1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:13,119
Speaker 2: The battle between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Mike

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:17,360
Speaker 2: Johnson over Ukraine aid and immigration policy is coming to

4
00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:20,360
Speaker 2: a head this week as Congress races to avert a

5
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:24,880
Speaker 2: January twentieth partial lapse in government funding. Leaders of both

6
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 2: parties announced the contours of a spending plan yesterday, but

7
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:31,520
Speaker 2: it doesn't include the sixty one billion dollars in aid

8
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:35,879
Speaker 2: to Ukraine that Biden wants or the stringent border protections

9
00:00:35,960 --> 00:00:40,240
Speaker 2: that conservative Republicans want. Last week, Johnson led a delegation

10
00:00:40,360 --> 00:00:43,560
Speaker 2: of Republican lawmakers to the southern border in Texas.

11
00:00:44,159 --> 00:00:47,479
Speaker 1: Last month alone, we saw the most illegal crossings in

12
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:48,680
Speaker 1: recorded history.

13
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:52,160
Speaker 3: It is an unmitigated disaster, a catastrophe.

14
00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:56,040
Speaker 2: White House Press Secretary Kareem Jean Pierre called it a

15
00:00:56,080 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 2: political stunt. And this immigration system has been broken for

16
00:00:59,800 --> 00:01:03,640
Speaker 2: days and we need to have a bipartisan agreement to

17
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 2: move forward on how to deal with the system. During

18
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:09,559
Speaker 2: me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight

19
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 2: and the former head of the Office of Immigration Litigation

20
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:16,000
Speaker 2: at the Department of Justice. How much pressure is there

21
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:20,520
Speaker 2: on Biden to strike a deal considering the unprecedented number

22
00:01:20,560 --> 00:01:24,440
Speaker 2: of migrants at the southern border last month. Also, a

23
00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:28,399
Speaker 2: CBS News poll published Sunday found that two thirds of

24
00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 2: Americans disapprove of his approach to the US Mexico border.

25
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: I've personally been in touch with some of the people,

26
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,040
Speaker 1: and I'm the staff negotiating this deal, and i can

27
00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:42,399
Speaker 1: tell you that there is a lot of pressure that

28
00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:45,080
Speaker 1: the White House feels under to reach a deal. They

29
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:50,160
Speaker 1: are actually pretty much trying to circumvent a lot of

30
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:55,600
Speaker 1: the traditional groups that sort of advocate for more compassionate

31
00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:59,480
Speaker 1: immigration laws and are really trying to come to a

32
00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:03,120
Speaker 1: deal with the Republicans, basically meeting them ninety percent of

33
00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:04,960
Speaker 1: the way to where they want to go to, which

34
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:09,040
Speaker 1: would mean dramatic reductions in the ability for people to

35
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: ask for asylum through the southern border if they enter

36
00:02:12,720 --> 00:02:16,640
Speaker 1: illegally across the border. Basically under that scenario, they would

37
00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:21,360
Speaker 1: be pushed back into Mexico and making people have to

38
00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:23,760
Speaker 1: go in through the ports of entry instead of having

39
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:27,040
Speaker 1: to go in between the ports of entries where they

40
00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:29,600
Speaker 1: wouldn't be allowed. They would just be pushed back, and

41
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:34,000
Speaker 1: the basic leftover issue that hasn't been fully resolved is

42
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:39,040
Speaker 1: can the president actually bring in people legally using his

43
00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:42,920
Speaker 1: parole power during this time period or would there be

44
00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:46,080
Speaker 1: some time periods if the if the amount of crossings

45
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:49,880
Speaker 1: was too high, that then that parole period would be limited.

46
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 1: And I think that's the final issue that they haven't

47
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,480
Speaker 1: come to an agreement on. But there is going to

48
00:02:56,560 --> 00:02:59,400
Speaker 1: be an agreement. That's going to upset. I think both

49
00:02:59,440 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 1: sides of the left will be upset because this era

50
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:05,000
Speaker 1: of being able to sneak across the border and as

51
00:03:05,080 --> 00:03:07,040
Speaker 1: for asylum is going to be over. That's going to

52
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:11,240
Speaker 1: be eliminated by this compromise even when it gets reached.

53
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:15,160
Speaker 1: And on the right, they will be upset that there

54
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:17,639
Speaker 1: will be some authority that the president will still be

55
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: able to keep to let people in if there are

56
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:24,360
Speaker 1: circumstances that mayrit letting people in. And so you're going

57
00:03:24,440 --> 00:03:26,919
Speaker 1: to see whether you can cobble together enough of a

58
00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 1: centrist coalition to say that there's been a success on

59
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:32,239
Speaker 1: border policy.

60
00:03:32,880 --> 00:03:36,560
Speaker 2: Has a Biden administration used immigration parole more than other

61
00:03:37,240 --> 00:03:41,320
Speaker 2: administrations and why is that such a sticking point for them?

62
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 1: Yes, it has. In fact, there's been this thing called

63
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 1: the ch and V the Cuban Hation Nicaragua and Venezuelan

64
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:52,920
Speaker 1: parole program where they're letting in thirty thousand people a

65
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:57,160
Speaker 1: month to just apply using the parole program to be

66
00:03:57,200 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: able to come legally into the United States. And there's

67
00:04:00,240 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 1: also what's called the Uniting for Ukraine program, which was

68
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 1: a program that allowed Ukrainians to apply to enter the

69
00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: United States with paroles. And so the sticking point is

70
00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:14,680
Speaker 1: if that's gone, then for situations like Ukraine or other things,

71
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:17,280
Speaker 1: if the President limits his authority to be able to

72
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:19,840
Speaker 1: bring in people those under those paroles, then there will

73
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,160
Speaker 1: be no way to bring people in. But these numbers,

74
00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:26,760
Speaker 1: we're talking about something like five hundred thousand people being

75
00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,279
Speaker 1: legally allowed to enter into the United States, in addition

76
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:33,280
Speaker 1: to the three million or so border crossers that are

77
00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:37,000
Speaker 1: being apprehended on the southern border entering illegally. And so

78
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:40,440
Speaker 1: that's why the Republicans are saying they're concerned, is because

79
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:43,160
Speaker 1: they don't like those kind of numbers. And then one

80
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:45,680
Speaker 1: sort of prudential problem that happens with people who are

81
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: paroled in the United States is great, you're parolled in,

82
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:53,040
Speaker 1: but then what happens in the year the parole expires,

83
00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,000
Speaker 1: and very few people have another status they can switch

84
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 1: to after this parole, and so that becomes another problem.

85
00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,520
Speaker 2: Do you know what they've decided about, things like tightening

86
00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:10,560
Speaker 2: asylum interviews and expanding expedited deportations.

87
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:13,279
Speaker 1: While I can't say every line of the bill what

88
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 1: it's going to be, I can generally say that if

89
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:19,440
Speaker 1: they can reach an agreement that gets distributed to the Senators,

90
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:24,039
Speaker 1: there will be a recreation of the old Title forty two,

91
00:05:24,200 --> 00:05:29,800
Speaker 1: which basically says that during periods of high migration, the

92
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:32,480
Speaker 1: United States will be able to shut people out who

93
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:35,360
Speaker 1: are coming in between the ports of entry, meaning they

94
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,719
Speaker 1: will be able to push people out without doing anything.

95
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:43,040
Speaker 1: So there will be no excuse to cross the border illegally. Now,

96
00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:47,599
Speaker 1: there will be some exceptions for very urgent humanitarian concerns,

97
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:51,120
Speaker 1: but that's it. Other than that, there will be no

98
00:05:51,279 --> 00:05:54,800
Speaker 1: asylum process that can be accessed by people crossing the border,

99
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:59,000
Speaker 1: and that will be triggered by certain thresholds of increased immigration.

100
00:05:59,880 --> 00:06:02,919
Speaker 1: And that's going to be one aspect of it, and

101
00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:06,159
Speaker 1: the second aspect of it will be even if you

102
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 1: then get this opportunity to be questioned, it'll be at

103
00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:12,479
Speaker 1: a higher level, so it will not be this credible

104
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:15,119
Speaker 1: fear process, but it will be at the higher level

105
00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:18,640
Speaker 1: of the reasonable fear process, which in reality, what that

106
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:22,000
Speaker 1: means is it'll go from about an eighty percent success

107
00:06:22,080 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 1: rate where you're allowed to stay in the country to

108
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:27,800
Speaker 1: about a forty to fifty percent success rate, whereby you'll

109
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 1: be allowed to stay in the country.

110
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:33,159
Speaker 2: And could any of these changes be implemented under the

111
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:33,799
Speaker 2: current law.

112
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:34,560
Speaker 1: No.

113
00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:34,760
Speaker 2: No.

114
00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:38,760
Speaker 1: In fact, Congress would be changing the statutes, which is

115
00:06:38,760 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 1: the thing that they haven't been allowed to do in

116
00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:46,120
Speaker 1: the past, meaning there wasn't a congressional coalition that had

117
00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: enough votes to change the statute. So the idea is

118
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:52,680
Speaker 1: they would actually change the statutes, which would be quite

119
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:57,960
Speaker 1: the interesting development, and some people would actually argue that

120
00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:01,440
Speaker 1: it would actually run us a file of treaties that

121
00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:04,880
Speaker 1: we have written in the past adopting the Refugee Convention.

122
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:08,080
Speaker 1: But that can be done, meaning if the United States

123
00:07:08,160 --> 00:07:11,320
Speaker 1: government wants to pull out of certain obligations that it's

124
00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:14,320
Speaker 1: made under the Refugee Convention, it can do that by

125
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,120
Speaker 1: passing a statue that does that. But that may be

126
00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:19,600
Speaker 1: what it actually has to end up doing here in

127
00:07:19,760 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 1: order to vacate the previous commitments that made under the Refugee.

128
00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:28,920
Speaker 2: Convention and the Mexican president in return for help and

129
00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:33,520
Speaker 2: stopping illegal immigration, he's demanding the US give twenty billion

130
00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 2: to Latin America and Caribbean countries, grant work visas to

131
00:07:37,480 --> 00:07:40,080
Speaker 2: ten million Hispanics who've worked in the US for at

132
00:07:40,120 --> 00:07:44,119
Speaker 2: least ten years, and end sanctions against Venezuela and halt

133
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,120
Speaker 2: the blockade of Cuba. I mean, that's just not going

134
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 2: to happen.

135
00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:52,040
Speaker 1: Tho. They are unrealistic requests, and in fact, they actually

136
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: cause a problem because they make President Biden look ineffectual.

137
00:07:57,760 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: When President Trump wanted Mexico to do certain things with

138
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:03,080
Speaker 1: regard to immigration, he simply said, I'm going to pull

139
00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:07,040
Speaker 1: out a NaSTA and I'm going to tax remittances and

140
00:08:07,080 --> 00:08:10,640
Speaker 1: I'm going to tax cars at thirty percent. And that

141
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:14,280
Speaker 1: scared over Door enough that he was willing to actually

142
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,840
Speaker 1: move forward and do what Trump wanted. Whereas if he's

143
00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:21,640
Speaker 1: making all of these demands for cooperation with Biden, who

144
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:24,800
Speaker 1: sort of isn't making these crazy demands back then, it

145
00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 1: sort of leads people to think, well, maybe Trump had

146
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:30,760
Speaker 1: the right approach here, which was to threaten Mexico. Now,

147
00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:33,360
Speaker 1: I understand President Biden has wanted to be a good

148
00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:36,440
Speaker 1: faith actor here, but if the good faith isn't rewarded,

149
00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:39,200
Speaker 1: then you start to say, well, maybe there's other ways

150
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:40,480
Speaker 1: we need to deal with Mexico.

151
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:43,959
Speaker 2: Is the House going to be an impediment to this

152
00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:45,080
Speaker 2: deal getting through?

153
00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:48,120
Speaker 1: This is the issue which is, at the end of

154
00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:50,800
Speaker 1: the day, what is the House going to do? Is

155
00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:54,880
Speaker 1: there going to be a disagreement where President Trump says,

156
00:08:54,880 --> 00:08:57,280
Speaker 1: no matter what deal is reached, that the deal is

157
00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 1: too weak. Does that cause too many House members to

158
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:04,400
Speaker 1: then defect because President Trump said the House is too weak?

159
00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:08,719
Speaker 1: And then does that make Speaker Johnson have to make

160
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:12,480
Speaker 1: a decision between maintaining his speakership and funding the government.

161
00:09:12,520 --> 00:09:15,480
Speaker 1: Because the problem is if the Senate actually reaches a

162
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:18,760
Speaker 1: deal and passes a deal to fund the government, which

163
00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:22,000
Speaker 1: includes a border deal, which is essentially free money for

164
00:09:22,040 --> 00:09:25,000
Speaker 1: the Republicans, from the standpoint that it will probably do

165
00:09:25,240 --> 00:09:29,640
Speaker 1: very little to make Democrats happy. And if Republicans still

166
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:33,079
Speaker 1: reject that quote unquote free money on the border because

167
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:35,760
Speaker 1: they say it's not enough, then they're going to look bad.

168
00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:38,280
Speaker 1: And that will put Speaker Johnson in a terrible position

169
00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:41,200
Speaker 1: where either he will be blamed for shutting down the

170
00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:44,200
Speaker 1: government or he'll lose his speakership for putting it up

171
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:47,960
Speaker 1: for what's called the vote on suspension, where Democrats would

172
00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:50,160
Speaker 1: do most of the heavy lifting along with let's say

173
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:53,959
Speaker 1: fifty to sixty Republicans in order to pass the budget.

174
00:09:54,320 --> 00:09:56,920
Speaker 1: But then that would lead the majority of his conference

175
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:59,600
Speaker 1: to be very upseted in and vote him out of the.

176
00:09:59,520 --> 00:10:02,800
Speaker 2: Speakers coming up next for going to leave Congress and

177
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:05,360
Speaker 2: turn to the courts. New York has filed a suit

178
00:10:05,400 --> 00:10:09,199
Speaker 2: against the bus companies bringing migrants to the city, and

179
00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:12,560
Speaker 2: the Biden administration has filed a suit against Texas. I'm

180
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:16,080
Speaker 2: June Gross when you're listening to Bloomberg. New York City

181
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:19,319
Speaker 2: and Mayor Eric Adams announced a lawsuit against bust and

182
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 2: transportation companies that helped transport asylum seekers from Texas to

183
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:28,520
Speaker 2: New York City, calling their actions bad faith conduct.

184
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:33,440
Speaker 3: Our administration filed a lawsuit against seventeen companies that have

185
00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:37,959
Speaker 3: taken part in Texas Governor Greg Abbott's scheme to transport

186
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:42,040
Speaker 3: tens of thousands of migrants to New York City. In

187
00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:46,079
Speaker 3: an attempt to overwhelm our social services system.

188
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:48,840
Speaker 2: The lawsuit seeked seven hundred and eight million dollars to

189
00:10:48,880 --> 00:10:51,640
Speaker 2: cover the costs of caring for the migrants sent to

190
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:54,160
Speaker 2: the city. In the past two years, I've been talking

191
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:56,960
Speaker 2: to immigration law expert ly On Fresco, a partner at

192
00:10:56,960 --> 00:10:59,760
Speaker 2: Holland and Knight. So this is based on a law

193
00:10:59,800 --> 00:11:03,320
Speaker 2: news New York that penalizes people who quote bring a

194
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:05,880
Speaker 2: needy person from out of the state into this state

195
00:11:06,240 --> 00:11:09,079
Speaker 2: for the purpose of making him a public charge. I mean,

196
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:10,880
Speaker 2: has there been another lawsuit like this before?

197
00:11:11,040 --> 00:11:14,160
Speaker 1: Have there been other lawsuits that have tried to enforce

198
00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 1: provisions like this in other states and they've been ruled

199
00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:20,920
Speaker 1: to be unconstitutional because they violate the Privileges and Immunities

200
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:24,320
Speaker 1: clause of the Constitution, whereby, you know, if you're in

201
00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 1: one state, you're allowed to go from one state to

202
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:30,280
Speaker 1: another state, and states can't ban you from being transported

203
00:11:30,280 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: from one state to the other. There's interstate commerce issues also,

204
00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 1: and so from that standpoint, it makes it very difficult

205
00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:40,040
Speaker 1: for the State of New York to make a claim

206
00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:45,439
Speaker 1: like this, most likely that will be viewed as unconstitutional.

207
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:47,880
Speaker 1: They didn't even make the claim in federal court. They

208
00:11:47,920 --> 00:11:51,480
Speaker 1: made the claim in the New York state court system,

209
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:54,400
Speaker 1: and I think the reason they did that is because

210
00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:57,440
Speaker 1: they know that it's very little likelihood of success in

211
00:11:57,520 --> 00:12:00,000
Speaker 1: this litigation. But they're just trying to make a point,

212
00:12:00,760 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 1: especially since they're suing these bus companies. The bus companies

213
00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:06,720
Speaker 1: probably don't want to spend a lot of money defending

214
00:12:06,760 --> 00:12:09,360
Speaker 1: a lawsuit that they can at least try to get

215
00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:13,199
Speaker 1: the bus companies to stop doing this and that will

216
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:15,679
Speaker 1: at least solve some of the problems. Whereas if they

217
00:12:15,679 --> 00:12:18,319
Speaker 1: assume the state of Texas, that would have been a

218
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:20,520
Speaker 1: whole other thing, where Texas would have had just as

219
00:12:20,559 --> 00:12:24,400
Speaker 1: many resources as New York to litigate this, and probably

220
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:27,200
Speaker 1: New York would have realized this was not a high

221
00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 1: likelihood of success. The issue is here, this may not

222
00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:34,120
Speaker 1: be designed so much for success, but rather to put

223
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:36,800
Speaker 1: the bus companies usually don't have a lot of capital

224
00:12:37,160 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 1: to a decision of whether they want to spend thousands

225
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:42,760
Speaker 1: and thousands of dollars litigating a lawsuit or would they

226
00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:46,320
Speaker 1: rather just settle out by not bringing people into New York.

227
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 1: And I think that was the calculation here.

228
00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:52,920
Speaker 2: Let's go to the Biden administration last week suing the

229
00:12:52,920 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 2: state of Texas over that new law that empowers the

230
00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:01,760
Speaker 2: state to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally.

231
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:05,959
Speaker 2: Is the Biden administration's lawsuit any different from the lawsuit

232
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:10,520
Speaker 2: that was filed by the County of El Paso.

233
00:13:10,760 --> 00:13:14,080
Speaker 1: It's the identical claims. And there's actually president for this,

234
00:13:14,160 --> 00:13:17,640
Speaker 1: which was in twenty twelve when Arizona tried to have

235
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:21,080
Speaker 1: similar laws that they enacted to try to take in

236
00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,840
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement and make it a state issue. There was

237
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:27,880
Speaker 1: two lawsuits. There was one done by the ACLU and

238
00:13:27,960 --> 00:13:32,440
Speaker 1: other private entities that sued the State of Arizona, and

239
00:13:32,480 --> 00:13:34,920
Speaker 1: then there was a separate lawsuit that was done by

240
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:38,160
Speaker 1: the United States government that sued the State of Arizona.

241
00:13:38,200 --> 00:13:41,000
Speaker 1: Here we have the same concept. We have one lawsuit

242
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:44,280
Speaker 1: which is the cities and private entities and others who

243
00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:48,120
Speaker 1: are challenging the Texas law. And we also have again

244
00:13:48,240 --> 00:13:50,679
Speaker 1: the same thing where the United States government in its

245
00:13:50,679 --> 00:13:55,000
Speaker 1: own lawsuit challenges the Texas laws. And the theories in

246
00:13:55,080 --> 00:13:58,920
Speaker 1: both cases are the same, which is that these efforts

247
00:13:58,960 --> 00:14:02,720
Speaker 1: to inform the immigration law, even if they could be

248
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 1: considered in harmony with the immigration code should still be

249
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:11,080
Speaker 1: viewed as preempted, because when states start to speak with

250
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:14,760
Speaker 1: different minds as to how the immigration law is to

251
00:14:14,840 --> 00:14:18,080
Speaker 1: be enforced, then the federal government ceases to be able

252
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:21,680
Speaker 1: to do many important things in a unanimous way, meaning

253
00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 1: they don't the way they would deal with foreign nationals,

254
00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:27,920
Speaker 1: the way they would deal with foreign governments, the way

255
00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:32,360
Speaker 1: they would deal with various transportation issues. All of that

256
00:14:32,400 --> 00:14:35,120
Speaker 1: becomes limited, and so all of that, hence should be

257
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:39,000
Speaker 1: preempted from being able to be taken into the hands

258
00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:41,200
Speaker 1: of the states as opposed to having the federal government

259
00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:45,200
Speaker 1: run a uniform immigration system. And so that's the theory

260
00:14:45,200 --> 00:14:48,080
Speaker 1: of this. Lasses there's also theory that it violates both

261
00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 1: the interstate and the foreign commerce clauses, and those matter

262
00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:55,280
Speaker 1: as well. From the standpoint again, like we've talked about

263
00:14:55,440 --> 00:14:59,800
Speaker 1: the relationships you have with regard to other countries, and

264
00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:03,160
Speaker 1: you're shutting down certain things with regard to immigration, do

265
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:06,640
Speaker 1: you unwittingly shut down legal areas of commerce as well?

266
00:15:07,360 --> 00:15:11,720
Speaker 1: And from that standpoint, at least viz Are the President

267
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:15,160
Speaker 1: said in Arizona versus the United States, it's going to

268
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,440
Speaker 1: be very likely that there will be an injunction somewhere

269
00:15:18,440 --> 00:15:21,400
Speaker 1: along the line, whether it's by the District Court or

270
00:15:21,440 --> 00:15:25,240
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circus. But the question is does the Supreme

271
00:15:25,320 --> 00:15:29,520
Speaker 1: Court end up overturning the Arizona law. And we have

272
00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:34,280
Speaker 1: three justices. We have Justice Cony Barrt, we have Justice Cavanaugh,

273
00:15:34,320 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 1: we have Justice Corsage that have never said anything about

274
00:15:37,800 --> 00:15:40,760
Speaker 1: the Arizona case, and so will be interesting to see

275
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:44,920
Speaker 1: if those three will join Justice Alito and Justice Thomas

276
00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:48,120
Speaker 1: who ruled in favor of Arizona during the time of

277
00:15:48,120 --> 00:15:52,000
Speaker 1: the Arizona litigation, in order to create a five four

278
00:15:52,160 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 1: majority for overturning the Arizona case and actually allowing Texas

279
00:15:56,800 --> 00:15:57,920
Speaker 1: to enforce this law.

280
00:15:58,440 --> 00:16:01,480
Speaker 2: The Fifth Circuit, if it's following the Supreme Court precedent,

281
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:06,360
Speaker 2: will rule against Texas here. However, the Fifth Circuit we've

282
00:16:06,400 --> 00:16:09,120
Speaker 2: seen before not follow.

283
00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:13,440
Speaker 1: Precedent correct It's possible the Fifth Circuit could say this

284
00:16:13,640 --> 00:16:16,720
Speaker 1: is different than Arizona because at the end of the day,

285
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:20,320
Speaker 1: Texas isn't actually going to deport anybody. It's just going

286
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:22,680
Speaker 1: to put them right at the edge of the border

287
00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:27,200
Speaker 1: and punish someone who that doesn't leave. But those distinctions

288
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:29,960
Speaker 1: are really dancing on the nail head of a pin

289
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:34,640
Speaker 1: And I don't think those distinctions, if one was analyzing

290
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:38,960
Speaker 1: this in good faith, make it any different than Arizona.

291
00:16:39,560 --> 00:16:42,760
Speaker 1: And so really it will just become maybe whether the

292
00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit wants to have some language in there that

293
00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:49,200
Speaker 1: is dicta saying, although we're bound by Arizona, we think

294
00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: this is a wrong opinion, and we hope that the

295
00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:55,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court takes it up and reverses it. I could

296
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:58,720
Speaker 1: see that easily happening, but we'll have to see how

297
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:02,800
Speaker 1: disciplined and how faithful the Fifth Circuit wants to be

298
00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:06,160
Speaker 1: to the language of the Arizona Supreme Court decisions.

299
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:10,679
Speaker 2: And in yet another case involving Texas immigration and the

300
00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:15,399
Speaker 2: Biden administration, the administration is asking the Supreme Court to

301
00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:19,160
Speaker 2: step in and allow it to remove parts of the

302
00:17:19,240 --> 00:17:21,800
Speaker 2: twenty mile fence along the southern border.

303
00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:25,879
Speaker 1: So Texas has built fencing of razor wire fencing along

304
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:29,520
Speaker 1: its border, and it's about twenty nine miles of fencing

305
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:33,639
Speaker 1: along the southern borders, razor wire fencing along the Rio Grande.

306
00:17:34,280 --> 00:17:37,800
Speaker 1: And what the Fifth Circuit did is they sighted with Texas,

307
00:17:37,840 --> 00:17:41,679
Speaker 1: saying that Texas could sue and say that the federal

308
00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:45,920
Speaker 1: government was committing toward the law violation by cutting down

309
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:50,320
Speaker 1: this wiring unless there was a humanitarian emergency or serious

310
00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:54,359
Speaker 1: risk to human life. And what the federal government is

311
00:17:54,400 --> 00:17:56,960
Speaker 1: saying is that's not how it works. There's a supremacy

312
00:17:56,960 --> 00:18:02,000
Speaker 1: clause issue here, and the federal government gets to absolutely,

313
00:18:02,600 --> 00:18:05,760
Speaker 1: under federal statute be able to decide what are the

314
00:18:05,800 --> 00:18:09,919
Speaker 1: barriers that are actually placed between the United States and

315
00:18:09,960 --> 00:18:13,960
Speaker 1: any foreignancy or anything on any border, and that that

316
00:18:14,440 --> 00:18:17,840
Speaker 1: is the full authority of the Department of Homeland Security

317
00:18:17,960 --> 00:18:20,800
Speaker 1: to do that. And so thus the State of Texas

318
00:18:20,800 --> 00:18:25,440
Speaker 1: should be enjoined from doing this under the all ritzacs.

319
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 1: And the point is they're saying that under the statutes

320
00:18:28,960 --> 00:18:32,480
Speaker 1: eight USC. Thirteen fifty seven that they have the ability

321
00:18:32,600 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 1: to access this land within twenty five miles of the

322
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:39,439
Speaker 1: border and be able to do anything they want to

323
00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:41,679
Speaker 1: do within that land to protect the border. And if

324
00:18:41,720 --> 00:18:44,879
Speaker 1: they feel in their judgment that this razor wire is

325
00:18:44,880 --> 00:18:48,040
Speaker 1: harming their ability to do that, then they're permitted under

326
00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:51,240
Speaker 1: the supremacy claus to cut down that wire. And so

327
00:18:51,440 --> 00:18:53,919
Speaker 1: that's the question at the end of the day, is

328
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:58,480
Speaker 1: who's right. The State of Texas has the ability to

329
00:18:58,560 --> 00:19:02,760
Speaker 1: sue the government for taking down its property under the

330
00:19:02,800 --> 00:19:06,920
Speaker 1: Federal Court Plains Act. Or does the United States or

331
00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:10,760
Speaker 1: the Supremacy Clause have the ability to say, no, you

332
00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:12,800
Speaker 1: can't put up this razor wire fence.

333
00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:16,879
Speaker 2: It sounds like an important question. Do you think the

334
00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 2: court will take it take the case?

335
00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:22,119
Speaker 1: I think the Court will end up taking it. The

336
00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:25,000
Speaker 1: federal government when they ask for a Supreme Court review

337
00:19:25,119 --> 00:19:28,159
Speaker 1: on an issue, they usually get it. And because the

338
00:19:28,200 --> 00:19:30,480
Speaker 1: state of affairs at the moment is that Texas has

339
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:33,919
Speaker 1: defeated the United States government on an issue that the

340
00:19:34,000 --> 00:19:38,280
Speaker 1: United States government says is inverted visa visa supremacy clause,

341
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:42,119
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court usually does get involved there to decide

342
00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:43,080
Speaker 1: who's right about that.

343
00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:46,200
Speaker 2: So there may be a few immigration cases the Supreme

344
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:50,840
Speaker 2: Court steps into. Thanks so much, Leon, that's Leon Fresco

345
00:19:50,960 --> 00:19:54,199
Speaker 2: of Holland and Knight coming up next. Share wants a

346
00:19:54,240 --> 00:19:58,679
Speaker 2: conservatorship over her son Elijah Blues money. I'm June Gross

347
00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:03,280
Speaker 2: when you're listening to Bloomberg. Scherf has filed a petition

348
00:20:03,400 --> 00:20:07,800
Speaker 2: for control of the finances of her son, Elijah Blue Allmen,

349
00:20:08,320 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 2: saying his struggles with addiction and mental health have left

350
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:14,920
Speaker 2: him unable to manage his money. The forty seven year

351
00:20:14,960 --> 00:20:18,119
Speaker 2: old Almon receives money from a trust left by his

352
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:22,359
Speaker 2: late father, musician Greg Alman, but an LA judge refused

353
00:20:22,359 --> 00:20:26,960
Speaker 2: to immediately put Almond into the conservatorship that sha is seeking,

354
00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:30,159
Speaker 2: and he is opposing. The court will take up the

355
00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:34,560
Speaker 2: issue again at another hearing on January twenty ninth. Joining

356
00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:37,719
Speaker 2: me is Chris Melcher, a partner at Wallser Melcher and Yoda.

357
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 2: So is Shaer asking for a conservatorship over his finances

358
00:20:43,119 --> 00:20:44,639
Speaker 2: or over his person.

359
00:20:44,840 --> 00:20:50,800
Speaker 4: Petition for a conservatorship over the estate, which would give

360
00:20:50,920 --> 00:20:55,680
Speaker 4: her control over his financial affairs. She did not check

361
00:20:55,720 --> 00:20:59,879
Speaker 4: the box for a conservatorship over the person, which is

362
00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:03,399
Speaker 4: the most restrictive type of conservatorship that would have given

363
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:07,520
Speaker 4: her control over essentially his body. You know, where he

364
00:21:08,000 --> 00:21:12,600
Speaker 4: goes and who he sees, where he lives, medical decisions,

365
00:21:12,840 --> 00:21:16,119
Speaker 4: those type of things were not requested. It was a

366
00:21:16,800 --> 00:21:18,440
Speaker 4: over financial affairs only.

367
00:21:18,880 --> 00:21:22,560
Speaker 2: So this is different from let's say the Britney Spears conservatorship.

368
00:21:23,080 --> 00:21:28,639
Speaker 4: That's right, Brittany found herself under the most restrictive type

369
00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:32,960
Speaker 4: of conservatorship possible, where all of her liberties were essentially

370
00:21:33,200 --> 00:21:37,239
Speaker 4: stripped from her and granted to her father because that

371
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:41,399
Speaker 4: was a conservatorship of the person and also of the estate.

372
00:21:41,720 --> 00:21:44,480
Speaker 2: We'll explain why she's asking for this conservatorship.

373
00:21:45,080 --> 00:21:50,080
Speaker 4: Sure, so, a conservatorship over the estate, meaning financial affairs,

374
00:21:50,119 --> 00:21:54,879
Speaker 4: can be imposed for an adult when that person is

375
00:21:55,560 --> 00:22:01,159
Speaker 4: unable to resist fraud or undue influence, usually because of

376
00:22:01,200 --> 00:22:05,320
Speaker 4: some kind of health condition. So Share is claiming that

377
00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:10,719
Speaker 4: Elijah Blue, you know, has a history of substance abuse

378
00:22:10,920 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 4: problems that have been severe. I think Elijah Blue acknowledges

379
00:22:14,840 --> 00:22:17,760
Speaker 4: that he's, you know, had these problems. I mean, how

380
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,280
Speaker 4: could he not. He's been in and out of rehab.

381
00:22:21,000 --> 00:22:26,760
Speaker 4: So Share is under the belief that if Elijah Blue

382
00:22:26,800 --> 00:22:30,640
Speaker 4: had access to all of his money and apparently there

383
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:32,840
Speaker 4: was going to be some other big distributions I think

384
00:22:32,840 --> 00:22:36,359
Speaker 4: coming up, that he would waste all the money on

385
00:22:36,440 --> 00:22:40,800
Speaker 4: drugs or you know, be taken advantage of, and that

386
00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:44,639
Speaker 4: this was such a severe problem that he has that

387
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:47,439
Speaker 4: it could kill him. That that it's not just that

388
00:22:47,480 --> 00:22:49,800
Speaker 4: his money would be gone, but that he would take

389
00:22:49,880 --> 00:22:52,560
Speaker 4: so many drugs that he would die from. It is

390
00:22:52,640 --> 00:22:55,919
Speaker 4: the you know, the peril or risk that Share was

391
00:22:56,200 --> 00:23:00,520
Speaker 4: alleging to grant her financial control over his.

392
00:23:00,520 --> 00:23:04,720
Speaker 2: Life, and so what factors does a judge way in

393
00:23:05,160 --> 00:23:06,120
Speaker 2: determining this.

394
00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:10,960
Speaker 4: So the first question is in this type of situation

395
00:23:11,240 --> 00:23:15,879
Speaker 4: is I mean, ultimately, can Elijah Blue resist fraud and

396
00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:22,000
Speaker 4: undue influence? So what physical or psychological problem does Elijah

397
00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:26,600
Speaker 4: Blue have that would prohibit him or keep him from

398
00:23:27,520 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 4: resisting efforts to defraud him or efforts to take advantage

399
00:23:32,359 --> 00:23:36,040
Speaker 4: of him. That's the standard under the California Probate Code.

400
00:23:36,160 --> 00:23:40,400
Speaker 4: The Probate Code in this particular situation doesn't say anything

401
00:23:40,440 --> 00:23:45,359
Speaker 4: about drug or alcohol view substance abuse problems. It's talking

402
00:23:45,400 --> 00:23:49,080
Speaker 4: about the inability of an adult to resist fraud or

403
00:23:49,160 --> 00:23:53,159
Speaker 4: undo influence, such that we need to take away that

404
00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 4: adults ability to manage their own financial affairs and place

405
00:23:57,400 --> 00:24:00,480
Speaker 4: them into the hands of another. So again that she's

406
00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:03,560
Speaker 4: a little bit off base in terms of the you know,

407
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:06,560
Speaker 4: the box that she needs to fit into for conservatorship

408
00:24:06,600 --> 00:24:09,840
Speaker 4: over the estate, because the California Probate Code doesn't say

409
00:24:09,920 --> 00:24:12,879
Speaker 4: that someone who might waste their money on drugs or

410
00:24:12,920 --> 00:24:16,520
Speaker 4: alcohol needs to have the right to manage that money

411
00:24:16,560 --> 00:24:20,240
Speaker 4: taken away that that's not the test. So here she's

412
00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:25,480
Speaker 4: would need to establish that this substance abuse problem that

413
00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:30,520
Speaker 4: he has rises to such an extreme level that if

414
00:24:30,560 --> 00:24:34,359
Speaker 4: he had management over his bank account, for example, that

415
00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:39,280
Speaker 4: someone would somehow convince him to give them all of

416
00:24:39,280 --> 00:24:42,479
Speaker 4: that money. You know, that basically be fraud him or

417
00:24:42,520 --> 00:24:45,720
Speaker 4: pressure him to spend money on things that a normal

418
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:49,440
Speaker 4: you know, adult would not do, you know, taking advantage

419
00:24:49,480 --> 00:24:52,439
Speaker 4: of some position or trust and confidence, these type of things.

420
00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:55,320
Speaker 4: And she just has not been able to develop that

421
00:24:55,440 --> 00:24:58,600
Speaker 4: evidence because you know, I don't think she has this

422
00:24:58,680 --> 00:25:01,720
Speaker 4: day to day relatelationship with him to know even who

423
00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:04,960
Speaker 4: these folks are other than the wife that at the

424
00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:08,560
Speaker 4: time was filing for divorce that she alleged that certainly

425
00:25:08,600 --> 00:25:11,760
Speaker 4: would not be an appropriate person to manage his affairs

426
00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:13,720
Speaker 4: because they were going through a divorce at that time.

427
00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:18,159
Speaker 4: Sharedas doesn't have access to the information to know, like,

428
00:25:18,200 --> 00:25:20,560
Speaker 4: who are these people who are going to take advantage

429
00:25:20,600 --> 00:25:23,879
Speaker 4: of him? Have people in the past taken advantage of him?

430
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:29,280
Speaker 4: Why can't Elijah Blue resist efforts to defraud or exert

431
00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:33,359
Speaker 4: undue influence over him compared to any other adult? And

432
00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:37,399
Speaker 4: I would just note that there are plenty of high functioning,

433
00:25:37,480 --> 00:25:42,320
Speaker 4: sophisticated adults who are defrauded. What happens in fraud cases

434
00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:46,400
Speaker 4: is that there's con men or confidence men that are

435
00:25:46,480 --> 00:25:51,040
Speaker 4: experts at obtaining trust and confidence in others for purposes

436
00:25:51,080 --> 00:25:54,639
Speaker 4: of defrauding them. And it's humiliating and horrible. But you know,

437
00:25:54,640 --> 00:25:57,080
Speaker 4: look at the Mateoff's you know scam. I mean, there

438
00:25:57,119 --> 00:26:00,720
Speaker 4: was very sophisticated investors who were defrauded, I made off

439
00:26:00,880 --> 00:26:04,040
Speaker 4: who don't need to be under a conservatorship. So this

440
00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:09,680
Speaker 4: level of inability to resist fraud and undue influence has

441
00:26:09,760 --> 00:26:14,560
Speaker 4: to be so severe that there are no less restrictive

442
00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:19,959
Speaker 4: means available other than removing Elijah Blue's ability to manage

443
00:26:19,960 --> 00:26:22,560
Speaker 4: his own finances and place them and share his hands.

444
00:26:23,080 --> 00:26:25,719
Speaker 2: He also said that he's been sober for more than

445
00:26:25,800 --> 00:26:30,159
Speaker 2: three months, is atchanting alcoholics anonymous meetings, and is willing

446
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:31,840
Speaker 2: to submit to drug tests.

447
00:26:32,840 --> 00:26:36,840
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was an unusual request in a conservatorship case

448
00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:39,359
Speaker 4: that you know, initial stages like we have right now.

449
00:26:39,760 --> 00:26:41,760
Speaker 4: The question is whether he even needs one or not.

450
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:46,800
Speaker 4: And Elijah Blue is saying, no, I don't, and that

451
00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:50,920
Speaker 4: although you know, he appreciates the sentiment by his mother

452
00:26:51,080 --> 00:26:54,480
Speaker 4: that this is unwelcome, you know, meddling, and that she

453
00:26:54,520 --> 00:26:56,800
Speaker 4: should kind of mind her own business essentially, is what

454
00:26:56,800 --> 00:27:00,119
Speaker 4: his response was. He also said that while he he

455
00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:04,399
Speaker 4: has had severe problems with drug and alcohol abuse in

456
00:27:04,440 --> 00:27:08,080
Speaker 4: the past, that he's been sober, he's going to AA

457
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:12,680
Speaker 4: and then he volunteered to you know, submit to some testing. Now,

458
00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:16,200
Speaker 4: the way that I read that response is not to

459
00:27:16,240 --> 00:27:20,159
Speaker 4: submit to court orders or you know, compliance, but it

460
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:23,800
Speaker 4: was just a showing that he recognizes that he has

461
00:27:23,840 --> 00:27:26,200
Speaker 4: a problem and that he is managing at as best

462
00:27:26,280 --> 00:27:28,359
Speaker 4: as he can, and he doesn't need to have his

463
00:27:28,480 --> 00:27:31,600
Speaker 4: rights taken away from him. You know, there there are

464
00:27:31,760 --> 00:27:36,320
Speaker 4: other devices, you know, legally available to someone who is

465
00:27:36,400 --> 00:27:39,240
Speaker 4: unable to care for themselves as a result of some

466
00:27:39,440 --> 00:27:45,119
Speaker 4: severe drug and alcohol problems, and that would hopefully start

467
00:27:45,200 --> 00:27:49,560
Speaker 4: with somebody voluntarily checking themselves into a rehab program, which

468
00:27:49,880 --> 00:27:53,560
Speaker 4: he has done previously. And the benefit of that is

469
00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:57,040
Speaker 4: is that if he's doing so voluntarily, there's probably a

470
00:27:57,080 --> 00:28:00,920
Speaker 4: better chance of him succeeding because this is his own

471
00:28:01,280 --> 00:28:04,320
Speaker 4: desire to get help, rather than being forced upon him,

472
00:28:04,800 --> 00:28:08,040
Speaker 4: or that he's going through the motions of a rehab

473
00:28:08,160 --> 00:28:10,480
Speaker 4: because of some court case that he wants to get

474
00:28:10,480 --> 00:28:13,840
Speaker 4: out of, and that's not as probably effective if someone

475
00:28:13,960 --> 00:28:17,560
Speaker 4: is unable to do that and has such a serious

476
00:28:17,600 --> 00:28:20,600
Speaker 4: problem that they're unable to care for themselves or that

477
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:24,400
Speaker 4: they're a danger to others, then the state of California

478
00:28:24,520 --> 00:28:29,400
Speaker 4: has the authority to protect him from himself or others

479
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:34,520
Speaker 4: by imposing a you know, fifty one to fifty psychiatric

480
00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:38,800
Speaker 4: hold on him. And again that that's a very severe situation,

481
00:28:39,320 --> 00:28:41,480
Speaker 4: not not just for drug abuse. It would have to

482
00:28:41,480 --> 00:28:44,600
Speaker 4: be to the level where he's unable to care for

483
00:28:44,720 --> 00:28:47,080
Speaker 4: himself or that he's you know, such that he's a

484
00:28:47,160 --> 00:28:50,640
Speaker 4: danger to himself for others. So that is a state

485
00:28:50,760 --> 00:28:55,160
Speaker 4: imposed mechanism that takes away temporarily his rights for his

486
00:28:55,200 --> 00:28:57,880
Speaker 4: own protection. That is not a mother would do for

487
00:28:57,920 --> 00:29:01,800
Speaker 4: a son. So again, that protection already exists, you know,

488
00:29:01,880 --> 00:29:04,320
Speaker 4: for a limited period that the state could do. The

489
00:29:04,360 --> 00:29:07,560
Speaker 4: state hasn't done that, and so that would indicate that

490
00:29:07,880 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 4: his problems may not be as severe as Share claims,

491
00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:13,440
Speaker 4: because why hasn't the state, you know, put a fifty

492
00:29:13,480 --> 00:29:16,240
Speaker 4: one to fifty hold on him. So I think when

493
00:29:16,240 --> 00:29:19,880
Speaker 4: Elijah Blue came to court in person, he showed up

494
00:29:20,160 --> 00:29:24,240
Speaker 4: from the photographs of him walking out, he looked healthy.

495
00:29:24,800 --> 00:29:28,840
Speaker 4: He was certainly not missing as Schaer had insinuated that

496
00:29:28,920 --> 00:29:32,400
Speaker 4: he had gone missing. He was there in person. I

497
00:29:32,440 --> 00:29:35,960
Speaker 4: note that Share did not show up in person. So

498
00:29:36,320 --> 00:29:40,480
Speaker 4: I think the chances of Share getting this conservatorship are

499
00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:43,520
Speaker 4: very low, especially the way that she handled some of

500
00:29:43,520 --> 00:29:46,520
Speaker 4: the things procedurally. It was not a good look for

501
00:29:46,560 --> 00:29:47,200
Speaker 4: her in court.

502
00:29:47,600 --> 00:29:50,800
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was this strange thing. The judge said that

503
00:29:51,120 --> 00:29:56,040
Speaker 2: SHARE's attorneys were unwilling to share material with Allman's attorneys,

504
00:29:56,640 --> 00:30:00,120
Speaker 2: and that Sharre's lawyers said they had confidentiality concern and

505
00:30:00,520 --> 00:30:04,480
Speaker 2: shared the documents instead with Allman's court appointed lawyer. So

506
00:30:04,560 --> 00:30:06,720
Speaker 2: he has a court appointed lawyer and his own lawyer.

507
00:30:07,240 --> 00:30:12,800
Speaker 4: Well he did. These conservatorships are you know, a deprivation

508
00:30:12,960 --> 00:30:18,600
Speaker 4: of liberty. This is the court taking away somebody's liberty interests,

509
00:30:18,640 --> 00:30:21,640
Speaker 4: in this particular case, a request to take away the

510
00:30:21,840 --> 00:30:25,280
Speaker 4: ability to manage, you know, an adult's financial affairs and

511
00:30:25,360 --> 00:30:28,280
Speaker 4: placing him in the hands of another adult. So for

512
00:30:28,320 --> 00:30:30,200
Speaker 4: this to be imposed, there's a couple of things that

513
00:30:30,280 --> 00:30:32,880
Speaker 4: need to happen. One is notice has to be given.

514
00:30:33,640 --> 00:30:35,520
Speaker 4: It has to be I think it's fifteen days of

515
00:30:35,560 --> 00:30:40,000
Speaker 4: notice to the proposed conservative Elijah Blue that he has

516
00:30:40,040 --> 00:30:42,920
Speaker 4: to be brought to court in person, you know, unless

517
00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:45,320
Speaker 4: he's truly missing, he has to be brought to court

518
00:30:45,360 --> 00:30:47,880
Speaker 4: in person so that the court can make its own assessment.

519
00:30:48,440 --> 00:30:51,960
Speaker 4: The court will also have a social worker do an assessment.

520
00:30:52,360 --> 00:30:55,000
Speaker 4: And then he has a right to counsel and so

521
00:30:55,040 --> 00:30:58,720
Speaker 4: the court will appoint that council for him. He also

522
00:30:58,840 --> 00:31:01,680
Speaker 4: has a right to hire his own own attorney, and

523
00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:07,040
Speaker 4: so when the court made its initial orders, it appointed

524
00:31:07,080 --> 00:31:10,240
Speaker 4: council for him. And again this is really without any

525
00:31:10,240 --> 00:31:13,840
Speaker 4: opportunity for him to, you know, say anything. And then

526
00:31:14,120 --> 00:31:16,960
Speaker 4: once he found out about it, he hired his own

527
00:31:16,960 --> 00:31:20,840
Speaker 4: attorney and that attorney contacted Shares attorney and said, look,

528
00:31:20,880 --> 00:31:22,920
Speaker 4: we need all the court papers that you filed, and

529
00:31:22,960 --> 00:31:24,400
Speaker 4: they said no, you know.

530
00:31:24,480 --> 00:31:28,400
Speaker 2: That is no, you can't have the court papers.

531
00:31:28,840 --> 00:31:32,360
Speaker 4: It is it is horrific violation of his rights. And

532
00:31:32,400 --> 00:31:36,000
Speaker 4: this is what happened to Britney Spears. It was even worse.

533
00:31:36,360 --> 00:31:39,360
Speaker 4: The court there at the Los Angeles Superior Court violated

534
00:31:39,400 --> 00:31:43,160
Speaker 4: her rights under the Probate Code by imposing a conservatorship

535
00:31:43,160 --> 00:31:45,920
Speaker 4: over her without notice while she was under a fifty

536
00:31:45,960 --> 00:31:49,800
Speaker 4: one to fifty hold and appointed a council for her.

537
00:31:50,600 --> 00:31:54,920
Speaker 4: And when she hired her own attorney at Shepherd Mullen.

538
00:31:55,880 --> 00:31:59,320
Speaker 4: That attorney came into court to advocate on her behalf

539
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:01,080
Speaker 4: and was thrown out out of court and said we

540
00:32:01,120 --> 00:32:04,240
Speaker 4: won't recognize you. So here, you know, this had the

541
00:32:04,360 --> 00:32:09,440
Speaker 4: kind of similar bad vibes about it, where Elijah Blue,

542
00:32:09,480 --> 00:32:13,920
Speaker 4: who obviously has sufficient capacity to hire a lawyer, hires

543
00:32:13,960 --> 00:32:18,200
Speaker 4: a lawyer and Shares attorneys won't give him the information

544
00:32:18,360 --> 00:32:21,680
Speaker 4: that he needs to respond to a request to take

545
00:32:21,720 --> 00:32:26,440
Speaker 4: away his rights citing his own his own privacy. I mean,

546
00:32:26,440 --> 00:32:31,480
Speaker 4: how could Elijah blues privacy rights being violated by providing

547
00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:36,680
Speaker 4: information to Elijah Blue. It's absolutely ludicrous. And so this

548
00:32:36,720 --> 00:32:40,880
Speaker 4: is an overreaching by Sharer's attorney, and the court was

549
00:32:41,080 --> 00:32:46,040
Speaker 4: very critical of Share for doing that because you know, again,

550
00:32:46,400 --> 00:32:50,360
Speaker 4: the whole concept here is that we have one adult

551
00:32:50,880 --> 00:32:54,400
Speaker 4: who is in such despair that they are unable to

552
00:32:54,480 --> 00:32:58,000
Speaker 4: properly you know, care for themselves and can't resist fraud

553
00:32:58,080 --> 00:33:01,360
Speaker 4: or undo influence such that mom needs to come in

554
00:33:01,400 --> 00:33:05,920
Speaker 4: there and take care of him. But then Mom isn't

555
00:33:06,120 --> 00:33:10,680
Speaker 4: respecting his rights, isn't respecting the right that Elijah Blue

556
00:33:10,760 --> 00:33:14,240
Speaker 4: has to at least see the court papers. You know,

557
00:33:14,280 --> 00:33:15,960
Speaker 4: he saw some of them but not all of them

558
00:33:16,200 --> 00:33:18,400
Speaker 4: at least see all of the court papers that she

559
00:33:18,520 --> 00:33:22,960
Speaker 4: had filed. That again calls in to question her motivations.

560
00:33:23,280 --> 00:33:27,240
Speaker 4: Why is she doing this? Why is she acting so

561
00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:31,280
Speaker 4: quickly to take away his financial rights when I think

562
00:33:31,280 --> 00:33:34,320
Speaker 4: there is maybe some distributions coming in there so she

563
00:33:34,360 --> 00:33:37,480
Speaker 4: could get control over them without giving him a fair

564
00:33:37,600 --> 00:33:40,560
Speaker 4: chance to even see all the court papers that she's

565
00:33:40,600 --> 00:33:44,440
Speaker 4: filing against them, or communicate with his own chosen attorney.

566
00:33:44,880 --> 00:33:47,040
Speaker 4: And then I would also note that if his problems

567
00:33:47,040 --> 00:33:50,320
Speaker 4: are so severe, why didn't she check the box for

568
00:33:50,520 --> 00:33:54,400
Speaker 4: conservatorship over the person? Because if he's such a danger

569
00:33:54,840 --> 00:33:58,160
Speaker 4: that he's going to go and take drugs and kill himself, well,

570
00:33:58,240 --> 00:34:01,360
Speaker 4: then why wouldn't she force him in the rehab because

571
00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:03,600
Speaker 4: that would be the only true way of protecting him.

572
00:34:03,600 --> 00:34:05,800
Speaker 4: I mean, he doesn't need a lot of money to

573
00:34:05,840 --> 00:34:08,759
Speaker 4: get access to dangerous drugs and kill himself. But she's

574
00:34:08,840 --> 00:34:11,799
Speaker 4: only sought the control over his finances, but she did

575
00:34:11,840 --> 00:34:15,120
Speaker 4: not seek the ability to force him into a rehab,

576
00:34:15,120 --> 00:34:17,640
Speaker 4: which is the help that he would truly need if

577
00:34:17,680 --> 00:34:22,120
Speaker 4: she were correct. So this is again a complete misfire

578
00:34:22,239 --> 00:34:26,000
Speaker 4: by her, and I don't know what her true motivations are,

579
00:34:26,400 --> 00:34:31,000
Speaker 4: but it raises the hypothesis or theory that she is

580
00:34:31,360 --> 00:34:35,320
Speaker 4: more interested in obtaining control over his finances than truly

581
00:34:35,360 --> 00:34:36,120
Speaker 4: protecting him.

582
00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:40,439
Speaker 2: The judge obviously denied the conservatorship at this point and

583
00:34:40,760 --> 00:34:44,800
Speaker 2: scheduled another hearing for January twenty ninth. Our judge is

584
00:34:45,239 --> 00:34:49,759
Speaker 2: much more reluctant to impose any kind of conservatorship in

585
00:34:49,840 --> 00:34:52,880
Speaker 2: the light of the Britney Spear conservatorship.

586
00:34:53,239 --> 00:34:56,040
Speaker 4: You know, one of the benefits that came out of

587
00:34:56,200 --> 00:35:01,960
Speaker 4: Britney Spear's abuse of conservatorship was there is more attention

588
00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:08,600
Speaker 4: being paid on these, at least the celebrity conservatorship cases.

589
00:35:09,400 --> 00:35:13,279
Speaker 4: And you know, unfortunately for the non celebrities, you know,

590
00:35:13,320 --> 00:35:16,839
Speaker 4: who is really watching those cases. It's really up to

591
00:35:16,880 --> 00:35:20,760
Speaker 4: the court, the court appointed attorney and the social workers

592
00:35:20,760 --> 00:35:24,440
Speaker 4: who are doing the investigations that are expected to protect

593
00:35:24,800 --> 00:35:27,960
Speaker 4: these folks who allegedly need protection so that they're not

594
00:35:28,040 --> 00:35:33,040
Speaker 4: taking advantage of by the conservators who are placed in

595
00:35:33,120 --> 00:35:38,160
Speaker 4: control of their lives. So certainly, after Brittany, and I

596
00:35:38,200 --> 00:35:40,680
Speaker 4: think we are seeing a Brittany effect here in the

597
00:35:40,719 --> 00:35:46,319
Speaker 4: sharecase that the judges is acting appropriately and stepping up

598
00:35:47,239 --> 00:35:52,600
Speaker 4: quickly and criticizing Share for not having, you know, observed

599
00:35:52,600 --> 00:35:55,200
Speaker 4: the rights of her son to have counsel of his

600
00:35:55,280 --> 00:35:57,440
Speaker 4: own choosing, and for that council to at least see

601
00:35:57,680 --> 00:36:01,080
Speaker 4: all the court papers that were filed, and they're taking

602
00:36:01,160 --> 00:36:05,600
Speaker 4: a much more appropriate look at it, because, again, as

603
00:36:05,640 --> 00:36:09,400
Speaker 4: we've been discussing here, there are some logical problems with

604
00:36:10,160 --> 00:36:13,960
Speaker 4: what Share is asking for it. I can't imagine what

605
00:36:14,120 --> 00:36:17,160
Speaker 4: it must be like for a parent to have a

606
00:36:17,280 --> 00:36:22,640
Speaker 4: child who has long term substance abuse problems, and I'm

607
00:36:22,680 --> 00:36:25,680
Speaker 4: sure that's very scary for her, and she feels helpless

608
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:27,640
Speaker 4: and she wants to act and do all this, and

609
00:36:28,000 --> 00:36:31,319
Speaker 4: it's I'm sure horrible what she's going through and trying

610
00:36:31,360 --> 00:36:34,080
Speaker 4: to protect her son. But the way she's going about

611
00:36:34,080 --> 00:36:39,560
Speaker 4: it is not legally correct and is probably not likely

612
00:36:39,640 --> 00:36:42,920
Speaker 4: to succeed. And fortunately we have a judge here on

613
00:36:42,960 --> 00:36:45,120
Speaker 4: the case that is protecting his rights.

614
00:36:45,719 --> 00:36:48,440
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens at the next hearing. Thanks so much, Chris.

615
00:36:48,760 --> 00:36:51,720
Speaker 2: That's Chris Melcher, a partner. Walls are Melcher and Yoda,

616
00:36:52,520 --> 00:36:55,160
Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

617
00:36:55,520 --> 00:36:57,879
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

618
00:36:57,920 --> 00:37:01,759
Speaker 2: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify

619
00:37:02,040 --> 00:37:05,879
Speaker 2: and at bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm

620
00:37:05,960 --> 00:37:08,400
Speaker 2: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg