Unlisted3-29-26-AT-8AM-CST-00T.

All right, folks, welcome to Nino's Corner dot TV. I'm judge. I'm I'm judged by Joe Brown. No, I'm joined with Judge Joe Brown. Boy, we have a good, good discussion today. We're going to be talking about the Hunter Biden laptops with a plural three laptops that Judge Joe Biden has seen. I mean, Judge Joe Brown has seen and all roads lead to Obama, folks. Obama seeking refuge, seeking asylum in the UK about a huge mansion out there. Wants to get the hell out of the way of trouble. What exactly is happening? James Comey subpoenaed Brennan. All of it's coming to a head. Judge, I hope you can clear this up for myself and my audience. A lot of lawfare being waged, a lot of crazy stuff happening right now. Thank you for joining me, Judge. OK, what happens is that some years ago, Fox was going to do a moot court thing on what was construed to be the Hunter laptop. All right. It turned out there weren't there was not one. There were three, one, two, three. And they had the technician who did the repairs and had all of the signed documents allowing him to download them for a hundred by they were damaged by a liquid, which he estimated to be an alcoholic beverage. So anyway, we got into the transcripts of the three laptops and Obama's in there as is Hillary Clinton and other people and their references, and some of them are very bad. And Daddy pardoned Hunter for any transgressions he may have come up with. But what he did is he then removed any liability to prosecution of Hunter. But that then removed his ability to remain silent because of Fifth Amendment considerations of self-incrimination. So he could be called as a witness and compelled to give evidence against others that are mentioned. One of the things that's very intriguing is, and I don't know how he got a hold of it, a White House tape, which is not like it was in a Nixon era where all it is is audio. But the visuals on there and he, his daddy, Joe Biden and President, then Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama are in the Oval Office discussing a matter with a tall Chinese representative of a business Hunter was working for. And some of the things they were talking about are very, very bad. And that involved the discussion of the U.S. Navy being directed to back off aggressive counter patrols in the South China Sea where China was trying to take these atolls, small coral atolls and build concrete emplacements on them so they could declare a territorial radius of 200 miles around each of them, which in effect would allow them to make territorial claims all the way up to Japan's West Coast and the Philippines and most of Vietnam and Korea. So we back checked and in a magazine, a publication known as Military Times, the Pentagon puts out some months after this discourse that we were looking at, it developed that the admirals were upset that they'd been told to back off and that was what was being discussed. And also there was a money matter of about 10 million apiece. Wow. That was supposed to go out. Now, the interesting thing about that is the acquisition of property in England is not unexpected because most people don't know this. The richest person we've ever had sitting in the White House is of all persons, Barack Obama. Interesting. That's through his adopted, well, adoptive grandfather, well, adoptive father, otherwise his stepfather, and that was Lolo Sotoro, who was at one time the international vice president for Standard Oil and then somebody that ran all of the oil industry in Indonesia, which at the time was thought to sit on top of the world's largest oil reserves. Lolo Sotoro was wanted at one time by The Hague for crimes against humanity for allegedly being responsible for the murder of half a million Indonesians during that 1959 through 61 abortive uprising that they were having. And he had the muscles, so he wound up when he died being one of the 10 or 15 richest men on earth and he left everything to Obama and two of his half-siblings. So Obama didn't take any drawdown from the trust fund, which was operated under Indonesian law and therefore immune from American interference. And when he did, I think it was 2015, 2017, I think, or 18, when Business Insider reported that his net after the draw when taxes have been paid, etc., was somewhere around $570 to $580 million. So he is a very wealthy individual. So he's now on the run, allegedly. He's looking for asylum in the UK, the UK from the government of fellow leftist Kerry Starmer. This comes months after Obama's purchased a multi-million dollar luxurious mansion in the country and his rumors are circulating that Barack Obama is facing an imminent federal indictment related to his leadership role in the Russiagate hoax. That's an additional thing above and beyond what we're talking about, but it's not surprising because those laptops talked about a lot of intrigue. It has to do with Smith and Milargo and that raid that the feds pulled off on President Trump's properties down there and some of the items they seized. And if you recall that reference to the black box behind the vet in the family, the Biden family home in- Right, right, where all the classified stuff was at. Yeah, those were referenced in the laptops as, did your friends get a chance to see that? Tell them there'll be more. And it looks like he was delivering state secrets to the Chinese government, which in wartime would have been flat-out treason, but it is what it is and nobody has pardoned Joe Biden, only his son Hunter, but that leaves him open wide open for witnesses. Now, what happened with the falsification of the documents is an interesting situation with the Russiagate thing. The Democrats were very foolish when they went after former president at the time, Donald Trump, the second time with impeachment proceedings when he was no longer the president. So that set the precedent of being able to go after a person who had held the office of president or vice president once they had left the office. So be careful what you try to get or ask for, you might get it. And what comes up is Article 2, Section 4, I think it is of the Constitution, specifies three grounds upon which a president or vice president can be impeached and if convicted, removed from office or with some amendments that follow, forbidden from ever holding office again and stripped of all benefits such as Secret Service protection, pensions and such like. And those three grounds are for one, treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution itself and it's pretty difficult to find somebody guilty of treason under those standards. Two, or bribery. Or three, high crimes or misdemeanors, which means felonies or misdemeanors committed while in office. And if they can get that established, then Obama would fall into Category 3, felonies or misdemeanors committed in office, which is the direction of federal agencies to commit acts of deprivation of President Trump's rights, of abuse of process, etc., etc., etc. And if he is charged with articles of impeachment and the Senate convicts him, then everything kicks in. Now, Trump never got convicted of the accusations in the two instances of impeachment articles because they didn't stipulate the grounds. But the fact that they put criminal charges on Trump and went after him, that was kind of like the seal being broken, right? Now it's like, now anyone is game. Anyone is fair game now that they went after Trump, right? Yeah, well, not so much anyone is fair game. President, former president. Well, yeah, let's put it this way. Anyone who violates the law is fair game for criminal process. So Obama would know this now and knows like, oh, Trump's coming after me, the subpoena after James Comey, Brennan, I mean, the heat is on. And now if Obama is seeking asylum, they must really know the pressure is on now. It's a real game. Yeah, well, you are asking me to conclude what's inside his head, but as a former jurist and criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor, I'd have to say that it looks like that, but whether you can prove that's his motive for acquiring the English properties, I don't know, but there is an inference that develops from that. But the point I made about his wealth is he's one of those wealthy guys that doesn't have to ask the price of anything. If he wants it, he can afford it. So to him, when you have financial assets such as he has- So you're saying he may not be on the run. He may just be buying property to buy it. Yeah, I knew somebody that had an interesting thing. He had so many properties around the world that he had 25-year retirement parties for some of his employees who managed homes that he had never even visited, but he owned. But don't you find it coincidental that it's happening right now when all this money kick off? And now you've got Russiagate, the 2020 stuff coming out, Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, it's all culminating for this time right now, and it looks like they're going to go after him. I mean, Trump is putting out posts saying, all roads lead to Obama, this has to go to military. I don't think Trump's bluffing. I don't think Trump is- I don't think he is either. The only thing I'd point out is this, as to whether or not that's his motive, let's just consider that England- I mean, look at this, Judge. Yeah, well, all I'm going to say is this. England has a very firm expedition treaty that's been used quite often with the United States. So if he's going there, that's the wrong place to go. Now, there's some islands nearby in the Caribbean that don't have expedition agreements with the U.S. So I'd be more concerned about him getting a house in those locations. So he can run, but he can't hide. He's- He can't hide there. And so by them going after Trump, which I've said many times before, the seal has been broken, right? So now Trump kind of has authority to go after everybody, Hillary, Obama, all of them. It's fair game. Well, and then see, it's not really correct to say Trump's going after them because there is this intervening thing known as a grand jury. Right, right. And see, that means that anywhere in the United States, there is a federal system, which is everywhere. Any one of the U.S. attorneys for that particular district can go after Obama and get an indictment returned if he's able to convince the grand jury where he happens to be that there's probable cause. So- So James Comey subpoenaed a conspiracy case against ex-officials who investigated Trump. It says here, former FBI director James Comey. So he thought he was off the hook, I guess, but has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors in Miami as part of the Justice Department's investigation into Obama-era intelligence officials. Two sources familiar with the investigation tell CBS federal prosecutors have issued more than 130 subpoenas since the start of the investigation last year, one of the forces have said. So, you know, Comey, you know, he probably thought he was off the hook, right? Now he's back again getting subpoenaed. Brennan, it's all coming out. And who's behind it? Obama. Yeah. So this, to me, looks problematic in the sense that I believe Trump when he says, so I don't know what, so I wanted to ask you like- He can be indeed Trump. We really wanted to get Obama. Would it go military? Does it need to go military? It wouldn't go military because it's essentially civil. The military wouldn't really have any jurisdiction. But even if it's treason and a felony? No, the military tribunals don't have jurisdiction over that kind of thing. That would be federal. And actually, it would be more formal in front of the federal system than in a military. But he has problems. Now, I'll say this. Myself and two very experienced former prosecutors, now defense lawyers from the New York area went over those three laptops and we pointedly asked Fox to not publish a lot of it. And our reasons concern the fact that if you publish some of this that you have in your hands, you will get some of our loyal patriotic Americans put on a wall and shot, as well as the operatives of some of our close allies. Hold on, hold on. You saw some things in there, the contents in there that were very, very concerning. Very problematic. Yeah, and I'm not going to publish them right now for those same reasons. Some Americans abroad could be put on walls and shot, executed, or put in prisons. Yeah, and one of the things, for example, remember the female basketball player that was carrying the hash oil, the last one, NARC? Her name, Bridget, or Brittany? Brittany something. Brittany Reiner, or? Yeah, Brittany Reiner. Is that it? Did I get it? Yeah, and see, you know what bothers me about that? They wasted that opportunity to make a trade on her. She's nobody, essentially, in the world game. But there are Americans who are held in penitentiaries right now around the world who deserve to have been exchanged for the merchant of death, who is somebody that the Russians really, really wanted back. And we wasted that on somebody who knowingly took a very high-level, Schedule I or II drug through an airport, arrogantly feeling immune that she would be confronted and tried to smuggle this in. Hell, she would have gotten more time than she actually got from the Russians if she'd been convicted of that in the United States. So why waste this exchange on her when you have these Americans who might be put on a wall and literally shot in a number of places because of what's on those laptops? And this is supposed to be known to the Biden administration, Harris administration. So why didn't they use that opportunity to achieve the liberty of these American patriots who are sitting there languishing when they get some little- So where are these laptops now? I mean, this is- They've been confiscated by the feds. But what happens is he downloaded them. And he made copies. And what's going on is that the sequence of events is when he became aware of what was on them, the technician contacted his father who had been in Naval Intelligence. And they determined that they should contact the FBI, which initially expressed absolutely no interest at all. Until one early morning, they showed up unannounced serving a search warrant and they seized the laptops. But by this time, he had downloaded them and gotten copies. So it was the moot gesture. You seized the physical laptops that he had to repair, but he has the contents. And he's in a position to attest as to where he got the contents from and under what circumstances. So it would be valid and useful evidence in the criminal proceeding. And I think, from what I saw, that criminal proceedings should have been implemented. So what would make this, you know, go military? I mean, how does this go military? How far can this be taken with the subpoenas of James Comey and Brennan and all this? How far can this go? Frankly, I think the likelihood of it winding up in front of a militant is more the consequence of talk, loose talk, uninformed reality. I don't see that because the person, the president of the United States was acting as the civilian commander-in-chief, occupying a civilian office, i.e. the White House. And he gets out of that. And when he gets out of that, he's no longer the commander-in-chief. He's acting as a civilian. So that would give military very little claim to having jurisdiction over him acting as a civilian. What about his birth certificate and all those allegations? Well, I've seen a birth certificate that he filed with the Illinois Election Commission, amongst other things, and it's greatly at odds with the one that is now on record that he brings in as a president. Now, he's supposed to have been born in Hawaii, but it takes him 18 months after he gets in the White House to produce such a birth certificate. Now, some years before he got in the White House, on my show, I had some assistants who were from Hawaii, and they wanted a passport for some travel. And from my office, we made a call to the Department of Vital Records in Oahu. That's Pearl Harbor. And within 72 hours, their birth certificates arrived on my desk, and I gave them to them and said, Here, here are your birth certificates. Now, if I'm a nobody at the time and I can get birth certificates ordered in 72 hours, delivered in 72 hours, why does it take the president 18 months? Now, the other thing that's interesting is the original birth certificates that come out of the Election Commission for the state of Illinois and some other things, including his bar application for Illinois, they suggest that he was born in Nairobi, Kenya, in a certain designated room to a certain designated doctor whose address, phone number, and credentials are reflected in the document, which appears to be in order. And it notes that his father is a Kenyan citizen, gives his name, his circumstances, and notes his mother's name, and that she is an American citizen from the state of Kansas. And at the time, she delivers Barack Obama. She's 18 years, three months old. They also don't list that she is a married woman on that document. So I find that interesting with all of these details that check out because the phone numbers that are given for the doctor and the people who were in attendance are valid, so are their addresses. Such people actually exist. So there is this earlier birth certificate that's filed with the Bar Association and the State Election Commission. And all of a sudden, that one's supposed to be forgotten about in favor of one that comes from Oahi. Now, what is the issue? The issue is this. Since Barack Obama's mother is or was before she passed, and at the time of his birth, an American citizen, he's automatically an American citizen. But that isn't enough when you're running for president or being the president or vice president. Your ancestor, who is American, must not only be a U.S. citizen, you must be born on American soil. Now, Senator Cruz, for all of his good worth, he has a problem. Even though he was a Republican candidate for president during Mr. Trump's first run in 2016, he wasn't really eligible because he was born in Canada. He's an American citizen, but unless you're born in continental or, well, on American soil, you're not eligible to be president. What's American soil? In a state, territory, protectorate, zone, military or naval base, consulate or embassy. I just have a hard time believing that if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he was involved in the Russiagate hoax and now with the 2020 election, stolen election stuff coming out, if he was involved in that, implicated on that, and all roads lead to him, how this does not go military. I've always been told that a stolen election, especially when foreign powers are involved, is like they treat it as a nuclear attack, stolen election. So how does this not go military? That just blows my mind. How does he not get in trouble for this? I mean, it seems like Trump is going to take some different avenues to make sure justice prevails here. I've done it in terms of my role as a defense lawyer. I mean, these are serious allegations. But see, here's the thing. The military was subject to civilian oversight by the federal courts. So just because the military does it does not mean that their product is not subject to federal courts reviewing it. So- Right, but what if they can prove that you cannot trust the courts, that the law fair and everything- You can't get into you can't trust the courts because we have an appellate process. If somebody is acquitted of all charges, there's nothing you can do about it. But if the person is not or is found guilty, then you have that step-by-step process that goes from a federal district court to a federal circuit court of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that's the way it works. So we have an assurance of the independence of the judiciary. And although there's been an occasional bout of dissatisfaction with the performance of the Supreme Court, there is this inherent supposition in American law that you're going to have wise, learned, and experienced people who occupy these judicial positions. That's not always the case, but that's the supposition. And we deal with humans, so we're not perfect. So we have a very good system of dealing with the consequences of that imperfection, but there's no way of getting around it. Whether or not you trust your federal courts, there is this system. Now, I see a lot of uproar because a district court judge may rule against somebody, and there's a great deal of upset. But there are many, many circuit court judges in the federal system, as well as even more magistrates within the federal system. But above them is the Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a different kind of thing. And then above the multiple circuit courts of appeals that have a minimum of nine full members of that circuit court, you have the U.S. Supreme Court. So what happens is everything gets vetted going up to the Supreme Court. And with the exception of certain matters that are designated by Constitution or U.S. law, the lower courts vet issues to determine whether they are to go up further and to determine the factual basis upon which the matters are based and set those facts for an appellate court to review in terms of applying the law. That's how we get to the top. So we've got assurances, and it generally works pretty well, though there are some very bad decisions. You know, I've never understood how a judge can overturn or overrule anything that Trump does. I don't get that. Can you explain that to me and my audience? Okay, what happens is there's a balance of... In other words, what happens is this is unusual. If the president of the United States walks into a court, federal court, he's subject to the discipline and control of that court while he is immediately there. Everybody is. But the legislature set the laws that the courts have to apply, and the president is responsible for executing or carrying out or enforcing the laws that are passed by Congress that survive review by the courts. So everybody is interdependent, and then in the background is the Second Amendment, which arms the citizenry so they can serve as a check and balance, the fourth estate check and balance. So you have the judiciary, the legislative function, the executive function, and the armed citizenry that can say, hell no, it ain't going to go like that. And that's an offset in both the federal and the state system. I wonder, and I want to get your thoughts on this, in order for things to go military, would there need to be an event for a national emergency that would suspend the Constitution or anything like that? Would an event have to happen? Well, the only time that is appropriate is when civil law and order totally breaks down, and there is a good reason for the military to have a presence in a location, a riot, an insurrection, and such things come to mind. Yeah, well, not just a national emergency, something that requires a military presence. Now, I will bring this to everybody's attention. A lot of the rhetoric you heard from the Democrats in the far left about January 6th was this was an insurrection. I submit to you that that is full of crap because no 180 people are going to foam in an insurrection against the United States of America. Why is that important? Because in the Constitution itself, it guarantees the right to proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that shall not be suspended except in two instances, invasion and insurrection. So the Democrats were exercising this propaganda tactic of continuously throwing the term insurrection, insurrection, insurrection, insurrection so subconsciously the public would associate that with what happened January 6th. Have you ever had a song you don't like that stays in your mind and you just can't get it out? Every day. Yeah, well, that's what they were attempting to do so there would be a false association and people would not get upset when eventually they tried to do something like suspend the right of habeas corpus. Now, what is that? That means that any citizen can go in front of any judge with the jurisdiction and say, I want to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court has literally ruled that it can't be written in crayon on the back of a paper bag. Right. And it makes it a misdemeanor in office, which is impeachable for a judge to refuse to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus. It means to have the body. What that means is the person who's holding someone in custody must bring that individual before the court and show that there is a legitimate legal cause to hold that person in custody. If they don't have one, they are ordered to release that person. Now, they might want to appeal it. But even on the state level, I can remember it's been 35, 36 years ago. I had a petition for habeas corpus that was in front of me that the sheriff brought and that was on behalf of about 250 or 60 prisoners he had who were non-compensators. That a screwball who dropped out of the sixth grade, but was a juvenile court judge was holding indefinitely in custody and he wanted him out. So when I held the hearing, I found there was no good cause and I released him and the sheriff was very gratified because these people should have been under the care of psychiatrists, psychologists, and their appointed guardians because they were non-compensators. In other words, they were mentally ill and could not manage their own affairs. So I'm hearing from certain guests on my show that have been over the target time and time again with great surgical precision that Trump is looking forward, looking into signing an executive order with a national emergency pertaining to the elections, safe and secure elections. If this SAVE Act doesn't pass or whatever, doesn't matter because he's going to sign this executive order for safe and secure elections, in-person paper ballots. I mean, if he does that, that's going to upend everything the Democrats and the RINOs really want to do. Could you see maybe a panic move happening after that? Well, let's put it this way. There is this thing called political science and what he's doing is not unknown to political science and it's a matter of putting a ball in play. What happens to the ball once it's put in play depends on the circumstances. So he's throwing the ball out there to see where it goes. In other words, it's like tip-off at a basketball game. Right. Ball up in the air and see who gets it. So you see where I'm going with this? Yeah, I see where you're going. It doesn't mean that it's going to wind up being a successful ploy, but what it does mean- It would be like baiting them in type of thing to where they- Yeah, baiting them in or if he's successful, fine, it will evoke the courts, but it will also prompt legislative bodies to deal with the issue. Now, there's one thing about this that I should mention. The very first case the US Supreme Court heard after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, that's 135 years ago, the very first case they heard the following year was what does the Sixth Amendment mean when it says, no matter tried before a jury under the common law shall be heard upon appeal except upon application of the common law. Question was, what is the common law? Well, the response which was unanimous by that Supreme Court is very interesting, and it's not a very popular one with certain quarters because it goes against some things that are assumed to be the reality of American law but aren't. The question was resolved by this, and I'm going to quote the decision. Said, all law in the United States of America is the common law until it is superseded by legislative action, et cetera, et cetera. The common law is, quote, that body of judge-made law based on tradition, precedent, and the evolving conditions of society, unquote. That is the very first case of the US Supreme Court. And what does that mean? It means judges make common law so all law in the United States is judge-made law until a legislative body acts to preempt that. So that is one thing that comes into play when you start involving judges in the process and whether a circuit court judge can issue an order that impacts the president of the United States. Says here, breaking Trump wins in court, the 8th Circuit has just overturned an activist judge ruling and upheld ISIS' mass detention policy of immigrants. This is a massive victory for the deportation mission, two to one, the court held that illegal immigrants already residing in the US can be detained without bond during removal proceedings. Yeah. This deals another devastating blow to leftist judges attempting to force DHS to simply unleash invaders into the country only to commit more crimes. Okay, let me explain why that is important. That's what I said about the appellate process. Just because a circuit court judge does something doesn't mean it's going to stick. Now, I'll give you an actual situation and you'll see the point. Some years ago, there was a young lady who worked and put her husband through law school. She had several children and she decided to go to law school. She went to law school. She graduated. She took the bar and she passed the bar. And four days after she passed the bar, she was sworn in as a new circuit court slash superior court judge with unlimited jurisdiction over everything from money to death penalty cases. Now, the first time she'd ever been in court was when she was sworn in as the judge of the court. Now, a year and a half after she got out of law school, when she still was the biggest rookie up in the courtroom, any courtroom she went in, she was sworn in as a federal judge. Now, she was a circuit court judge. And one case that she was involved in was so egregiously bad that when the firm I was with went up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges, the justices, wanted to know what, literally, one of the chief justices said, what in the hell is this about? What happened was there was a successful plaintiff in a lawsuit. This judge messed the case up so badly that the successful plaintiff had to get a new lawyer for the appeal. Her lawyer had to get a lawyer. The defendants had to get a new lawyer. And their lawyer had to get a lawyer. So the judges said, gentlemen, hold on. And they slid their rolling chair over in a football huddle, and they were animatedly talking. And then the chief justice said, gentlemen, there is no earthly gain to be had by sending this back to the trial judge who just lacks the competence to handle this. And we think it's a travesty. But if you give us a little extra time, we'll resolve the case. Thank you, Your Honor. That's what we need. And they did. That's how bad it was. Now, one of those nominally has the authority to do what this one did. So you understand that when you've got apparitions to the process like this, the appeal process becomes very important. And that's exactly what you get. Yeah, it just seems like a mess. Like this whole legal system is in shambles. It just seems like it needs to be cleaned up, Judge. Well, it does. And one thing, we have too many lawyers right now. And going to law school was very popular. And actually, 75% of those who finished law school never practiced law. And most of them aren't good at it because they lack what is needed. Now, here's the other thing. If you walked into a doctor's office that your family physician referred you to and you saw all the medical degrees, you'd feel confident, wouldn't you? I don't know. Maybe. All right. I'll play along. But what if you discovered that this doctor had never done an internship or a residency in a hospital or anywhere that gave a comparable level of experience, hands-on experience? You'd say, oh, wait a minute. I'm out. Well, the problem is we have so many lawyers now that are allowed to advertise, which I think was one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court ever made, that is, lawyers advertising. You have a situation where, and this is 25, well, 26, 27, 30 years ago, you'd have lawyers who came in there who had slick ads, and they would have 10, 12 people in your court as their clients, and everybody would think they were new lawyers, but they'd never tried a case, and they'd plead everybody guilty, and they didn't get good offers because people would say take it or leave it, go to trial, or they'd cancel it, get horrible offers for their clients, and they would be in practice for five, six, seven years, and they'd never tried a case. We've got people right now who are known nationally as great civil rights lawyers who are essentially rookies who've never had a jury trial. We have judges on the bench who've never tried a case such as the ones they're presiding over as an attorney, either as a prosecutor or as a defense lawyer or as a plaintiff's lawyer or a defense lawyer. So you have rookies on the bench because too often they are appointed for ideological purposes rather than excellence in the law. A person who should be on the bench is a person who's learned and experienced in law and wise in the ways of the world. And one of our problems with our appellate courts is frankly you have too many appellate justices who are not wise in the ways of the world because they never had any real live clients sitting on the other side of the desk. Now, example. Okay, let's take our most recent Supreme Court justice, Conjie Jackson, all right? Yeah, Kenji Jackson. Okay, she's from the Second Circuit. If Biden had been serious, he could have nominated two people I'm aware of who would have been excellent judges and she could have easily answered the question of what is a woman? Okay, one of my name, married to one of my mentors, now deceased when I was going through law school, her name is, well, we call her, well, I won't give her a nickname, but it's Justice Clifton, all right? All right. Justice Bernice Donald from the Sixth Circuit, from Memphis, whom I mentored, would have been an excellent nomination and could have answered the question. But you see, Conjie Jackson didn't have much experience in the practice of law before she got on a bench by being politically correct for the circumstances. So that's what we have on the U.S. Supreme Court. We got a rookie who can't even tell you fundamentally what a woman is because that is a signal to the people she got appointed to placate, which is that crowd that has a real problem with being man or woman, you know, and they've got 57 different flavors of what it is to be one or the other. You know, what is it? There are 120-some genders. Oh, crap. Where'd you get that from, you know? So- You could have said something instead of scratching her wig, you know? She could have said something like, I know what a woman is. I'm a woman. She didn't do that. So you're going to be on the U.S. Supreme Court and you have no idea what a woman is. It's sexual schizophrenia. That's what it is. Yeah, and see, that's the problem. We have a glut of lawyers, and lawyers are charging some of the most outrageous fees because they have too few clients to keep their doors open with volume. And they have bad things, and then there are things like this. Don't get a public defender. Why? Well, the public defenders don't practice law just for the money. A lot of them are committed to the purpose of making sure the system works. They're over in the criminal courts day in, day out. They already have the briefs prepared. They just change the names. They know how the system works. They have extensive and experienced investigative staff, both in terms of facts and witnesses and the law, and they walk in and can do great things. I had a part-time public defender along with three full-time public defenders in my court for 10 years, and this guy had the best defense record in the state. He had 64 serious felonies that he tried in front of a jury. He got 61 not guilty verdicts. A deadlock jury on a first-degree murder trial that wound up being one of the 61 not guilty verdicts, so that's 62. And he only got two convictions out of the whole bunch, and they were victories because his clients had been off for 10 years apiece, and the jury only found them guilty of the included misdemeanors, which had a maximum sentence of 1129 that they'd already served. So he had a 100% success rate in front of a jury, and what better lawyer can you have? And now I'll give you another instance involving him. He and the prosecution are up at the bench discussing with me that they are agreeing to drop it, meaning the state's going to drop the charges against this defender's client, but the client wants to pay the court costs so Jeopardy will attach and they can't pick the case up later. Well, while we're talking, this private lawyer walks in, one of these rookies with a smart, slick advertising scheme, and he announces he's going to take the case. Well, I'm not going to get in the way of him earning his fee and this guy being satisfied that he has his own attorney. That's his right. So this private lawyer shows up two weeks later and they announced that the guy is going to plead out to a five-year sentence, which I refused to accept, and I castigated him on the record saying, what are you doing? You're going to plead your client out to five years when the public defender's office had the state agreeing to drop the charges. What's the matter with you? And that's the big problem with American law. We simply have too many lawyers and I don't like this thing of advertising, even though I did do this for a number of law firms in the South. Oh, you're doing it to drop the charges, but the guy hires a lawyer that's asking for five years? That makes no sense. Yeah, I know. In other words, he didn't know what the hell he was doing. Excuse my language. No, I mean, you even said this to them, and what happened then? Did he still go with the lawyer? I refused to accept it. So what wound up happening is he wound up refunding some of his fee to the family. And I went ahead and allowed the public defender to resume representation so the charges could be dropped, and he paid the court costs, so jeopardy attached. I actually ran into this guy about three years ago, and that was 30-some years ago when this happened. Wow. And he thanked me. He said, Judge Brown, do you remember me? No, I don't remember you. He said, well, you saved me. You know, it's funny what happens with justice. I get people that walk up to me with a lot of gray hair or bald, and they say, Judge, you remember me? No. You gave me some time. Did I give you enough? Oh, yeah, but see, you straightened me out. Like, this business right here, this is mine, and if it wasn't for you, I would not have this business. Wow. I bet you get a lot of that, man. I mean, that's got to happen quite often. Yeah, and see, I listen to this helplessness from ignorant people that populate the criminal justice system that shouldn't be where they are because they don't have a clue. Now, the statewide recidivism rate up until I got on the bench in my courtroom had approximated somewhere around 84% on average. In other words, 84% of the people who got a felony conviction would be back. Over a 10-year period that they did this study in my courtroom, I reduced the recidivism rate down to 18%, and it was dropping because there were things you could do about the situation that were effective. But people aren't interested because too many of the judges want to get to the country club or get on to dinner or whatever they are up to when they don't want to stay around. You have cities that are full of trash, but the sentencing says community service for certain minor offenses is promoted, but these judges won't cooperate with the police in sending out defendants who were convicted of minor offenses to put on those lime green safety vests and start cleaning up the streets. You see, the judges have to extend themselves, and a lot of them really shouldn't be on the bench. And a lot of the lawyers that populate the system shouldn't be practicing. And then you've got stupid situations like in the state of Washington where because it negatively impacts minorities, they have now ruled in the state of Washington that you don't have to take the bar exam, which, considering the rampant ignorance that's out there, is an appalling situation. That's insanity. This is a complete mess. I think it needs- Yes, it does. I swear, let's just pull the plug on this. I don't know where you even began. Yes, it does. Judge, I appreciate you coming on. Thank you so much. I had a hard stop at 12. We're a little bit over with, a little over, but that's okay. Judge, please tell everyone about the barbecue sauce. Oh, yeah. Right behind. Judge Joe Brown Barbecue. And you can get it on Amazon, just Judge Joe Brown Barbecue, and they'll take you right there. And we have a website. We use the initials JJBBBQ.com. Now, we are clearing up a problem right now because it stems from my political position. We have enemies, and they constantly hack the website and mess up things with Amazon, so we have to go back in and correct them at least once every seven or eight, nine, ten days. Right now, so does he. Yeah, so we clean it up, and the product's good. You'll like it. It's one contest. I've been working on it for 45 years, and if anyone's interested, Chef Damon, who is one of Beyoncé's personal secretaries, has worked on the menu or the recipe and has cleaned it up so it can be sold in health food places. It's good for you. Nothing bad. Sprouts, whole foods, etc. So it's JJBBBQ.com. JJBBQ.com. And one other thing. Okay. You can find me on They suspended me from October up until the beginning of this month, and they told me don't even bother to appeal, but I just mentioned that since I'm in Memphis, I'm going to make it a point to see Mr. Elon Musk and advise him that I got suspended in X for endorsing some of his policies. So that's what they do. That's the far left, and it's suppression of free speech. They knocked me off Facebook. Yeah, well, I got knocked off of Facebook myself. I had the maximum number of friends, but guess what? I'd never posted anything on Facebook, but they said that they didn't like what I posted on X, and I might make some of their people feel uncomfortable. So to protect them, I'm banned for life. Well, I know I'm in the same boat as you, Judge. Thank you so much for joining me. Stay with me just one second, please, because we're on StreamYard, and it takes a second to upload. So just stay with me for one second. Thanks, folks. We're out of here.