We're gonna start the local recording. It would be live recording begun. Let's go ahead and play some intro music. We like that intro music by Scotty Jam Jam here on some real politics. I I welcome to surreal politics. This 48th episode is stage 1 from March 4th, and I'm gonna start the recording. I'm gonna start the recording. Prosecutions and Charlottesville for this whole burning to intimidate nonsense, which stems from the Unite to Rally in August of 2017. And he was for a time, my co-defendant and a civil lawsuit down there. And he has helped out some of, he's done a lot of work trying to help out our people in the course of the various law fair actions that are brought against them. I'm an unofficial legal correspondent here on surreal politics. And so we're really happy to have Augustus with Invictus. Join us again this evening. Thank you very much for being on the show, my friend. I was a pleasure, man. Good to see you, Chris. Good to see you too. And so when I put out the show teaser today, I mentioned the Charlottesville thing and I mentioned the Rundo thing. You and I have been talking about there's another case down in Florida that's actually going on. There's a lot of past in Florida. Something about combating anti-Semitism. I think Ron DeSantis went to Israel to sign it there in the ultimate act of like, you know, just prostrating oneself before a foreign power. Yeah, we won't allow anybody to insult you in Florida. I want to be president of the United States. We know who runs things around here. And so you are representing some guys who have been prosecuted under this law, right? Yeah, and it's telling that he went to Israel to sign this thing in April of last year. And as if by magic, he's allowed to run for president a month later in May of last year. So now they've passed this law. He runs for president the next month. And then the month after that, you've got actual Nazis waving DeSantis flags in front of Disney, which obviously is trolling him. And then he takes out our state attorney, our head prosecutor here in Orlando and puts in his own guy. And then again, as if by magic, a month after that, they bring the hammer down on this new anti-Semitism law on those guys who were trolling the Santas. And this waving the DeSantis flags in front of Disney world, that's not what they're charged with, though, right? There was another one or something. Correct. They do a lot of activism around Florida. There is a lot of activism in Florida. These guys, I, it was either later that day or somewhere in that same time frame, they had gone to an overpass and waved these flags on an overpass. Allegedly, have fixed the flag to an overpass and the crime under this new law is you can't do that without asking permission. And of course, the owner of this overpass is Orange County, Florida. So they didn't ask permission to wave their flags over the overpass. So that's how they're, quote unquote, combating anti-Semitism. Now that the arrests are made, of course, they're pretending this has nothing to do with politics, with DeSantis, with anti-Semitism. And it's about threats made with these offensive flags to passers-by. So that's interesting. Now, you know, I, when I first heard about the law being passed, it was my understanding that the way that they were justifying it was that you were not allowed to litter on private property that if you were, you know, taking this activity onto onto someone's property that you'd be running a foul of the law. And, you know, my inner libertarian, what remains of him, he says, well, you know, stay, get off my lawn, kid, you know. But you're telling me that the owner of the property in this case is the county government? That's right. Yeah, it's not like you can call the cops as a libertarian saying they're on my lawn. I mean, the principle is you shoot them if they're on your lawn, right? But in this case, yeah, the government, the people of Orange County, the citizenry, we own the overpass, you know, by theory at least. But they have, you know, an administrator who oversees this overpass and they, you know, they didn't ask permission of that guy. That's the technicality they're hanging their hat on here. I'm remembering like a fairy tale about a troll at a bridge now when you say this to me. And so the, they had these flags on the overpass and the the allegation is that they affixed the flags to the overpass in some way. Well, allegedly they're saying they zip tied it to the thing. I mean, it's just the craziest technicality, the cop long story about this cop behind this investigation. But short version is he allegedly came back three months after they had done this rally and said, oh, look, there's a tie's on here. It was the Nazis. And then got the warrants. Yeah, it's an insane case. Head to toe. But you were saying about the littering thing. Yeah, this is all in response to the GDL guys, you know, throwing propaganda, distributing propaganda. And some of when in people's lawns, they got, you know, upset about it. They called the cops and there was a whole series of cases about this where they were accused of dumping and littering, which it absolutely is not. But, you know, they wanted to pass these laws to protect a certain group of people who were allegedly offended by these actions. And so some of these things are, you know, they would project images onto synagogues or whatever. So if you're projecting an image onto a building or a synagogue or an overpass or anything, you didn't ask permission for that. That's now a misdemeanor in Florida. Now the, okay, so that the projection is a misdemeanor. I know that they, the if there's, if there's allegations that anti-Semitism is involved in littering, like you're actually putting some kind of object on someone's property. That's a felony now, right? I believe handsome truth has been charged with that now, right? He was last I checked charged with a misdemeanor. Having checked on that case in a couple months, he had gone to jail. He did, he did misdemeanor time already. It was my limited understanding. I'm not 100% certain of it. I thought he was facing another charge. I might be incorrect. He was and we got that dismissed. That was so that, but that was on a on different grounds. Unfortunately, we didn't get to go to trial on the constitutional aspect, but that case was dismissed. Okay. And so the guys that you're representing, do you care to tell us anything about them? I mean, it's a group, the order of the black son. I mean, that's all over the news. There's no getting around that. You know, they were just out doing their activism. They do this quite often. They just wave flags and troll the Santas and whoever else. I think last time they did this, they were actually trolling Biden, flying Biden flags. So nothing is sacred to these guys, but there's certainly not criminals for trolling the president or a candidate for president. And that's what we've come to where you can offend a certain group of people or you can troll a political candidate and all the sudden law enforcement has turned against you. And that's just not American. So the these guys are initially what like the cops tell them, hey, get off the overpass and they cooperate and then three months later, they come back, they find zip ties and then they're like, yeah, you tried to a felony. I don't think they were even told the leave. They were calls, you know, angry carons calling about I'm offended by these flags. This same group actually came just right down the street, two blocks from me. I didn't even know they were here. You know, my own clients and they were right over there and Anna S. Cominia, I think her name is the representative around here goes to Twitter posting about we've already called law enforcement and we're seeking accountability for this. And it's just it's people on the corner over here waving flags that they don't like like what accountability is the new, you know, fly word for censorship. So you mentioned that they're trying to say that this is threats. Now they're not charged with threatening. They're charged under this anti-Semitism law or what's the. That's right. So after the initial arrest, you know, representative Randy fine is going, which is, you know, a huge red flag should be to anybody that this is obviously political. This is not a run of the middle misdemeanor case. Representative Randy fine goes on this media tour blasting the Nazis and saying, you know, we've got them for their anti-Semites and all this. Well, then we fight back and we say, no, this has nothing to do with that. This law is illegal. And they say, well, this isn't about anti-Semitism and free speech. This is about intimidation and threats. And you would have known that had you been in Tallahassee when we were passing this law. But they, you know, like I said, he's been on a media tour explaining this is about combating anti-Semitism. That was the title of HB269, a fire call correctly. So now they're making bones saying it's about threats. Well, I mean, I guess what they're, they're, they're, they're conception of it is. And I mean, they, this is a word game that they're playing, right? They do the same thing in the science v. Kessler civil lawsuit where they're, you know, in their mind, they're a frame of reference. The speech is violence, right? It's, you, if you put the swastika up, what you're actually doing is you're threatening the lives of Jewish people. You're saying that, you know, we're going to murder six million Jews. And we're like, no, I don't think that's what the swastika means at all. As a matter of fact, I think you're full crap about that. And they're like, no, no, it definitely happened. And you totally know that, which is why you're putting up the swastika. And then you end up in a, then you end up in a position of debating the Holocaust in a courtroom. And that's an undesirable position to be in it, of course. And so, you know, it does not seem that debating the Holocaust in a courtroom is a, is a fruitful way to win a legal argument is my conception of it. In any case. That's probably true. It's like arguing a point of theology in a church. Like you're already condemned. Right. No winning. And that's our new church is the court system and our new religion is this creed of the Holocaust and racism. And you go against that in court of law. It's over for you. So they're not alleging that while waving the flags, your clients were out there screaming, we're going to hurt you. They're saying that the, that the flags themselves are the intimidation. Right. The flags themselves are the violence. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's basically what they're saying in, in Virginia, too. Right. I mean, the idea is that the, it's not that while carrying a torch, the, the defendant acted in an intimidating manner. The, the allegation is by carrying a torch that defendant acted in an intimidating manner, essentially. Right. All right. That's our understanding of it. But they are making bones about that too saying, well, no, no, no, it's because you guys surrounded the statue. And these people were not free to leave. That was the intimidation. So right. And so the video betrays that that's obviously false. Well, exactly. I mean, they came there for a confrontation. And when they got what they asked for, then they, then they turned around and said, oh my god, they did this thing to me. Because, you know, that's what they do. And people haven't figured out that that's their mo yet. Right. They still have this idea that, well, the prosecutors know full well. That's the mo because prosecutors are antifa. Yeah. They know, they know the game. They're, they're pretending that they're not, and they're pretending they don't know the connotations of the word anti-racist. They know exactly what's going on because they took over the prosecutor's office to prosecute this case. Yeah. So before we move on to Charlottesville, what is the disposition of the, of the case with your, that you're representing your clients? And now, well, there's no divs position yet. But it's going to go to, I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong terminology. But like what, what, where does the case stand is what I mean to ask? Yes. So where to begin. We've had to file a motion in the very beginning to disqualify the prosecutor's office in the case. You filed, you filed a motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office in Florida. Okay. I remember this. We're going to get to that in Charlottesville as well. I didn't know that you did that in both jurisdictions. This is in the Orlando case. That's right. I filed this for my clients because they ambushed my ex-wife who worked for the prosecutor's office and accused her of passing me confidential information about the case. That's right. How could he possibly know that his clients had warrants for him unless you told him this? So that's the subject of the motion to disqualify the state attorney's office also a basis of a motion to allow depositions in this case because depositions are allowed in felony cases in Florida, but not in misdemeanor cases unless you have an order from the court. We filed that the state attorney hired a civil attorney to quash these subpoenas for the hearing we have this Friday. So we were ordered to respond to that, which we did today. It's an ongoing cluster. That's interesting. So your clients are charged with misdemeanors then. Yeah. Okay. It's allegedly a nothing misdemeanor case, but obviously it's to railroad Nazis. Right. So they can legitimize the combating anti-Semitism law. Well, yeah. And they and it's not like they're like, okay, well, we got what we came for and then we stopped. It's not the way this works. And so, you know, that's going to ratchet up. It's going to escalate until they can get Republicans next or Democrats or whoever they want with this law. Yeah. Something tells me that I can become an after Democrats very quickly. Right. Because you can see they they never use this law in the Palestinian marches that have been happening in fast several months since October. They don't get a single one of those flag waivers who did clearly did not ask permission. They only have used it against these Nazis, which is especially telling in Florida. Right. So like Ron DeSantis goes to Israel makes this big thing. And it's, you know, this is seen as the Republican party standing up for their Jewish friends. But even these Republicans, they don't go after the Palestinian fanatics. Right. They even they do not do that. Right. Because it would be political suicide. That is telling indeed. You know, I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I know, I'm not surprised that it happens on these like left wing college campuses, but now that you mentioned it in Florida, that is conspicuous, huh? It is because I mean, Florida is known as a red state. The Santa's is the guy for pushing conservative legislation in states. And I, I mean, I'll be the first to say, I like a lot of what the Santa's is done. I can't argue with that. But when it comes to the anti-Semitism laws and things that are clearly unconstitutional. Just 100% illegal like this law. HBK 269. You got to point out the fact that if you were a real conservative, a real red state Republican, like leading the tip of the spear on this whole thing, like, why are you not charging these guys? The same as you are the Nazis. And obviously, because everybody hates Nazis. And they want to prosecute somebody that they know nobody's going to stand up for. And when somebody does stand up for them, look at that. They threaten them with felony charges. Right. That is interesting. And so, you've got this motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office on the grounds that they came, they, they came after your, your acts. Now, are they trying to get you off the case? Well, that's the argument. I mean, they're going after my ex-wife in order to go after me. The interrogation. And that's the insane thing that, as I said in the motion, you only see in third world countries. They're interrogating her about me. And not just about like my private life or where they're interrogating her. They're interrogating her about how I know information about the underlying case. That's insane. It's madness. So, it is madness. And so, you have, you have this motion pending before the court. It's there. Here and coming up. Where's that stand? Well, the motion to disqualify was actually denied. Oh, it was denied. Okay. That was on the basis of the fact that there's allegedly no actual prejudice because, you know, there were no felony charges materialized. I wasn't actually arrested. My clients did not suffer actual prejudice, according to the judge. However, the motion to allow depositions, that is still outstanding. Okay. Now, the depositions thing is kind of interesting. Like, you know, they were useful tool. Right? I mean, you walk into the courtroom knowing what a witness is actually going to say instead of going in there and trying to figure it out in real time. I mean, it's like, you know, learning the difference between that in criminal court and civil court. I was like, it seems to be like, you know, depositions in advance of the trial would probably be a better way of getting to the facts. But they don't usually do that in criminal trials. Even in in in federal cases, they don't do depositions in felonies either in Florida. You get depositions at felonies, but not misdemeanors. Florida has really good discovery laws. Yeah, believe it or not, not misdemeanors, but yeah, and felony cases, you have a right to depositions and not only that, the state will pay for them. You, you don't have the money to pay for it. You apply to the state. The state will pay for that and the transcripts and everything. That's very good with discovery laws. And when I, you know, when I'm in, especially when I'm, I'm the defendant out of state, it's horrible. It's like being in a barbaric country because they don't have the right to depositions. It's, yeah, it's horrible. Because you think that you would want to know what everybody's going to say, but so many people just want to do the trial by ambush. It's awful. But I've won a lot of cases in Florida because we have depositions. You know, I'll be able to bring somebody in, put them under oath, ask them questions and prove by that deposition alone to the prosecutor look, man, you don't have a case. Like your client clearly is lying or your client, you know, is contradicting or your client's 100% telling the truth, but legally speaking, as a matter of law, you cannot prove possession or drugs or constructive possession of a weapon or whatever it is. And I've won many cases like that. Yeah, that is, that's a more sound legal process. You know, I'm like, you know, when I went to trial in a federal district court, New Hampshire, you know, we're trying to figure out what the witness is going to say from his FBI 302s and stuff like this, you know, and in the civil case in Virginia now, you know, I got completely ambush because they let me in the dark for 14 months. And then they said that they didn't prejudice me. So I was completely clueless when I walked in there, you know, I was like, I was like Colombo trying to like figure it out in the courtroom or whatever, you know, let me ask you something. Yeah, like, you know, not locked it. Oh, or was it Matt lock is that what I'm thinking of Matt lock? That's the one, right? Where he's like, no, Colombo is the detective that's always pretending he doesn't know what's going on. He's acting dumb. That lock is the courtroom thing. That's what I'm thinking of. Yeah, Matt lock is the Matt lock is the one who's like asking to, you know, oh, well, you know, let me just ask you to throw away question and then it completely cracks the case in the courtroom. Right? That's what I'm saying. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So I was more like Matt lock. I had the mixed up in our generation. And so, you know, I was, I was, you know, sort of, I was pretty well in the dark when I went down to that trial, but, you know, at least the other attorneys in the courtroom had the benefit of deposition. You know, they dumped all of these things on me in prison and were like, yeah, go ahead. You can, you can look at these in the presence of your case manager when he's there for an hour a day and then we'll ship you out next week for trial. It's like, oh, well, thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah. That's good. I really think that like lawyers and judges should all spend an extended period of time in jail and then say with a straight face, so you're not prejudiced by being in jail. You can totally look at all the evidence against you. You can totally prepare for trial, contact witnesses without it being reviewed by the government, you know, have communications. I say, all that's perfectly feasible in jail. Like anybody who's spent more than a week there knows that's garbage. Yeah, I put them there just for punishment, but for education, it would be useful too. And so, you know, but in any case, I understand now, you know, the utility of depositions. And so I hope that that motion goes through. What's the status of that? You've got that pending and there's going to be they've opposed it. I presume. And this is all on paper at this point is that you got a hearing schedule. Yeah, it's a schedule for Friday. So we'll see how it's coming from it. Yeah, just going to issue the order on whether. So I mean, the current dispute is I subpoenaed the head of the office, the guy that the Santa's put in when he removed our state attorney. He put in his own guy. I subpoenaed that guy and his right hand man. They got a lawyer said, no, you can't do that. And so that's why we're fighting right now. Judge is going to issue an order on that this week before Friday and then Friday is the actual hearing. Okay, it's a little complicated, but we'll get there. I gotcha. Yeah, because you know, the pressure of trying to figure it out real time at a corporate is a completely different category of, you know, action than trying to, you know, question a witness in a deposition. You know, it's like, you know, and you got to think like this is not like I said, just a regular misdemeanor case. I mean, obviously it goes all the way up to the Sanchez for one, two is a completely novel law that they're not pulling on any other political opponents. And three, when you look at the evidence, if you want to call it that in the case, you've got a 70 page report by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement while they're surveilling and doing all these crazy things, getting background checks. None of that translates to a usual misdemeanor case. Yeah, this is a statewide like catastrophe. So yeah, we need depositions because you got a 70 page report with all these shady things going on and it's all political. And we're just going to have a trial by ambush. It's just not in the interest of justice. Yeah, no, it's definitely not. And so I'm glad that they, you know, in a misdemeanor case, I don't know if you're a liberty to say, I imagine you're not, but I'll ask the question. Anyway, they've been offered a plea deal. No, not off of them a plea. No, no way. No. Okay. They want the full, you know, the full on media crucifixion. I mean, and that's why all this stuff is happening because they arrested my client. Didn't know that it was my client just happened to be a client I had from a totally different thing in another county just fell out of the sky into my lap and put out this major press release from Randy fine, the representative Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Orange County Sheriff's Office. No, sorry, the state attorney's office. They all put out all these press releases saying, you know, well, we've got these three other out of state Lawrence. We're going to get these guys. And so I short circled that whole thing. Obviously, I knew who they were told them come into Florida, turn yourselves in because if you don't, Florida is going to extradite you and they're going to do the same thing to you. And the rest of this history that media little purplock never happened. Okay. All right. So that, that's where that one is. Let's move on. Shall we to, should we go to Charlottesville first or California? Not to you, buddy. Well, let's go to California. I am the Rondo situation is an interesting one. I'd say that, you know, he was charged with conspiracy to violate the riot act. They brought him and his associates. Maybe you could explain. I'm a little bit confused. So some of them were tried and some of them were charged in a Virginia in the western district of Virginia. Some of them were tried in some district of California or their charges were pending there. What, what's the disconnect there and how did that occur? Do you know? All right. So in 2018, completely out of the blue, the DOJ in the western district of Virginia. Funny. I don't even remember the guy's name. That's so funny. I mean, he did this all to make a name for himself. And now like all these years later, I remember it's like Culbertson or something like that. Yeah, but that guy, you know, he did this whole stunt. They arrested the four of them in California, four of them in Virginia. Those four in Virginia, obviously for Charlottesville, the foreign California for Berkeley. I think Huntington Beach, some, some just right wing rallies out there. Thomas Cullen. That's his name. Yes. Thank you. That's it. That's it. So they dragged those four guys over, put them in jail in Virginia. They got these four guys there in California, took them down to LA. And that's that's how that all the way actually took one of them to LA because he was being hunted in the desert. So that's a story of its own. So so forward charge in Virginia and forward charged in California. Right. For different rallies. Right. Okay. And they, but they all had the same charge, my understanding, right? They're basically all the same anti riot allegations. Okay. And so in the western, I'm sorry, in in the California District Court before Judge Carney, they argued that the the riot act was unconstitutional overprod, he threw their charges out of the consequence. And then the government, of course, appealed that decision up to the Ninth Circuit. In the western district of Virginia, as I was reading about this, they, where they before Judge Moon, do you know, present? I don't remember. Okay. I was in on that case. Okay. I was on the appellate case. But you are on the appellate case in the western district of Virginia. That well technically the fourth. And the fourth. Yeah, the fourth. The fourth. Yeah. Yeah. They had been charged with the same thing. They were, they didn't go to trial. They took pleas. However, that that was predicated on the condition that they could appeal the constitutionality of the statute. Right. So that went up to that court, the fourth circuit. So you got that case being appealed by the defendants and the fourth circuit. And on the other coast, you've got the government appealing it. So in the central district of California, appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit said, no, that's fine. This constitutional reindy them. Right. So in the western district of Virginia, they pleaded guilty. They, and on the ground with the caveat that they could go and still appeal the constitutionality of statute. But they, that was after the, so they made a similar motion of what Rondo at a towel did in California. That motion was denied by the district court. So they pleaded guilty and then they appealed to the fourth. That's the idea. Cat more or less. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so in the western district of Virginia, I'm sorry, in the fourth circuit, they knocked down parts of it. Right. Is it parts of it or unconstitutional, but you're still going to prison. Is that yeah. Right. It's still a constitutional apply to you guys. You guys are not sees after all is that is the is the, is the indrogacy of that worth articulating here what, what they said was unconstitutional about it. So it, you know, the argument if I recall correctly, what, because by the time it actually went to oral argument, all that, I was jailed. I was completely taken out of the equation, of course. Yeah. So if I remember correctly, just reverse engineering it. The argument that was that it was void for vagueness because it includes like all this free speech as well as criminalized speech and actually starting riots and the four circuits like, well, that may be true. Then in certain cases, it would be vague, but in this case is definitely not true. They, they definitely broke the law. So we're going to let that stand. Okay. So they're like, yeah, parts of this are unconstitutional, just not the parts you're doing time for. So shut up, buddy. Right. I got you. Okay. So then in the ninth circuit, they just said, yeah, this is fine. Reindite them. And then if I understand it correctly, they, they didn't file the same exact charge for anti riot act. They charge with riots, eating and betting and a riot or something like that. It was technically a charge. So the second time around, you know, they did file motion dismissed for I think void for vagueness and something else, but the real one was select prosecution. That was the explosive motion to dismiss. So that is an interesting thing. And when I saw that that happened, I immediately contacted my public defenders in the, in the federal criminal case that I faced here. I said, hey, you know, this district court in California just said that the government can't selectively prosecute. And I, I distinctly recall me responding with a nasty remark took a guy who threatened my girlfriend on the internet. And I went to prison. He got paid. So that sounds like a selective prosecution if I've ever heard of one. So maybe, maybe this, if it, if the ninth circuit upholds this, then, you know, because obviously a district court decision in California is not binding on the first circuit in New Hampshire. Right. But, you know, if, if they uphold it in the unlikely event that they do, then, you know, then maybe I have a grounds to for another appeal. And they say, yeah, well, you know, selective prosecution arguments really work. Because, you know, the government selectively prosecutes people. It's what they do. It's a whole entire point in the enterprise. You know, prosecutorial discretion is one thing. And, and that is how about this? There's a thing called prosecutorial discretion. Do you have a conception of when that crosses the line into selective prosecution? That was time we got. Yeah, I mean, we've always, you know, said that prosecutors have discretion. I mean, that's, that's an ancient rule. The problem is that prosecutors have become so politically corrupt that you can't really trust that anymore. Right. It used to be we would grant discretion to cops too. And now left and right, if there's one thing they agree on, it's a cops are out of control. You cannot trust them with blanket discretion anymore to prosecute crimes. So prosecutors are very much in the same boat, especially at the federal level. So you have discretion, but what Karni is getting at is, you know, you only prosecuted one side of a conflict and not only that, but the antifa were doing equal acts or much worse things on the rise above movement did. And the fact Karni was blasted by liberals out there because he refused to accept a guilty plea from one of the defendants. Based on the fact that he's like, I don't understand why he's entering a guilty plea. He was clearly defending himself. I can't accept this guilty plea. I don't think he's guilty. Yeah, I read some transcripts of that were published by a gal who covers that beat in the courtroom. And I said, wow, that guy should go for a bench trial ASAP. And so because it went well, now was Bowman's charges were not dismissed though or were they? I think they were. They were. Okay. But he's not in custody. I want to make sure I've been so concerned with Rob's case. Yeah, it was my understanding. So like, I understood that he refused to accept a guilty plea. I haven't heard. It's possible that I just missed it. But I hadn't heard about his charges being dismissed, which would seem conspicuous if he dismissed Rundos charges. If he's going to say, well, it could be that it could be the Bowman's attorney didn't file the motion. That's that's that happens all the time when you got these political cases, you'll have one attorney or two as in the case in Charlottesville where they are just absolutely not having it. They're like, this is the principal of the thing. We're in a file these motions with the other attorneys in the case. So like, nah, I'm not rocking that boat. Like I'm not dying on this hill. And they won't file the motions. And it's like all you had to do is file the motions and your client would be walking right now. You know, I can't imagine being the guy whose attorney is like that won't work. And then you're sitting there facing the charges while your co-defendant walks. Well, luckily for both, I don't think he was incarcerated. I think Rundos, the only one who he's not going anywhere. And that's the pickle we're in now where he's completely illegally detained right now. And the judge said it flat out in his opinion. So this is an interesting thing in the law. And I don't know. I haven't looked up. I'm not sure there is case law on this that, you know, if the night circuit overturns a decision, OK, then the decision is overturned. And it's as if the decision never happened. And therefore, Robert Rondo is in the custody of the bureau of prisons. And therefore he has to go and be picked back up because he's out on the street. How does that? Why is it unconstitutional? So when he was there in the courtroom, the government said, well, hold on, we're appealing this. We're going to file an emergency appeal because we think your order is wrong. Your order dismissing the case. We're asking you to stay your order, keep him incarcerated until we can file our emergency appeal. And then the night circuit can decide what to do with him. And the judge said, no, I don't think so. You've already selected a prosecutor this man. I'm dismissing the case. I don't think it's right for Robert Rondo to spend another day in jail release him immediately. He's got to go back to the jail. He's got a process out by he is going home today. And that's what happened. They filed the emergency appeal literally within minutes like while they were sitting in the courtroom. They filed this bloody thing went to the night circuit. Didn't tell the ninth circuit that he was already being released. So while the ninth circuit is getting this stuff, Rondo was released. When he's released, they don't update the ninth circuit about this, which is a 100% no no in legal practice. They knew that he had been released. They didn't inform the ninth circuit of this. The ninth circuit issues its order, but it says that the order is to be stayed and he is to a wait. He is to stay there in custody awaiting the ninth circuit's decision, right? But he was already gone. I totally missed that part of it. So that's really interesting. Huge court. Yeah. And government knew it every step of the way. That's what's so nefarious about it. So they get this order back, which they lied to get. They went and they were following Rondo. They're in negotiations with his attorney for self surrender because he's going to turn himself in anyway, even though there are no pending charges against them, even though there's no arrest warrant for him. He's going to go turn himself in anyway. They negotiate this with his lawyer and immediately like while they're on the phone with her or immediately after hanging up, they arrest him right there on the street. Well, if that part of it is hardly surprising, I mean if anybody's a flight risk, it's Robert Rondo, he evaded the feds in another continent for years. I mean, you know, they're not going to they're not going to wait for Rob Rondo to turn himself in. And then though, while it was on appeal, well, if they're going to take that guy into custody, he's no longer a free man. He's a fugitive, right. As far as their concern. Now, now we're we're of the mind that what they've done is illegal, of course, but it's so far as the guys who are arresting him are concerned. He's not a free man, right. Well, at that time, well, they know full well. He was a free man and they know full well the order from the ninth circuit did not apply because he had already been released. And in fact, what they did was at that point, they went to the magistrate judge Kim and they told this guy, hey, we've got the ninth circuit saying you've got to re arrest this guy. And he's like, well, there are no charges. And they're like, yeah, well, that's okay because you have this inherent authority in the ninth circuit said we want to maintain the status quo. And so judge Kim is like, okay, well, I guess I do. You have this authority and I do want to restore the status quo. So here's your arrest warrant. Well, this was all exparte by way and under seal. So the defense attorney is not allowed to know about it. No one's allowed to know about it. It didn't inform Rondo's attorney went and pulled this heist, kidnapped him off the street. And then the defense attorney raises cane about it. And the magistrate judge says, well, hold on, hold on a second here. You lied to me like they he outright said on the record, you guys lied to me. You completely misrepresented what happened in the ninth circuit. Completely misrepresented the fact that you told defense attorney and me that Rondo was going to have the opportunity to object to his to his detention that he was going to have legal process and be able to address a court. But what they did was so egregious that Rondo has no opportunity to go before a judge and challenge his detention because the ninth circuit has said no judge will hear this case in the district court and no judge will release him until you hear from the ninth circuit. Now what the what the ninth circuit stayed. If I understand it correctly, what they stayed was the release order, right? They didn't stay the dismissal. So that's correct. So technically the charges are still dismissed. There is an there's an appeal on that that the this night circuit is not acted on on that appeal. They've they've since they simply stayed the release order, which creates this conflict because he's not presently in custody. But you know, not presently in custody and there are no pending charges because the charges are still dismissed. They can't even have an arraignment for this guy. They can't even bring him in to see the judge because there's no process. But if if Carney had said, okay, I'm I'm issuing the dismissal and I'm issuing the release order. The government moves, stay the release order so that we can appeal your dismissal. And he says, if he had at that time said, yeah, sure, I'll stay the release order. Then everything's copacetic. Is it not or is there? Okay. So I mean, in that case, he'd still be he'd still be held without charges. The question is, can you go and re arrest him after he's walked out the front door it and while that that while that offends the sensibilities of reasonable people, it doesn't seem to be if he can be held in custody. Why can't he be put back in custody? Well, I would say there's a distinction between the order of dismissal and the order of release. Right. So if he still had the order of dismissal, he dismissed all the charges, but he's staying his order of release, I think that would be an inherently contradictory thing to do. Like if you've already dismissed the charges, what are you holding for? So in your mind, that would not be okay. He couldn't issue the dismissal and stay the release. He would have to do one or both. I think so. I think you have to do either dismiss him and release him or stay the order of dismissal and the order of release. I don't think it'd be right to dismiss all the charges and then order him to stay there. That just doesn't seem like the proper outcome. Is there any case law that have you looked have you looked for case law on this has this ever happened before? To my knowledge is never happened. Okay. I mean, there's a lot of case law coast to coast. I mean, it could be that this has happened before, but what I've been telling people in private conversations, it reminds me of exparte miligan, like the constitutional crisis presented by this. Totally different factual scenario, but it was during the civil war, miligan happened to be a lawyer who was supporting the southern cause. He was an Indiana. In the middle of the night, soldiers came and kidnapped him out of his house, put him on trial like a military tribunal sentenced to the death. He appealed to the Supreme Court. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, civil war is over. So they're saying, now you can't do that. The civil courts were still open. You should have tried them in civil courts in Indiana. But it was such a crisis. And in the fact that it happened to a lawyer, really got everybody upset about it. It's a first year law student case now. So I think Rundo's case is just as important because it raises the question of, you know, what is the power of the DOJ? Can the DOJ get away with this? And I think just the questions resented to the Ninth Circuit, they have to come back for Rundo. They can't possibly authorize this or it's just pure anarchy. Right. I want to just address two things in the chat. One, Tony soprano, he sends 50 bucks along, he says, guys like Augustus, give me hope. Thank you both for your service. And, and sailing gale says, I know it isn't his intention, but it truly seems Chris is on the side of the feds trying to give them the benefit of the doubt laughing emoji. And so just for the sake of people who might not understand what I'm doing here, this would be very boring. If I was like, hey, tell me how bad this is. Wow, that's really bad. And just, you know, it would not be bad. Interesting. I have an attorney here. And so I'm trying to, I'm trying to enlighten the audience by making the other side's argument as best as I can. I think they call that playing the devil's advocate. It's kind of the idea. Yeah. And, you know, we are dealing with Satan incarnate when we're talking about the United States federal government. And so, you know, it seems, it seems an appropriate title. And so, um, so he is now held in custody. He has, when is his next hearing, do you know? He doesn't have one. That's what so outrageous stuff. The whole thing. He doesn't have a hearing. He doesn't have anything he can do to secure a hearing. It kind of is waiting on the mercy of the ninth circuit. Yeah, I checked it five minutes before their show. I checked the docket. And there's nothing since February 29th. Well, that is, that is, it is not good to be at the mercy of an appellate court. If you're sitting in a cell, I happen to know that. I had been convicted of a crime and promptly filed my appeal. And I was released from a three year prison sentence by the time that they got around to issuing their decision. I think I'd been home for several months by the time they got around to that. And so, um, you know, I certainly, I mean, I imagine that they will act faster in this case than they, than they do in the case of somebody who's been convicted. But still not good to be at the tender mercy of an appellate court under any circumstances. And so, um, you know, our friend is, uh, is in some, is in a, is in quite the bind. I'd say. And so, um, why is it that every lawyer right of Latisha James is not like running to California and trying to stop this madness from happening? Well, to be fair, he, so the federal public defenders are like good lawyers. And in Rundos case, he actually got a good lawyer of the good lawyer. So he has a lawyer who's actually fighting his case. Um, you know, there's, there's nothing anyone else can do. Uh, they're, they're doing everything right. They've done everything they've fought ferociously for him. I mean, it's just a, that's the system, you know. It seems to me if there's a question of whether or not the government can selectively prosecute people based on their political views, that this is something that, you know, Steven Miller and America first legal should be all over or at least they should be making a big stink out of. They should be all over Fox News and screaming at the top of their lungs. That of course the government can't selectively prosecute people based on their political views. We don't believe what Mr. Rundle believes the mature for Christ, but we're not going to let him do that. Because that's the Constitution of the United States and nobody does that because it should be, it seems to be that this should be up there with like dobs v Jackson women's health, right? Because if the government, if the night circuit turns around and says, well, the got of course, of course they can selectively prosecute people based on their political views because that's what this decision is going to be fundamentally. They're going to say, oh yeah, well, yeah, they did that because the, the, the circuit court is not going to try to decide a factual matter is my understanding. They're going to decide it as a matter of law, right? Yeah, we're going to say, yeah, well, as a matter of law, sure they can do that. They're not going to say the government did not selectively prosecute. They're going to say the government can selectively prosecute. If that's my understanding of how an appellate court would work, right? That's how it should work. You know how they throw you for loops, man. Yeah, they could be, they take it upon themselves to find a new standard and say, no, we got to review this whole thing to Novo and see what kind of facts were presented. Oh, they didn't present the facts that. They were selectively prosecuting the right wing instead of the left wing. So we're going to send it back and vacate this order and set it for trial. They could do that. But it would be pretty brazen for them to do that. Well, that would be the more advantageous situation for the legal system. I'd say if they make a factual decision, then they're not setting a legal precedent that the government is entitled to selectively prosecute, right? The legal grounds that Carney made the decision on is you can't selectively prosecute. If the night circuit says, oh, we don't believe you've chosen. We don't believe that the evidence has been presented that there was a selective prosecution, then that doesn't set a legal precedent. If they say, yeah, the government can selectively prosecute, then we've got a bigger problem, right? Well, and that's kind of the sneaky thing you would predict they would do actually. They are going to set a precedent. But what they're going to do is they're going to set a test. So they're going to set factors. And they're going to say, well, the government didn't selectively prosecute because there was actual violence or there was not as bad violence on this side or whatever they're going to make up. They're going to say, well, it wasn't selective prosecution because of X, Y, and Z facts. And so from now on, that case law is going to be used to justify selective prosecution because well, you didn't meet that standard that the night circuit gave us. That's an important distinction. I'm glad I got that out of you because it actually had an occurred to me. So like, you say, test, that's a legal term that comes up often in case law, right? That, you know, there are these elements of and the test of Rondo V USA. Okay. That's an interesting thing. And the test is going to be are you not a left wing raving fanatic. They're probably not going to say it that way, but that's fun. Right. I was going to boil down to figure out a nice legal way to say that there's a compelling state interest in prosecuting these particular extremists. And therefore, you know, something to that effect. I got you. Now, I think I told you that I was going to keep you until 1030. It's 1020. And we haven't gotten a char onesville yet. Let's get to let's get to that. Then let's wrap up Rondo. What else? What what should we wrap up Rondo with or have we covered it all? Well, first of all, I misunderstood your question. I thought you've been like, what can lawyers do like an actual practice? Like what can real lawyers do to go help him? Which, you know, obviously we're there are some of us who are trying to help him. But I misunderstood you meant like, why aren't people in a führer? Well, about this like in the right wing media sphere because yeah, they should be in fairness to your interpretation. That's initially what I did mean. But then when you said that, I was like, yeah, you're right. I should say something else. And so. Yeah, but yeah, this is a case, the importance of which cannot be overstated. I mean, if the DOJ is allowed to arrest people off the street with no charges to reverse orders of a district court because they lied to the circuit court and the magistrate judge to secure this warren in this order. I mean, where is that going to stop? I mean, you saw all the Charlottesville prosecutions. And as if by magic, they're now using it on Republicans for J6 and every other kind of prosecution you can think of. Like this is a watershed moment in legal history. It is, you know, and I think that, you know, there's a there's a there's a negative tendency in our circles to dismiss the courts as corrupt institutions of wicked powers. And just assume that they're going to do bad things and and maybe not to accept that, but to conclude that that's the foregone conclusion. Whereas like, as a matter of fact, you know, these these these institutions are for one subject to a degree of pressure. They are not entirely politically unaccountable. And so like, you know, the accepting even with reluctance that these things are going on is actually detrimental to future legal decisions, I think. And it's important that, you know, people who are politically active understand that and and focus their attention on that to the extent that, you know, they're able because when we have these things going, you know, the ninth circuit is notorious for making these decisions. That end up like screwing the whole country over, right? And this will be one of those decisions if it's allowed to go forward. If it's allowed to go forward yet, but I mean, you just like anything else, you got to fight tooth and nail and run no and run no can't appeal any of this until he's like convicted, right? If he can't take it to the Supreme Court, I mean, well, until the ninth circuit issues in opinion. Yeah, I mean, he can't just jump the chain of command and go to the US Supreme Court, but the question is, you know, with all the political capital they've been using. The political capital they've expended between today's decision, keeping Trump on the ballot nationwide and the dobs case, you know, overturning Roe v Wade, it's like, are they really going to spend more political capital for Rundo and white supremacy, you know, saying that we have due process like anybody else, like, it's a question. Like, would the Supreme Court actually hear the case? Right. The chances are the Supreme Court just says, you know, we're just going to pond and we're not going to address the question and then we'll wait for, you know, a more convenient case to come along before we try to put our foot down about this. Yeah, like, you know, five years from now, when they do this to a Republican that people care about more, like then there's Supreme Court might hear it. Yeah, probably not anytime soon. That's my pessimistic view of it. So Florida is not the only place that you've made a motion to disqualifies and prosecutors. Why don't you, why don't you tell me about this? Or this was Jacob Dixon's motion that happened in Charlottesville, right? Or and tell me about the, the goings on there. So Jacob Dixon and I are both fighting the case and his attorney filed first the motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office. We already had all the judges disqualified. So let's go back to disqualifying the judges. I'm not sure we've talked about that on the show yet. So that disqualifying the judges, it's like, well, what do you, you got the judges throwing off the case? That seems like a pretty significant accomplishment. Yeah, I think if it has an accomplishment, yeah, I mean, it should never have had to happen. But, you know, the chief judge was there. He was there that night. Like his wife was there. They were calling the cops on the people with torches. Yeah. And he did not disclose this to anybody. He was accepting guilty pleas from the other defendants in the Charlottesville case. Didn't say a word about it until we walked in for a hearing and he was on the bench and my lawyer said, judge, I'm sorry, you can't hear this case. We've got to ask you to recuse yourself. And he did. He recuse himself on the spot to his credit. But that that should never have had to happen. And then the rest of the judges were to qualify because the motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office was filed. And part of that was the chief judges wife was Antifa and Black Lives Matter and was saying, you know, F white people and all these just insane things and pushing to prosecute all of the people at the torch march. And then there were connections between the prosecutors and the Antifa and it's a mess. I mean, that's how Charlottesville is. And these were not particularly well kept secrets either. Like, like, now I know I know toughs the prosecutor was actually in the Hathi report was the judge in the Hathi report also. So this is in a publicly, this is in a government finance report that that was issued that, you know, nobody ever pays attention to because, you know, it actually exonerates us largely. But, you know, the government hires this law firm, hunting Williams. I think it was or whatever the, you know, this guy Tim Afe who is a former prosecutor, they hire his law firm to do an investigation. And issue this report in that report, it says that the judge who's prosecuting the cases is basically a party to the conflict and the and the prosecutor is a party to the conflict. And so the and then you get the one judge disqualified, but then as a consequence of the motion to dismiss the prosecutor, then you get the whole the whole circuit court is out. That's right. That's right. And, but that's not that doesn't apply to all the defendants, right? It doesn't. In Virginia, under Virginia law, those decisions don't affect each other. Each case is independent, which, you know, is a virtue in certain cases. But in this case, all the issues are effectively the same. An ethical prosecutor would have would have removed himself from all of the cases once disqualified from one of them. And their conduct is just completely on becoming of attorneys. But that's where we're at. So there's no legal mechanism to make it apply to the other cases. So we all have to file the motions. We all have to go to our own hearings on these motions. And every single time the prosecutor's office has more reps, you know, spinning this and making their defenses to why they shouldn't be removed from the case. And they get new judges to throw the dice with. It's pure madness. And so I mean, everything else going on. The professional standard of conduct for an attorney in this case is the appearance of a conflict. Is that that's correct? Right? That's that's the standard of conduct that they're supposed to be adhering to. Well, in my opinion, yes, under the law, though, you also have to show actual prejudice. And there is no actual prejudice, which is obviously untrue. I spent a month in bloody jail. My kids' lives were up in there's obviously prejudice here. But that's their ridiculous argument anyway. Okay. And so, well, I'm saying that the prejudice that I'm discussing is the prejudice of the prosecutors being the prosecutors and the judges being party to the conflict. So like that you being you being in jail is a prejudice to your defense of the same as any other defendant being in jail is a prejudice to their defense. It's not considered unusual in a criminal court, of course. Well, so there's two different concepts there. One one being bias like the judge and the prosecutors are all biased. Yeah, we would say that's prejudice, but legally speaking, the term of art means there has been harm done to the defendant that cannot be reversed. And if you continue along this path of allowing communist partisans to prosecute their political enemies, which is exactly what these prosecutors are doing, that obviously prejudices all of us who are on the wrong side of a political conflict. Right. And so, but what I'm trying to understand is, and I guess Virginia takes a case by case and they're welcome to do that. But if the if the standard has been violated in one, you know, at the very least whoever is convicted after having those motions tonight is going to have a field day at the appellate court, right? I agree. And that's what I'm saying. It's another thing that just should not have to happen. Like I said, an ethical prosecutor would already have removed themselves from all the other cases, but they want to throw the dice with each different judge and they want to throw the dice trying to get a different decision from the other judges. They've got a career to save now. And so the judges and the prosecutors have been dismissed from Dix's case. What about yours? The judges have been dismissed. The prosecutors open question. That's still pending. That's still pending. They put judge more on my case. We have the hearing on that. The week before last, we had the hearing on that in Charlottesville. And he still has not issued his order on whether he's going to do it or not. Okay. The judge more. So the circuit court was the circuit court was taken off of it. But the judge more is a Charlottesville district court or who's judge. Judge more is technically retired now. He retired in December 2022. So he came out of it. Well, any come out of retirement retired judges, here cases every now and then they're kind of like judge. I mean, they're too much. Yeah. I mean, they hear cases they want to hear. So just more wanted to hear my case. And can't remember why. So here's what I'm getting confused. So he was actually. I think he tried like, Ramos and Goodwin and these guys, a fire call correctly. James fields. So he tried those cases. And then he retired. And then he and then he's trying out more county cases. That's right. It's a little more complicated than that. It's so Thomas Jefferson said what was actually a really good system where the city and the countryside were separated. So that's why Charlottesville has its own court system. Whereas Abel moral County has its own jurisdiction and court system so that the city center of Charlottesville can't rule over the countryside. I think that's a great idea personally. However, in practice what it turned into was, you know, judge more L would be gone. And so judge more would come and sit on a seat while he's on vacation or something. And vice versa, judge more is gone. Judge were all would come into Charlottesville and sit on those cases. So it was kind of just a fiction at a certain point. It seems that's how it was explained to me by a lawyer in Charlottesville anyway. Yeah. And so while while we don't maybe there's no evidence that judge more was running around throwing bottles of, you know, yearning concrete at people in Charlottesville. He's just the guy who's sending guys to prison for a decade in the other trials and that's not that doesn't count I guess. So not as prejudice. Right. Okay. But you still got you're working with an equal level of animus is just not legally actionable. No comment. Okay, very good. Understandable. And so, so do any other defendants that you're aware of are they pursuing this this course of attack? I'm sure they would like to. You know, I know a couple of them they took please because they had families and they were denied bond by War Hill by the way. Yeah. Who can blame them for that? There are other defendants who they want to file these things and they want to fight the case, but their lawyers just aren't interested. Yeah. Where they're you know, waiting to see what happens with Dix and with my case. They're kind of hanging back seeing where are we going to go with this and how's it going to play out which is a decent thing to do considering we know what we're doing. And we were competent to fight the case. But you know, especially for you know, like fears who's stuck there without bond is got to be a super frustrating situation where like you would brought up earlier you've got code of finance who are raising these issues while your lawyers telling you that is just hold on there. We're not we're not filing these things. We're not going that proud. It's got to be super frustrating, but I'm confident that Dix and I are going to win 100% and then everybody wins. And do you know how many people have been charged thus far? I think we're up to 11 now after Russo got arrested this weekend. Okay. We're so still in custody if I'm correct. Sorry. No, no, he's not. He bonded out in Texas. So I think I can say that now. I think they made a public statement about that. What happens next? I'm not a liberty to save it. He's not in custody right now. Okay. Well, that's good news at least. And so do you know how many people are in custody? Last I checked, I think there were the two who took please. There's two more who are in custody. So I want to know. There's two and pretrial custody that you're aware of right now. I think so. Okay. The guys who took please, you know, they're you know, they're they're going to face what they're going to face. The guys who are, you know, pretrial detention is a. Well, they might it's March. I mean, they might be done already. Those guys that took please should be home by now. I count. Interesting. You know, that's the other thing too. I mean, you know, when when they're when when they hold you in pretrial detention, I mean, you get to that point. We're just like say you did it. We'll let you go. Right. That's exactly the point. That's prosecution 101. That's not just political cases. I mean, that's the standard for in case drug case rape case, misdemeanor case. The shoplifting. I mean, that's what they do. They deny you bond. They make you sit there until you will take a plea to anything. They had me in pretrial custody in New Hampshire during the COVID nonsense at the beginning of it. You know, they offered me to plead guilty to the lesser count. Sentenced me to a year in a day, which in the feds means you do 10 months. And I would have been out in 10 months. And my trial happened after nine months in pretrial detention. And then I got sentenced to three years because I committed the crime of going to trial. And so that's what we call the trial penalty technically supposed to be illegal. But everybody knows that's what happens. Yeah. And so what what else do what else am I missing in Charlottesville? For right now, nothing. Now we've got these outstanding motions. And when once we do determine who the new prosecutors are going to be in my case and Dixie's case, then we have some outstanding motions to dismiss. Okay. One has already been made public, you know, about the statute simply doesn't cover this conduct. Tracy said it, the original prosecutor, who isn't no hurry to do us any favors. Robert. 100% he hated everybody there. Yeah. But he would also do the right thing for this one magical instance and say, this is not a crime. They were marching. They called the cops. They had no and there is no crime here. Period. You want it to be a crime? Change the law. So they, you know, the Antifa got sick of that took over the prosecutor's office. And here we are. Yeah. You know, I don't want to drag you into the mod with me and Jason Kessler. I just want to ask you one question. Did I ever tell you that I was lying about Jason Kessler? About which subject? But if you just say categorically, no, I did not say, hey, Augustus Invictus, I've been lying about Jason Kessler. I never said that to you, right? No, what you said to me. Well, I mean, I told him what you said to me. So I, you know, I don't want to. Okay, I won't drag you further into it. I'm sorry. So in any case, so you have the motion spending, everything's up in the air. And the, if, if you are convicted in that case, what happens to you? Well, anything from time served to probation to five years in prison, but obviously the real consequences, they would take my licenses. I wouldn't be a lawyer anymore. That's obviously the game. Yeah. Okay. And that's the, you know, that's the, I told when I was facing my charges up here, I said, you want to charge me with five estimators and get me back to back years. I'm going to do five years and I'll do five years. I am not going to plead guilty to a felony under any circumstances. You're not taking my carry permit without a fight. Yeah. Because, no, I feel like the 20th century in America, plea deals were just not a thing. Like they would literally have you evaluated for competency. So this guy must be insane if he's just going to accept that he's guilty. Like, why would you not want the state to prove that you did this? And now we know plea deals are the norm. That's 95% of cases. Right. What do you think about that? I mean, you know, it's obviously in the, you know, when, when it defended as guilty, a plea deal can, you know, certainly be in the guy's best interest. And so, you know, as a defense attorney, what do you think about, you know, the prospect of, you know, giving somebody that out? I think it's one of those things where we're too far gone now. You know, a hundred years ago, I had a different opinion on it. Two hundred years ago, I would say the same thing. You're insane to accept this and not allow, not force the prosecution to show that you did it. But now the way things are, like you said, you get the trial penalty if you go forward. If you're going to get time served, but you're looking at 30 years, it's insane to go to trial and face that. And so, you know, you have to make that rational calculation. They did that to me. They offer me time served expungement, the whole nine yards. And if I go to trial and lose, I'm looking at 30 years in South Carolina. And it's a totally unreasonable thing to say, no, I will never take a plea to this no matter what you offer. But as a lawyer, advising my own clients, I have to say, you know, that's your decision that a rational person would accept the plea. Yeah. I, I pleaded guilty in Charlottesville. I was in El Marl County. I was like, yeah, I was like, you want me to plead guilty to two Mr. Maynard Salts. It's a violent crime. It's not, you know, without consequence of my jacket, but, you know, I get to leave here with my carry permit today or I can trust a dozen Charlottesville residents to decide what I do for the next 40 years. This is not a difficult decision, right? You want me to confess to assassinating Abraham Lincoln fine. Just let me leave with my carry permit, not spend the next 40 years in prison. 100%. And so, yeah, it's a little different when you're a lawyer and, you know, any conviction whatsoever. It's, it's going to have ramifications not just professionally, but, you know, like, like you've seen, they come after you for life after that. You admit, and I've, this is not just political cases. This is the entire legal system. I've got clients who, you know, took a plea to a DUI 20 years ago. And now they're looking at a crime in the state saying, well, he did take a plea to that DUI. And the guys like, I wasn't even guilty. I should never have taken a plea to that. And now it's affected me 20 years later. You know, that's why in a lot of cases, you don't take a plea, but in some cases, you have to. Is it kind of case by case, cases? My federal sentencing guideline was jacked up by a year because I was technically still under a criminal justice sentence because I had a suspended sentence in Virginia. You know, they're like, yeah, time, you know, all but time serves suspended on a suspended sentence. Right. And so when my offense conduct occurs, I'm, I've technically committed my offense while under a criminal justice sentence, which in the federal system, jacks your criminal history points up. Like I was in a category three instead of a one or two or, you know, and so the it's, you're like, well, you think to yourself, like, well, I'm not going to commit another crime. So what does it matter? And you'll have to accuse you of committing another crime no matter what you did. Yeah. So that's where we're at. It's, I mean, it's federal sentenced in guidelines are bad enough. Like, you know, they'll they'll up your ante for sneezing in the third grade without permission. Like federal sentencing guidelines, they'll ratchet it up for anything. Yeah, there's there's guys doing their, you know, life sentences over the arm career criminal act and stuff like that because of, you know, some, you know, chain of events and, you know, if you're an arm career criminal, I'm not missing you, but some of these things, you know, people plead out to things not thinking that they're going to end up in trouble again. And, and sure enough, you know, it comes down to and so I appreciate, I appreciate that you've stayed with me this long. I know I said I let you go at 10 30. What else anything you want to wrap up with before before I let you go, friend? Yeah, I mean, one thing you brought up earlier, you know, I've always in private conversation told people I've got a lot of people come to me saying, hey, man, I want to go to law school. I want to work for this thing that you do and I'm like, no, you don't. You did not want to do that. Don't, don't throw your life away going to law school. But, you know, the further along I get, maybe it's the older I get, maybe I'm more mature now. I don't know. But what you said earlier about, you got a fight for these things and people are black killed about the court system and they just take it as a foregone conclusion. You know, there, there does come a point where you have to say like we, no one, none of these lawyers are going to do it for us. Like we do have to have lawyers who are going to fight real cases and make real law and defend these actual laws that we still do have left as fast as the left is trying to tear it all down. So I would officially change my advice and say, yes, we do need everybody to go to law school. Let me ask you this is at what age does law school become unfeasible? I don't think it does. You know, my, my mentor, who I met in the Libertarian Party, funny enough, he didn't go to law school until he's in his 40s. I mean, he's one of the best lawyers I know. So yeah, you can, that's the thing about laws. The older you get, the better you come at it. It's like magic. You know, when I was, when I was down there and doing the Charlottesville trial in the Western District and I was held the Central Virginia Regional Jail, people were hearing about my performance in the courtroom. They're like, so you got to go to law school and you're going to become a lawyer, right? I'm like, dude, I'm 40 years old. Like what? You know, like I can't go to law school. I'm an old dog. There's a bunch of new tricks there. I talk smack on the radio. But you don't think that that's you think a guy in his 40s could go to law school, you know, provided the resources to do it and and pursue that. Yeah, man, like I said, my mentor did and he's a great lawyer and well, it's not just the resources. I mean, they all just got to find a law school that'll take you, man. But yeah, like people will ask me all the time, well, I need you to come out here and do this case. I need you to get barred in Texas. So you can do this. And I need you to get barred in the state of Oregon. So you can help me with my weed farm. And I'm like, dude, I can't get barred in any. I'm going to have to answer for all of these political allegations for Charlottesville. They'll never let me bar into another state. Like I can't imagine trying to go to law school right now with the heat that we've got. But if you can find one that'll take you shoot, man. Yeah, you'd be great at it. Yeah, well, I'll tell you what, I think that there are some guys who haven't made nearly so many mistakes as I and they might they might do well to consider that course. Whether they are some of the younger folks in the audience or you know, whether they're approaching the the halfway point. So I appreciate that advise. I said, you know, I've mentioned to people before that, you know, guys, back when we were on YouTube, I used to have younger guys calling in more frequently and they'd ask questions like that. So I got to start figuring out how we're going to get in touch with those kids and be like, yeah, I'm going into college. What I actually do. I'd be like, yeah, become a right wing fanatic lawyer and go take these bastards on. I'm not hopefully someone to you know more notorious people going to law school. I'd remind you, Dr. Duke got his doctorate from Europe. Like he doesn't have to be an American liberal law school. That's an interesting. That's an interesting point. The open road sends five bucks. Can't well law school fund. He says, all right. Well, you know, nice might might get allocated to some of the regular expenses around here before then. But I appreciate open road. So Augustus Invictus, you're a really interesting guy and I appreciate your your expertise on the subject matter this evening and for your audible service to race a nation, my friend. It's it's important work that you're doing. And I really appreciate what has been a very enlightening discussion about the about the subject matter this evening. And I thank you very much for. Well, thank you very much for having me. All right. Have a good night, my friend. All right. Ladies and gentlemen who are watching the video, I'm going to hang up on him, which is going to make my screen go dark. And then I'm going to get this camera on you and I'll be with you guys in a couple minutes to stand by while I figured us out. Let's turn that source off. No, not that we turn that thing off. And then we'll turn on. I got a hang on a second. Come over here. And we'll close that out. And then we'll bring up this thing over here. And then I'll go to this one. And with that one on, then I can turn on this source and bang. There I am. Okay. Almost looks like I know what I'm doing around here. And so ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for tuning into surreal politics this evening. Thank you to Tony and the open road for sending our super chats in tonight. Let's go ban this spammer from my from here from going TV. And oh, that's from that's not going TV. That's over on on rumble. Our friends on rumble. Let's see. We've got a whole bunch of people watching on rumble tonight. Hey, everybody on rumble. Thank you very much for tuning in. And thank you to our friends on going on TV. And thank you to our friends over there on Odyssey, of course. And so we do this every Monday at 9 30 PM, US Eastern time. I usually take your calls at 2 1 7 6 8 8 1 4 3 3. But we're not going to do that tonight because I had a guest. And so I hope that you will join us this Friday. If you are not a member, if you can, if you're a member, then you could join us Wednesday. And then we have a little more, more intimate setting in our members only live discord chance. And you can become a surreal politics dot com member. It's real politics dot com slash join. And that would be a great idea because then I get paid. And you know what? I really need to do that. If I'm going to keep on doing this, I'm smart, funny, good looking and talented. And if you want me to keep on serving, you've got to pay me for it. And there's lots of ways for you to do that, by the way. You can go to you can send me money with cash shop. My my cash tag is dollar sign edgy Chris. My my strike payments is strike dot me slash can't well. My gift and go is give send go dot com slash spm like surreal politics media. And you can find all my crypto codes at surrealpoliteaks.com slash donate or Christopher can't well dot net slash donate. And that would be great. Again, if you're over on Christopher can't well dot net that you can sign up for the email list at Christopher can't well dot net slash subscribe. You can follow me on Twitter talk radio. God, you can follow me on gab real Chris can't well. And you know, you can follow me on telegram. If you don't have one of those stupid apple phones, it's follow Chris is the public telegram channel. If you've got an apple phone, you can see as a web browser. But if you're you know, if you have an apple device in the apple corporation to such a lot to talk to and I'm not one of them. So you know, maybe you figured that out. And what else should I tell you about before we go. Obviously, we'll be back Friday, cursing up a storm for the radical agenda. And then you could call in. I'll probably I'll probably open up the phones then. And that's going to be a good time. We have a lot of fun in the radical agenda. I got there. And yeah, so do all of those things and we'll be back. Monday Wednesday Friday. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, we're doing something. And you know, you should join us because we're having a good time over here. And I did something. I'm forgetting something. I know I am. What am I going to tell you? What do I need to tell you? Well, you're just going to have to get on the email list. I'm going to go. I'm going to call tonight. But it's been a pleasure chatting with us to some victims and reading your super chats. Those of you who sent them. If you're not paying me, go ahead. Get on that. You know, because I'm smart, funny, good looking talented. And we've done a good thing tonight. So I hope that you will help the finance. And thank you to those of you who do appreciate that. You're great. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.