Trump DOJ Accidentally Admits Conspiracy in New Court Filing

0:00This is a Monday.com ad. TheSameMonday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. TheSameMonday.com designed for every team and every industry. TheSameMonday.com with built-in AI. Scaling your work from day one. TheSameMonday.com that your team will actually love using. TheSameMonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes, TheSameMonday.com. Some days you want a little extra oomph to your usual look. Whether that's lashes for days with the Viral Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara or awakening your eyes with a lasting lift and soft color with the Brilliant Eye Brightener, Thrive Cosmetics is your go-to when you want to amplify your everyday look.

0:47Whether you want a simple, just-got-to-get-out-of-the-door routine or full glam, you'll always look and feel like the best version of yourself with Thrive Cosmetics. Plus, every product is 100 % vegan, cruelty-free, and made with clean, skin-loving ingredients that work with your skin. Not against it. And for every product purchased, Thrive Cosmetics donates to help communities thrive. So every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about, too. Amplify your everyday. Go to thrivecosmetics.com slash shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20 % off your first order.

1:23That's Thrive Cosmetics, C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I-C-S dot com slash shine26. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for$15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan, equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. Default terms at mintmobile.com.

2:00Michael Popok:As that great philosopher once said, stupid is as stupid does. And we're watching it on full display in a couple of courts about the anti-weaponization fund. The Trump administration and its beleaguered Attorney General, Todd Blanche, filed a piece of paper. They did not need to file in the Eastern District of Virginia that actually unravels and exposes the entire conspiracy concerning the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the slush fund that Donald Trump is trying to create that will be used against them and has been used against them in a Miami courtroom as a judge there tries to figure out whether there's been fraud on the court perpetrated by Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, Scott Bessell.

2:45Michael Popok:the head of the treasury, and Stan Woodward in the Department of Justice. See, when you think you're too smart and you're too smart by half and you file something the court did not ask for in the Eastern District of Virginia, you better be careful it doesn't backfire in another related case. When you admit collusion and conspiracy in one case, of course it's going to surface in another companion case, even if it's in another state. I'll explain it all to you right here. on Legal AF. I'm Michael Popok, still traveling, but I'll be back in my home studio soon enough. And thank you to Canada and Montreal for the warm welcome you gave to my family and me for this Father's Day weekend.

3:30Michael Popok:All right, let's get to the reporting. Eastern District Virginia is Judge Brinkema. Southern District of Florida is Judge Williams. What do they have in common besides being federal judges who were appointed by Democrats, they also have in common that they have jurisdiction over aspects of the Jan 6 fund. Judge Brinkema is trying to determine in a court of law based on evidence whether the slush fund has really been put out of its misery or our misery. Has it really been terminated? Has it been what we call, has there been a novation or has there been a rescission of the document? And the only way you can do that under basic principles of contract law, which Judge Brinkham understands, is if all parties to the contract acknowledge that the contract has been terminated.

4:23Michael Popok:You can't do it unilaterally. If only one of the, let's say, four contracting parties declare it to be dead, there's still an open question about the other three? Is that one party in breach and the other three can go after them for breach of contract? Or have all the parties agreed to rip up the piece of paper? See, in Eastern District of Virginia, the judge is trying to get to the bottom of whether that fund is really dead or not. And the piece of paper that she required in order to kill it was affidavits, if you will, from Scott Bessett, the Treasury Secretary, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, Stan Woodward, the head of, or the number three in the Department of Justice, because they were the signatories to the agreement, the settlement agreement.

5:15Michael Popok:That's all she's focused on. She's not focused on, at the moment, the validity of the settlement agreement, or whether it was a product of fraud on Judge Williams down in Miami. She just wants confirmation by evidential basis in her court that the fund is dead and not just pointing as they've been pointing to statements outside the courtroom. We call that extrajudicial statements outside the courtroom in social media or in Congress. Put it in writing. Put your affidavits where your mouth is. And so that's all she said. By Friday, this past Friday, give me three pieces of paper, you'll never see me again.

5:58Okay?

5:58Michael Popok:Case over. I'll declare the case over that it's been mooted by the termination of the contract as confirmed by the contracting parties. That's contract law 101. If I didn't learn it on my first day in law school, it was within the first month. They don't file that. What they file instead, and let me show you what they filed. What they file instead is their own kind of made-up document. And in the made-up document, they say it's a defendant's notice of filing. Recall, Judge Brinkerman doesn't want a notice of filing. She just wants the affidavits or nothing. So she said, if you're not going to file the affidavits, don't file anything at all.

6:47Michael Popok:I'll see you next month for your answer to the lawsuit. Oh, no. Here is where they decide that they're too smart by half, right? And they're going to give the judge a piece of paper to chastise the judge. But in doing so, they confirm the lack of adversariness, the lack of legitimacy of the lawsuit, which is the issue in front of Judge Williams in Miami. So the thing in Eastern District of Virginia, where they try to wrap the knuckles of the judge, is going to be and has been used against them just down the road, down I-95 in Miami in that courtroom. Let me read to you what they say. Remember, the issue is the judge wants all of the contracting parties to confirm the termination of the contract.

7:36Michael Popok:Instead, they say, you don't get that, Judge. What you get is, they say, accordingly on page two, the court's demands are unnecessary, and its presumption that mootness arises only by compelling testimony from three senior government officials implicates separation of powers. It does not. All she wants is the contracting parties to confirm together in one set of filings that the contract is over. Instead, they point to the comment of one of the contracting parties. Now hold this thought. Here's what they say. On page one, the acting attorney general has testified before Congress that the fund is not going forward, period.

8:21Michael Popok:Undersigned counsel has also signed briefs reaffirming that the fund is not going forward. That doesn't do it. All that confirms is that Todd Blanche, by himself, as one of the contracting parties, has terminated the contract unilaterally, meaning he's in control through Donald Trump of all of the parties. That's the very issue that's at stake in the Miami case, that it's a fraudulent lawsuit. The only way one person could terminate the contract and try to walk away from it is if they're in control of all of the parties. That's the very point down in Miami. So they've just admitted that by Todd Blanch unilaterally ending the contract and acting like he has the power over the entire contract, he's admitted that the parties are in cahoots.

9:13Michael Popok:There's collusion, which is at the heart of the Judge Williams issue in Miami. I had a similar discussion with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about this very topic that he's going to raise in the middle of July when Todd Blanche finally gets dragged before the Senate confirmation hearing. Here's a clip. You're dealing with a first time ever, I believe, in the history of the Department of Justice, credible finding that there may have been a fraud on the court perpetrated by the Department of Justice at the highest levels. I mean, that's unthinkable stuff, as you know. And Blanche's response to that is to go after the bar associations and the bar regulators to try to sue them to get them off the back of his unethical conduct and that of his Department of Justice.

10:06Michael Popok:I mean, the fish rots from the head, and it's definitely Todd Blanche. Look at the case that you mentioned in Florida, where a federal judge responding to a challenge by three dozen retired federal judges that a fraud on the court may have been committed by the United States government, went ahead, reopened the case, and offered the Trump lawyers on both sides, his private lawyers and his government lawyers, the chance to come and explain themselves. And what's telling about the judge's order, it was like super bland, super mild, no heat, no invective, none of that. But it did mention two things.

10:51It did mention that the Department of Justice might have violated its own policies in the way it proceeded, put up that flag for the DOJ to respond to, and noted that there was at least public reporting that there was a defense memo prepared by the DOJ client, the IRS, and what should I know about that was the hint from mentioning that that was in the press. And so, both of those things clearly target the Department of Justice lawyers. Those are things that the Department of Justice would be answering, not Trump's private law firm. And yet, the Department of Justice filed nothing in the case. They hid behind a fairly bare bones pleading by Trump's private lawyers and haven't said a word, despite the obvious expectation of the court that they would have something to say.

11:39So when you're in a situation where the Department of Justice has been credibly charged and inquiry has been opened into whether they committed a fraud upon the court, and then they don't have the courage to show up and answer, they just try to hide behind the Trump personal lawyers, that whole thing just reeks to high heaven. And Blanche's signature is on the tax amnesty document that is a part of that. And his fingerprints are all over the sleazy slush fund deal. By the way, I'm not sure that it's for previous harm and damage to Trump's violent political attack squads.

12:18Michael Popok:Now that takes us to the Miami case. we now have established in a filing that didn't need to have happened, was not ordered by the court. We now have the notice of filing by the Department of Justice, which has already been referred to and used ultimately by the 35 former federal judges in their filing on Friday as well, in which they tell the judge things that have happened in the last couple of weeks have actually indicated that the fraud happened on the court by Blanche trying to say that he alone can end the agreement, that indicates that there's no adversariness. That's the heart of the judge's inquiry.

13:01Michael Popok:If there's no adversariness, it's been a fraud on the court to bring the lawsuit in because there's not adverse parties. You have to have people at each other's throats on either side of the V in the American system of justice. And if that lawsuit was illegitimately filed to give an air of legitimacy, an imprimatur of legitimacy to allow for a settlement that's also illegitimate, the fruit of the poisonous tree, then the lawsuit gets tossed by the judge as sanction. The settlement does too, meaning the fund, and so does the next day attempt by Todd Blanche, because he's in charge of the whole deal on all sides of it, to amend.

13:48Michael Popok:See, that's another factor. Todd Blanche amends the settlement agreement the next day, likely under the objection or over the objection of the Treasury Department's general counsel, who resigned. the next day on the 19th of May, Todd Blanchett just unilaterally enters into his own amendment, doesn't even bother involving the other counterparties. They're too lazy. These are lazy criminals. This is like the Waterhouse break-in. Lazy, lazy. All he had to do was have signature lines for Scott Besant and Stan Woodward on that piece of paper. No, no, I'm going to amend it myself. Wouldn't that be an amazing place to be as a lawyer if you could just, on your own, the next day, improve the terms of your contract without the other parties and sign it.

14:37Michael Popok:That, the 35 federal judges have said, actually proves the point. Here's what they say in their filing, which we'll also put up on Legal AF in the sub-stack for paid members. This is what it says there. Now, this is now the brief that was filed in Trump versus the entire Internal Revenue Service. And if you go into the brief, it says the settlement's context and contents are evidence of fraud.

15:14Michael Popok:So here's what it says. Elsewhere, plaintiffs, this is on page two, elsewhere, plaintiffs observe that the government is permitted to take different positions in different cases. Opposition at 11 is permitted to settle cases. Opposition at 19, it's not required to raise every available defense. All of this misses the point where the same party controls both sides of the litigation, where an apparently collusive suit was employed to confer enormous benefits from the defendant United States to the plaintiffs, where the parties took several steps to avoid judicial scrutiny, and where settlement terms have since been unilaterally, meaning by by Blanche alone abandoned, the settlement becomes relevant to the court's inquiry whether a fraud has occurred.

16:00Michael Popok:And of course, they don't mention any of these facts when Trump's private lawyers try to oppose it. They go on to say, this is on page three over to page four, since they filed their motion, the evidence of collusion and fraud of the court has only gotten stronger. Just one week later, the Department of Justice claimed it would no longer create the weaponization fund. That one side of the purported dispute could unilaterally scrap a material term without even so much as a revised written agreement makes it crystal clear that these parties were never adverse. And of course, they cite the filings that have been made in the courtroom for Judge Brinkema.

16:43Michael Popok:Indeed, this suit was collusive from the start. the same person controlled it on both sides of the V, President Trump. The DOJ's failure to raise dispositive winning defenses while settling the case for an astronomical sum of taxpayer dollars and extraordinarily broad releases to plaintiffs just days before having to answer this court's questions about collusiveness is further evidence of both collusion and fraud on the court. and that the briefing only proves the point. They actually say it is laughable. See what happens when you put the Department of Justice on the hook in two different cases and then they do, to paraphrase the World Cup, they do their own goal.

17:31Michael Popok:They kick the ball into their own net by filing a piece of paper they never had to file, which is then used in Miami against them. We'll continue to follow it all right here. on Legal AF. Thanks for being here. Thanks for continuing to grow the channel. We had some great views, great audience while I've been traveling. I've been doing my videos, of course, for you, but I appreciate you being here. Hit the free subscribe button, fly the flag of Legal AF, and hit that subscribe button for us. Now, come over to Legal AF Substack and do the exact same thing where you can read these two filings so you can compare them for yourself.

18:08Michael Popok:So until my next Report. I'm Michael Popak. I'm Michael Popak, and I got some big news for our audience. Most of you know me as the co-founder of Midas Touches Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel, or as a 35-year national trial lawyer. Now building a what we started together on Legal AF, I've launched a new law firm, the Popak Firm, dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation. At the Popak Firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged by a life-altering event by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years, so my own law firm organically building on my legal AF work just feels right.

18:53Michael Popok:And I've handpicked a team of top-tier trial fighters and settlement experts throughout all 50 states known as Big Auto Injury Attorneys who have the know-how to beat heartless insurance companies, corporations, government entities, and their attorneys. Big Auto's attorneys working with my firm are rock stars in their respective states and collectively responsible for billions of dollars in recoveries. So if you or a loved one have been on the wrong side of a catastrophic auto, motor vehicle, rideshare, or truck accident, suffered a personal injury, or been the victim of medical malpractice, employment harassment, or discrimination, or suffered a violation of your civil and constitutional rights, then contact the Popak Firm today at 1-877-POPOC-AF or by visiting my website at www.thepopocfirm.com and fill out a free case evaluation form.

19:45Michael Popok:And if we determine that you have a case and you sign with us, we don't get paid unless you do. The Popoc Firm, fighting for your justice every step of the way.