Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / DEEP DIVE How Civil Asset Forfeiture Is Robbing Americans Blind

Transcript

DEEP DIVE How Civil Asset Forfeiture Is Robbing Americans Blind · The Matt Walsh Show

0:00
Speaker 1: Now, we've all heard the radio ads about owing the
0:02
Speaker 1: IRS money. They try to scare you and frighten you
0:06
Speaker 1: into calling. Well, tax relief advocates is different. If you
0:10
Speaker 1: owe the IRS $ 5, 000, $ 50, 000, or $ 500, 000, TRA has a
0:15
Speaker 1: solution to resolve your tax problem. Don't lose hope. TRA
0:19
Speaker 1: could reduce or even eliminate what you owe. Their passion
0:22
Speaker 1: is taxes and helping regular people and businesses fix their
0:26
Speaker 1: IRS mess. They have over 1,000 five-star Google reviews and
0:30
Speaker 1: an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau. You don't have
0:33
Speaker 1: to be afraid of the IRS anymore. Real tax relief
0:35
Speaker 1: programs are available that can give you a fresh start.
0:38
Speaker 1: So don't wait. Go to TRA.com. It's TRA.com or call 800-575-1753. Again,
0:40
Speaker 1: that's 800-575-1753. Tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people.
0:53
Speaker 1: We've covered our fair share of extraordinary injustices on this show.
0:57
Speaker 1: But aside from the scenarios where people died horrible deaths,
1:01
Speaker 1: nothing comes close to the sheer unbelievable insanity of the
1:04
Speaker 1: absolute mockery of justice that we're about to talk about.
1:07
Speaker 1: This is a story that has obvious ramifications for your
1:10
Speaker 1: rights to own private property, which is among the most
1:14
Speaker 1: important rights that you have. And because it's about to
1:17
Speaker 1: go to the Supreme Court, you need to know about it.
1:19
Speaker 1: So we'll talk about today. In April of 2012, an
1:23
Speaker 1: Air Force veteran named Kenneth Juppie, who was in his
1:26
Speaker 1: late 60s at the time, was running an air taxi
1:29
Speaker 1: company in Alaska called Ken Air LLC. He made his
1:33
Speaker 1: living by transporting food and supplies to remote areas of
1:36
Speaker 1: the state, as well as by ferrying tourists and other
1:39
Speaker 1: visitors around. And on this particular occasion, a woman chartered
1:43
Speaker 1: his services to fly from Fairbanks to Beaver, where she
1:47
Speaker 1: planned to celebrate her husband's birthday. It's a journey of
1:50
Speaker 1: a little over 100 miles. typically takes around 45 minutes
1:53
Speaker 1: to complete. Because there's no road linking Fairbanks and Beaver,
1:57
Speaker 1: the only alternatives to flying are taking a boat via
2:00
Speaker 1: the Yukon River, if it's summertime, or dog sledding in
2:04
Speaker 1: the winter. So the woman hired Juppie to fly her
2:07
Speaker 1: to Beaver in a 1969 Cessna 206 airplane, which he owned.
2:13
Speaker 1: So it was a routine job, but everything changed for
2:16
Speaker 1: Kenneth when the Alaska State Troopers arrived decided to search
2:21
Speaker 1: his plane before takeoff. During the inspection, the authorities discovered,
2:25
Speaker 1: to their horror, that there were three cases of beer,
2:28
Speaker 1: 72 beers in total, in the plane's cargo. That was
2:33
Speaker 1: a problem because Beaver is a so-called dry village, meaning
2:36
Speaker 1: it's illegal to purchase or even possess alcohol there. And
2:40
Speaker 1: under Alaska law, if you attempt to transport alcohol into
2:44
Speaker 1: a dry village like Beaver, you're committing a crime. even
2:48
Speaker 1: if the alcohol never gets there. And there was some
2:51
Speaker 1: dispute about whether he was even aware of the fact
2:55
Speaker 1: that there was alcohol in his plane. According to the
2:56
Speaker 1: government's version of events, one six pack of beer was
2:59
Speaker 1: packed in a grocery bag and would have been visible
3:02
Speaker 1: in plain view as Juppie was loading the plane. But
3:06
Speaker 1: according to him, the beers were packed in closed boxes
3:08
Speaker 1: and he never opened the boxes at any point. Unfortunately, though,
3:12
Speaker 1: for him, a state trooper testified that he saw Juppie
3:15
Speaker 1: opening and closing the boxes while loading the plane, and
3:18
Speaker 1: therefore the jury convicted him of the heinous crime of
3:21
Speaker 1: attempting to knowingly send, transport, or bring less than 12
3:25
Speaker 1: gallons of malt beverage into the village of Beaver. Even
3:30
Speaker 1: though the beer never actually made it to Beaver, he
3:32
Speaker 1: was charged with attempting to facilitate the transportation of the
3:36
Speaker 1: alcohol into this sacred town, and that's all it took.
3:41
Speaker 1: As punishment, he was sentenced to 180 days in jail
3:44
Speaker 1: with 177 days suspended, as well as a $ 3, 000 fine
3:49
Speaker 1: with $ 1, 500 suspended. He was also put on probation for
3:52
Speaker 1: three years. Meanwhile, though, his company was hit with a $ 10, 000
3:56
Speaker 1: fine with $ 8, 500 suspended. And you would think that that
3:59
Speaker 1: would be enough, but it's actually more than enough for
4:03
Speaker 1: the minor violation that was committed. But the court didn't
4:07
Speaker 1: stop there. And this is where the story takes a
4:08
Speaker 1: very sharp turn into the absurd. Dupuy and his company
4:11
Speaker 1: were also ordered to forfeit the airplane that was supposedly
4:15
Speaker 1: used in the commission of this offense. That's because in Alaska,
4:19
Speaker 1: there's a law that requires the forfeiture of any plane
4:22
Speaker 1: that's used in the commission of this particular crime. Now,
4:25
Speaker 1: for some reason, boats get more protections than planes under
4:28
Speaker 1: this law, but not sure why that is, but that's
4:30
Speaker 1: the way it is. So his airplane, which was valued
4:33
Speaker 1: at over $ 95, 000 and which he depended on for his livelihood,
4:36
Speaker 1: of course, was seized by the state. The police department
4:40
Speaker 1: wanted a new aircraft, I guess, and so they just
4:43
Speaker 1: took his plane. Meanwhile, Juppie would have to find another airplane.
4:47
Speaker 1: His company only had one other plane, so this was
4:49
Speaker 1: like stealing a man's horse in the desert. It's exactly
4:52
Speaker 1: the kind of cruel and unusual punishment the Constitution prohibits. Unfortunately,
4:55
Speaker 1: in this case, the plane was returned to him while
4:58
Speaker 1: the proceedings were playing out, but that's not always what
5:00
Speaker 1: happens in these kinds of cases. So here's Juppie, now
5:04
Speaker 1: 83 years old, explaining what happened in his own words.
5:08
Speaker 1: This is from the Alaska News source. Listen.
5:11
Speaker 2: But the whole case was a hedge around a six-pack
5:14
Speaker 2: of beer. They found me guilty and fined me $ 1, 500
5:19
Speaker 2: and three days in jail. And they took my airplane.
5:33
Speaker 2: So a low misdemeanor, which paid a maximum $ 10, 000 fine,
5:44
Speaker 2: you know, it cost me an airplane worth almost, at
5:47
Speaker 2: that time, almost $ 100, 000. But the whole thing hinges around
5:52
Speaker 2: that six-pack of beer. It was my intention to fight
5:55
Speaker 2: this thing to the very end until there was no
5:57
Speaker 2: fight left. And I was aware of the Institute for Justice,
6:02
Speaker 2: and I contacted them, and they decided to take me
6:06
Speaker 2: and represent me in the U.S. Supreme Court. And so
6:11
Speaker 2: they're very good attorneys, very good people. And so that's
6:16
Speaker 2: where we are now. It's important to me. You know,
6:20
Speaker 2: I just don't want to give up, and I don't
6:22
Speaker 2: want to be falsely accused of something. And there are
6:26
Speaker 2: a lot of inconsistencies in this thing. I'm not going
6:29
Speaker 2: to go into that. And at this point, it's not
6:35
Speaker 2: only me, but it's the whole country. You know, there
6:38
Speaker 2: have been a lot of abuses of this, excessive fines
6:41
Speaker 2: and forfeitures over the years. And it's time to kind
6:47
Speaker 2: of put a stop to it. And so... I'm not
6:52
Speaker 2: doing this for me personally now. I'm doing it for
6:55
Speaker 2: the country, actually, is the way I feel. And this
7:02
Speaker 2: will affect every law enforcement agency in the country. They've
7:08
Speaker 2: abused that power for a lot of years now, and
7:11
Speaker 2: it's just getting worse and worse. So if I can
7:15
Speaker 2: do that, I'll have done my job.
7:18
Speaker 1: So as you heard, he appealed all the way to
7:21
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of Alaska because we still have something
7:24
Speaker 1: called the Constitution in this country, last I checked. And
7:26
Speaker 1: according to the Constitution, quote, excessive bail shall not be required,
7:29
Speaker 1: nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
7:35
Speaker 1: This prohibition is also applied to the states under the
7:38
Speaker 1: 14th Amendment. And by any rational definition, the seizure of $ 95, 000
7:43
Speaker 1: worth of personal property, especially for a fake crime like this,
7:48
Speaker 1: is clearly an excessive fine. It's a punitive measure to
7:51
Speaker 1: seize property because of a criminal act. And as Juppie
7:56
Speaker 1: just said, the maximum fine under Alaska law for transporting
7:59
Speaker 1: alcohol into a dry town like Beaver is only $ 10, 000.
8:01
Speaker 1: But in this case, the government was getting nearly 10
8:04
Speaker 1: times what that fine was supposed to be. Nevertheless, in
8:09
Speaker 1: the single worst court decision that we've read recently, even
8:13
Speaker 1: worse than many of the things Quintanja Brown Jackson has produced,
8:17
Speaker 1: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the seizure of the airplane.
8:22
Speaker 1: The court found that it was not an excessive fine
8:24
Speaker 1: to steal this guy's $ 95, 000 airplane because he transported a
8:28
Speaker 1: few beers that didn't even belong to him. This is
8:31
Speaker 1: one of those rulings where even if you don't have
8:32
Speaker 1: a law degree and even if you can't read the
8:34
Speaker 1: English language, you know it's absurd on its face. But
8:37
Speaker 1: we'll go through it anyway because it's truly a monument
8:40
Speaker 1: to human stupidity. And it marks an evolution in the
8:42
Speaker 1: government's ability to steal your property, at least for the moment.
8:46
Speaker 1: The Alaska Supreme Court began by talking about a 1998
8:50
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case where a guy tried to fly out
8:52
Speaker 1: of LAX bound for Cyprus with $ 350, 000 in cash. And
8:58
Speaker 1: he didn't declare any of it, even though he was
9:00
Speaker 1: supposed to fill out a form indicating that he had
9:02
Speaker 1: more than $ 10, 000. And as a result, the government seized
9:05
Speaker 1: all of his money, even though they had no proof
9:08
Speaker 1: that any of it was involved in criminal activity. In fact,
9:11
Speaker 1: they acknowledged that it wasn't. In a five to four
9:14
Speaker 1: ruling with the majority opinion written by Clarence Thomas, the
9:17
Speaker 1: Supreme Court gave the guy his money back. They determined
9:19
Speaker 1: that under the Constitution, it was a violation of the
9:21
Speaker 1: Eighth Amendment to effectively fine someone $ 350, 000 for such a
9:27
Speaker 1: minor offense. It was a pretty straightforward ruling. And that
9:30
Speaker 1: logic naturally should apply to the case involving this Alaska
9:34
Speaker 1: pilot and his beer. It wasn't even his beer, but
9:38
Speaker 1: and the plane. And the Alaska Supreme Court, though, disagreed.
9:42
Speaker 1: They said that he had done something far more serious
9:45
Speaker 1: than the guy who boarded the plane from LAX. This
9:48
Speaker 1: is a direct quote from the decision of the Alaska
9:50
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Quote, while Juppie was convicted of only one
9:54
Speaker 1: instance of alcohol importation unconnected to other criminal activity. the
10:00
Speaker 1: nature and extent of the crime is more serious. He
10:03
Speaker 1: knowingly transported a six pack of alcohol in plain view
10:06
Speaker 1: while acting in his professional capacity as the operator of
10:09
Speaker 1: an air taxi company and the pilot of the airplane.
10:12
Speaker 1: This factor suggests the forfeiture of his airplane is not
10:16
Speaker 1: grossly disproportional. So in the view of the Alaska Supreme Court,
10:20
Speaker 1: if you're a bush pilot who's transporting some woman's groceries
10:24
Speaker 1: and those groceries include some beer, then you're engaging in
10:27
Speaker 1: downright dastardly behavior. You're basically a hardened criminal and they
10:31
Speaker 1: have every right to throw the book at you. Now,
10:34
Speaker 1: in their opinion, it's much more serious to have beer
10:36
Speaker 1: in your plane's cargo than it is to leave LAX
10:39
Speaker 1: with $ 350, 000 in undeclared cash. Now, of course, this is
10:43
Speaker 1: totally backwards. The guy who's flying to Cyprus with 350
10:45
Speaker 1: grand in cash if we're being honest, is a much
10:50
Speaker 1: more likely candidate to be some kind of drug dealer
10:53
Speaker 1: or some terrorist or criminal or something as compared to
10:56
Speaker 1: the Bush pilot with some beer on board. That's not
10:59
Speaker 1: to say the government has any right to take the $ 350, 000,
11:02
Speaker 1: but just as a matter of common sense, someone transporting
11:05
Speaker 1: that kind of money could theoretically be engaged in some
11:08
Speaker 1: kind of hardcore criminal activity, at least hypothetically. The beer,
11:12
Speaker 1: on the other hand, well, that's about as mundane as
11:14
Speaker 1: it gets. You know, there are people in Alaska who
11:17
Speaker 1: drink 18 beers a day and don't think anything of it,
11:20
Speaker 1: especially if you live out in the middle of nowhere
11:21
Speaker 1: in Alaska. What else is there to do? To be clear,
11:24
Speaker 1: there's no allegation that the pilot was drinking or anything
11:26
Speaker 1: like that. He's just carrying the cargo. But to the
11:29
Speaker 1: Alaska Supreme Court, that's somehow a very big deal. And
11:31
Speaker 1: in their opinion, the judges on this court make it
11:36
Speaker 1: clear that they're deferring to the elected officials in Alaska
11:39
Speaker 1: who have apparently determined that alcohol consumption is a plague
11:41
Speaker 1: on the state. Again, this is from the court's ruling. Quote,
11:46
Speaker 1: the nature and extent of harm caused by Jupy's illegal
11:49
Speaker 1: alcohol smuggling is far greater. Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska
11:53
Speaker 1: leads to increased crime disorders such as alcoholism, conditions such
11:56
Speaker 1: as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and death, imposing substantial costs
12:01
Speaker 1: on public health and the administration of justice. Within this context,
12:04
Speaker 1: it is clear that the illegal importation of even a
12:06
Speaker 1: six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm. This factor strongly
12:12
Speaker 1: suggests that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional. Taking into
12:16
Speaker 1: consideration all the factors discussed above, we conclude that the
12:19
Speaker 1: forfeiture of Juppie's airplane is not grossly disproportional to the
12:24
Speaker 1: gravity of his offense. That's a six-pack. A six-pack arriving
12:29
Speaker 1: in a town is going to cause grave societal harm.
12:33
Speaker 1: Social order will break down because of a six-pack of,
12:36
Speaker 1: you know, Heineken or something. I don't know what kind
12:39
Speaker 1: of beer it was. So notice what's happening here. They're
12:42
Speaker 1: identifying all kinds of problems that are caused by alcohol
12:45
Speaker 1: consumption in aggregate across the entire state. And they're acting
12:48
Speaker 1: like this one guy is responsible for all of it.
12:52
Speaker 1: If that were the case, then maybe I could see
12:54
Speaker 1: an argument for taking his plane. If he was single-handedly
12:56
Speaker 1: responsible for all the alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome and
13:01
Speaker 1: DUIs and domestic abuse in the entire state, then sure,
13:05
Speaker 1: take his plane. But in reality, he's not actually responsible
13:08
Speaker 1: for any of that. This is no different from taking
13:11
Speaker 1: someone's car when they go five miles over the speed
13:14
Speaker 1: limit on the grounds that 40,000 people die in car
13:17
Speaker 1: accidents every year. It's completely ridiculous. It's like reverse collective punishment.
13:22
Speaker 1: They're going after one guy as if he somehow caused
13:26
Speaker 1: the actions of millions of other people. That's not to
13:29
Speaker 1: downplay the idea that alcohol can cause problems, big problems sometimes.
13:34
Speaker 1: But in general, there's a genuine hysteria about alcohol that's
13:37
Speaker 1: taken hold in parts of this country, which we've talked
13:39
Speaker 1: about before on the show. In the span of about
13:41
Speaker 1: five years, the experts went from telling us that red
13:43
Speaker 1: wine will save our lives or at least make us
13:48
Speaker 1: healthier to telling us that a single drop of alcohol
13:51
Speaker 1: will increase our risk of cancer. There's no safe amount.
13:56
Speaker 1: It's incoherent. We also talked about the book, The Alcoholic
13:59
Speaker 1: Republic and the central role that alcohol played in the
14:01
Speaker 1: colonization of America and the founding of the United States.
14:04
Speaker 1: Simply a historical fact that when our country was doing well,
14:07
Speaker 1: people were not deathly afraid of alcohol. So that's That's
14:11
Speaker 1: something for the town of Beaver to consider, I suppose.
14:13
Speaker 1: In any event, whatever you think about the modern day
14:16
Speaker 1: prohibition that towns like Beaver have enacted, there's no reason
14:20
Speaker 1: to destroy this pilot's livelihood over it. The logic on
14:24
Speaker 1: display here contradicts many different cases from around the country,
14:27
Speaker 1: including Tim's versus Indiana, which was decided just a few
14:32
Speaker 1: years ago. In that case, the state of Indiana tried
14:34
Speaker 1: to seize someone's $ 42, 000 Land Rover SUV, saying it was
14:38
Speaker 1: used to transport heroin. The guy purchased the car legally
14:42
Speaker 1: with funds that he acquired legitimately. But ultimately, the Indiana
14:45
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled that it would be grossly excessive to
14:47
Speaker 1: seize the car, even though it was used to transport heroin,
14:50
Speaker 1: since the car cost $ 42, 000 and the maximum fine under
14:53
Speaker 1: the law was just $ 10, 000. But in Alaska, they're doing
14:57
Speaker 1: things very differently. And now a group called the Institute
14:59
Speaker 1: for Justice is representing the pilot. Supreme Court has just
15:03
Speaker 1: agreed to hear the case. The Institute for Justice, by
15:05
Speaker 1: the way, also says that it's in the process of
15:07
Speaker 1: appealing a $ 437, 000 fine the IRS imposed on a retired
15:12
Speaker 1: professor for failing to file a one-page form informing the
15:15
Speaker 1: agency of his legal foreign bank account. So they're doing
15:20
Speaker 1: the Lord's work as far as I'm concerned. And with
15:22
Speaker 1: this case, they have a real opportunity to change the
15:24
Speaker 1: law on these asset seizures. You know, the government simply
15:29
Speaker 1: cannot be allowed to take your property without any justification whatsoever.
15:34
Speaker 1: That's what the government has been doing all over the
15:35
Speaker 1: country for a very long time. As the pilot put it, quote,
15:39
Speaker 1: I'm thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to
15:41
Speaker 1: hear this case because this case isn't just about me
15:43
Speaker 1: or my airplane anymore. I'm in my 80s now. I've
15:46
Speaker 1: been fighting this for over a decade because I see
15:48
Speaker 1: it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of
15:49
Speaker 1: Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach. So
15:55
Speaker 1: to be clear about this, the case in Alaska is
15:57
Speaker 1: about criminal asset forfeiture, which is to say the government
16:00
Speaker 1: taking your property after you've been convicted of a crime
16:04
Speaker 1: But the Supreme Court's ruling in this case also has
16:06
Speaker 1: implications for civil asset forfeiture, which is a concept that
16:10
Speaker 1: maybe you've heard about. John Oliver did a viral show
16:12
Speaker 1: about it a little over a decade ago. In civil
16:16
Speaker 1: asset forfeiture, the government doesn't even need to secure a
16:18
Speaker 1: criminal conviction. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you've
16:21
Speaker 1: done anything wrong at all. Instead, the government can sue
16:25
Speaker 1: your property directly if there's reason to believe that it
16:28
Speaker 1: was involved in criminal activity. This is called an in
16:31
Speaker 1: rem action. The burden of proof in these civil cases
16:34
Speaker 1: in federal courts is called the preponderance of evidence. Sometimes
16:37
Speaker 1: the states have established their own standards, but that's generally
16:40
Speaker 1: how it goes. And this means that the government must
16:42
Speaker 1: demonstrate a 50% or greater likelihood, so let's call it 51%,
16:49
Speaker 1: that your property is substantially connected with some criminal activity,
16:53
Speaker 1: meaning it was used to facilitate that activity. So the
16:56
Speaker 1: normal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which applies during
16:59
Speaker 1: criminal trials, is not relevant here. It's a very relaxed
17:02
Speaker 1: standard and the government takes advantage of it all the time.
17:06
Speaker 1: I tell my kids to finish what they start all
17:09
Speaker 1: the time. It's basically my entire parenting philosophy if I
17:12
Speaker 1: had to boil it down. And I repeat it until
17:14
Speaker 1: they're sick of hearing it. So I should probably mention
17:17
Speaker 1: that if there is a degree you started and you
17:19
Speaker 1: never finished, Grand Canyon University offers more than 100 online
17:23
Speaker 1: undergraduate degrees so you can begin college or go back
17:26
Speaker 1: and finish on your own schedule. And these aren't empty
17:29
Speaker 1: promises about accessibility. GCU Online students receive nearly $ 200 million
17:34
Speaker 1: in institutional scholarships in 2025 alone on top of federal
17:38
Speaker 1: grants and aid. It's a school that combines career preparation
17:41
Speaker 1: with a Christian worldview, the free market and open discourse.
17:44
Speaker 1: GCU's accredited MBA program is 100% online designed to shape
17:50
Speaker 1: leaders through servant leadership. It's easy to say higher education
17:53
Speaker 1: is outdated, irrelevant. But at Grand Canyon University, they don't
17:56
Speaker 1: settle for the status quo. They shatter it. GCU's accredited
17:59
Speaker 1: MBA program is 100% online and is designed to shape
18:02
Speaker 1: leaders through servant leadership. GCU can help you take your
18:07
Speaker 1: passion and scale your business to serve your community. This
18:09
Speaker 1: is purpose-driven education. Take action. Find your purpose. Grand Canyon University.
18:15
Speaker 1: Visit gcu.edu. The midterm elections are here, and if the
18:19
Speaker 1: DSA Democrats win, they'll push a radical socialist agenda and
18:23
Speaker 1: drown President Trump in endless investigations. We've seen their playbook before.
18:27
Speaker 1: They tried impeaching him. They tried putting him in prison.
18:29
Speaker 1: They tried everything. Don't let them win, because if we lose,
18:33
Speaker 1: they'll undo everything our movement has fought for. We need
18:35
Speaker 1: you to vote early. You can bank your vote and
18:38
Speaker 1: fight back against the left's turnout machine. Go to gopvotes.org
18:41
Speaker 1: right now. Find out when you can vote. If you
18:43
Speaker 1: live in the critical Senate battleground states of Maine, Ohio,
18:46
Speaker 1: or Iowa. Early voting is already underway this week. Making
18:50
Speaker 1: your voice heard is easier than ever. You can get
18:52
Speaker 1: election reminders, look up your polling location, and pick a
18:55
Speaker 1: date to vote early. Go to gopvotes.org today, paid for
18:58
Speaker 1: by SLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
19:02
Speaker 1: There was a case out of Michigan where a woman
19:04
Speaker 1: lost her car because her husband hired a prostitute while
19:07
Speaker 1: he was driving it, even though the woman had no
19:09
Speaker 1: idea he was doing that. There was another case out
19:11
Speaker 1: of Massachusetts where the government tried to confiscate an entire
19:14
Speaker 1: hotel because some of the guests were selling drugs, although
19:18
Speaker 1: that particular attempt failed because the hotel didn't really facilitate
19:22
Speaker 1: the crimes. There was a famous case along these lines
19:25
Speaker 1: in 2008 called United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of
19:32
Speaker 1: Shark Fins. Yes, those were the two parties in the case.
19:37
Speaker 1: So one party was the United States and the other
19:41
Speaker 1: party was approximately 64,695 pounds pounds of shark fins. The
19:48
Speaker 1: case was based on a situation developed off the coast
19:50
Speaker 1: of Guatemala in 2002 when the Coast Guard stopped a U.S.
19:54
Speaker 1: flagged vessel. The Coast Guard found the shark fins on
19:57
Speaker 1: the ship, even though there were no shark carcasses to
20:00
Speaker 1: go along with the fins. And it soon became clear
20:03
Speaker 1: the vessel was buying shark fins from various fishing vessels,
20:07
Speaker 1: presumably so that they could use the fins to make
20:09
Speaker 1: shark fin soup, which is apparently a delicacy in some
20:13
Speaker 1: parts of the world. The problem is that under a
20:15
Speaker 1: very specific law called the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, it's
20:19
Speaker 1: illegal for fishing vessels to buy shark fins in that way.
20:25
Speaker 1: So the Coast Guard simply took the shark fins. In
20:28
Speaker 1: case you're curious, the seizure was eventually overturned because the
20:30
Speaker 1: vessel was determined not to be a fishing vessel within
20:33
Speaker 1: the meaning of the law. But even when you eventually
20:35
Speaker 1: get your property back, it could take a very long time.
20:39
Speaker 1: Here's another one from a few years ago. The U.S.
20:42
Speaker 3: Supreme Court will now consider a case that involves civil
20:45
Speaker 3: asset forfeiture in Alabama. The state seized a woman's car
20:49
Speaker 3: after her son was arrested for marijuana possession during a
20:53
Speaker 3: traffic stop in Mobile County, and it took almost two
20:56
Speaker 3: years for the woman to get her car back. The
20:59
Speaker 3: question before the Supreme Court, should there be a probable
21:02
Speaker 3: cause hearing prior to the state seizing your property? On
21:07
Speaker 3: February 17, 2019, Satsuma police pulled Taejon Cully over on
21:12
Speaker 3: I-65 and arrested him for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
21:16
Speaker 3: Ten days later, the state filed this complaint, seeking to
21:20
Speaker 3: seize the 9mm gun he had on him during the
21:23
Speaker 3: stop and the Nissan Altima he was driving. Even though,
21:26
Speaker 3: according to the state's own complaint, the car belonged to
21:29
Speaker 3: his mother, Halima Cully, who was not charged with a crime.
21:33
Speaker 3: Twenty months later, Judge Young-Peter ordered the state return the
21:37
Speaker 3: car to her.
21:38
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
21:39
Speaker 3: Dom Soto is a defense attorney who did not represent Cully,
21:42
Speaker 3: but says the state overuses its ability to seize property
21:45
Speaker 3: connected to crimes before anyone is found guilty.
21:48
Speaker 4: Well, the problem with that is pre-trial taking.
21:54
Speaker 1: It gets all involved in excessive fines. There's a $ 15, 000 car.
22:00
Speaker 1: Sometimes they take people's homes. So the reason this woman
22:04
Speaker 1: was eventually able to get her car back, even though
22:05
Speaker 1: it was technically involved in the commission of a crime,
22:08
Speaker 1: is the innocent owner defense, which many states have. And
22:11
Speaker 1: the idea is that she owned the car and she
22:14
Speaker 1: had no idea that it was being used to commit
22:16
Speaker 1: a crime, but it took her nearly two years to
22:19
Speaker 1: get her car back. And the Supreme Court eventually ruled
22:22
Speaker 1: that there was no problem with this delay. So you
22:25
Speaker 1: didn't commit any crime, but the police can take your
22:29
Speaker 1: car for nearly two years anyway. The court ruled that
22:33
Speaker 1: you're entitled to a timely final forfeiture hearing when the
22:37
Speaker 1: police take your stuff, but you're not entitled to separate
22:39
Speaker 1: preliminary retention hearing to determine whether the police can hold
22:43
Speaker 1: on to your car in the meantime while the process
22:45
Speaker 1: plays out. This is the power of civil asset forfeiture.
22:50
Speaker 1: It's prone to all kinds of abuse. It has indeed
22:53
Speaker 1: been abused many, many times. Now, it's not to say
22:56
Speaker 1: that civil asset forfeiture is the worst thing in the world.
22:59
Speaker 1: It's used to seize assets from gangs and terrorists. even
23:02
Speaker 1: where a criminal case would be difficult or impossible to build.
23:06
Speaker 1: I mean, if the police discover an abandoned vehicle with
23:09
Speaker 1: drugs in it near the Mexican border, obviously they should
23:13
Speaker 1: be able to seize it. So there's some nuance here
23:15
Speaker 1: that gets lost, but the guardrails have been non-existent in
23:18
Speaker 1: recent years, which is why this pilot in Alaska lost
23:20
Speaker 1: his plane. Again, yes, that was criminal asset forfeiture, not civil,
23:25
Speaker 1: but both criminal and civil asset forfeiture are subject to
23:28
Speaker 1: the Eighth Amendment when the forfeiture is punitive, which is
23:31
Speaker 1: to say when it's intended for the purpose of punishing someone.
23:35
Speaker 1: Under our constitution, the government can't use any kind of
23:38
Speaker 1: forfeiture to exact an excessive fine. And with this case
23:43
Speaker 1: out of Alaska, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to
23:45
Speaker 1: establish some clear bright line rules on where the boundaries
23:49
Speaker 1: are when it comes to determining what fines are considered excessive.
23:54
Speaker 1: According to the decision by the Alaska Supreme Court, it's
23:56
Speaker 1: not excessive to take someone's plane away for transporting a
23:59
Speaker 1: few beers because in aggregate, Alcohol causes mass casualties and
24:04
Speaker 1: despair and whatever. And if that's the standard, then it
24:09
Speaker 1: applies to civil asset forfeitures as well. But the Supreme
24:12
Speaker 1: Court can and should shut down this standard, which is
24:16
Speaker 1: totally ridiculous. When you're determining what kind of punishment to
24:20
Speaker 1: give someone, you should only look at what the person
24:22
Speaker 1: actually did without holding them responsible for every other crime
24:25
Speaker 1: that's tangentially related and that was committed by millions of
24:29
Speaker 1: other people who have nothing to do with you. If
24:32
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court sets this standard, then it will apply
24:34
Speaker 1: to both civil and criminal asset forfeiture. It will end
24:36
Speaker 1: some of the worst abuses of civil asset forfeiture, which
24:39
Speaker 1: have attracted a lot of attention over the past decade,
24:42
Speaker 1: and for good reason. Already, we've seen a lot of
24:45
Speaker 1: progress in this regard. This is from Reuters back in 2024. Quote,
24:49
Speaker 1: the U.S. Deputy Attorney General has suspended a controversial civil
24:52
Speaker 1: asset forfeiture program by the DEA that targeted unsuspecting airline
24:56
Speaker 1: passengers and subjected them to potentially unlawful seizures of cash
25:00
Speaker 1: from their bags. In one such example, a DEA office
25:04
Speaker 1: tapped an airline employee as a confidential source who tipped
25:07
Speaker 1: off agents anytime a passenger purchased a plane ticket within
25:11
Speaker 1: 48 hours of departure. Agents would use that last-minute purchase
25:14
Speaker 1: as a justification to then approach those passengers and try
25:17
Speaker 1: to get the passengers to agree to let them search
25:19
Speaker 1: their bags. In cases where the agent searched and seized cash,
25:22
Speaker 1: the confidential source received a cut of the proceeds from
25:26
Speaker 1: the seizure. This program, which is ridiculously corrupt, was terminated completely.
25:34
Speaker 1: On one hand, you can argue that it's reasonable for
25:36
Speaker 1: the government to subject passengers to extra screening if they
25:39
Speaker 1: buy a ticket within 48 hours of departure or pay
25:42
Speaker 1: in cash or something like that, maybe. But this program
25:46
Speaker 1: was very different. What's happening here is that after passengers
25:50
Speaker 1: go through security, the DA is dragging them off of
25:52
Speaker 1: their flights, potentially making them miss the flight, unless they
25:56
Speaker 1: agree to waive their rights and have their property searched.
25:59
Speaker 1: And they're not even looking for drugs or bombs for
26:01
Speaker 1: the most part. They're looking for cash to confiscate. In practice,
26:06
Speaker 1: here's what this looks like. This was obtained by the
26:08
Speaker 1: same Institute for Justice I mentioned earlier. The DEA was
26:11
Speaker 1: tipped off by an informant, and they're looking for cash
26:16
Speaker 1: to confiscate. And here's how that goes.
26:18
Speaker 2: Watch.
26:19
Speaker 4: Set your bag down, and then you can walk on
26:20
Speaker 4: the plane.
26:21
Speaker 2: You can do that, but you can't take your bag.
26:23
Speaker 2: You're not with the... Let me call it.
26:25
Speaker 5: I've seen these videos on YouTube before.
26:26
Speaker 1: You're not with the.
26:28
Speaker 2: I'm the DEA.
26:29
Speaker 1: I'm the government. That's great.
26:31
Speaker 5: Do you have, like, legal ability to search?
26:34
Speaker 4: Yes, yes.
26:35
Speaker 5: I was in Cincinnati on a business trip, and I
26:37
Speaker 5: had gone sick the prior night, so I had to
26:39
Speaker 5: rebook my flight to a last-minute flight back to New York.
26:42
Speaker 5: He had basically just asked me for ID and to search,
26:45
Speaker 5: if he could search my bags. And when I started
26:48
Speaker 5: to decline, he pulled out his badge and said that
26:50
Speaker 5: he was with the DEA. I'd almost imagined that this
26:53
Speaker 5: had to be some kind of mix-up.
26:54
Speaker 1: Oh, that's my ID.
26:56
Speaker 2: Where's your bag at?
26:58
Speaker 5: I don't consent to search, sir. You don't have to consent.
27:01
Speaker 1: Where's your backpack at?
27:02
Speaker 5: And so I thought the plane was going to take
27:03
Speaker 5: off because we were well past the kind of gate
27:06
Speaker 5: closing time at the time he boarded.
27:14
Speaker 1: You want to watch the dog?
27:15
Speaker 2: Yes, please.
27:16
Speaker 5: I would like to watch the dog.
27:17
Speaker 2: Then come out.
27:19
Speaker 1: Up to you, man.
27:24
Speaker 5: Well, I followed him off the plane because he had
27:27
Speaker 5: my backpack and I wasn't going to leave an airport
27:29
Speaker 5: with my work laptop, my passport, a lot of my
27:32
Speaker 5: documentation from work. And so I didn't have a choice.
27:36
Speaker 6: The agent again insists that he does not need David's
27:39
Speaker 6: consent to take his bag. But without probable cause of
27:43
Speaker 6: a crime, DEA agents cannot seize your belongings against your will. Period.
27:48
Speaker 4: Okay, so when you buy a last-minute ticket, we get alerts.
27:52
Speaker 4: We come out to any and all flights, doesn't matter
27:54
Speaker 4: who you are, race, sex, nothing, right? We come out
27:57
Speaker 4: and we talk to those people, which I've tried to.
27:59
Speaker 1: Do to you, but you wouldn't allow me to do it.
28:01
Speaker 2: Am I under suspicion of a crime right now? Do
28:04
Speaker 2: you have probable cause?
28:04
Speaker 4: So, we have a lot of money and drugs going
28:07
Speaker 4: out of every.
28:08
Speaker 2: Airport to New York.
28:10
Speaker 4: It's an influx of it.
28:11
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay? Am I being suspected of a crime? I
28:16
Speaker 2: don't know.
28:16
Speaker 1: Do you have probable cause for a search?
28:18
Speaker 4: I have probable cause for a dog to walk up.
28:20
Speaker 2: And smell your bag, yes.
28:22
Speaker 1: My lawyers are going to be taking this up with you.
28:23
Speaker 4: You didn't take your bag off like I asked you to.
28:26
Speaker 4: I don't have to. I asked you if I was.
28:27
Speaker 5: Being detained and I can walk away if not.
28:30
Speaker 2: You can, yes, but not your bag. I have followed
28:31
Speaker 2: the Constitution very vigorously.
28:33
Speaker 4: I asked you to put your bag down.
28:34
Speaker 1: You don't have rights to my bag.
28:35
Speaker 2: I don't know who you are.
28:37
Speaker 1: So the DEA agent without any probable cause has now
28:40
Speaker 1: seized this guy's property without his consent. He tries to
28:43
Speaker 1: claim that he has probable cause because the passenger didn't
28:46
Speaker 1: immediately surrender his bag and because airports are used for
28:49
Speaker 1: drug activity and because the guy bought the ticket within
28:52
Speaker 1: 48 hours of departure. But that's not remotely sufficient for
28:56
Speaker 1: probable cause and the passenger knows it. So to end
29:00
Speaker 1: this standoff and to generate probable cause, the DEA brings
29:04
Speaker 1: in a dog and based on the footage, It looks
29:07
Speaker 1: like they signaled the dog to alert on the bag. Now,
29:11
Speaker 1: we've all heard the radio ads about owing the IRS money.
29:14
Speaker 1: They try to scare you and frighten you into calling. Well,
29:18
Speaker 1: tax relief advocates is different. If you owe the IRS $ 5, 000, $ 50, 000,
29:24
Speaker 1: or $ 500, 000, TRA has a solution to resolve your tax problem.
29:29
Speaker 1: Don't lose hope. TRA could reduce or even eliminate what
29:32
Speaker 1: you owe. Their passion is taxes and helping regular people
29:35
Speaker 1: and businesses fix their IRS mess. They have over a
29:39
Speaker 1: thousand five-star Google reviews and an A-plus with the Better
29:42
Speaker 1: Business Bureau. You don't have to be afraid of the
29:44
Speaker 1: IRS anymore. Real tax relief programs are available that can
29:47
Speaker 1: give you a fresh start. So don't wait. Go to TRA.com.
29:51
Speaker 1: It's TRA.com or call 800-575-7000. Again, that's 800-575-1753. Tax relief advocates,
30:01
Speaker 1: real solutions for real people. Watch this closely here.
30:06
Speaker 5: So I was waiting by the jet bridge for about
30:08
Speaker 5: five minutes. And I remember seeing the dog handler pop
30:10
Speaker 5: up through one of the kind of airport gates. And
30:13
Speaker 5: at first, you know, he pointed the dog towards my
30:15
Speaker 5: bag and the dog took a smell and just ran
30:18
Speaker 5: straight past it. A few seconds later he started clicking
30:21
Speaker 5: his fingers and the dog started coming back and I
30:24
Speaker 5: saw him basically gesture at my bag.
30:37
Speaker 1: You see that?
30:38
Speaker 2: You got it recorded.
30:39
Speaker 1: Don't edit that part out of the video either. You're
30:53
Speaker 1: working on your bag.
30:54
Speaker 2: Okay.
30:55
Speaker 4: Now this is your legal right. You can allow us
30:57
Speaker 4: to look at it, or you can tell me no.
30:59
Speaker 1: And we can write a search warrant.
31:01
Speaker 2: We can apply for one. I don't know if we
31:02
Speaker 2: get one or not, but.
31:03
Speaker 5: We'll apply for one.
31:04
Speaker 1: I don't consent to be searched. So you don't want
31:05
Speaker 1: us to search your bag either?
31:06
Speaker 2: I don't consent to be searched. Okay. All right.
31:08
Speaker 4: Well, then we've got to take your bag back. So
31:10
Speaker 4: do you want to serve as the PD while we
31:12
Speaker 4: try to get a warrant on your bag today?
31:14
Speaker 2: What do you want to do?
31:16
Speaker 1: I don't consent to be searched, sir.
31:18
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
31:18
Speaker 6: With the questionable dog alert, the agent now claims that
31:22
Speaker 6: he can easily get a warrant to search the bag.
31:25
Speaker 6: David continues to refuse to consent to a search.
31:29
Speaker 2: We know our law.
31:29
Speaker 4: We know what we're doing out here and what we
31:31
Speaker 4: can and cannot do. It's a piece of paper that
31:33
Speaker 4: will literally stay with us. It just says that you're
31:35
Speaker 4: allowing us to search it. If you want to sign
31:37
Speaker 4: your name, it says that we can search it, which
31:39
Speaker 4: I don't know why it's so difficult.
31:40
Speaker 1: We'll search it.
31:41
Speaker 2: If not, we'll get it.
31:42
Speaker 4: It's the same thing I just told you. Think about
31:45
Speaker 4: it for a minute.
31:46
Speaker 2: I know you're irritated. I have a phone. I know
31:49
Speaker 2: you're annoyed.
31:51
Speaker 4: And I'm annoyed, too, that you caused such a scene
31:52
Speaker 4: for something so silly.
31:54
Speaker 5: The law actually doesn't distinguish between bodily property. You know,
31:57
Speaker 5: I'm being detained now because my bag isn't taken from
31:59
Speaker 5: my property.
32:00
Speaker 1: You're not out in the public.
32:01
Speaker 5: You're in an airport. This is a public area, for
32:04
Speaker 5: what it's worth.
32:05
Speaker 4: Your bags are not— they' re different than your person, okay? Okay.
32:09
Speaker 4: There's a difference.
32:12
Speaker 1: Now, I'm sure there are some canine handlers and police
32:14
Speaker 1: officers who are watching the show right now, and they'll
32:16
Speaker 1: have feedback on whether this looked like an appropriate way
32:18
Speaker 1: to handle the situation or not. But from what I understand,
32:22
Speaker 1: the appropriate procedure is for the handler to walk the
32:25
Speaker 1: dog around the general area of the object. In this case,
32:29
Speaker 1: that's what happened initially. And the dog walked past the
32:33
Speaker 1: object without alerting. Then the handler pointed directly at the
32:36
Speaker 1: bag while making some kind of noise with his mouth,
32:39
Speaker 1: a kissy noise as they described it. And at that point,
32:42
Speaker 1: the dog alerted on the bag. Looks like a very unscientific,
32:46
Speaker 1: fraudulent process. And it's confusing as well, because as you heard,
32:50
Speaker 1: the DEA agents tell the guy to record the dog
32:53
Speaker 1: with their phone. They don't see any problem with what
32:56
Speaker 1: they did. They seem to convince that based on this
32:58
Speaker 1: dog's behavior, which seems designed to appease his handler more
33:01
Speaker 1: than anything else, that they can easily get a judge
33:04
Speaker 1: to sign a search warrant for the bag. And in
33:05
Speaker 1: the meantime, this guy will miss his flight. It's enough
33:09
Speaker 1: to make you think all these drug-sniffing dog tests should
33:12
Speaker 1: be banned completely since it's easy to abuse, at least
33:15
Speaker 1: the ones that are in the airport, I mean, especially
33:18
Speaker 1: if someone isn't recording with the video. They're like lie
33:21
Speaker 1: detector tests. There's simply no way to tell if the
33:23
Speaker 1: handler is sending some kind of coded message to the dog.
33:27
Speaker 1: It reminds me of the story of Clever Hands, a
33:30
Speaker 1: German horse who made the rounds in the early 20th century,
33:34
Speaker 1: impressing everybody with his ability to do arithmetic. So they
33:38
Speaker 1: might ask the horse, what's three times two? And the
33:40
Speaker 1: horse would tap its hooves six times and the crowd
33:43
Speaker 1: would go wild. It's a little bit of like a
33:47
Speaker 1: Charlotte's Web thing, but with a horse. A government commission
33:49
Speaker 1: apparently investigated this and couldn't discover any fraud. And even
33:53
Speaker 1: when the horse was separated from his handler and someone
33:55
Speaker 1: else was asking the question, the horse got the question right.
33:58
Speaker 1: But it turns out, of course, that the horse was
34:00
Speaker 1: simply reading body language. If the handler didn't know the
34:03
Speaker 1: right answer, if the horse couldn't see the handler, the
34:06
Speaker 1: the horse would get almost every question wrong. Its accuracy
34:09
Speaker 1: rate would drop from 89% to around 6%. So the
34:13
Speaker 1: horse was paying very close attention to the handler's body
34:15
Speaker 1: language and the reaction of the crowd, which would relax
34:19
Speaker 1: when he got the right number of hoof stomps. So
34:23
Speaker 1: that's all it was. Still a really smart horse, though.
34:26
Speaker 1: We'll give him that. Drug-detecting dogs can work the same way.
34:30
Speaker 1: I'm not denying that these dogs can be accurate, but
34:32
Speaker 1: if the handlers want to use the dog as a pretext,
34:36
Speaker 1: to conduct a search, if they want the dog to alert,
34:39
Speaker 1: that's very easy to engineer, to get the dog to comply,
34:43
Speaker 1: and that's what we're seeing here. How often does that happen?
34:48
Speaker 1: How often does it happen in airports? One of the
34:51
Speaker 1: problems with asset forfeiture in practice is that it leads
34:53
Speaker 1: to these kinds of abuses. When the government invokes this doctrine,
34:57
Speaker 1: some very absurd scenarios can result. People lose their airplane
35:01
Speaker 1: over some beer. And in other cases, people get pulled
35:05
Speaker 1: off airplanes because they bought their ticket at the last minute.
35:08
Speaker 1: And the ticket agents want a cut of any cash
35:11
Speaker 1: they might be carrying. The incentive structure is perverse at
35:15
Speaker 1: a fundamental level. It's stacked in favor of the government's
35:18
Speaker 1: right to take your property when the balance of power
35:22
Speaker 1: under our Constitution should be on your side. And the
35:26
Speaker 1: fact that we're seeing this abuse of power in Alaska
35:28
Speaker 1: to punish a guy for transporting some beer is insane.
35:33
Speaker 1: This is a news report from the 1980s where people
35:36
Speaker 1: reacted to laws against drinking while driving.
35:40
Speaker 2: Watch. Any attempt to restrict drinking and driving here is
35:43
Speaker 2: viewed by some as downright undemocratic. It's kind of getting common.
35:47
Speaker 4: When a fellow can't put in a hard day's work,
35:49
Speaker 4: put in 11, 12 hours a day, and then get
35:52
Speaker 4: in your truck and at least drink.
35:53
Speaker 1: One or two beers.
35:54
Speaker 6: They're making laws where you can't drink when you want to.
35:59
Speaker 4: You have to wear a.
35:59
Speaker 3: Seatbelt when you're driving.
36:02
Speaker 2: Pretty soon we're going to become this country.
36:05
Speaker 1: People used to think that DUI laws were anti-American. And
36:09
Speaker 1: they reacted the same way, by the way, to seatbelt laws.
36:12
Speaker 1: And now they'll take away everything you own in Alaska
36:15
Speaker 1: if you're caught anywhere near a sealed case of beer.
36:18
Speaker 1: That's 40 years of progress for you in one video.
36:21
Speaker 1: People used to have a much more expansive views, a
36:23
Speaker 1: view of their own freedom, much more expansive. And in turn,
36:28
Speaker 1: at least nominally, the government used to respect your property
36:32
Speaker 1: rights to some degree because they had to, but they
36:37
Speaker 1: just don't anymore. This is a problem that's persisted for
36:41
Speaker 1: a very long time. And now, after many years of
36:43
Speaker 1: increasingly bizarre and unconstitutional scenarios, it could finally be ending.
36:47
Speaker 1: In December, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments
36:49
Speaker 1: in the Alaska case. Decision will likely be made by
36:51
Speaker 1: the middle of next year. We'll finally learn straight from
36:54
Speaker 1: the high court whether or not the government can steal $ 95, 000
36:57
Speaker 1: from you because you put a few cans of beer
37:00
Speaker 1: in your airplane. Under our Constitution, we all know the
37:03
Speaker 1: government can't do that. But as to the much narrower
37:05
Speaker 1: question of whether five justices on the Supreme Court still
37:09
Speaker 1: believe the Constitution applies to your property, as to the
37:12
Speaker 1: question of whether you can rely on the judicial system
37:15
Speaker 1: to protect the property you've spent your whole life working for, well,
37:18
Speaker 1: that's something that we'll find out in just a few months.
37:23
Speaker 1: These are rights and privileges that many of us took
37:25
Speaker 1: for granted, but we simply can't do that anymore. This
37:27
Speaker 1: is one of the main reasons we're releasing our latest documentary,
37:30
Speaker 1: The Real History of Communism, for free on YouTube on Friday.
37:34
Speaker 1: It's a deeply researched narrative of the Russian Revolution and
37:37
Speaker 1: how quickly the Bolsheviks took power. It can happen much
37:41
Speaker 1: faster than you think, like we talked about yesterday. And
37:45
Speaker 1: that's why you should watch that on Friday. And then
37:47
Speaker 1: when you're done watching that, The Daily Wire has a
37:50
Speaker 1: new movie also related to this coming out on November 11th,
37:53
Speaker 1: set in Stalinist Russia called Confession. Now, I saw this
37:56
Speaker 1: movie a couple of months ago, and I can tell
37:58
Speaker 1: you genuinely, it's a very well-made, serious piece of art
38:02
Speaker 1: with easily far and away the most impressive cast ever
38:06
Speaker 1: assembled for a quote-unquote conservative film. In fact, I really
38:10
Speaker 1: wouldn't call it a conservative film at all. It does
38:12
Speaker 1: have an important message, a conservative message, but this is
38:16
Speaker 1: a movie that is trying to be a good film,
38:18
Speaker 1: not just a good conservative film, which is what we
38:22
Speaker 1: need to be doing, in my opinion, and I think
38:23
Speaker 1: it succeeds. The cast includes Rob Lowe, who does tremendous work,
38:27
Speaker 1: James Franco, who will surprise you in the villain role. Also,
38:32
Speaker 1: Nick Nolte's in it, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Emile Hirsch, who
38:36
Speaker 1: I think does a fantastic job. Many others, even the
38:40
Speaker 1: small roles, have recognizable and talented actors like Dean Norris
38:44
Speaker 1: appears in kind of a cameo role. Probably my favorite
38:46
Speaker 1: cameo performance in the film. And we'll end the show
38:49
Speaker 1: today with the trailer and take a look and we'll
38:53
Speaker 1: see you tomorrow. Godspeed.
39:28
Speaker 2: Professor.
39:35
Speaker 5: Let me out!
39:37
Speaker 1: You will remember your duty.
39:38
Speaker 3: This isn't heroism!
39:40
Speaker 5: You useless sod.
39:42
Speaker 1: You sit there and shake because you're dependent on drink.
39:44
Speaker 5: Your sick is all over you.
39:48
Speaker 2: Have you ever seen a child starve to death, Professor? No.
40:00
Speaker 1: Now, we've all heard the radio ads about owing the
40:03
Speaker 1: IRS money. They try to scare you and frighten you
40:06
Speaker 1: into calling. Well, tax relief advocates is different. If you
40:11
Speaker 1: owe the IRS $ 5, 000, $ 50, 000, or $ 500, 000, TRA has a
40:16
Speaker 1: solution to resolve your tax problem. Don't lose hope. TRA
40:20
Speaker 1: could reduce or even eliminate what you owe. Their passion
40:23
Speaker 1: is taxes and helping regular people and businesses fix their
40:26
Speaker 1: IRS mess. They have over 1,000 five-star Google reviews and
40:30
Speaker 1: an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau. You don't have
40:33
Speaker 1: to be afraid of the IRS anymore. Real tax relief
40:35
Speaker 1: programs are available that can give you a fresh start.
40:38
Speaker 1: So don't wait. Go to TRA.com. It's TRA.com or call 800-575-1753.
40:40
Speaker 2: Again, that's 800-575-1753.
40:41
Speaker 1: Tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people.