Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Delving into Delvey, Libel cases, and Florida requiring that LGBTQ+ students be outed

Episode Date: February 24, 2022

On the :40 minute, midweek edition of LegalAF, the top rated legal and political news analysis podcast, Popok and KFA explore the Manhattan DA’s investigation and prosecution of Anna Sorokin aka Anna Delvey (the “Soho Scammer”), she of Netflix’s “Inventing Ana” fame. Then, in the Mailbag segment, the anchors examine: (a) Florida’s proposed “don’t say gay” bill as an amendment to that state’s “Parent Bill of Rights” law and what this SCOTUS may do about it; (b) Palin’s libel case and its implications for a suit by Hillary against Fox News; and (d) Kyle Rittenhouse’s new “foundation” to provide litigation funding for defamation suits against the media and Democratic celebrities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Legal AF Wednesday edition. This is your midweek helping of political and legal news ripped from the headlines. You've heard of law and order. This is Pope-Poc and KFA. I'm Michael Pope-Poc. I'm Karen Friedman Agnafalo. And we're going to be doing this legal analysis ripped from the headlines, literally ripped from the headlines. And then we're going to add our special legal analysis ripped from the headlines, literally ripped from the headlines. And then we're going to add our special new feature. I'm really excited about this KFA mailbag where we take uh, follow our questions and turn them into a show. Uh, you catch them, we cook them. That's how this works on the show. So we're going to explore Anna, Serokin or Anna Delvie right out of the Netflix

do special. That's not called inventing Anna by Shonda Rhymes. But before it was a Netflix special, it was an actual case that was investigated and prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and who better to kick this around with my co-host, KFA. We're going to in the mailbag, we're going to do two distinct issues. One of them is Florida's new Don't Say Gay anti-LGBTQ plus law that's being considered by the Florida legislature as we speak. Then we're going to switch gears and talk about all things defamation and liable. I'm going to give an overview of what happened in the pale in case and where

KFA with her mentalist powers was so right about a prediction related to the jury. We're going to, then she's going to talk about does Hillary Clinton have the ability to get over the standard of actual malice and sue a Fox news or not? And then we're going to end it with 19 year old Kyle written house, who's decided he's qualified to create a foundation that will go after and basically be a litigation funding entity to go after people from whoopie goldberg to other media, maybe Midas media, who knows, for defamation related to him and others. And that's gonna be on our mail back segment. But let's get right into it. I've been glued to all whatever it is, nine episodes of Inventing Anna.

I was kicking it around with KFA and we said, let's do it, let's do it tonight, midweek, on legal AF while it's still hot news. So let's let me set the stage and I'm going to turn it over to KFA. Whether you call her the so ho scammer or grifter or whatever you want to call her, Anna, Sirokin, a ethnically Russian German citizen, comes to this country in 2016, 2017. She's young, she's in her mid-20s. She apparently doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, but she's convinced others that she is an aeris where there's 65 million euro of money and a trust account that she can't get her hands on. And then over the course of two or three years is

able to come in. It's not just, you know, sort of want to be socialites and Hampton people who find her interesting will buy her dinner or drinks, but she's able to scam some of the most major and preeminent law firms, investment firms, banks in the world to give her money, loan her money, consider giving her money under the auspices of I think her big thing that she ran, the big scheme that she ran is that she was going to create the Anna Delphi, Delvi Foundation,, which was gonna be like Soho House, but with an art aspect to it. So she wanted to hop up with artists.

And thank God, the Manhattan DA's office brought her down and prosecuted her and convicted her. But let's dive right in. KFA, let's talk about it. Let's talk about Miss Delvi, Miss Seroke, and what can you tell us? Yeah, so this happened back, the conviction happened in 2019,

but the reason, as you said, this is in the headlines today is because of this new show by Shonda Rhymes of Scandal and Grey's Anatomy, Fame. I liked you watched online episodes, and I was glued to the television. I couldn't believe what really went on in that case, because that case was going on years ago in the Manhattan D.A.'s office where I used to work. And I remember vaguely that it was going on, but it was not a big deal, at least not on my radar. To me, at the time, it just seemed like

oh, she was the fake German airst that the tabloids were interested in, but I had no idea that it was had the color that it has and the fascination that it has. Why did you why did I know you weren't involved and that's why we're talking about it. But why would your office just hypothetically? Why is that a concern that kind of case? You know, we've talked about antiquities divisions of the Manhattan DA's office.

People know they're going after the Trumps and various variations on a theme. Why, you know, the scammers, Soho, who leaves a trail of broken hearts and hotel bills behind her. Why is that the province of the Manhattan D.A.'s office? I mean, this is, so this is just regular old theft, you know, this is, this is stealing and grieve. I mean, and so there's a whole division in the Manhattan D.A.'s office that is devoted to white collar crimes, it's called the Investigations Division. And so this is very much in the purview. And they do cases like this all the time.

Again, this is why it didn't really raise to my level. It just seemed like your average bread and butter sort of case that the tablets were interested in. But in Manhattan, as you can imagine, the people are always interested in the cases that the Manhattan DA's office did or that they do. But this particular case was fascinating. And what I thought was really interesting

in addition to how she got, I thought the show did a really good job explaining and kind of drawing people in to see how they could fall for her. How does this happen? And how she would borrow from or take money from one and then pay back another, you know, sort of your typical Ponzi scheme, playing play that. She did it again because she got $375,000 for her life story for Netflix. And then she was able to take that money and turn it over to the court system for restitution and to pay off some of the banks that were the victims of her crime. So the grift, if you will, continues because at the end Netflix bailed her out and gave her a check.

Well, that's true, but in fairness, that went at least at least the people got paid back this time. That's right. So the victims got their money back. And that happened because of, you know, the son of Sam laws, right, from the 1970s. Well, the teller followers about that. Yeah. So in the 70s, there was a big famous case, the son of Sam. He was a serial killer.

And he profited off of his, by selling, I think it was a book or something about that. Yeah, David Berkowitz. He was a postal worker that lived in Queens or Bronx or something. Yeah. When he was in killing worker that lived in Queens or Bronx or something. Yeah. When he wasn't killing people. Exactly. When he wasn't killing people and he sold his story and made lots of money in

that infuriated people. So all over the country they have the son of Sam laws. Because David Berkowitz I think he pretended to be the son of Sam. I don't remember exactly what it was. Yeah, I served. Was his dog. Wasn't it his dog? The neighbor's dog was a German shepherd that spoke to him and told him and died demonic ways to kill people. This was his defense. It didn't work.

He's still sitting in a in a New York state pedid entry. But you're right. He was trying to profit from it. There were a lot of books. You know, he's one of the first real serial killer, you know, the Americans have an obsession with serial killers and serial serial killing and books about it. But the question that you're answering is, should the perpetrator of the crime, in this case murders profit from it? And the answer is no. Exactly. And so, so most estates, if not all, have passed the son of Sam laws, which allows the government or individuals to claw back money that these criminals, if you will, these convicted criminals are profiting off of so they can get their restitution, get their money back and and in cases like this it makes a lot of sense. So Anna Delvey, slash Sorkin, she, as you said, she sold her life rights to Netflix for

$300 plus thousand dollars. And the victims here were able to get their money back. So, you know, let's talk a little bit about the case. Let's talk a little bit about sort of the charges of this case and the trial. So as you pointed out, this case was this kind of, you know, Ponzi scheme of theft where they're stealing money from this bank to pay this other bank. And at one point, she goes on a trip to Morocco with a friend and runs up $60,000 on her credit card. She was acquitted of that charge. Well, yes, but what's the interesting thing about that, the woman, Rachel Williams, who got,

you know, had a, who got screwed out of $62,000 hotel bill in Morocco on a trip that Anna was supposed to pay for. But what's the interesting connection between her and the investigation? She's the one, she, she's the reason Anna was caught finally. Right. So she lured Anna out of a rehab fancy rehab facility and I think Malibu, California and said, oh, looks have lunch. And Anna went to go meet her for lunch instead. She met the police, but I don't know. Yeah, that's, by the way, I should have said this earlier, spoiler alert. Everybody should realize Netflix is doing a story about a four and five year old case. So I'm sorry if we've just, you know, like really that's how that's what happened in the case. I'm not on that episode yet. So go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. No, I thought the trial was fascinating. I mean, she, and

it was all true. I did some research after I watched the show. It was all true. She hired a stylist so that she could style herself before the jury. She was very upset during the trial, apparently, because she, there's a, there's something. And so she was charged with attempted grand larceny in the first degree. So grand larceny in the first degree is a B felony. And it to be convicted of that, it means you would have had to have stolen more than a million dollars. She was charged with attempted grand larceny in the first degree because she tried to steal more than a million dollars, but was unsuccessful. This was the fort, this was the fort, well she had, there were two beige banks and these are all public, so we can talk about it.

City National Bank, which is relatively well known in New York, and Fortress, which is amazing that looks like she caught the fancy of one of the young bankers at fortress who was interested in her romantically and sort of fell asleep at the switch of doing compliance and background checks on her alleged fortune that was in Switzerland, but and she was robbing Peter to pay Paul. So these were like real banks, real law firms that all got duped by her. Exactly. Exactly. But at the trial, the attorney Todd Spodeck is was arguing that she didn't get, quote, dangerously close to actually committing this crime, because in an attempt, because this was attempted grand larceny, the person has to become, has to come dangerously close to committing the crime. And his defense, which I think is a smart one, was she didn't get dangerously close. The problem is apparently Anna,

Anna Sorkin didn't want him to make that argument because that would, that would, that would make her look bad, then she'd be a fraud. And she's, no, I'm this great business person. How could you, you can't say I didn't get dangerously close? I want them to know I was so close to'm this great business person. How could you, you can't say I didn't get dangerously close. I want them to know I was so close to be this great business person. So she was smoking her own dope,

like right through the trot, she was believing her own bullshit, right? All the way through trial, even at the against the advice of her own lawyer. And what do you think about that, Popo? If you had a client that wanted you to argue something totally different than what you wanted to argue, and let's say you had it as a lawyer, you had, this is the argument that I want to make, but the client wants you to do something different.

What's your obligation there? What do you do? Depends on what the difference is. The difference is in, and I've completely advised the client against it. I have a litigation or trial strategy that I think's a winning strategy and they want me to go in a different direction, not lie to the court, not subborn perjury,

don't do those things. But it's a debate between the lawyer and the client over presentation of evidence and the theory of the case. I probably would not compromise their position by withdrawing from the case, I probably would not compromise their position by withdrawing from the case, although that would be my first instinct like I'm out of here. I don't have a client that's listening to me

in the courtroom. Depends on where we are. If we're already in the courtroom, like it looks like she was in it or close to it, and she's doing it in about face, I might have to stay in the case, but I have to have it papered all over the place. So she understands that this is against my advice.

This is the bad things that could happen to you. I mean, I'll give you an example. I had a, it's so old now I can talk about it. I had a white collar criminal case, it was my first federal case. I tried with a partner of mine in Miami. It was a tax evasion case. And their defense was that they didn't believe in the United States tax code. They thought they thought it didn't

apply to them, that it got repealed in 1913 and never got re reestablished and up all the IRS's and illegal entity unconstitutional. They didn't have to pay taxes. Totally nuts. Our argument ultimately was that destroyed mens rea or criminal intent, because they really believe this. And so we had to put that on. But the prosecutors, and we'll talk about the plea deal that Anna turned down, which was reasonable. The prosecutors came to our client and said,

hmm, you were not really buying this, but you know what, why don't you do five years, or four years or whatever it was. And against our advice, and we said, guys, you're gonna go to jail. This is probably not gonna work in front of a jury. They said, we want our day in court. We think we can do this.

And, you know, they went away and got taken away at handcuffs after the jury convicted them. And they went away for like double the amount they could have taken in a plea deal. So I've been in that situation, but of course we gave them the full advice, don't do this. You're going to jail for a long time. It is a, you know, we're good, but we're not that good.

The other thing that I thought was sort of interesting was the close relationship between the reporter who ended up exposing this whole thing. In real life, I think her name is Jessica Pressler, who works for New York magazine, her relationship with both Anna and with Todd Spodeck, the attorney. Have you ever seen anything like that before or had a reporter so close to your team like that? No, no, and I'm, you know, that might have been a little fictionalized. I mean, I'm you and I are doing sort of back research or watching the show. I'm not sure,

I'm not sure she had that much of an outsized role in the relationship as it's being portrayed in Netflix. It certainly is very, very interesting to watch it on the on the silver screen, so to speak, but I'm not sure she got that close. I think they took some liberties in the the drama the dramatization of all of this, but no, I've never had a client that's been leading the charge to convince a defendant to testify or take a deal or not take a deal or kind of goose her a little bit to go in a certain direction because it would be better for the story. Have you? Well, I have not, I definitely not as a prosecutor at all. In fact, there's a bright line between prosecution and the press. And

you know, prosecutors in general aren't allowed to speak to the press at the Manhattan DA's office because you keep that separate. Yeah. What was your reaction? And again, you weren't involved with the case, but maybe you heard something or maybe you didn't or just have your own reaction to it. You know, when she was adamant about, when Anna was adamant about appearing in stylish dress, you mentioned a stylist every day, and then through a tantrum and refused to get out and come in. You know, she's in Rikers Island, I think, every day.

So they're transporting her hours before the trial. She's sitting in the tank somewhere, then bottom of the courthouse. Is that where it is at the courthouse to the basement? Yeah, I mean, trial, she's sitting in the tank somewhere in the bottom of the courthouse. Is that where it is at the courthouse to the basement? Yeah, I mean, like there's two places she could have been. There's a place right next to a jail right next to the courthouse and a lot of people on trial stay there because it's just much easier. You just go back and forth. But some have to come from Riker's Island, as you said, and I'm sure she was at both places at some point.

Right. So she's upset that like our clothes didn't show up, or she's wearing, and I think the judge, if you used to come out, yes, she refused to wrap. The judge rightly so said, well, she doesn't have to come out in the orange or a tan jump suit. Okay, I get that because that looks terrible in front of her. But am I really going to wait for her to get her stylist here and get pressed? And she threw a temper tantrum. I can't imagine what your colleagues on the other side other side were doing. Well, that was public because they had to make an argument to the judge like judge, how much longer are we going to wait for her to get dressed? Yeah, I mean, generally speaking, she's not the first defendant to refuse to come out in the middle of her trial. You know,

there's, there have been lots and lots and lots of defendants who decide that they don't want to come out for one reason or another. I've had had I had a case once where a defendant got up and walked into the back, you know, in the middle of us playing the statement on a murder case because he didn't like it. I was upsetting to him to hear his own statements. He walked to the back of behind the judge where the door to the holding cell is. He was like leaving. He was like leaving. He walked himself back into the holding cell of the jail. It was quite, you know, the interesting thing is it was this particular judge, Diane Kiesel, who's the judge who sat in this case. Brianna, she was the judge in this case. I actually second sat a murder trial with her

many, many, many, many years ago, where she was the more senior this case. I actually second sat a murder trial with her many, many, many, many years ago where she was the more senior lawyer and I was a junior lawyer. She's an excellent, excellent attorney. And in that case, in that murder case, that's the time that this defendant got up and walked to the back in the middle. It's just funny that I'm telling the story and I remember it's the same person. It's the same judge. And there were other, I had another defendant who just refused to come in for his whole trial. You know, he just decided to and there's the same person. It's the same judge. Same judge. And there were other, I had another defendant who just refused to come in for his whole trial. You know, he just decided to. And there's the procedures that judges have to go through to make sure that they are knowingly

and voluntarily making the right decision. And they know that they have the right to be present, but they're choosing not to be present. And so, you know, I guess one question would be is, would this kind of, I don't like this, I don't like the outfit that I have, you know, I don't like the clothes. I mean, the judge is going to give her a certain amount of time to get herself together, but not too much time.

And I think the judge here handled that perfectly and she eventually got her clothes and came out. I like the, I doubt it was actual dialogue that was spoken, but I did like the way they picked up on that when the reporter met with her frequently and Rikers and A, she was pissed off that she didn't come through as a media. So the world would know she was being interviewed and kept reminding her she needs to do that. But secondly, when she was pointed out about her clothes and she was taking on the reporter like, what are you wearing? Why are you look so broke ass? The reporters are looking at you. You're wearing a jumpsuit. She says yes, but it's pressed and it's accessorized. I love the capture of the persona of her.

And just anything else on the case, and then we'll just wrap up and tell people where she's at now waiting deportation. Yeah, she's not the Germany. Yeah, she really is. So, I think really that's the sort of thing that's interesting at this point is the fact that she, she was convicted of eight out of her 10 charges and she was sentenced to for an indeterminate term of between four and 12 years. She was

facing from between five and 15 years and in an indeterminate term like that, when you're facing between four and 12 years, you serve the minimum four years. And then you're eligible for parole, where you go before a parole board, up until the 12 year period. And they release you if they deem that you are worthy of being released for one reason or another.

He was not a model citizen though. She did not have good behavior. She had bad behavior apparently, which she was in jail. Well, somehow they let her out in three years for good behavior. So I don't know. She was fighting a lot.

I mean, the press reports says she got caught fighting. She was put in solitary confinement on Christmas. I mean, she was, yeah, but. Could have also been, it could have also, I, I, I, I surmised I was going to look at the timing on this that it could have been COVID. At the around the time of COVID, a lot of jails and prisons were looking at, yeah, they were looking at their populations and releasing nonviolent people because COVID spreads so significantly

in those closed incarceration settings. So it could have been that, but she was, she was out for six weeks. And then they picked her up and locked her up again. Ice, she's in ice custody to be deported back to Germany. But she's she's seeking asylum. Up. I mean, she really, you know what? I have to give her some credit.

Then we'll move on to mailbag because everybody likes mailbag. I give her credit because she's completely buying into her own bullshit and is a fascinated character as a result. And I'm sure we have not heard the last of Anna Tarook and Delvie on future legal AFs. I guarantee it. All right. So let's move on to our mail-back.

We've had a number of our followers who are disturbed, understandably annoyed and find it completely disgusting and immoral, that Florida in its legislative term, and while its house of representatives is meeting, is considering what's now been referred to as the don't say gay bill, which is HB 1557 under their parental rights bill. So, you know, parents have the right not to let their children be exposed to gay or sexual, different sexual orientation or the like. And one of the amendments

that's being considered, that's been tweaked a bit, but really is still about the same, is requiring, this is amazing. I can't even, it's like I can't even believe I'm saying, it's like Nazi Germany requiring schools and administrators and personnel to out students who come to them in confidence or whom they believe are gay. I mean seriously, why don't they just create like fabric and sew it to their arm, like an arm band? Students who are LGBTQ, it's crazy. And make them tell their parents that they are gay. For what reason, I have no idea other than Florida wants to stigmatize and try to nip in the bud and try to nip in the bud, because they think it's a choice

on what some of its sexual orientation is. And so this is being considered by the Florida legislature, along with 50 other amendments to it, by representative Joe Harding, a Republican, no doubt, on this. I wanna get your view of this. I wanna, and then I wanna wrap it up at the end with what do we think the current composition of the Supreme Court will do? Do we have sexual autonomy

in this country about a sexual orientation freedom under the Constitution or don't we? Because if we don't, then you're going to see states like Florida and I can think of 30 others that are going to jump on this bandwagon. First, and I have my own personal experience with this from family members. What did you think about it, KFA? This one actually made me sick. I couldn't believe this. And, you know, I look at a lot of issues that I can see both sides.

And sometimes I get accused of, you know, being a little too moderate or because I can see both sides. Sometimes this one made me absolutely outraged. This one is so offensive to me. I feel so bad for these kids who now not only do they not have a safe space or a safe place to go in school, now that the fact that their parents can can sue the school if they discuss topics like sexual orientation or gender identity, the fact that the schools, as you said, are required to notify the parents within I think six weeks, if they, if they are seeking help from a counselor and they have a change in their emotional status, you know, that is related to gender identity or sexual orientation. I mean, these poor kids, you know, no wonder, no wonder they go to school to talk about these issues

because they don't have a place at home to talk about these issues because their parents are suing the schools over something like this. They have nowhere to turn. This I found outrageous. Yeah, I agree. And so, you know, I'll give, I'll give an example from without naming names. I've got a family member who in there, I'm going to, I'm going to make them there so that the gender is not revealed in their teens mid teens decided that they were more attracted to the opposite sex than their own to the to their own sex and the opposite sex and came out to their parents and one of the parents responded, no, you're not, you just think you are to which this very brave person responded. Isn't that what matters? I think I am. And the fact that if that person discussed this with a guidance counselor, school nurse, a teacher, that that would put that teacher under an obligation to turn that person in to their parents,

I mean, the fact that I'm even said, you and I are even discussing this in 2022, America is without precedent. Now, let's say the bill somehow gets passed because of course, governor DeSantis wants it passed and he's already blown the dog whistle. And it gets, and of course, it's going to get challenged because every thinking human being who's moral

will challenge this and file the lawsuit and it gets up to the Supreme Court and it looks like the Supreme Court today, six to three in the right wing direction. What do you think happens? I mean, this is a tough one. What do I think happens? I think this could go in a state's rights,

kind of let the states decide kind of way. I mean, my understanding is there are already our other states that have bills like this. I think Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, all have laws that are either on the books or are moving in this direction or proposing laws like this. I don't think Florida is alone in heading in this direction. And so I do think that it's scary.

We live in scary times. I mean, just even the fact when you told that story that somebody has to come out to their parents, that's crazy. Like, do people have to come out that they're straight? Look, listen, when I was at NYU undergrad, and I was an RA, registered a resident's hall administrator, you know, and at my own, my own room, but also had responsibilities that went with that. room, but also had responsibilities that went with that. And NYU in the mid 80s was right in the center, epicenter of gay rights, the AIDS crisis was still raging, unfortunately. And NYU had a policy at the time, and of short, still does today, which you cannot change your room assignment because your roommate is gay. That's not grounds to, and this is back in 1984. And I can't tell you, and I had a lot of school of the arts friends, because that's really what was

in the dorms at the time at the friend while you used Tish School of the Arts. I can't tell you how many roommates and others use going to New York and leaving their small towns and you name it. All the places you just named. And as soon as their parents station wagon drove off from the dorm, they came out to their friends and explored their own sexuality and all of that. And so, I mean, I don't know what times these people think they're living in, like they're back in, I don't know what time, I can even name a time when this would be appropriate.

But you and I are gonna have to follow this, and we're gonna have to follow what happens at the Supreme Court level, because whether you call it critical race theory, or you call it gender orientation, or gay, all of this attempt by the right, right wing under the guise of giving parents the right under a bill of rights to decide what their children are exposed to. They should be exposed to real life. They should be exposed to reality and whatever emotional age that they are are that's

appropriate. If you're talking about a book to fourth graders and the author of the book happens to be gay, but that happens to be part of the literature, do I think that he should be mentioning it to a fourth grader? Maybe not. But as they age and they're now seventh graders, eighth graders or in high school, that ex-poet author artist was a certain sexual orientation and that was important to their work and suffused within their work. How do you teach it without mentioning it? Now you're sending your kids off to work, off to a world with giant gaps in knowledge and

understanding and empathy because you cut, because you went into the books and cut out holes. I'll take it one step even further. I think at any age, it's okay to talk about gender identity and sexual orientation. I mean, so many kids are gonna have two moms, two dads, you know, coming into that, that you have to normalize all of that. It's not just about their own sexual identity or gender identity. have two moms, two dads, you know, coming into that, you have to normalize all of that.

It's not just about about their own sexual identity or gender identity. You have to normalize it. It shouldn't have to come out. You shouldn't have to censor yourself. I get that you shouldn't talk about sex of any type, like a fourth grader perhaps. And it's all the parents are ready to talk about sex. Although the New York City Public Schools teach sex in fourth grade. I'll just tell you that from personal experience,

which I couldn't believe because that's nine years old. But whatever, sometimes you just got to do that. And I just think that you got to, this is just an outrageous bill. And the fact that we're even talking about it or heading in this direction is dangerous and terrifying. Yeah, we're going to follow it. We're going to follow it more.

So put a, put a pittin' it, our followers and listeners, because we are, we are on top of this KFA in Pope, I think we will follow and bring you updates. Let's move to the last two components of mailbag today. And they're kind of linked by defamation. First, we're going to give a very quick update on the Sarah panel and libel case against the New York Times that went exactly the way that KFA predicted the last time we spoke, including the jury finding out about the judges ruling under

rule 50 to grant a judgment as a matter of law. I have a view about, I'm not sure that really matters. And we'll see what KFA's view is. I know on the chat, I'll relate it to Bennett and my anchoring of legal AF over the weekend, KFA was very, you were very diplomatic with Popox, right? Ben's right, but here we're going to take it, we're going to get you right into a lane and you're going to, you're going to give your opinion. And then we're going to talk about Kyle Rittenhouse, give your opinion. And then we're going to talk about Kyle Rittenhouse, the 19-year-old person who was involved with shooting and killing two people and injuring another during the Kenosha riots around the Jacob Blake shooting. And while he's now created a foundation, which apparently will be a litigation funding entity that will fund the lawsuits,

not just brought by Kyle Rittenhouse to clear his name under defamation for people that called him murderers and vigilantes and all of that, but I presume to fund other cases brought by other people against what they refer to as the liberal media for defamation. And so we'll talk about that next. Let's kick it off with the palin case, bring everybody up to speed last week. Sarah Palin's the judge, Judge Raycoff in the Southern District of New York had heard enough. I think he heard enough in the first couple of months of the trial, but the second circuit, court of appeals made him go through the entire trial. And look,

I'm surprised he got this far. I thought on summary judgment, he would have dismissed the case on the issue of actual malice because as a public figure again, Sarah Pail and under the precedent of of times New York Times versus Sullivan from 1964, she had approved that the New York Times knew what they were publishing was false. And with basically reckistic disregard to whether it was true or false. They wanted to do a bad thing and hurt her. That's actual malice.

And there was zero testimony or evidence to establish that the New York Times had actual malice when they published the article. It was really an editorial. It wasn't even a fact-based in reporting. It was an editorial linking a piece of literature from her pack that had some gun and shooting symbolism to the shooting, pardon me, to the shooting involving Representative Scalice and the one involving Gabby Giffords. And she thought, oh, I've been defamed because there was no link between the shooter

who shot Gabby Giffords or Scalise and that piece that I put out. She didn't deny that she put out a piece in which over certain districts and a visual, including Gabby Giffords, she put gun sites and crosshairs over it. There just was no apparent evidence that the shooter had seen that and was motivated by that to go out and shoot people.

Although, I'll answer that the other way. There was no evidence that there wasn't either, that he wasn't either. But she had her day in court, never proved actual amounts, exact opposite. New York Times testified, editors editors testified the writer of the editorial testified that they made a mistake. And first amendment law says the papers are allowed to make a mistake if they correct it. And they don't commit the mistake with actual malice that well, that's counterintuitive. If it's a mistake, there's no actual malice. And the judge heard enough, even though the jury was deliberating, there was a hearing on a

what's called a rule 50 motion under the federal rules of civil procedure, which means if that under the undisputed facts, and there were no disputed facts here, what happened happened. This got published. This was the piece that the pack put out. This is what was said, nobody was fighting over the facts. Then the judge, as a matter of law, at various times during a case, from the inception of the case to the middle of the case after the close of discovery to the trial, even while the jury is deliberating,

even after the jury is finished deliberating, and actually reaches a verdict. The judge, as the law giver, as the gatekeeper, can make the final decision if he finds that there as a matter of law, one side is entitled to a ruling over the other. And he found that there was no actual mouse as a matter of law. Now, he let the jury continue to deliberate. But as I told Ben, it wasn't, he didn't make the ruling contingent on, I think I'm going to rule in favor of the

New York Times here. but let's see what the jury does. That'll be interesting. That's how he said what he said is, I'm going to rule in favor of the New York Times and the and the Bennett, who was the editor who wrote the piece or edited the piece. And I'm, but I'm also going to allow the jury to continue to deliberate because that'll make a more complete record for the, for the obvious appeal that somebody's going to take. And that's what happened. And then you said,

that's, that's a, I'm paraphrasing. That's a dangerous place to be because if the jury sort of finds out about this, then that, and the jury found out about it because there was a push notification from everybody's C span and CNN and MSNBC judge, break off rules against Pail and on the case. And I'm sure they had to give them some sort of instruction because the bailiffs like, oh, shit, the jury just found out about this. I'm sure I got reported to the judge and they had to give the jury an instruction.

So that happened. I just mean, the only thing is it just made no sense to me because he knew what he was going to do. Why didn't he just wait for the jury to come back? And then just, and if, and by, and say he could say, I was going to do it either way. If he wanted, if he wanted people to know that he was going to do it no matter what,

he could have still told them that after the verdict. So he, so you mean do a judgment, not withstanding the verdict after the verdict is rendered so that you don't have any argument that you've poisoned inadvertently the well with the jury. Why issue the, I think, this is what I think, I think, that's my prediction. He got synched by the second circuit when he tried to dismiss the case for no actual malice like the first three months and they said, no, you're going to have to continue the case for a while. And but I think he's reading the jury. And I think he thinks, God, even they, even the lay jury can't imagine, I can't imagine that they found actual malice,

but I don't, but I have a job to do. I mean, Ben referred to it as, why is he the 13th jury? He's not the 13th jury. He's the one judge and the one judge has an obligation under the law to do his Judd his or her job, which is to find as a matter of law for a party. If there's just no credible evidence that's been put on to support a defense or a claim, but it got sticky. But you know, I was I was a little bit concerned about oh, this is where you should go take it to the Supremes and we know Gorsuch and Thomas are just chomping at the bit toes and we know Gorsuch and Thomas are just chopping at the bit to undermine and reverse times V Sullivan. However, this is not a great test case

for that type of monkey business because she barely, if any, put on any damage argument that she was damaged in any way. So it's like a low or no damage case and actual malice, no way they're going to find actual malice here based on the trial record. So even though the Supreme Court would love on the topic to get involved, the case doesn't present in a way that would allow them to do the mischief that we've just discussed.

They're going to have to wait for the next one. So let's go to written house, and we'll have you lead on this one. And so what has Kyle written house done? And what does it mean for future cases and the funding of them related to defamation? So a lot of defamation cases are coming up. I think there was something on Hillary as well.

She's- You want to talk about that one? Let's do Hillary. So Hillary and Fox, right? Yeah. Hillary, Hillary said that that Fox came awfully close was the word she used to actual malice when Fox accused Hillary of spying on the Trump campaign. And this came out of the special counsel, John Durham's special prosecution of Michael Susman, who was Clinton's attorney, and he got access to certain documents lawfully. Apparently, he got access to these documents.

They might have been unethical, but it wasn't illegal. Somebody had these documents and lawfully possessed them and gave it to him. And the Trump administration is saying, aha, I knew she's fired on me. I knew they fired on me all along. And this is what's been happening. And Fox said this. Fox came out and said this. And she says, this is getting awfully close to actual malice. Let's dive in there. Let's dive in there. Fox said the following. Fox in relying allegedly on the Durham report said that Hillary and her campaign spied on Trump at his residence in Trump tower and at the White House. And all five of those

things are incorrect and not found in the Durham filing about the disqualification or the waiver that Lee the Watkins needed to continue in the case for one of the for one of the main defendants. There is no evidence presented in the Durham five five page filing that Hillary was involved at all her campaign or otherwise in anything. Let me ask you a question though. What if Trump and Fox think it's true? Does that rise to the level of actual malice? Because part of me wonders, do they actually think it's true?

Well, do you mean does it defeat? Do you mean can a person who walks around in a fantasy world of their own creation. Can they always be excused from defamation because they believe their own bullshit, like Anadelvi? Is that where you're going? Is that where you're going? Well, you know what, there's a difference.

Anadelvi stole from people. This is first amendment. You're talking the first amendment here. You're talking the first amendment right to free speech. No, I think even under time, if you dance the way you're, you're, you're, you're positive at it. I think under time to be Sullivan, your own subjective understanding. It either is or isn't actual malice. If you if you said it, you're saying

that if you say it, but you don't think it's a lie. Like the the fraud in the election lie or Hillary, you know, email lie or this lie or that lie. You never can be found for defamation for a public figure because you'll never be found to have actual malice. I don't think you can stretch. I think, but I'm thinking to say, so that's where you get to the Kyle Rittenhouse case that we think that you were talking about. So that's where he started as you, as you said, the media accountability project to fund as you said, the media accountability project to fund these lawsuits. And that's a case where, you know,

when you talk about sort of his particular case, he wants to sue, I can't remember who he wants to sue, but someone, whoever it is, because they called him a murderer. And, you know, he's like, but I was acquitted. And so that's where the issue comes in, is it opinion versus fact? In other words, my opinion is that you are a murderer. If I called you a convicted murderer, that's not factual.

That's not true. And that's where you. So that's my question about sort of the Hillary Clinton defamation case. And you know, she's spying on me case is, is, again, is it opinion or is it fact? That's the first level, right, for defamation. It has to be a statement of fact if it's a statement of opinion. Now, if it's a mixed statement of fact or opinion or you give off the vibe that it's really factual. And the way Tucker talks, way Tucker Carlson talks, he acts like, you know, he's getting emis from, you know, from heaven, God alone speaks to him. And this is factual information that he's gotten. I don't think Fox News can go on TV and say,

this is what the Durham report says. She spied on a sitting president and in his home by infiltrating and reading emails that were on a server. That's not what happened. Okay, they looked at traffic that went, and it wasn't even her campaign. It was another tech executive who had no link to the to the Hillary Clinton campaign who watched traffic, not actual documents or data, just one server pinging another server. And it wasn't at his home. It was at Trump International. And if you're in New York or like KFA and I, you KFA and me, you know, he lives at Trump at at, at, at Trump Tower, which is on Fifth Avenue, and Trump International

is over on Columbus Circle. That's where other people live, but he doesn't live there. So that's, that was one of the sites, and it never happened when he was president. So it's, it couldn't have been surveilling a sitting president. So the whole thing is wrong. Now, does Hillary Clinton, because she's got to make out

this actual malice standard that Carl Rittenhouse does not. Carl Rittenhouse is now a public figure. And if I say something really bad about him now, I might be able to argue I didn't do it with actual malice. But when he was just a 17 year 18 year old kid on trial, you know, defamation is, it's easier to defame him because he has more protection under the law even though he's sitting as a defendant in a case. That doesn't convert him into a public figure

for defamation analysis. It's the same, it's very similar to if you remember KFA, the Richard Jewel case with the security guard in the Olympic park in Atlanta in 1996 who went from being the hero who found the backpack that exploded to being accused by Fox News, the Atlanta Constitution, journal and other news agencies as being basically the arsonist fireman that he actually was the bomber and then had found the backpack in order to become a hero, which was which was not true, which was false. He was defamed. He settled with a number of new agencies because they realized they did defame him. And the only trial he went to is with the Atlanta Journal Constitution or CNN. And he actually lost that trial because they found that basically what they said was true.

They were reporting what FBI agents had told them. And it wasn't them with an editorial headline. Richard Joule is the bomber. It wasn't quite, or back to your editorial versus opinion issue here. But what do you think about written house funding, other attacks on news media for defamation? What do you think about that?

I think that's just, he's following in the footsteps of kind of the blueprint that a lot of people are doing. You know, a lot there's a lot of people who are creating foundations to fund issues that are near and dear to their heart, whether it's somebody who's been exonerated for a crime and then they create an exoneration fund and they fund other people to be exonerated. I just you know know, to me, this is just, it makes a lot of sense that he's doing it because this is what the right is trying to do. You know, they've made it very clear

that they want to get a good defamation case before the Supreme Court, hoping that they will change the actual malistand and once and for all. So I think it makes sense that he would do this. I think you're right. Just as we sort of both knock the paling case as being the right test case to take on

times to be Sullivan, I wouldn't be surprised of written house or other foundations that are similar to his. They find that next test case and will be reporting either you and me or you me and Ben are gonna be reporting about the Kyle writtenittenhouse Foundation supporting a case that's now working its way up from some favorable venue in Texas or the circuit some

friendly Western you know Western courthouse that makes its way to the Supreme Court for that type of test case. Malback, Malback is really I like Malback you like Malback. I do too mailbag is really, I like mailbag. You like mailbag? I do too, yes, super fun. Yeah, and we look forward to it during the week. So this is the conclusion of midweek edition of LegalA app with Karen Friedman Agnifalo

and Michael Popok. We're gonna be on YouTube, we're on Facebook, our podcast drops and it's on all the platforms that you love and are near and dear to your heart. And then on Saturday, we have the original edition. I don't know what we'll call this one extra crispy. We have the extra crispy during the week. We got the original edition with Ben, my Salis and me and we dropped that one on Saturday night. So Karen, it was again, I can't think of a better way. Wednesdays were always sort of boring for me.

Wednesday nights were sort of boring for me. They are no longer shout out to the Midas Mighty and the legal aphors and we'll see you next week. you