and those were mobs,
Those were violent mobs. Buildings were burnt, people were hurt.
Police cars were ignited and trashed and torched. And that's
the difference is because in both those times the president

(01:54):
was asked to nationalize the Guard and to bring them
in to help. Same thing I think happened during the
Watts riots in nineteen sixty four and sixty eight when
Martin Luther King was assassinated, the same thing. National Guard
came out and there was some real violence this time around. Well,

(02:14):
according to the Trump administration, violent insurrectionist mobs, the biggest one,
which was two thousand people, by the way, and clearly
the LAPD couldn't handle it. Well, guess what's going on
with those troops. There's not much to do. They're bored, silly,
There ain't nothing to do. You've got in Orange County

(02:38):
there is a massive tent city that holds some of
these troops. And we're talking about tent city with sleeping
accommodations and cafeteria and hygiene showers, etc. Portable restrooms. I mean,
it's a very big deal. And they're just sitting there

(02:59):
certainly the most part, and the same thing in Westwood.
I think the Marines were there to guard the building
in Westwood, the federal building. Did I see anybody overrun
the federal building. I didn't. So the point and the
accusation here is that this was a political political stunt,

(03:20):
of which I believe it is, and this is an
administration proving I think once again that we are being invaded,
that there is a military aspect to this. The national
security is going on, the very nature of our society
is at risk, which is why we had to bring

(03:44):
in or the Trump administration had to bring in the
national well had to federalize a national Guard, and to
bring in the Marines. There's a lawsuit filed. Oh yeah,
how unusual. So you have the governor filing the lawsuit
and it was joined by Karen Bass the City of
Los Angeles, arguing that it was unconstitutional for the president

(04:08):
to call in those federal forces because it was way
over the top, it was not necessary, and there was
no insurrection. There were no insurrectionist mobs, violent insurrectionist mobs.
Most of the time, no one was arrested. Even so,
there goes the lawsuit. Now can a lawsuit like that hit. See,

(04:32):
the case actually is ongoing, and I think the President's
going to win this because I think this Supreme Court,
when it reaches the Supreme Court is going to rule
it is the president's call whether it is a violent
insurrectionist mob and the national security of the United States
is at risk, and the court will say we disagree
with it. But constitutionally, the president has the right to

(04:54):
make that call. So when does it become unconstitutional and
overreaction happens. Well, let me give you an example. Six
protesters are out on the street and the National Guard
is called in and the Marines are called in because
it's a violent overthrow. Now I'm saying it may have

(05:15):
to go that far where the court would say that
is ludicrous, or a couple of hundred the court would
say that's completely ludicrous, that makes no sense. I think
it may have to go that far before you have
Newsome and Karen Bass make the case and the court
saying the president had no authority here. I think it

(05:38):
has to be so capricious, so arbitrary, because in the end,
who makes that call, who controls the Marines? Now, according
to the Possecomitus Act, Federal troops cannot be used to
enforce laws within the United States, but they can be

(06:00):
used to support law enforcement. And that's what happened here.
The problem is there was no issue. You got a
couple of thousand people tell me LAPD can't handle that.
Do I think this was just another stunt? I absolutely do.
And which way the courts are going to go. I

(06:20):
think they're going to back up the I think they're
going to back the administration. And one thing about this administration,
it is pushing the envelope in terms of what what
president's power is. For example, President Trump is arguing about
firing Jerome Powell straight out firing him. He can't do it.

(06:42):
It has to be for cause. And Jerome Powell has
not violated the law. He has not created such a
crazy ass decision that there is cause here where he
can be fired by the president, which the president has
the right to do. And I think the courts are
going to look at cause much more conservatively than the

(07:05):
president does. And here why is this happening? And here
it is? I think it's about the imperial presidency. Jerome
Powell and the FEDS are independent and they create monetary policy.
The Fed decides what interest rates are. The Fed makes
that decision independently, and the President has said, you lower

(07:30):
the interest rates. I'll make that decision, not you, And
as usual, if you don't agree with me, I'm going
to go after you in any way I can. So
in this case, the President said he is going to
he's toying with the idea of firing Powell. There've been
memos well, the consensus is he's going to lose that

(07:51):
one big time. But again, it's a court decision. It's
pushing the envelope. So lawsuit About two fifty lawsuits have
been filed around the country by organizations and governments and
individuals against the Trump administration. And how long has Trump
been in office now? Not even six months, right, So

(08:12):
at this rate, and I wouldn't be surprised if this
rate continues. If it's two hundred and fifty every six
months over four years, how many thousands is that? No idea? Okay,
a story that we've been following, many stories we've been
falling in relative to these raids that are going on

(08:32):
and the deportation of illegal migrants. There was one story
about an American citizen being picked up and it became
a very big deal. I think either Relay Times or
New York Times had that those are very very rare.
You can't do a broad brush on that. This guy
got screwed pretty badly. He claimed he was an American citizen.
He was helped for three days. He's an American citizen,

(08:55):
and they didn't do a good job of trying to
establish whether he is or not. But those are pretty rare.
I'll tell you what is not rare, and that is
kids that are born here who are American citizens according
to the fourteenth Amendment, even though there's a fight going
on for birthright citizenship, they can't be deported. However, their parents,

(09:18):
who are illegal migrants can be and are being deported.
So what happens when you have parents that are deported
but deported and the kids American citizens cannot be WHOA
That gets interesting and we're talking about millions of kids. Now,

(09:38):
what the government does do is it does facilitate or
at least allow the parents who are to be deported
to look for family members who are legal here in
the country to take care of their children. And there
is a program of doing that. And accusations against the
government that somehow the government is not helping or stopping it. Well,

(10:03):
I haven't heard of any accusations. But the point is,
does the US government, Does the administration go looking for
those parents? And you got a mute in any case,
what happens to these kids? And there are organizations out
there that help migrants fill out forms, for example, because

(10:29):
there's forms that have to be filled out saying I
want my child to go to my sister who lives
in Philadelphia, who is here legally either under some kind
of visa or a green card, or maybe even an
American citizen, and it becomes problematic. So here's a little
bit history of kids who are born here. There used

(10:52):
to be an industry. Matter of fact, there still might
be of pregnant women crossing the border or coming on
States by airplane from China, by ship or boat if
they can, but usually by land over the border the
US Mexican border, just to have a child in the

(11:14):
United States. San Diego was inundated, Sanya Cidro inundated for
two reasons that these women came over. Number one is
simply the care that you get. Keep in mind, if
someone is poor, broke, is pregnant, or has some kind
of a serious ailment. The hospitals have to take care

(11:35):
of those people by law cannot ask are you legal
or not? So decent care is number one. Poor people
in Mexico don't get good care. Number two. An American citizen,
that's the holy grail. If someone is born here, that's
the American passport, and that gives someone a lot more

(11:58):
opportunity than anything in Mexico or Venezuela, or Guatemala or Honduras,
just name these countries, particularly Central America. So there is
an underground, there's an entire cottage industry of helping people
who are illegal migrants to find people in their family

(12:23):
they can live with. Now, the anchor baby concept is
for the most part gone. It used to be even
worse than that. There's a third element to the two
that I add that I mentioned if you want to
look at worse or better depending on where the political
side you're on, and that is a child would be
an anchor baby. And that is mom would come across

(12:45):
the border, have a child an American citizen based on
that application as a family member of an American citizen
asking for immigration status, and it used to be automatic
years ago. It was done. Your child born in the
United States. Boom. You have now an application process which

(13:09):
was generally granted to enable you, that is, a pregnant
woman having a child, to at least have a pathway
and cannot be deported. Well, today the policy is very different. Today,
someone who is an illegal migrant coming over here to
have a child American citizen can't know much about it. Mom,

(13:29):
you're not you are illegal, and you're gone. But how
about my kid? Well, you got two choices. Choice number
one is you take the child with you? What you
bring your child with you? So you have an American
citizen born in the United States who now lives with
you in Mexico. And sometimes they don't even know they're

(13:52):
American citizen for years, and so they're living in Mexico,
they grow up in Mexico, the culture in Mexico, and
they have an American passport, and they do come over
here because of opportunities which are far greater than south
of the border. And now you have someone who is
effectively a foreigner coming over here with no language skills,
no marketable skills, but an American citizen who's entitled to

(14:14):
come into the United States. The other possibility is you
don't take your child over back home, and you find
a family member who is willing to take care of
the child, or the government will and the kid will
go into foster care and the child will be raised

(14:36):
by foster parent as an American. That's kind of hard
giving up a child. And then what happens later on
years later, does the child go back to Mexico. I
guess the child can visit family, but it's an American
and grew up with an American culture. Either way, it's

(14:57):
a horrible decision for a migrant coming home the border
who's pregnant. I mean, it is horrible for the benefit
of the child. Having an American passport is everything. The
choice between taking the child back as if the child
was not American or leaving the child in the United
States to be raised as American. That boy, you talk

(15:20):
about Sophie's choice on that one. That is not easy.
But that's what's going on. And these migrant raids, well,
it has completely royaled the Latino population here in southern California,
which I guess is the intent. Donald Trump ran on
the premise on the promise I am going to deepport

(15:40):
every illegal alien, every illegal migrant. I can get my
hands on. And that's exactly what's going on right now.
And boy is their controversy there all right? Oh, I
have a surrogacy store for you. I mean, Anne runs
these past me simply because I was involved in surrogacy
and had a surrogacy age and practice in the law

(16:01):
of surrogacy. That was my entire legal practice. So I've
been in this field, and I was in the field,
haven't been for the last five years, but basically for
forty years. I wrote my first surrogacy practice my contract,
literally two months after I was sworn into the bar,
and that has been my practice. So whenever I see

(16:22):
a surrogacy story, I go, whoop, this is pretty good stuff.
So I'm going to give you some inside baseball too
along with this story. And this one's abute, and I've
heard all of them, as you can imagine over the years.
This one is a new one, okay. So it starts
with twenty one children, all born from surrogate mothers. That's

(16:47):
not a big deal. I've had twenty one couples. I've
had ten couples, we've had twins. This is twenty one
surrogate mothers from one couple. They were the children were
removed from their California home. That's important. After the parents
were investigated for child abuse and the cops discovered that

(17:09):
the couple tricked surrogates into carrying their kids. They were
investigating a two month old baby's traumatic head injury, and
it looked like the nanny did it. They're investigating the
nanny and the Arcadia police discovered quote, numerous children, fifteen
of them to be specific, ranging in ages from two
months to thirteen years old, and a whole bunch of

(17:33):
them were raised through surrogacy. As a matter of fact,
the vast majority, and the police report says the male
and the female at the residence took legal guardianships of
those kids. In California, the law reads really very simple.
If a couple hires a surrogate mother to carry their

(17:54):
child and produces the sperm or the embryo or the egg,
or just hires a surrogate mother with someone else's sperm
and someone else's egg. According to California law, of which
very proud to have written a lot of it, and
my contract having gone up to the California Supreme Court,
which was upheld, the intended parents are the parents which

(18:19):
means that a couple utilizing a surrogate to carry their
child are legally the parents of the child, and there's
no way around that, and the birth certificate has to
state exactly that that's mom and dad, and there's no
way around that. So the police, actually the lieutenant who

(18:44):
was investigating this for LAPD, calling Cleadlo, said many of
the children were worn through surrogacy and the male and
the female, the residents took legal guardianship of those kids,
and they could have had dozens. It doesn't matter. The
law doesn't talk about a number of kids. It just
says if a surrogate mother carries a child, there are

(19:05):
the parents. Six of the kids were moved to other homes.
Twenty one were confirmed to belong to this couple, gujun
Zon and Sylvia Jang. He's sixty five, she's thirty eight,
and they were arrested for child endangerment. Later they were released.

(19:27):
Police sources say that of the twenty one kids, seventeen
are younger than three. One of the surrogate mothers hired
by the couple said her name is Kayla Elliott. It's horrific,
it's disturbing, it's damaging. Emotionally. The pair told her they
had only one other child. And I've had many couples,

(19:50):
and keep in mind, over the years, I was involved
in twenty five hundred children being born of surrogate mothers
for parents, so I've been around the block a few times.
The pair told her they had only one child. Well,
there is fraud, but how much fraud enough to charge someone?

(20:12):
I don't know if they would. We really want a kid,
and we told the surrogate we only have one other
one or we don't have any others. And I do
background checks. I always did in the parents. One of
the things I don't think we ever did is are
there other children? I mean, I know how many children
were in the home and the report came back. But

(20:34):
can they lie? Can they hide it? I've never had
it happen, so I'm assuming. Two months after giving birth,
Kayla learned the baby was no longer with the couple
because was taken by the police. And now she wants
custody of the child. But this is not a mom. Legally,

(20:57):
Kayla is not mom. She is a woman who gives birth,
gave birth to the child. Does she have a legal
right more than anybody else who the hell knows. This
is brand new that again I've never seen and I'm going, wow,
how did this happen? California is sort of an outlier

(21:18):
when it comes to all this, and that is the
intent of the parents is paramount. I want to continue
on with this just wild surrogacy story in which twenty
one kids all born from surrogate mothers. We moved from
the California home of a couple who hired twenty one

(21:38):
different surrogates to have their children. And according to California law,
a surrogate mother doing this for a couple and it's
all pursued into a contract, incidentally, which is recognized by
the state. The intended mom is the mother and to
define parenthood. That got kind of interesting becausehen I first

(21:59):
started this, we didn't know who a mother was. I mean,
consider this in the world of reproduction. Nineteen eighty three.
I started teaching this. I know, scarier in hell, but
I was. I taught this in law school. Yeah, I
was professor handle. I know, go figure. I don't understand
it either, but I would go on to the blackboard,
the whiteboard, and I would ask the class to tell

(22:20):
me who mom is. Describe a mother to me, Well,
someone who has a child is an adoptive mom. A
mother is a woman who carries the child, but not
genetically to the connected of the child. Is that mom
is the woman who provides the egg and doesn't have
the child. Is that mom is someone whose husband provides

(22:45):
a sperm and it's not her egg, it's an egg
donor Is that mom? The law never recognize any of it,
only that if a mother had a child and that
was tending anything else, she was mom. Well, in this
day and age and technology and IVM, it made no
more sense. So in the end, at the end of
the class, I would say, how about this class? And

(23:07):
then I would ask why would you define mom? And
I would answer, and this is what the law turned
out to be years later. It's the intended mom. And
how do we prove who the intended mom is? Doesn't
matter egg donor sperm donor gestational non gestational. How do
we know? Well, here's the contract, and that says that

(23:30):
we are the parents and you are the surrogate mother,
and therefore the child goes home with me, and the
name appears on the bursterskid it that's what happened with
this couple. They did this with twenty one surrogates? Is
that legal? Well, they lied to the surrogates. I guess
there's some kind of fraud there. They told the surrogates
there they had one other child, and why they wanted

(23:53):
twenty one kids? You got me on that one. I mean,
I have two, and I question it. You know, why
would I have two? Matter of fact, I would question
if I had one. But the point is is that
that this couple is mom. So how does the surrogacy
agency do this? How do they get away with this?

(24:14):
I mean I had a surrogacy agency for decades and
I help people have children. Well, how about this one.
Here's another twist on this one is that the couple
owned the surrogacy agency. They were the ones that went
out the agency called Mark Surrogacy. I don't know why

(24:37):
that name was there. Mark Surrogacy went out and hired
surrogate mothers on behalf of this Chinese couple. He's sixty five,
she's thirty eight, which by the way, does happen quite often,
and no one knew that the surrogacy agency was the
same as the couple. Is that legal? Yeah? I think

(24:57):
it is. I think think that's legal and there were
surrogate mothers from all over the country, not only California,
but Texas and Florida. So how in Texas and Florida,
where surrogacy is either non enforceable and in some states
it's criminal to do it in those states, we apply
the surrogate mother out to California where the baby is

(25:20):
to be born. Now, we did this for foreign couples.
We did this for couples out of state all day long.
And what ends up happening in California, Well, we go
back to the intended couple, the intended family. The surrogate
mother gives birth in California, and there it is on
the California birth certificate, which is recognized by every jurisdiction

(25:45):
all over the world. Is the name of the child
and the name of the parents. Does it matter that
they own a surrogacy agency? It does not. Is there
fraud involved? Yeah, they're lying involved all over the place.
And if there's any criminal activity, it's having a surrogate

(26:05):
mother created child for them, or help them create a
child based on a fraudulent representation that okay, we had
more than one kid, we lied to you. Okay, how
far does that go? Criminally. So what they filed against,
what the police picked this couple up for, was child
endangerment and you know they couldn't prove it. They dropped

(26:31):
the case. And this is one of the horror stories
about surrogate parenting. Now I'm going to brag a little
bit here, because you know, as much fun as I
have on the radio, which I do, I mean, this
is just this is kind of a fun job. I
take my surrogacy very seriously. I was one of the

(26:52):
very first pioneers. There were only two people in the
world practicing surrogate parenting when I started in nineteen eighty
one guy in Michigan and there was me, and that
was it. And why did they get into surrogate parenting. Well,
if no one else is doing it, they can't tell
you you're wrong. Huh Okay, that makes sense. So it was

(27:17):
not only a fascinating practice of which I'm very poor,
I'm very proud of. Matter of fact, on my tombstone,
it's not going to read I was on radio or
I was a lawyer. I was involved in helping to
create twenty five hundred kids for families, none of which

(27:37):
had twenty one kids. I'll tell you that just this crazy,
crazy story. Oh, by the way, Mark Surrogacy, the agency
that they owned, is now defunct, and you have some
surrogate mothers and are suing civilly for civil fraud because

(27:58):
you specifically you that couple specifically told the surrogate mother
that there was one other child, only one under other child,
and she did she engaged in the surrogacy procedure based
on the representation to her detriment. Detrimental reliance, I think
is where it's going to fly. So their lawsuits is

(28:22):
going to fly all over the place. Civilly where they're
going to go, Who the hell knows. And this is
just one of the stories. I could do three hours
of stories of what happens in the world of third
party reproduction. You know, for example, one doctor the sperm
donor father of hundreds of kids, one doctor selling dozens

(28:45):
of embryos from the same couple to different couples. I mean,
it all is just crazy stuff, all right. KFI am sixty.
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch My
Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am, and
any time on demand on the iHeartRadio app.