Trump DOJ Faces RECKONING over FRAUD ON COURT!!

[00:00:00]If Todd Blanch and the Department of Justice were hoping that Judge Williams, federal judge in Miami, in her 56-page order, finding effectively that he should be sanctioned, that the settlement agreement he entered into should be declared null and void or not declared to be a settlement at all. If he thinks that's at the bottom of a bird cage now and they can move on, uh, they're not reading the order properly.

[00:00:23]In fact, I caught something in a a footnote that I'm sure the Department of Justice missed in which the judge says she's effectively inviting another motion concerning fraud on the court to be filed so she can enter into appropriate sanctions. So if they think, which I know they do, that the settlement agreement that Todd Blanch amended the next day granting unlimited super pardon power to Donald Trump and his family and his business associates and the rest for criminal and tax liability, that's going to stand up.

[00:01:01]Wait till somebody brings as the judge has invited on footnote 59 of page 38 of her order a rule 60D3 motion under the federal rules of civil procedure to address fraud on the court.

[00:01:16]So when you hear Todd Blanch tap dancing his way through his confirmation hearing and thinking I'm in the clear. I think I got the votes that doesn't mean that in the real world outside of it he can't be disbarred and he can't have a major sanction up against him uh led by Judge Williams a federal judge in Florida. bar complaints and bar grievances, fraud on the court and sanctions, maybe losing his law license, all in play while he is perhaps the confirmed attorney general.

[00:01:52]I'm Michael Popac. Let me break down.

[00:01:54]Let me take this Rubik's cube and set it to all the right colors here on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. Okay, there's a lot of things that Judge Williams did in her 56 page decision.

[00:02:09]She sanctioned Donald Trump's lawyers, sent them to the bar association for grievance proceedings for uh for disciplinary proceedings. She imposed fines. She declared that the settlement agreement creating the weaponization fund cannot be referred to as a settlement because it is not a settlement of a legitimate lawsuit. Now, she left open the door as to whether as to whether the uh Department of Justice in the back rooms, the smoky back rooms out of public sight could have entered into a similar agreement without involving the court. She left that for another day. In fact, I just interviewed in the last 24 hours Judge Michael Ludik. And Judge Michael Ludik is one of the 35 federal judges that filed their brief, their motion to get Judge Williams to re-examine what went down in her courtroom and whether there was fraud on the court. And here's a clip of that uh my interview with Judge Ludic.

[00:03:10]Before I answer that question though, I want to thank you and Legal AF and Midas Touch for the the courage uh the courage to uh represent the the other members of the free press in America.

[00:03:31]many of whom have refused uh to to carry forward with their responsibilities uh in as a free press in America.

[00:03:42]Now, the the wheels of of justice and the wheels of the rule of law always grind slowly, very slowly, but they always grind inexurably uh to the point of and in the direction of uh absolute faithfulness to the rule of law.

[00:04:11]in the past year and a half since Donald Trump took office again that those wheels of justice, those wheels of of the rule of law have been grinding slowly at first, but then gradually faster and faster toward the rule of law in America. And at this point, I'm prepared to say that the rule of law through the federal courts of the United States have rendered their final verdict on Donald Trump and his administration's uh effort to subvert the rule of law in this country. Now, later in the interview, we talk specifically about what about the fact that the Department of Justice is now claiming that the settlement amendment entered into unilaterally by Todd Blanch, which was called out by the judge, is still viable. It's still alive. And it's we came to a very interesting conclusion.

[00:05:16]Here's a clip of of Judge Ludig and me and local counsel in Miami for the uh former federal judges and a friend of mine, Andre Rivero. Play the clip. Let me frame a new issue because it looks like the Department of Justice captured by Donald Trump has taken has has ignored about 99.9% of what Judge Williams wrote and has latched on to and lighted on to one paragraph and one footnote. Um, I'm going to read it to you and I want to I want to get your impression of this.

[00:05:50]They're now taking the position. It's almost like the Dumb and Dumber movie.

[00:05:54]It's like you're saying there is a chance. So the release that Todd Blanch signed the day after he created the weaponization fund through a phony bad faith settlement of a lawsuit that should never have been brought in which he alone unilaterally granted to the Donald Trump his family organizations and affiliates a super pardon from tax liability and audit exposure and criminal liability. That's not before the judge. that still stands that we we still a we still we still have that in our back pocket. Here's here's one section one section of the 56 pages that there looks like they're relying on.

[00:06:32]They they say she says that in dis bottom of page 37 in dismissing the non-parties claims of collusion plaintiffs reveal the true position of the parties and say the quiet part out loud. Quote, "Regardless of whether plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the government and plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties. The power to resolve was never a question before this court whether executive branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced in this court. The question though is whether the parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding and the answer is a resounding no. So they're latching on to that and another footnote. What do you make of that Andress?

[00:07:28]>> Well, and Michael, there's a lot to talk about what the judge did and what the relief is, but I would be very careful if I were them. Uh, I think they're overreading what, as you say, one cherrypicked point. They need to look when they're looking at footnotes, they need to go to footnote 59. By the way, this is a very well done opinion. I'd recommend it to any of your uh viewers if they have a chance at least to look at the facts. But in terms of what this judge said, besides what you just referred to, which is not a positive uh for the president or or the uh Department of Justice, she says, "However, this decision should not be understood as a final determination regarding any fraud perpetrated on the court and does not foreclose the possibility of future relief under rule 60D3, which is post judgment uh relief, that that rule. So the judge is saying, "Do not fool with me. I still have the power to make a finding of fraud in the court which would carry additional serious consequences."

[00:08:29]>> So she so she's inviting a 60D3 motion.

[00:08:32]Now, let me bring you up to speed on what I'm talking about. We'll post this up on Legal AF Substack for your review.

[00:08:39]Here's what the judge said on page 37.

[00:08:43]There's really two places to look. page 37 of 56 and footnote 59.

[00:08:49]Here's what she says in page uh 37. In dismissing the nonparties claims of collusion, plaintiffs reveal the true position of the parties and say the quiet party out loud. Regardless of whether plaintiffs had ever filed this action, that's Trump. The government and plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties. The judge concludes the power to resolve was never a question before the court whether the executive branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this court. The question is whether the parties could do so by claiming to be adverse in engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding no. In footnote 59, she says the following. The court notes that it possesses the authority to protect the integrity of these proceedings under rule 11 and its inherent authority and so it need not invoke rule 60D3.

[00:09:56]However, this decision should not be understood as a final determination regarding any fraud perpetrated on the court and does not foreclose the possibility of future relief under 60D3, citing a case from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, SEC versus ESM, in which the court concluded that fraud that prevents the functioning of the judicial process does not have to be brought within any specific time period.

[00:10:25]Accordingly, the court expresses no view as to whether the requirements of 60D3 have been satisfied. That is a direct invitation to the former federal judges to file a rule 60D3 motion, which I think the judge is going to grant about fraud on the court. And if that happens, Todd Blanch, look out. You may be the confirmed attorney general. That's likely to happen, but you're going to be you're going to lose your bar license and or be found to have fraudulently defrauded a court and have big problems going forward, especially if you you'd like to practice law after you leave the attorney general position. Now, the Senator Blumenthal asked Todd Blanch about Judge Williams decision, and Todd Blanch comes up with a whole analysis. Well, ah, I was never asked to participate in those proceedings. That's a lie. He could have he could have and should have testified before Judge uh Williams at any particular time in the case to avoid these sanctions and he chose not to because because Todd Blanch always chooses not to testify under oath. Watch this exchange uh in which he, you know, which he thinks it's like a hatchet job uh that he uh uh and that he wasn't referred for bar discipline when he actually was. Play the clip.

[00:11:48]>> The judge in Florida referred your misconduct. She concluded that there was misconduct and misrepresentation and improper purpose in that legal action to the bar of New York for potential discipline, including losing your law license. I know you disagree with the result of the ruling.

[00:12:13]Has that kind of referral ever happened by a federal judge for an attorney general of the United States?

[00:12:22]>> Can Can you >> I don't know. But I'll tell you something. Um that judge never asked us to respond. She never gave us an opportunity to respond to anything. And she didn't refer me. She just asked that a copy of the order be provided the New York Bar because there are several activist groups that have filed complaints against me. So, so listen, I as I've said earlier, I I think anybody on this committee, especially the lawyers that have practiced, can read that opinion and reach their own conclusions, but I very much disagree um with with the judge's um insinuations about me. Um and and we're going to do what we can to make that right.

[00:12:55]>> I I don't know which part of the order he's referring to. The judge says this entire 56page decision should be sent to the bar associations that regulate the license of Todd Blanch. Let me read it to you. Actually, it says in noting that ethics complaints have been filed in New York in the District of Columbia against acting attorney general Blanch and Associate Attorney General Woodward. She also says that this should be sent to the state of New York bar of which acting attorney general Blanch is a member and lists his bar number. Okay. She actually meant the appellet division first department because I'm a member of that one in New York. That's what's regulating Todd Blanch's um Todd Blanch's um law license. But I don't know how he doesn't see that as a referral to the bar association with the clerk mailing the order to the bar association to have them review it to see if they should open up a bar grievance.

[00:13:53]We had people ask me during the show last night on Legal AF if if he loses his law license, can he still be attorney general? I think he can. We'll we'll continue to look into that particular issue. Um, but you know, these are the uh the matters that Todd Bl Todd Blanch has to continue to deal with. And you know, I just had Cy Booker, Senator Booker on with us last night on the Legal AF podcast, uh, and he had this to say about the chances of Donald of any of the Republicans stepping out against Todd Blanch.

[00:14:28]Unfortunately, it looks like Tom Tillis is in the bag. He's the Senate Senator from North Carolina that we hoped would vote against Todd Blanch. And uh and Cornin, who Donald Trump opposed, and he lost his seat in Texas, he doesn't seem to be willing to do the right thing either and oppose Todd Blanch. Play Cy Booker. Donald Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about the anti-weaponization fund because they could always pay these people through the back door of the federal claims act. What he cared about was the next day amendment created by Todd Blanch unilaterally with a signature which created what uh uh Jamie Raskin has referred to as the super pardon or Judge Williams has referred to as the release of Donald Trump, his family and affiliates and associates of tax and audit liability and criminal liability. That's all Donald Trump. And you see already, not not here, but you see how much your colleagues only focused on the anti-weaponization fund creation and the settlement agreement and did not focus on the thing that Donald Trump, I believe, really covets, which is that release.

[00:15:33]>> Yeah. That in other words, it's the it's the ultimate of the sort of uh a bait and switch, >> right? Let's get everybody riled up about a fund. But the value for his children and for him to be able to escape liability for the things that they are doing. I am confident I I am confident that what we know about the corruption we know about is the tip of the iceberg. How many companies now are they consulting with or that they got on the board with that then turn around and get contracts? How what are they doing with these illgotten gains that they're getting? Do they do they in any way uh a a in fact the New York Times already I think they got a pulter for the prize of tracing all the tax crimes of this family already. Uh unfortunately the statute of limitations had expired. So I I agree with you if that's the point you're making about that they have other remedies uh uh uh in terms of uh in terms of the torches uh uh claims that they can make. But the reality is the big kahuna here is to get that uh that that that shield from tax liability.

[00:16:48]>> Absolutely. So what does that mean going forward? It means we're going to have an attorney general named Todd Blanch, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be he's not it it means he's not immune from impeachment proceedings led by the Democrats. He's not immune to bar proceedings brought against him for bar discipline and maybe losing his bar license. And as and as I said, anything he said under oath during these last two days of confirmation hearings is perfect fodder and a basis for impeachment proceedings when the Democrats get the gavvel in the House and the Senate at the midterms. And that's what we're and that could truly be his legacy. I'm going to have on with me on a special interview that'll be up uh tomorrow the uh uh lawyers uh a group of lawyers and law associations that filed a more than 70 page bar complaint against Todd Blanch uh to talk about how they're working that process to make sure that he's proper disciplined.

[00:17:51]You're going to watch it uh with me hopefully on Legal AF YouTube channel.

[00:17:54]So until my next report, hit the free subscribe button on Legal A YouTube channel and help us continue to grow that prodemocracy channel. I'm Michael Popac. Popac here. When life changes in an instant because of an injury or the bad acts of another, you need fighters in your corner. The Pope firm is dedicated to helping the injured and their families get justice and the money they deserve. And we don't back down.

[00:18:16]Contact us today and let's start your fight for justice together.