TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-10-14 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029145

COMMENTARY MeidasTouch and Legal AF Trump SMACKED DOWN in EMERGENCY LATE NIGHT HEARING PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt7Vbk5y6CU
Trump SMACKED DOWN in EMERGENCY LATE NIGHT HEARING MeidasTouch and Legal AF Oct 6, 2025 The MeidasTouch Podcast In Breaking News, an openly defiant Trump Administration has met its match as an Oregon Trump-appointed Federal Judge just issued her second Emergency Temporary Restraining Order in 24 hours to prevent Trump from sending federalized national guards troops from California and around the country into Portland. Michael Popok is joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta for an exclusive briefing about Judge Immergut’s latest emergency injunction ruling, as she fears that Trump is moving the nation from “Constitutional law” to “martial law.” Subscribe: ‪@LegalAFMTN‬ Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! MeidasTouch relies on SnapStream to record, watch, monitor, and clip the news. Get a FREE TRIAL of SnapStream by clicking here: https://go.snapstream.com/affiliate/m... Support the MeidasTouch Network: / meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: / meidastouch How this content was made Auto-dubbed Audio tracks for some languages were automatically generated. Learn more Peter Burgess COMMENTARY I do not have a 'polticical' background. but more 'social' and 'technical' or 'technocratic'. I visited the United States from the UK when I was at Cambridge University in the summer of 1960 and the summer of 1961. I was allowed to 'work' in Canada but not in the Untied States. During these two summers I learned a lot ... and also earned a huge amount of money by British standards! Subsequently I completed my Cambridge eduation ... but my 'world view' was also changed for ever!. I completed my Cambridge studies after 3 years. ... the normal undergraduate programme in the UK. During that time I competed what was essentially two undergraduate prigrammes, one in engineering (Mechanical Sciences) amd one in economics. Initially I was going to take the exams related to Part I Economics ... a one year programme, but soone after starting this work my tutor proposed that I sit the exams related to Part II, the exams normally taken after 3 years of undergradiate study. I retrospect, I think he realized that the massive amount of 'reading on economics' that I had one during my summer work with the Foundation Company in Canada had set me up to 'fast track' my studies back in the academic setting at Cambridge. During the next few years I continuted fast-track learning. My first 'job' after college was an industrial training program in very heavy engineering with a company that manufactured the industrial equipment for the production of iron, steel and aluminium. While Cambridge had been a fascinating mix of basic ideas and futuristic thinking, British industry and my industrial training felt a century or moe 'out-of-date'! I had the opportunity to get some advice from one of the top people at this first 'job'... specifically the Financial Director of the company. He suggested that with my background and interets I should explore training as a Chartered Accountant ... that is doing 'Articles' with a firm of Chartered Accountants Two weeks later I was in London interviewing with several of the 'top' accounting firms. It was a fascinating experience. Some of the firms were obviously proud of their history and tradition while othere were leaning in to the future. All of the firms I interviewed with would have delivered the same 'qualification' but by mo means the same training and meaningful qualification and competence. As I recall,my ranking of the interview experience was: 1. Top rank: Cooper Brothers & Co. 2. Second rank ................... 3. 3rd Rank: Price Waterhouse, Peat Marwick, 4. 4th Rabk: 5. Bottom: Barton Mayhew, In total I interviwed with about 10 firms. My overall impression was that they were very different in their core character, some being very traditional and changing very slowly, and others moving with the times in a more or less constructive way. CB&Co seemed to be embracing the future more aggressively than any of the other big accounting firms! Less than a month later is started a new phase in my career as an 'Articled Clerk' for Brian Maynard, a Partner at Cooper Brothers & Co (CB&Co). More than 60 years later, I still think this was one of the best strategic decisions I ever made ... though at the time most of my older friends and relatives though I was 'out of my mind'! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 We got some breaking news here on the Midas Touch network for those that have been following it. Judge uh Immergut has just issued her second temporary restraining order in favor of the state of Oregon and California about Donald Trump's attempts to send now the California National Guard into Oregon in full defiance of Judge Imrut's earlier ruling from Saturday late afternoon in which she said that Donald Trump did not have the power or the authority under the statute to commandeer and federalize ize the Oregon National Guard because the uh the elements that are necessary in order to do that were missing such as there's no rebellion going on and he doesn't need federal troops or the um or the common dear National Guard troops in order to execute federal law. Donald Trump didn't like that and decided to start sending in 200 or more uh uh National Guardsmen from California into 1:03 Oregon, which led to a quick unity between Oregon and California and joining in a new temporary restraining order. And within hours, Judge Imrut set an emergency hearing and ruled from the bench. And who better to tell us about this than the attorney general of California who's joining us here, Rob Bont, AG Bont, thank you for joining Might as Touch. Grateful to be with you as always. Thanks. Yes. So, uh, let's take it from your perspective. Uh, this was an Oregon case until about half a day ago and then it became a California and Oregon case. Uh, you were on the hearing. It was by phone uh, mainly. uh tell our audience what happened today and what Judge Imrut did and uh and why you think it was correct. Yeah, you know, well, it was an Oregon case until today, though California, you know, I speaking directly with with uh AG Rayfield and and my team talking to them have been very closely um 2:01 communicating with them about what happened in LA with California since we were first. uh we've been supporting our fellow AGs as they face deployments of National Guard, whether it be DC or or Oregon. And then today we got, you know, directly brought into the case uh with uh um 300 federalized California National Guards people being uh moved um a thousand miles up up north to Portland u where a judge had already said yesterday that the conditions on the ground absolutely do not justify the federalization of National Guard. they don't justify the the federalization of Oregon National Guard. And so the federal government in in its uh ingenious uh thinking said, 'Well, her order, although it said there were no conditions to bring the National Guard to uh Federalized National Guard to Oregon, applied to the Oregon National Guard. How about uh we bring in California National Guard? Maybe that will work.' And she was completely 3:00 miffed. I I I I just uh listened in on the entire hearing. First of all, thank you to my incredible team, the incredible teams in Oregon and Portland. It was a team effort. Uh folks working overtime. Obviously, today's a Sunday. Um and democracy needs to be protected every day and the rule of law does as well. Um and she was really mythed. Her first set of questions of the federal government were how does this not violate my order from yesterday? And uh I think she's right. you know that this sort of super technical approach to try to bring National Guard in that's from another uh state and and and just minutes before the hearing commenced we got word uh through a memorandum from Secretary Hegsth that the Texas National Guard has been federalized 2,000 of them with 400 of them being deployed to both Portland and um and Chicago. So, uh, it is clear that, uh, it it's a sort of whack-a-ole approach from the federal government. You stop the Oregon National 4:00 Guard from being federalized, we'll bring in the California National Guard. You stop the California National Guard from being brought up north, we'll bring in the Texas National Guard. You stop them, uh, we got, you know, who's got next, uh, you know, we got a bunch of others we can bring in. So we asked her uh the judge uh to issue a broad order that says that applies to every national guard in every state and the District of Columbia and that none of them can be deployed uh can be federalized and deployed to uh or Oregon and she issued that order from the bench. Uh she's going to back it up with a written order as well. But she was concerned based on the behavior of the federal government uh about what the scope of her order should be and believed and I agree uh uh that a broad uh order uh that is broad in scope is appropriate. So um the conditions have not changed in 24 hours. Uh National Guard being deployed in Oregon was unlawful yesterday. It's unlawful today as well. It doesn't matter where the National Guard comes from whether they're Oregon's National Guard or California's or Texas's Guard. 5:01 And so I think the judge nailed it. Um the Trump appointed judge uh nailed it and looked at the facts, looked at the law, issued an order um expeditiously and um uh appropriately stopped Trump from this unlawful conduct. And uh thank you, Ag Bont. And and what we've known from the past is there were about seven red states that sent their National Guard into DC. And I'm sure this is the same group that Donald Trump is trying to cycle through to try to find a I don't even think he's trying to do find a loophole. I think he's just openly defiant of Judge Immut. It sounds like she might she thinks that might have happened as well. Just to frame the issue, we have a judge who, yes, was appointed back in the uh the uh first term of Donald Trump, but he's already blaming whoever the people were, you know, at the Federalist Society or Leonard Leo or whoever led him astray because he doesn't like her particular rulings. Um, and she framed the issue in 6:01 her order on Saturday so perfectly. Uh, in my to my audience, I said, 'It's 31 pages, but you really just need to read the first paragraph.' And, uh, one of her last paragraphs to understand it. In her first paragraph for for our audience, she said on on Saturday, and this, like you said, it it was illegal then and it's illegal now. She said, 'This case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. And the third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States. And then she ended 7:00 it this way, and I'm sure this is sort of the animating force in uh in her decision-m. She said at the end of her order on page 30 from Saturday, 'This country has a long-standing and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.' uh quoting from uh James Madison uh addressed to the constitutional convention, 'A standing military force with an overgrown executive, well, we've got an overgrown executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition. This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that if accepted risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power to the detriment of this nation. That's the judge, right? 8:00 She nails it. She She nails it. She knows what's at stake. She knows what the issues are here. Um you know, this Trump appointed judge is doing her duty. She's following the facts, following the law. Let them uh chips fall where they may. you apply the the law to the facts and make decisions um not influenced by ideology, political ideology or um you know who the president is or who appointed you. She's doing what what her job is. What was the department? I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry about that. Sorry. What what what was the response? I mean, we always like to know our opponent. What was the response? And what's the government's position as to why they believe in good faith they could send in California, Texas, or any other national card given her earlier ruling? What did they say? I didn't envy the uh the federal attorney trying to defend this conduct. And honestly, he was having a hard time. And you know, he had his arguments though and and but the judge was pushing and she was not happy and she was saying, 'You are an officer of the 9:00 court, sir, and tell me why this doesn't violate my order from yesterday.' and his argument was that this is not the Oregon National Guard. That's what your order yesterday applied to. This is the California National Guard. They've already been um federalized and they're just being repositioned uh from uh Los Angeles and California to to Portland. And she was having none of that and you know not not buying any of that hyper technical approach. she was getting to the substance and she and I think she was likely offended though she didn't show it. She was very professional and had uh outstanding demeanor um by by this effort to end run uh or just violate blatantly her order from yesterday. And such a weird I mean look we you and I don't have enough time on planet Earth to figure out the minations of the Trump administration or their strategy or lack thereof. But everything reports up in these cases to the same Ninth Circuit 10:00 Court of Appeals. And I I I I would think they're doc it strengthens your hand certainly in the California Ninth Circuit case to see how Donald Trump has interpreted unique set of facts that he was able to at one time convince the Ninth Circuit about now trying to take them on the road to to go to any state that he that he says, ;Well, I I'm having trouble uh enforcing the law. Let me just take it.; I don't think that's what the Ninth Circuit three judge panel had in mind. Do you? I don't. And look, this um on August 8th, Trump uh deployed 300 National Guard for 90 days longer in in in Los Angeles, arguing that they are necessary and essential to enforce the federal laws um and to keep people safe. And then today he's like, nah, maybe I'll send all of them to Portland. They don't need to be in LA. So, so it it completely undercuts his position uh in in our case in LA and we're going to 11:01 make that known to the court that these federal uh federalized National Guard are so essential and so necessary to keep the the peace and keep public safety that they were all sent away a thousand miles away to to another to another uh gift. You were given a gift AG B. I mean it it is deplorable what happened and we are going to let the court know uh how it impacts uh you know the case that we have as I like the fact that Immergut Judge Immergut in her Saturday order actually tipped her hat to your judge in California Judge Brier and said I like what the district court judge did about how you spot a rebellion. I think those I think so so once I saw that I all right because you know he's he's taken a little bit of heat uh because he didn't get the entirety of his injunctions upheld at least for now uh although the posi commatatus one is still right there the more I learned and maybe you knew 12:00 about her from her prior experience even in California she has a very interesting body of work that's unique among federal judges she had been a federal prosecutor in LA I She was a US attorney in Portland. She was a district attorney in the county in which Portland is in. She worked at Vermont for a couple of years. She's a person that worked very closely with law enforcement and knows law enforcement well, especially in Portland and lives and works in Portland. And this whole Portland is war torn and is a wealth, right? War ravaged. We must send the military. as she's sitting drinking her her her local, you know, brewed coffee, like where where is this? Someone show me it immediately because I don't see it anywhere and I'm here in Portland. So, you know, when Judge Simon gave up the case after I assume Trump's lawyers made some sort of argument that made him uncomfortable because his wife is a 13:01 congresswoman from Portland. We were like, who did it rotate to? But once I did more exploration of her background, you've got a you know, you've got a great judge for this. We we I thought she did a great job and you know, tons of credit to her. Um I'm sure she's I I hope she's not I hope this isn't true going to get political pressure from the right from uh from MAGA world um mag world and from Trump and his people. But she is a true public servant who believes in the law, who believe who knows what law enforcement is, has worked uh with it and for it and and you know is is not going to get pulled into these these these silly um ideological fights and these um you know uh depictions of what's happening on the ground that are only a figment of the imagination of Donald Trump that he posts on Truth Social when he says it's war torn. And she I mean she pointed out very uh um specifically that Trump's determination uh to deploy the guard based on the facts on the ground was untethered from the ground. Tethered to reality. 14:00 So I like that word. It was untethered. She uh and she may get pressure. Look, as you and I are on the air, we got a house that's burned to the ground in South Carolina of a judge. Yeah. Really terrible, terrible things are happening here in terms of political violence. But I think uh uh you know she's a a very like you said she's a dedicated public servant. Her entire body of work leading to this case says that she's the perfect judge to handle a matter like this even though Donald Trump is already attacking her and bemoning it. Uh so is is the my understanding is I know you asked in the alternative either a new TTRO or ex uh modify your old one. She went with the new one. Was that do you think because the other side was arguing that since the appeal was up with the ninth somehow she was divested of jurisdiction? I don't think she thought she was divested of jurisdiction. Though she did ask this question, what if the appeal um to the ninth circuit on uh yesterday's TTRO, you know, the first TTRO is is is 15:01 is granted and and and the TTRO is overturned. Would that affect today's TTRO should she issue one? she was kind of thinking out loud and asking the attorneys their their input. And uh I think the the attorneys from California and Oregon made it very clear that uh today's a separate TTRO on a on a separate issue with a a separate movement of of National Guard and uh whatever the court does in the first TRO shouldn't affect the TTRO today. So um and and she was broad in her scope today. And so we have two very powerful and poignant TTRO but she she did connect them. I think she's going to incorporate by reference in the TTRO that she's issued today the rationale and and the factual um um recitation in her yeah the same 31page underpin the quote that I read applies to what the analysis that she just did here and uh and then Donald Trump can you know ask for his stays from whatever courts he wants to ask and file his appeals and you'll follow this to the ends of the earth but 16:01 for right now uh so I guess the question is right now Where are these two or 300 uh California National Guards people? Where are they? We think that a h 100red are already on the ground in Portland and um they were in and around the LA area um and then another hundred will be there by tonight and the final um uh group of 100 will arrive by tomorrow. I mean, are you expecting them to to comply now with the second TTRO and get them off the street? I I do. I I I mean they shouldn't be um performing any uh official duties. So I don't know if they're going to be put on ice somewhere uh you know just uh staying in the background and and um not conducting any official activity or if they're going to be uh sent back to California. Um whatever it is, they need to comply with the court order and they are they cannot be deployed to engage in um you know any official duties in in in Portland. a fastmoving story, but we're 17:00 so fortunate to have the attorney general for California, Rob Bont, join the Midas Touch Network to give us the update about the case from basically within the courtroom. Uh we'll continue to follow it. This is a fastmoving story. Uh it's got a lot of moving parts now, but we've got two temporary restraining orders. There has not been a stay that's been issued about either one of them, although appeals have been filed and we'll see what happens on the ground here and and throughout and we'll post this order and the orders that we have on the legal AF Substack so that our audience can read it for themselves. AG Bont always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for taking time to brief our audience. Honored to be with you. Thanks again for having me. It's always great to join you. Thank you. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com. [Music]

SITE COUNT