Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Federal Judge is FED UP with Trumper Nonsense and SWATS DOWN Request

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

Another day, another LOSS for Mark Meadows in Federal Court with Judge Jones denying Meadow’s efforts to block the Court’s ruling that his criminal case belongs in State Court along with the rest of the 18 co conspirators. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why Meadows not only lost but likely filed his motion in the WRONG COURT to begin with. Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://RocketMoney.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

is Michael Popok, legal AF, another day, another loss for Mark Meadows in federal court, as he tries to squirm his way away from the Fulton County criminal prosecution brought by Fony Willis, presided over by Judge Scott McAfee, a recall that Mark Meadows claiming that he was at least a former federal officer, ran the federal court to try to exercise, have them exercise jurisdiction over him so that the case could be tried in federal court instead of on the faster track, meat grinder, high velocity docket of judge McAfee. That was already ruled upon by Judge Jones, Stephen Jones, and Obama appointee in September 8th.

He ruled in denying the attempt to remove, it's called removal, remove the case from state to federal court that there were no grounds under which Mark Meadows had prevailed to establish that his indictment relates to his federal functions as chief of staff in a 20 page opinion by Judge Jones. Mark Meadows didn't like that decision. He took a recent emergency appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. There's a three judge panel. We don't know who they are yet. That's been assigned to the case and they're going to be hearing the emergency appeal. There's also a motion pending in front of the 11th circuit. Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jones's order. Keep the case in federal court and not have it sent back to state court for the immediate time being.

That motion for emergencies stay in the 11th circuit has not yet been ruled upon, which forced Mark Meadows to file, I'm not sure it was correct, procedurally, but to file a motion in front of Judge Jones to stay the case. And that's now been denied as of early this morning. Judge Jones went through the factors that are required to stay his order. And he said that, as he said earlier, Mark Meadows failed on all four factors. He did not establish any of the four factors. The first factor that has to be established by somebody

that's seeking a stay of a order to send the case back to state court by a federal judge is called likelihood of success on the merits. And the judge found there's no likelihood that Meadows is going to win his appeal nor has he presented a substantial case on the merits, another requirement to satisfy that condition. Having said, there's no error in what I did.

I look back at what I've done and I don't see an error. So you're not likely to succeed, and I'm not persuaded by the motion to stay papers that you filed, Mr. Meadows. Secondly, the judge found no irreparable harm, which is another requirement in order for this judge to stay the case. No irreparable harm is irreparable harm as Meadows has made out. Can't be the mere possibility

that he's gonna have to incur some burdens if he has to defend the state case. Like they jumped up and down and said, that case could be in October, that case could be in October, Judge Alpas, and the judge Jones took a look and said, it's unlikely your case is in October. There are two cases going to trial in October,

but I don't think yours is one of them, and you haven't presented me any evidence. In fact, Mr. Meadows, you've made a motion to sever to get away from the case going to trial in October. And again, mere possibility of a reputable injury or harm is not enough. And the fact that you have to participate in the defense of your case, which hasn't yet been set to trial, that's not enough of a reputable harm or at all. Then the judge also said that the third factor that has to be present is not present in the attempt to get a stay

from him. And that is, there has to be a showing that there's no prejudice to the state, the state being faulty, Willis, and the Fulton County district attorney. And the judge remarked that he already ruled on the 9th of September, on the 8th of September in his original order, that there is a strong interest in the state, a strong compelling interest in a state having criminal prosecutions go forward free of federal interference. And because, you know, crime is local and crime is, is, unless it's a federal crime, is prosecuted by local officials.

And they don't need to be looked at over their shoulders at federal interference. That also helps us understand why Jim Jordan and the MAGA Congress is improperly trying to interfere also with state prosecution. Boxing streaming services, that exercise app to show your friends you bike 20 miles in the rain and your hometown newspaper for that one homecoming game score?

There are subscriptions for everything these days, and sometimes it feels impossible to keep tabs on what you're paying for every month. That's why I'm such a huge fan of rocket money. Rocket money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions. Monitoring your spending helps you lower your bills all in one place. Most people think they're spending $80 on their subscriptions. When in reality, the number is closer to 200. When you're signed up for so many things, like streaming services you used to watch

one show with, or free trials for delivery you don't use. It's so easy to lose track of what you're paying for. With Rocket Money, you can easily cancel the ones you don't want with just the press of a button. No more long hold times or annoying emails with customer service. Rocket Money does all the work for you. Rocket Money can even negotiate to lower your bills for you by up to 20%. All you have to do is take a picture of your bill and Rocket money takes care of the rest. Rocket money also lets you monitor all your expenses in one place.

Recommends custom budgets based on your past spending and they'll even send you notifications when you've reached your spending limits with over three million users and counting. Rocket money customers have saved an average of $720 a year. Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and manage your money the easy way by going to rocketmoney.com slash legal AF. That's rocket money.com slash legal AF. Rocket money.com slash legal AF. That's rocket money.com slash legal AF. Rocket money.com slash legal AF.

I mean, even federal judges don't want to get involved with state prosecution and find it to be improper interference. What do you think judge Jones would make of Jim Jordan, who's not a lawyer, chairing the judiciary committee of the Magahouse trying to interfere with state prosecutions. We'll leave that for another hot take and on legal AF. It's also fascinating because the very purpose of the removal statute that Meadows is even relying on where a federal officer, probably a current federal officer not a past, gets the benefit of having his case tried in federal court is because the public policy, the congressional policy is of the lawmakers, we don't want states to

interfere with federal officers and federal function. But the heart of the indictment against Mark Meadows and the 18 others is the opposite. The arrow runs the other way. The allegation is that the feds were interfering with the state election process. Just fascinating, this is coming back here in this analysis. And then last element, the judge Jones found has not been met by Mark Meadows, and then, hence he denied the stay, is that the public interest does not tip in favor

of Mark Meadows, the public interest in seeing that, yes, there is a supremacy clause. There is a supremacy clause that says in certain functions in areas, the federal government reigns supreme and can Trump, no pun intended, state action, but that doesn't apply here when you haven't even met the test for federal officer removal. So judge Jones and a scathing, but brilliant methodical analysis in 10 pages has now denied Mark Meadows attempt. One question on procedure I will leave you with as a long time practitioner practitioner of law as a lawyer in courtrooms, just like the ones we're talking about.

I think the proper place for the motion to stay would have been with Judge McAfee in the state court saying to judge McAfee in the state court, hey, I've got a federal appeal at the 11th Circuit that may take this case away from you, Judge McAfee. Stay any proceedings against me and any attempts to set a trial and the rest because I'm going to be harmed if I can't go to federal court. It'd be a similar test against me and any attempts to set a trial and the rest, because I'm gonna be harmed if I can't go to federal court. It'd be a similar test in state, but at least he'd be making the argument to the right judge. The judge that's actually could do something about his criminal case in state court,

not judge Jones, who's only issue is whether the case is belongs in state court or belongs in federal court. But that's the kind of inside baseball you come to love on legal AF and the Midas Touch network. I'll follow issues just like this one at the intersection of law and politics, bring it to you and explain it to you on hot takes just like this one. One place, the Midas Touch YouTube channel, free subscribe and help them get to two million free subscribers. If you like hot takes, I do come to our podcast on Wednesdays and Saturdays called Legal AF, I co-anchor it on Wednesdays with Karen Friedman Igniflo on Saturdays with Ben Myselis. It's sort of like this, except instead of me talking to you

through a computer, it's two of us debating and discussing and analyzing at least four or five major issues at the intersection of law and politics for this week. We've got a show coming up just today and you can catch it on the Midas Touch YouTube channel and everywhere you get podcasts. Until my next hot take, this is Michael Pope-Pock, legal AF. Hey, Midas Mighty. Love this report.

Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram. At Midas Touch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.