HuttCast
Tune in to the HuttCast Podcast where we explore an expansive array of topics—from life lessons and business insights to the latest in automotive trends and current events. As a seasoned leader in the business community, I bring practical perspectives to the table, breaking down complex issues with common sense that seems all too rare these days. Join us on HuttCast, where no topic is off limits and every conversation is an opportunity to learn something new.
HuttCast
Defending Freedom: The First Amendment, Media Bias, and Government Overreach With Ron Berutti
Could a gag order against a former president redefine the boundaries of the First Amendment? Join us as legal expert Ron Berutti unravels the complexities of a controversial legal battle challenging this very issue. Berutti, representing a media client, argues that the gag order in Donald Trump's case not only veers away from its intended purpose of ensuring a fair trial but also threatens press freedom. Together, we dissect the constitutional arguments, look into potential biases within the judiciary, and ponder the ramifications on upcoming elections, underscoring the significance of this case for our democratic principles.
Our conversation shifts gears to the intricate landscape of media bias and its influence on public perception. Are certain narratives purposely left in the shadows? We scrutinize the slant of mainstream media, suggesting a possible left-leaning tilt while acknowledging scrutiny faced by outlets like Fox News. With references to figures such as Tim Walz and Liz Collins, we explore how news can be skewed, drawing parallels with Orwellian themes of distorted truths. The impact of this media bias, especially in relation to the gag order on Trump's First Amendment rights, offers a thought-provoking discussion on the integrity of information in today's society.
Governmental overreach and the erosion of personal freedoms emerge as crucial topics in our episode. From contentious mask mandates and vaccine policies to the broader implications of constitutional rights, the challenges faced by individuals in confronting authority. Personal stories of legal battles and historical reflections, including a family's escape from communist Yugoslavia, highlight the enduring struggle for justice and freedom. In advocating for civil discourse and engagement, we champion the power of peaceful advocacy in preserving our inalienable rights, urging listeners to reflect on the constitutional processes essential to a just and equitable society.
Certified Firearms Instructor - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Thank you for listening to this episode of HuttCast, the American Podcast. We hope you enjoyed today's discussion and gained valuable insights. To stay updated on our latest episodes, be sure to subscribe to our podcast on your preferred listening platform. Don't forget to leave us a rating and review, as it helps others discover our show. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for future topics, please reach out to us through our website or social media channels. Until next time, keep on learning and exploring the diverse voices that make America great.
2, 3, 4. 2, 3, 4. Secretly recorded from deep inside the bowels of a decommissioned missile silo, we bring you the man, one single man, who wants to bring light to the darkness and dark to the lightness. Although he's not always right, he is always certain. So now, with security protocols in place, the protesters have been forced back behind the barricades and the blast doors are now sealed. Without further delay, let me introduce you to the host of HuttCast, mr Tim Huttner.
Speaker 2:Thank you, sergeant-at-arms. You can now take your post. The views and opinions expressed in this program are solely those of the individual and participants. These views and opinions expressed do not represent those of the host or the show. The opinions in this broadcast are not to replace your legal, medical or spiritual professionals. Broadcasts are not to replace your legal, medical or spiritual professionals. Welcome to the podcast today on the show via phone to my undisclosed bunker location, ron Berruti and Ron, are you there?
Speaker 3:I am.
Speaker 2:Give us a sneak peek real quick. We're in intro, but who are we talking about today? But who?
Speaker 3:are we talking about today? Well, today we are talking about my submission to the United States Supreme Court. In particular, it's going to Justice Sotomayor and the petition is designed. It's an emergency application seeking to get the Trump gag order stayed on behalf of my media client, whose First Amendment rights have been violated by it.
Speaker 2:Okay, all right, you guys want to stand by for this one? Tune in, get some popcorn. It's going to be a show. We'll be right back. Buying a gun is no ordinary purchase. Whether you're a hunter, competitive shooter or self-defense is your priority. There are many kinds of guns and many kinds of training programs. You use your brain all the time. You will rarely need to use your gun Before you find yourself in a situation where you need to make a critical decision. Make sure your training is the best you can get. It could be the difference between life and death, or freedom or detention. For the best quality training, check out PermitToCarryus. If you live in Minnesota or Wisconsin or even Florida, give Gene German a call 612-388-2403. That's, permit to Carry US or call Gene German at 612-388-2403. Welcome back to HUTCAST. Ron Rudy is here and he has got some way. Big information. Ron, you had said in pre-roll that this emergency stay for Donald Trump's client, media client. Where are we going with this?
Speaker 3:Well, this is actually my media client. We are not working with the Trump, donald Trump or the Trump campaign. My media client is a podcaster much like you, good Logic LLC. Good Logic does legal podcasting based out of New Jersey, new York. My client, good Logic's owner, is Joe Nierman. He's an attorney also, but not a constitutional attorney, and Joe retained me to represent, retained my firm, to represent his entity and to bring claims in the New York Court of Appeals or New York appellate courts to try to against Judge Mershon, who went with the gag order, seeking to get the courts to compel Judge Marchand to stay his order and allow President Trump to speak.
Speaker 2:Wow. So, in a nutshell, your customer, your client is being gagged himself.
Speaker 3:No. So under the First Amendment, there's a news gathering right and one of the things that the gag order has done is it's prevented news organizations from actually going to the source to get news. There's a First Amendment right. Has there been before President Trump in the federal case in DC? Never have we found a case where there's been a gag order imposed against a criminal defendant for the purpose of gagging that criminal defendant. Usually, or every time in the past, gag orders have been imposed to protect the integrity of the trial, so that the criminal defendant will get a fair trial. Um, so what they've done is by entering this gag order and typically, of course, the criminal defendant has every opportunity and every right to declare his innocence, speak about the trial, speak about the judge, speak about whatever he wants, because it's his liberty, potentially life that is on the line, okay, and the press has therefore a right to report it. And by entering the gag order, the right of the press the free press to report on these things we claim, has been violated.
Speaker 2:Wow, that sounds like a pretty big battle.
Speaker 3:It's been really an amazing battle to see how things transpired in the New York courts and to now see now to be taking it to the United States Supreme Court. It's exciting and I think we have a very, very good case. And whether Justice Sotomayor sees it that way or some other justice which could be the case later on, you know we don't know, but we think we're making very important legal arguments, constitutional arguments, and this is not a frivolous thing at all. This is we're very serious with this application we're bringing.
Speaker 2:Right, you want everybody to hear about this. This is how we got together and we're in 101 countries. We've got a whole lot of listeners, but a lot of our people are overseas. I would say 40% are onshore, which is a pretty good number. How do you want them to interpret this?
Speaker 3:How do you, how do you want them to interpret this? So what I want is I want that I want the court to be aware that felonies by a judge who we say was irreconcilably conflicted, and the judge caused criticism of him to be tamped by entering this gag order because we think he was conflicted because of his daughter and his wife, who have what we say are conflicts of interest, or caused him to have conflicts of interest which should have required him to recuse himself under New York law. He should never have been the presiding judge. Yet he was, and President Trump, in an unprecedented, in something that's completely unprecedented in American history, was convicted of felonies in New York.
Speaker 2:So if it's that big of a conflict of interest, can't you call him out on that and can't you change venue at that point?
Speaker 3:Well, look, I was not the attorney for President Trump. I do believe that they tried that. I haven't seen their papers, but Judge Mershon obviously disagreed. And then Judge Mershon gagged President Trump and it was around that same time that news reports came out about Judge Mershon's daughter, who we understand. News report since the trial has indicated that his daughter, for those who don't know, is, I think she's a publicist. She has a publicist company and one of her clients is none other than the Biden Harris campaign, or was the Biden Harris campaign?
Speaker 3:Ok, so you know, you can't. You can't make this stuff up. And this last quarter, when they're the quarter during which the trial was occurring, no-transcript. And it seems that there's a pecuniary benefit from having your father being the trial judge for Donald Trump, benefit from having your father being the trial judge for Donald Trump, and that's exactly the kind of conflict that we're saying required Judge Mershon to recuse himself. Furthermore, his wife, judge Mershon's wife works for Letitia James. Letitia James is the attorney general of New York. She campaigned and there is a video of her campaigning, talking about Donald Trump in a bullhorn. Lock him up, lock him up.
Speaker 3:Well, again, if that's not a conflict of interest for Judge Mershon, I don't know what is. So he has this two pronged conflict of interest and what he did is he gagged President Trump from talking about his wife and his daughter. So the person with the biggest microphone in the world is President Trump. I'd say there's probably no one who's ever had a larger media presence than Donald Trump, and I put this in my papers. And, of course, when you prevent that person from speaking out about this conflict of interest, the public is largely uninformed. Many of your listeners, maybe you yourself, are hearing this for the first time right now. Right, why is that right? Why is that?
Speaker 2:because president trump was gagged I knew there was a gag order in place, but I don't know what for, and this is what it's for yeah, that's, that's what we say.
Speaker 3:Supposedly, the gag order was put in place because President Trump was saying words that were dangerous. He was going to scare people from coming to be witnesses and he was going to make people uncomfortable and it was going to upset the trial. Well, that's not a reason to gag someone. Trial well, that's not a reason to gag someone. Under the supreme court precedent, there must be a clear and present danger, an imminent threat to the trial. And the only way uh, I've argued in the supreme court that the only way that a a criminal defendant can be gagged, um, for the purpose of gagging him, I would say is if there there is some indication that perhaps the defendant is intending to tamper with the jury with words. And let's just take a case of a mobster hey, I'm going to have you killed if you go against me. I could see gagging. That that's something that's threatening the case completely and it could be potentially imminent. But here there was nothing imminent. The court didn't go through the process that it was required to go through to determine imminence and rather and it didn't even apply that standard it applied a lesser standard because it wanted to gag President Trump and it relied upon the standard that had been imposed against him in the district.
Speaker 3:The DC court. The federal court in DC was the first court to enter an order like this, but there was no conflict like there is in New York. So we've argued. There's been, there have been in the past. There have been other cases. The district, the DC court went to the DC Circuit Court, which the appeals court. They upheld it. They affirmed the DC Circuit. And in the past there's another circuit court has said if there's trial publicity and it's inconvenient for the defense, tough luck. This isn't about making life easy for the defense. This is about protecting the criminal defendant's rights. We say that that circuit court got it right, the DC circuit got it wrong and New York court could not rely upon the DC circuit because the DC circuit got it wrong. And so that's basically the gist of the argument. And on top of that, the layer on top of that is that this particular gag order was really in an effort to really protect judge mershon against the criticism of his conflict of interest, which was a gross violation of new york law.
Speaker 2:We allege who else is bringing this out?
Speaker 3:um, well, nobody. Uh, you would think that, and and this is good logic and Joe Nierman, this was his idea, and he said wait a minute, something's very wrong with this picture. And why isn't the whole media, why aren't all the media coming out and banging on pots and pans and saying you can't do this? And saying you can't do this? Well, because I think we know that the uh legacy media is has become something uh similar to pravda, where they're, they're cheerleading, and so they're not going to go do it. They didn't. You know, no one's, no one has uh reported on these conflicts in the major news media organizations, so they're certainly not going to go and try to, you know, argue that it's a violation of their constitutional rights. And then many other people just didn't think about it. So Joe Nierman thought about it and I think it was brilliant. And here we are.
Speaker 2:Doesn't Fox have any teeth in this?
Speaker 3:They do not Nobody. Joe Nierman, any teeth in this? They do not, nobody.
Speaker 2:Are they?
Speaker 3:aware, a little guy, sorry.
Speaker 2:Are they aware of this? Fox News.
Speaker 3:I do not know. I don't have contacts with Fox News and they should certainly be aware of it. You know, again, they're a major news organization.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 3:They should be. They should certainly be aware of it. You know, again, they're a major news organization, right, it's hard, it's hard to it's hard to fathom how major news 10, 20 years where the media has become something very different than what a lot of us grew up with, right, these are the things you know. When I was a kid we used to see Pravda and you'd see the Soviet Union news and you'd almost laugh at what they're saying. But you wonder if these poor people in the Soviet Union, like, even believed it or what. But you see, now here in the United States they're doing the same thing. It's a lot of propaganda and we have a country divided with the news media that is pumping up one side or maybe the other with propaganda a lot of times, sure, and news stories are not being discussed. You used to have point counterpoints on news programs right Right right.
Speaker 3:You know, let's think about Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd, right, you would have a point counterpoint and you'd have debate and you'd have argument. You know the people decide. You know who's right, who's wrong. Are they both wrong? Are they both right? You don't have that anymore, you just have. You know, you have biased news in the main media organizations for the most part, and the real news stories that really need to be peeled back the layers need to be peeled back are not being handled many times, many cases.
Speaker 2:You feel that's a Democratic thing, or do you feel it's both and everybody's taking a little bit of ownership there?
Speaker 3:Well, look, I think that it's primarily on the left. But you know, look, I think that there's certainly I think Fox News has, I think a lot of things that Fox News never answered for with what happened in 2020. And you know the other again, there are other major news organizations too. You know, where's Newsmax, where's OAN on this? I haven't seen it. Maybe they've talked about it. I haven't seen it and it's again. It's a major story. The news is out there. There are some journalists out there who have reported on it. I know Laura Loomer is the one who pointed out the wife conflict. There are some people who have actually reported on this story, but they don't have the megaphone, you know, and they're considered to be fringe and they're treated as being people who are not serious, but they're actually raising the serious questions. You know there's a conspiracy theory. So you see that all the time that, that, that the conspiracy theories seem to be coming true right, actually almost every time, more and more, every time you turn around it's conspiracy.
Speaker 2:Oh no, it ain't. It's. Uh, you just haven't seen it yet.
Speaker 3:It's extraordinary. Yeah, and like I said, you can't write this. No, no, it's really 1984 stuff.
Speaker 2:Yes, some Orwell.
Speaker 3:It really is Total, orwell, yeah.
Speaker 2:And if nobody's read the book Orwell, you need to. You need to just go back and and read it and just you're going to be floored now 1984, yeah, yeah I, I know that, uh, in our our presidential debate last night, our vice presidential debate, vance handed him his ass. Totally it was, it was, it was. It wasn't even fair. But a lot of people don't know what we know here in Minnesota about waltz and the news Please tell us?
Speaker 2:What's that? Please tell us. Yeah, I've got a lot of listeners at our state capitol that are on this program, and one in particular, and this is just to cement your position about the news and how. You don't hear nothing and then magically delicious stuff happens Behind the veil Paul E Gazelka. He is the Senate Majority Leader of Minnesota for many years. He has been toe-to-toe with Tim Walz and he can tell you some stories in his new book he just released here two weeks ago. He was on the show. He says guys, you don't understand until you've actually been in a room with this guy.
Speaker 2:Things the news didn't kick out there, things that happened. Liz Collins she is a WCCO was excuse me, let me correct, that was an anchor for WCCO. Now she's running Alpha News and she was on the show. Her husband was the guy on the phone when George Floyd's police was on his neck. I mean Derek Chauvin was on his neck. I mean Derek Chauvin was on his neck. Chauvin's on the phone. He's talking to this guy and this guy he's talking to is her husband. He's the Minneapolis Police Union rep.
Speaker 2:The news totally destroyed that Use of force was authorized. He was doing the right thing. The only thing that got Derek in trouble was he didn't flip him over and make sure he was still breathing. If he was still breathing, or at least tried to, I don't think those guys would be in trouble. My point is the news just spun this around their lying to us was her book. She released it on this show and it was a killer book, no pun intended. Yeah, incredible. So I can see your point with this, or your client's point. And what is the hope I mean? So they lift the gag order and they can talk about it then Well, if they lift the gag order, President Trump can talk about it.
Speaker 3:So in a strange way, we're actually making arguments for President Trump. It's not really by proxy.
Speaker 3:Again, we're not working. Yeah, it's really, it's a collateral attack. They call it on this order. Okay, and the attack is based initially on our client's First Amendment, right to free press. But tangentially and probably overarching really is how this particular gag order violated President Trump's First Amendment rights and in doing so it violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial, to a fair trial.
Speaker 3:So if, if good logic had been able to, and good logic had put questions to President Trump about, about conflicts, and good logic had requested a, an interview with President Trump, and good logic was turned down because of the gag order. So good logic has standing to to raise these issues and it was its rights. Rights were violated by the gag order. And once it raised the issues, then it also brings into focus what happened with President Trump, and I know President Trump, his people, have filed in the New York courts, have sought to argue that the gag order was illegal and constitutional. I haven't really seen arguments. They've gone nowhere so far in that and I don't know how focused they are on at this point. I mean, they're 34 days away from an election.
Speaker 2:Yeah right.
Speaker 3:But look, at the end of the day, the American people are going to be casting what could be the most important electoral votes in our nation's history.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:Or maybe as far back as 1864 or something like that. Yeah, but this is a big one and they should be informed properly or they should be able to reach their own conclusions as to what actually happened in this criminal trial. And my take, my personal take, is that what happened is that this was a sham, that President Trump was, this was a, the convictions were, the goose was cooked before the fire was turned on, you know, and I think that he stood no chance and they did everything they could to make sure that he stood no chance.
Speaker 2:And the they's are who.
Speaker 3:I think the courts, I think it's really, I think it's a look. I argued in New York. I'm a New York attorney and.
Speaker 3:I'm a very firm believer in our law and in the rule of law, believer in our law and in the rule of law.
Speaker 3:I don't think that the appellate courts wanted to touch this and I don't believe that this judge was unbiased. And I think it's a terrible look for the New York courts not to have done something to stop this from happening because ultimately it damages the integrity of every single case, as I see it, before the courts. It adds the question is the outcome political, and that's not what courts exist to do. And if we can't have a court that we believe in, a court, the judicial system that we believe is going to be fair, unbiased and neutral, then our entire rule of law is going to be on, unbiased and neutral, then our entire rule of law is going to be on the brink of collapse and that's really very dangerous. And that's why this particular case we think needs to be heard by the Supreme Court and needs to be examined very closely because again, our institutions are under attack and this is a grave injustice that occurred and a grave danger to our constitution I.
Speaker 2:You struck a chord there. You said our institutions are under attack. What's new? We're always under attack as conservatives but it's not just conservatives.
Speaker 3:I, I think that it's, I think, if you look really across our society and again, this isn't what my case is about, but you know, I'm also an observer of and I I have a lot of very yeah a lot of big cases against a lot of uh powerful entities and people.
Speaker 3:um, that's what I do uh. You see that uh everywhere, from uh our religious institutions to our corporate institutions, history, small business, everything is under attack. And my grandfather escaped communism in 1948. And I learned he risked everything. He put his family on a 10-horsepower boat and went across the sea. One of the first people to escape. He just had to be free. He couldn't live in a society that was false and that didn't allow him to be a free person. He had to risk everything to do it. And I look now and I say you know, where are we going in this country and where are my kids? Where do my grandkids go? Where do they? Where's?
Speaker 3:where does their 10 horsepower boat, take them to yeah, this is the you know, as, as I think it was Reagan who said this is the last best hope on earth you know, and, and, uh, we, we have to fight to preserve it. I, and that's what, that's what I do every day, uh, pretty much in my job. I, I fight to preserve our institutions, I fight to preserve what I think is the constitutional, uh, correct, uh, applications of the law, and, uh, and, and this is a big one, this is a very big, big one.
Speaker 2:So what do you see? Where did you come from the family?
Speaker 3:My family yeah.
Speaker 1:Your grandfather.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so my grandfather was Yugoslavian At the time. He was Croatian, but at the time it was Yugoslavia 1948.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 3:It was right after World War II. My grandfather's my hero he had. He was a phenomenal, phenomenal pastry chef and also chef, and he just wanted to work and he got ended up running a hotel on an island in Croatia, then Yugoslavia, and it's kind of off the beaten path from the war, but it's. At one point the SS came to the island to get all the able-bodied men and my grandfather outsmarted the SS to avoid capture and then he had to leave the island and then he ended up with the partisans who were communists and he hated them just as much and he deserted the communists and he hid the rest of the war up in the attic of his home. But then when he came out he refused to join the Communist Party and they took his hotel away and then they told him that they were going to take his home away because he wouldn't join the party and he was going to leave his family homeless. And he figured a way to escape. And he's going to leave his family homeless and he figured a way to escape.
Speaker 3:And just an amazing human being and to talk to him about it. He was very humble about it. He goes. That's just one story. There's so many stories and he never really thought there was anything really special about what he did. But boy.
Speaker 2:It was there, you know, when I first started this about four years ago. Four and a half years ago, I had a gal on and one of our first shows was uh, the year I met adolf hitler. Now this gal's in her 90s ish and she's spry as can be, and the memories that go back are so such a scar and I'll tell you what I mean.
Speaker 2:She's 97 years old. I felt like a total crud, like hey, let's talk about this and and it was so like yesterday for her. My point, my point with this is, you know, if we don't study the past, we're certainly condemned the future. It's nothing new to that. And how can we, we as a society? Again, you crossed upon listeners. You might have some of this in your world, but how do we as a society say enough of this and stomp our feet? I mean, do we have to have a January 6th? I mean, you tell me what makes sense.
Speaker 3:Well, listen, I believe in the rule of law and I believe in our Constitution and I believe in our courts. Still, and I believe that the United States, with all of its flaws, still is the best system and it's the one that has made people the freest and therefore the most prosperous and, ultimately, the happiest people in the history of the world, and it's. You know, one thing that I'm kind of fascinated about is that there's so very few attorneys who are fighting the fights that I fight. You know you have entities you have like America First Legal, or you have, you know, various organizations that bring lawsuits, say, for vaccines or for DEI, whatever, and I'm doing all those things, but it's there are very few, because and people don't want to, people don't want to work for my firm. They think, oh, you're a right-wing conspiracy.
Speaker 3:I'm just a person who is. I'm just a regular guy and I just went to. I went to a pretty humble law school. I think that I'm pretty smart and I think that I make good arguments. But you know, I'm not an Ivy League guy and I didn't have the great thinkers as my professors. But here I am. I understand that my role in society as a lawyer is to do what I took an oath to do, which is to uphold the Constitution and laws, and that's what I asked the courts to do every day. And there's such reticence in the community of laws now that to even take these positions because people are afraid of being canceled.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:People are afraid of being mocked. People are afraid of being canceled. Yes, people are afraid of being mocked. People are afraid of being disbarred. You know, in some states, all these people, people who are going against the vaccines, you know, they're getting their bar licenses threatened.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:Yes, then what good's our law?
Speaker 2:What good's our law if we can't protect it with ourselves?
Speaker 3:Well, that's my point is look, I have an obligation to continue fighting this fight. I feel that it's my moral duty. It's my duty to do this and I can't spend my days worrying about what if that happens, because I know what I'm doing is ethical and I know what I'm doing is legal. I don't file frivolous claims and if somebody wants to attack me for that, I can't stop them from doing that. But I'm not going to be bullied into refusing to defend or failing to defend the rights of my clients and the Constitution and laws of the United States. And I do believe that ultimately, this is all going to turn around. I believe that in my heart that this is going to turn around, and I believe the Supreme Court is going to take a greater and greater role in doing that. And I think the last few terms of the Supreme Court I think we've seen that, where the court is starting to take some of these issues on and starting to really turn back this insanity that's been going on in our country.
Speaker 2:God, I hope so. I hope so Because you know you said something about the guys taking the jab. Well, in Minnesota, here we had a candidate against Waltz and an excellent candidate, a very excellent candidate, a doctor. He's anti-jab, he's pro-patient. He's in audience. Dr Scott Jensen, he's been on the show a couple times I've spoken to Scott Jensen.
Speaker 2:I know him sure oh okay, and all they did was attack him. They attacked him they, they bullied him. They went after his license time and time and time again, and I do believe he's fighting one of those in court right now yeah, they, uh, that's what they do.
Speaker 3:And again they have, they have the, the legacy media on their side.
Speaker 2:You don't see uh unbiased reporting, you just see you see what they want you to see you're being programmed theory.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory, and it's once. It's once. They say it's a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy theory once they say you're a right-wing lunatic. You're a right-wing lunatic, uh, you don't. They don't tell you that you're. They don't say I talk about left-wing lunatics right, it's not because there are no left-wing lunatics not according to them perfectly sane and sober people.
Speaker 3:Um, you know it, it's, it's, it's, it's really, it's really kind of frightening, you know when you really boil it down. And I worry about my kids and especially, you know, I don't have grandkids yet. I'm 58. I have three beautiful older kids and I got two young guys at home and I wonder, you know, I wonder what their lives are going to be like when they're 58, and and and where. What are their kids going to be faced with? Because I've just seen, from the time that my older kids to the time now in school, things have changed so dramatically and so much for the worse and they've become schools, have become these, these cesspools of, of, of left wing politics, these cesspools of left-wing politics theory.
Speaker 3:Indoctrinations yeah, we fight. We have cases against a lot of the transgender madness in schools. My wife was arrested at a school board meeting for not having a mask on.
Speaker 1:Really, we have a trial next week.
Speaker 3:Yes we have a trial next week for her not having a mask on Valentine's Day 2022. We took that case all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Court didn't take it, but we believe that she had an absolute constitutional protest right to not wear a mask. After eight months of doing the same thing, they finally arrested her when the mask mandate was about to end because they wanted to get their pound of flesh. It's scary. Her protest was for special needs kids and that's something I remember watching the movie Rain man right in 1989. And I'd never heard of autism. What is?
Speaker 2:this Dustin.
Speaker 3:Hoffman yeah, this can't be real. And well, you know, we've got an autistic child and it seems like two out of every three people I know is an autistic child. Now, and this is the Bobby Kennedy thing and I'm so glad that he he endorsed President Trump because he's really a brilliant guy and he's a really he really cares about this issue and he's at the vanguard of this issue and the vaccines and everything else and we need to. These are issues that need to be dealt with and, um, nobody's doing it and and no one wants to talk about it right, the media doesn't?
Speaker 2:they all climb up, including some of the people you just go out and talk to they. They don't want to engage it right.
Speaker 3:The media said that vaccines don't cause injuries, so vaccines don't cause injuries.
Speaker 3:The politicians have said vaccines don't cause injuries. So vaccines don't cause injuries. There's no desire to peel back the rhetoric and to look beneath the surface and say, wait a minute, how can you say vaccines don't cause injuries? Say, wait a minute, how can you say vaccines don't cause injuries? I don't know if you've ever dealt with Steve Kirsch, for instance. Steve Kirsch is a very wealthy guy. I think he invented the mouse for computers. I think that was his big invention.
Speaker 3:But he got vaccinated and then he started looking into these COVID vaccines and he is the single most the biggest anti-vax advocate that there is. He's willing to bet like I'll bet you a million dollars, you and I have a debate and I'll win the debate on the vaccines. He gets all the information and he aggregates it and he talks about all these different studies, aggregates it and he and he talks about all these different studies. And you would think, with all this massive information, that there would be people in government saying, well, wait a minute. You know this is a serious guy and this is a serious issue and we need to really take a look at it. No, they're trying to silence him. He's a conspiracy theorist, he's a nut. That's's their take. And of course he's not. He's a brilliant man.
Speaker 2:Waltz did some of that here in Minnesota. I was on conversations with restaurant owners, people, places of gathering, and I had my docket was full of interviews just on what happened, and they tried to arrest him, just like your wife. They couldn't pin it on them, but they did go through the motions. Did your wife get out of it, or how did that end up?
Speaker 3:She was arrested. We filed a she actually. What's really interesting is she actually filed a federal lawsuit before being arrested, because the month before, at the school board meeting, they canceled the meeting so that she couldn't speak and then they started threatening publicly that anyone coming without a mask was going to be arrested. She'd been doing this for eight months, coming without a mask and hadn't gotten arrested, as at other people. But they just wanted to. They wanted to to make people comply. This is their power grab.
Speaker 3:Yep, and she said no, and her protest was that the masks were hurting her child. Her child couldn't learn. Another child was getting sick from licking the inside of the mask. It's a five-year-old, and they had doctor's notes and she had gone through all the proper channels to try to, you know, get some relief with medical notes, et cetera, and they just ignored it.
Speaker 3:And so her protest was to the school board. These are the people closest to the. You know, our system of government was designed that we would be able to speak to the people closest to us, our neighbors, because they would care about us. Well, here you have a school board, and that we were supposed to have a bottom-up government right, which, of course, now has been completely inverted, where everything comes from the top now and the people in the local school board now are just little pawns of some bigger machine, it seems.
Speaker 3:So what happened here is she said, look, you need to contact the governor and try to get some relief, because kids with special needs are being harmed, and there are a lot of them. And so, like I said, she filed a lawsuit trying to get an injunction preventing them from going through with their arrest, saying that she had a constitutional right to protest, et cetera. And the police came and tried to force her to put on a mask, which she politely refused she was always polite, always dignified and they just slapped cuffs on her and arrested her. So, october 11th, we have a trial, after two years of waiting.
Speaker 2:Oh man, Two and a half years of waiting.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So do you predict just a stay in movement? Uh, how do you figure it's going to turn out?
Speaker 3:oh, I don't, uh I'm certainly not going to predict, uh, my client's fate. Uh, it's also my wife. We're gonna, we're gonna fight, we're gonna fight this. Uh, there's a lot of interest in it. I think that people are going to show up. Uh, I hope they do and uh, they should, because this, uh I don't know about what's, I'm sure it's happening, happening in Minnesota, because I know it's happening in pretty much every state. These school boards are becoming tyrannical.
Speaker 3:Oh for sure, and yeah, and this has to happen. We have to punch back. We have to fight back legally, you know, peacefully, legally we have to fight back. We cannot allow them to just trample our rights without making them realize that people are not going to sit back and take it, because once they take your right a little bit, then they're going to take it a little bit more. It never stops. That's the history. That's the history of mankind.
Speaker 2:And they need a dollar. So they ask for 10. Negotiate it down to five, and all you want to do is give them a dollar at that point, just to get them out of your way. It's constant.
Speaker 3:They negotiate down to five, but they actually take 15.
Speaker 2:When they only needed a dollar.
Speaker 3:They didn't even need a dollar.
Speaker 2:Yeah right, we have one of those in our city.
Speaker 3:They needed to give you a dollar is what they needed to do. Yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:And they're so over-grabbing. Now I hope your wife gives them some kung fu on this deal.
Speaker 3:Well, we have. Our defense strategy is being developed and I'm certainly not going to discuss it, but you know, we certainly would love to have people come down to the courthouse in Cranford, new Jersey, on October 11th, friday at 9 am and come sit in the courtroom and come give my wife some support and me some support, and give freedom some support too, because that's what this is really about. Again. It's. It's about fighting for freedom and fighting for our children and fighting for what's right. And when a school board has a parent of a special needs child arrested, taken away in handcuffs because she doesn't have a face diaper on, something's very wrong. Something is very wrong.
Speaker 2:Yep you tell her we're rooting for her here at HuttCast in my 101 countries, okay.
Speaker 3:You got it.
Speaker 2:And if you're in Jersey In every language.
Speaker 2:In seven languages. Yes, we're translating seven languages, I know that for sure. So, whatever that is, yeah, I hope she just gives it. That, just hammers it down on them. But you know, I talked to some Democratic friends and you know they're like old school Dems, so they're like today's Republicans. They just don't know their party left them. And I say, you know? So we have constitutional talks all the time. And I said, well, so what do you think of our constitution? Well, it's a living, breathing document. I says since when?
Speaker 3:Well, it has to change as time changes. Well, that's not a constitution, you know, and I will give credit where it's due Mark Levin. I've learned so much from listening to Mark Levin. He's a really brilliant constitutional guy and he says a living, breathing constitution is a dead constitution. And he's right. The constitution is essentially a contract. If you have a contract and the terms constantly change, well, you don't have a contract. And that's the same with the Constitution.
Speaker 3:The Constitution has a fixed meaning. Just because times change doesn't mean the meaning of the Constitution changes. It just means that the world has to govern, be governed, in terms of what the Constitution requires. Govern, be governed in terms of what the constitution requires. And it's a. It's a. It's a constitution designed to limit government. Um, you can't be free without limited government and if you want to change that, then you need to.
Speaker 3:There's a constitutional amendment process and the 14th amendment was great for that it did. It made vast changes to our country in 1865 or 64, I think it was 65 was passed. It changed things very dramatically because there had been a civil war. Right, yeah, but that still, ultimately, the 14th Amendment still is a fixed constellation. It's a fixed constellation, it's not a moving target and we have to respect the Constitution or we have no government at all, if you have any more, because they tend to not want to be your friend anymore once they find out what you believe or what you think.
Speaker 3:We've lost tons of friends and family. Two very close family have stopped talking to us and it's just part of the deal. Like okay, I'm sorry, that's the way you feel. You can't get politics out of the way. We can't have an honest disagreement. But you ask them what is the limit of government? What is the federal government's limit? What can the federal government not do? And you'll be very hard pressed to get an answer. Well, they can't tell you you have to have an abortion or you can't have an abortion. Well, so let's let's pretend that's right. But how about in terms of spending? How about in terms of passing laws to affect the country? How about in terms of of anything?
Speaker 2:setting policy.
Speaker 3:They believe in unlimited government, right, and what they believe in is is tyranny. Yes, it's tyranny they believe in. Yeah, that's what they believe in. They believe in dictatorship and tyranny. And if you don't have a limited government, you don't. Yes, it's tyranny they believe in. Yeah, that's what they believe in. They believe in dictatorship and tyranny, and if you don't have a limited government, you don't have freedom. It's that simple. Everything the government does, every law passed, takes a little bit of freedom away.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:Every single law, every single regulation takes a little bit of someone's freedom away. That's the absolute reality. And here we have these albatross laws and these masses of regulations and there's no end to them, because nobody is holding government to account in terms of its limitations, its constitutional limitations. I shouldn't say nobody, but it's very difficult.
Speaker 2:Right. We have a good group here in Minnesota. The right side is right, and there's a lot of guys on the left side who are still fighting for the right stuff too. I mean, it's the progressive crazies, the socialist communist left party. That is just out of control. They just out of control. They're out of control.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And I do believe that Wallace is one of those from what I've read and seen, I I you know he's coming across as the folksy common guy.
Speaker 2:Wrong wrong.
Speaker 3:You know that's, that's, that's, that's, that's the facade, and I think that you can kind of see. You can kind of see that facade melting away yesterday at times when you didn't seem to have a he couldn't, he couldn't find that pre-program a knucklehead.
Speaker 2:Right, exactly, and if we're listening to him as long as I have, he's probably 40 miles from us in this undisclosed location and he's just, he don't get it. He don't get it. And when he started imposing these restrictions on businesses around here, he started doing him and the Mayor Fry, mayor Fry, jacob Fry, would for this George Floyd thing. You know, it's too bad. The guy died, I get it, but the cops didn't call themselves to that location. And then he goes out and calls Fry, calls the cop a killer, I mean day one, and he sat back. Then the riots started.
Speaker 3:Yeah, look, that was like my take on it all is that the greatest disservice done was those cops did the greatest disservice to our country, because look what happened. I mean you know it was foolish. I don't pretend to know all the facts, but you just see that the fallout has been horrific for our country, Incredible. What I find, what I do, what I have heard, is that your governor's wife said that she opened the windows to the governor's mansion because she wanted, she was happy, to smell the burning city. I mean that, to me, is unconscionable and it tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, she'd change her mind if it was her building burning.
Speaker 3:I wouldn't be married to that person. You know, if I didn't believe that way, I wouldn't be married to that person, right? So you have to. That, to me, tells me everything I need to know about Governor Walz, right there, and I don't like it one bit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, no, and we don't. We've known this for years around here, but all of a sudden, first of all, camilla was installed. You don't go from number 11 in the DNC to not having a DNC to being picked because your president, who mentally couldn't make it in the first place, is all of a sudden Now she's. The magic trick is going to be everybody thinking their job is to make everybody think that she was the right pick, that she was picked when she was actually installed.
Speaker 3:She's the chosen one. She was chosen for this, wasn't elected. She was chosen.
Speaker 2:Then the democratic process is no good.
Speaker 3:Well, that's again. It's unlimited government. It's complete lack of respect for the Constitution and for the people Right. That's what that is and that's the party. That's the party, and they call themselves Democrats. There's nothing democratic about it.
Speaker 2:Not at all.
Speaker 3:It is. You know, I said years ago, if you looked at the CP USA website, Communist Party USA website, and you saw the positions they had, they are, you can you can almost do an exact layover of the Democrat policies. They're the same policies, but they just call themselves Democrats, not communists. Policy-wise there's not a whole lot of difference. There's not a whole lot of daylight between them and it's getting worse and worse with the censorship and everything else. But we do these cases all the time. This is what we do and I see all these issues and I fight these issues and, yeah, sometimes you think you're pushing against a string, but other times you know you're landing a punch here and there and that's all we can hope for playing punches Playing pool with a wet spaghetti noodle huh.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I could tell you about. You know, I was one of my first big cases in the, my first big constitutional case. I really was a lawyer who did complex commercial work fraud cases and racketeering cases and that kind of thing and racketeering cases and that kind of thing, one of my first big constitutional cases. We sued Mayor de Blasio in New York when he put in his vaccine mandate to get into restaurants and gyms, et cetera. And what happened? If you look at the court cases, we lost the case. The case was ultimately dismissed.
Speaker 3:But what they did is it was filed in federal court and so every time we got close to getting a hearing they would withdraw a part of the mandate and say, ok, the case is moot, now it has to be dismissed, you can't, there's nothing to decide. And I said no way. But there's this other mandate, that's the same thing. So three times that happened that we got close to a decision and they pulled a mandate. They pulled another mandate, then they pulled a third mandate and each time they argued that it was moot. The third time they finally succeeded in federal court. You have to have an active controversy. If there's no controversy anymore, the federal court has no jurisdiction. So that's what they're trying to moot it. They're trying to say the court has no jurisdiction because they got rid of that mandate.
Speaker 3:And I said, well, no, there's another mandate, like, for instance, I have one eye on my Mets game right here. And I said, well, the baseball teams in New York are not going to be able to have their unvaccinated players play under this other mandate that you have, and it's the same mandate as, essentially, the one that you have in a restaurant. So the issue is not moot, it still exists and it's likely to happen again. Boom, they made us. Mayor Adams made a special exemption for sports teams, which was outrageous. And then I said, well, you know this is moot, I go no, but wait a minute. You have this other mandate. You have employees have to be vaccinated. Employ, wait a minute you have this other mandate.
Speaker 3:You have employees have to be vaccinated, Employees of private employers have to be vaccinated, and it's the same thing. And boom, they pulled that one away. Sure, sure. So so you know, I feel like, well, you know, the record may show that we lost, but I think we won a lot. I think we and that makes me feel good you know, we did something that was really important to the people and we upheld constitutional rights. It may be a little too late, but you know, we took that fight to them and you can't be afraid to take the fight to them.
Speaker 2:For a takeaway what do you want people to know? How do they engage at their level? We're not attorneys. We're you know, we're we're dishwashers and we're gas pumpers and we're we're we're workers. So how do you want them, what do you want them to know, to engage? This?
Speaker 3:Uh, what I think. Uh, and just just you know I'm going to play like a debate. Well, let me tell you about my background. Um, I, I went to, I went to to State University and I majored in hotel restaurant management. So, yes, I have been a dishwasher and I did not work at McDonald's, like Kamala Harris didn't work at McDonald's. But I have worked in restaurants. I washed dishes, I bartended.
Speaker 1:I cooked tables.
Speaker 3:I did everything. I know that business and I love that business and I love the no tips thing.
Speaker 3:No tax tips, but no. So what's what's the takeaway? Look, the takeaway is uh, again, I, I, I don't, I don't look at myself as like a a fancy, uh, white shoe lawyer. I look at myself as a guy who uh, came up from uh you know, from I, I I saw my grandfather and uh what he struggled to do to be free and and I always, uh, I, I always uh sort of sided with uh, you know, as a kid I cast my first vote for ronald reagan and I saw him speak on the day he opened his campaign at liberty state park and liberty in 1980. That's what changed. That changed my also seeing him make that speech and running for office.
Speaker 3:And at the end of the day, it's just citizen engagement, right, go to the meetings, be heard, do not be afraid to speak out, do not be afraid of being canceled. They can't. Their biggest fear is to have to respond. And so what do they do to avoid a response? Is they mock you? And this is, you know, it's the rules for radicals thing. Right, you mock your opponent, rules for radicals. You turn them into a yeah, you turn them into a cartoon of themselves, and no, don't let that happen. Let them, when they turn you into a cartoon, bring your neighbor and make them turn that person into a cartoon of himself. And no, don't let that happen. Let them, when they turn you into a cartoon, bring your neighbor and make them turn that person into a cartoon. And make them turn.
Speaker 3:They're so afraid of the people they're supposed to represent, uh. And and then they they say oh well, you're, you're violent, you're this and of course you're not. You know, you go there and you're violent, you're this and of course you're not. You go there and you're peaceful, you state your case, you state your issues. You don't have to be a lawyer to have common sense, and common sense is really what conservatism is. Talk, common sense, talk, the wisdom of the farm, or the wisdom of the restaurant, or the wisdom, uh, whatever you do, yeah, you have a certain amount of wisdom, uh, and common sense, hopefully. And if you don't have common sense, then of course you're a democrat, but that's a different story. But, um, you know it's, it's, it's, uh, it's, it's really simple. Uh, it's, it's hard to be the one to stand up and speak, it's hard to be the one to expose yourself, to show your butt to the enemy, right, yep, yep, but there's a great amount of satisfaction and power that comes with it. If you do it the right way, you do it civilly, the way we're supposed to as Americans, or wherever you are in a democratic society or, in this case, a republic, when you're speaking from your heart, from your common sense for your family, for the values of freedom, it's very powerful.
Speaker 3:Freedom, I found, is I've done talks before on the Declaration of Independence. I used to read it every Fourth of July to groups and then I'd have a conversation about what does it all mean and, essentially, what freedom is? It's our right to. We are born with our rights. We are born as human beings. We have human rights. That's what human rights are. Our rights are the things that make us human. We speak freely. We worship. We don't worship. We worship the way we want to worship. We gather with friends. We gather property to make our lives better. We defend ourselves. These are the things you see in the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights. Government can't just intrude in our homes that they were the kings of our castle. These are the basic needs of human beings and the basic way we operate. The government cannot take that away from us because that is in aid in us, but they can repress it and that's where you lose your freedom.
Speaker 3:When I talk to people about what freedom is, I have lit up rooms. I did one to a group of college kids in a Newark school, newark, new Jersey, inner city county college, and it was a room really full of minority kids mostly out of Newark in the area and I had this conversation and you could literally see the light bulbs going off in their heads because they were hearing things they hadn't heard, they hadn't thought of. And freedom is exciting. I got so many great questions and I was so excited when I was done speaking with them and it was such a great feeling. Freedom connects us because we're all human beings and we all understand it when we think about it and talk about it. And when you start doing that all these policies that these people want to impose upon us you can start seeing that those are not policies for free people, those are policies for the oppressed and repressed. And um, that's what, that's what these people are afraid of to be exposed so I do right?
Speaker 2:no, you got it. I mean, you nailed it right on the head. A firm believer, I firm believer. I mean I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. Now what, when the politics fail? And I think it was von Klaus that said war is another politics by other means. And when do you? January 6th, and they like to call this insurrection, but there was no insurrection. When do you put your foot? 6th, and they like to call this an insurrection, but there was no insurrection. When do you put your foot down and say, okay, talks, do us no good, because you keep throwing out there the peaceful part, and it ain't peaceful if it ain't working.
Speaker 3:I am a firm believer in our Constitution and our constitutional process. I think that there are very serious constitutional arguments that were being made, uh, in a non-violent manner, on january 6th. I think that there's a real question. Just because mike pence said it was unconstitutional doesn't mean it was unconstitutional, right right? Alternate slave delegates, yeah, that that that's an unsettled question of law and that's what? Again, that's what lawyers exist to do. That's why we have this system.
Speaker 3:That case should have been taken. And what happened again in those cases? A lot of times those cases were taken and again the courts would say, well, it's moot, because we don't have standing and all these technical reasons. Those questions were never adjudicated. It was always, they were always thrown out. Those cases were all thrown out on technicalities. And so when you hear these debate moderators saying, well, 34 courts or whatever number it was, all of a sudden it was not true. Well, that's not true. That's not true. No court said it wasn't true. No court actually took testimony. None of them did. And ultimately, the Supreme Court never decided on this idea of alternate slaves of electors.
Speaker 3:And if there was a belief of fraud, and what should have happened is that there should have been a trial where the evidence was brought out about the fraud and the alleged fraud, ok, and and the other side could have put in their opposite, their opposite proofs, and there could have been a decision made by a fact finder as to whether or not there was fraud in the election. That that's the system that we're supposed to have and that didn't happen. And so of course, you get people who are upset. Yes, people feel their rights are being taken away because they weren't.
Speaker 3:Yep. Even if they were wrong, even if there was zero fraud, which I think is facially false, I mean, of course there was fraud at some level. Maybe it wasn't enough, who knows? I'm not going to do that debate right now. But even if they were completely wrong, if they believed that they should have had the opportunity and they had some kind of good faith basis to do it, they should have been able to bring that case and there should have been a hearing and there should have been due process due process.
Speaker 3:And and once you take that away and you just call them insurrectionists and you call the people who believe these things to be conspiracy theorists, you're doing such an incredible disservice to the American people, to the constitution and to our system of government.
Speaker 2:To the idea of the way it should have been. Yeah, absolutely. Well, not a Jim Jones here, but I am drinking this Kool-Aid with you and I'm totally getting it. I hear you five by five on this, and maybe, after you get your wife's thing done, we'll have that conversation too, if you want to come back on the show, because that sounds like a heck of an interesting case.
Speaker 3:Which one? I had a lot of them.
Speaker 2:The one that includes your wife.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah, Well sure, I mean, you know.
Speaker 2:I know people yeah.
Speaker 3:Look, like I said, if anyone is in New Jersey or they want to come to New Jersey peacefully and come to a courthouse a little town courthouse and hear a trial, you can watch me on trial defending my wife on October 11th at 9 am Eastern time in Cranford Municipal Court in New Jersey. And yeah, it's going to be an interesting day. And again, it's a fight for freedom in a civil and constitutionally proper manner.
Speaker 2:I can only believe there are hundreds of cases around the country that are just like yours.
Speaker 3:Very few people have been arrested at a school board meeting.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean just, being arrested, not wearing the rag, the whole deal.
Speaker 3:Yeah, we're suing multiple school boards in new jersey and new york because what's going on at these school boards is just outrageous. What's happening in these schools is outrageous.
Speaker 2:My daughter-in-law is a nurse and they says get the jab or you're fired. And and she says, well, you're gonna have to terminate me. But then we started revving stuff up and then they just kind of shut up and went away.
Speaker 3:We confronted that well, good for you but yeah, um, what are we?
Speaker 2:oh, hour, one, holy cow, this, this time flies. You were fascinating beyond anything. Oh, thanks so much and uh I will get this I'll get this edited up. Um, I'll get my commercials in there and I'll get my sponsors and we'll do a. Well, this will probably go out tonight yet, so you can, I'll get I'll in there and I'll get my sponsors and we'll do a. This will probably go out tonight yet, so you can, I'll send you a link directly to the phone.
Speaker 3:That would be great. I really appreciate it. I really enjoy the interview. Thanks. It was much more far reaching than I expected.
Speaker 2:It went out there, didn't it?
Speaker 3:Yeah, it did, it's good.
Speaker 2:Well, good luck on your 11th there and I hope you're getting some Kung Fu. And thanks for coming on and for people out listening. Yes, if this applies to something in your neighborhood neck of the woods country, then feel free to reach out to us. Hit us on the Facebook site, hit us on the. We're all on social media. I'm not hard to find. Be well and we'll catch you next time on HuttCast. And that's a wrap for HuttCast and that's a wrap for HuttCast. Huttcast is again a pragmatic approach to seeing things how some people see them. If you like our show, give us a thumbs up on the Facebook site, again for HuttCast. Thank you again. Have a wonderful evening you.
