Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A dozen states now requires students in kindergarten to twelfth
Speaker 1: grade to wear masks, while another handful bar such mandates
Speaker 1: as a school year begins amid a surge of coronavirus cases.
Speaker 1: Litigation is underway and at least five states over masked
Speaker 1: mandates in schools. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. So,
Speaker 1: Eric tell us about the flurry of lawsuits there here
Speaker 1: fights the underway in Florida and Texas and Oklahoma, And
Speaker 1: I think it's the cases in Florida are really illustrative
Speaker 1: as well of what's going on here. There's parents, groups
Speaker 1: of parents who are concerned about their children catching the
Speaker 1: delta variance of the coronavirus. Has food in both state
Speaker 1: court and federal court saying that the governor's ban on
Speaker 1: mass mandates and schools violates the state constitution in the
Speaker 1: state case, and then the federal case say that it
Speaker 1: violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by putting children at risk.
Speaker 1: So it's still necessarily early on in the federal case,
Speaker 1: but the state case, the judge denying the governor the
Speaker 1: Santus's motion to dismiss on Thursday. So and now there
Speaker 1: was a hearing today. What happened at the hearing, So
Speaker 1: the hearing is still underway. Um, it's going to end
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, and it's the hearing on the parents motion
Speaker 1: for an injunction against Governor de Santus's ban on mass
Speaker 1: mandates in school So if the parents win this injunction,
Speaker 1: then all of the sixty seven or so fool boards
Speaker 1: in Florida will be able to have mass mandates if
Speaker 1: they wish, without fear of punishment from the state, which
Speaker 1: right now the governor has said that he will punish
Speaker 1: these school districts if they try to impose a mass
Speaker 1: mandate that does not have an opt out which would
Speaker 1: allow parents to opt out for any reason. And of course,
Speaker 1: health experts are saying that if you have a mass mandate,
Speaker 1: it isn't absolutely mandatory, it just isn't as effective. So
Speaker 1: there's testimony take it. Who's test of Well, there are
Speaker 1: health experts and parents on both sides of the issue
Speaker 1: who are testifying today and tomorrow and through into Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and they have an opening statement from both sides this morning.
Speaker 1: The parents said that they would be presenting evidence that
Speaker 1: would show that this delta variant in particular is so
Speaker 1: contagious and it infects children in a way the earlier
Speaker 1: variant patent, that there's a particular concern about it in
Speaker 1: a particular need for faith mass in schools as schools
Speaker 1: are reopening, and they will also hear from parents who
Speaker 1: just simply say that it is reckless that the State
Speaker 1: of Florida is putting their children at risk by essentially
Speaker 1: exposing them to this virus. You know in these quotes classrooms,
Speaker 1: private classrooms, or kids you know are very easily able
Speaker 1: to spread this virus around and take it back to
Speaker 1: their family and friends. So the state has said that
Speaker 1: they will also be presenting health experts. They're going to
Speaker 1: present evidence that they say will show faith masks are
Speaker 1: actually detrimental to kids. They focused on the mental health aspects,
Speaker 1: thing that covering the smiles and laughter of children was
Speaker 1: actually bad for their mental health and to cause anxiety
Speaker 1: and depression, and that it would affect bonding between the
Speaker 1: students and the teacher. They will also be presenting parents
Speaker 1: saying that they're thankful that they have this final say
Speaker 1: on whether or not the children cover their faces and schools.
Speaker 1: So the health experts on the governor's side, do you
Speaker 1: know if any of them are going to say that
Speaker 1: masks don't help to stop people from getting Actually, actually, yes,
Speaker 1: this is obviously going to be a real point of
Speaker 1: contention in in the hearing um. We haven't gotten there yet,
Speaker 1: but in the opening statement, the governor's lawyer did say
Speaker 1: that they would be presenting evidence showing that in the
Speaker 1: last school year, the counties in Florida that had mass
Speaker 1: mandates versus those that didn't had almost no difference in
Speaker 1: the number, you know, the percentage of children who contracted COVID,
Speaker 1: And I think it's pretty clear that the parents side
Speaker 1: is going to argue that that's it is outdated. You
Speaker 1: know that the delta variants started spreading around earlier this year,
Speaker 1: and that it just isn't going to show the whole
Speaker 1: picture without taking delta into a full account. I take
Speaker 1: it that whatever side loses is going to appeal this right,
Speaker 1: and it looks like we'll be getting the state case
Speaker 1: is going to be moving on quite a bit faster here.
Speaker 1: It's on a faster track. The subtle case is still
Speaker 1: being briefed, and there hasn't been any types of big
Speaker 1: hearings or trials like we're having now in the state case.
Speaker 1: But you can be sure that there will be appeals
Speaker 1: of regardless of what the decision is and what's happening
Speaker 1: in Texas. What is the Texas Supreme Court done? I
Speaker 1: think on the one hand, the Texas Supreme Court had
Speaker 1: ruled that Governor Abbott could ban mask mandates, but on
Speaker 1: the other hand, in the school lawsuit just said that
Speaker 1: he had to go through the usual appellate procedure and
Speaker 1: couldn't jump straight to the Texas Supreme Court. That was
Speaker 1: the ruling I think last week, or it wasn't exactly
Speaker 1: a ruling on the merit saying that he couldn't do
Speaker 1: a ban on mask mandates, just that he had to
Speaker 1: go through it a different way to defend it. Even
Speaker 1: though he is in quarantine because he got COVID despite
Speaker 1: being vaccinated, he's going through with those fights against mass mandates. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: He's on the same page as Governor Stantus in Florida.
Speaker 1: You know, they both agree that yes, the virus is dangerous,
Speaker 1: yes it's spreading around, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they believe that parents just have to have the last
Speaker 1: word on whether or not their children were face masks
Speaker 1: to school. That it's a matter of parents rights on
Speaker 1: healthcare matters, and I can tell you in the Florida case,
Speaker 1: that specific issue is addressed earlier in the hearing last week,
Speaker 1: where the parents said that you know, this is just
Speaker 1: like any other vaccine. That compared it to kids having
Speaker 1: to take vaccines to go to public schools. So that's
Speaker 1: a serious matter of health for children, and that parents
Speaker 1: of public school children don't have any choice in that matter.
Speaker 1: The judge even pointed out before he issued his ruling
Speaker 1: that having a stupid cloths over your mouth would seem
Speaker 1: to be a lot less of a health issue than
Speaker 1: injecting a vaccine into your children. So he seemed to
Speaker 1: already be questioning the idea that a face masks with
Speaker 1: such a serious health matter that parents had to have
Speaker 1: the last word. But that wasn't his final word on
Speaker 1: the matter. He will as you were ruling on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: but he already seemed a little bit skeptical about that.
Speaker 1: Thanks Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito has put a hold on a Circuit
Speaker 1: Court ruling that would force the Biden administration to reinstate
Speaker 1: a Trump administration policy requiring asylum seekers at the southern
Speaker 1: border to wait in Mexico for their cases to be processed,
Speaker 1: a policy that has been dormant for more than a year. Alito,
Speaker 1: who handles emergency matters from Texas, said he was issuing
Speaker 1: the stay until Tuesday night so that the full court
Speaker 1: can consider the application. My guest is Leon Fresco, a
Speaker 1: partner at Hollandon Knight. So Leon start by telling us
Speaker 1: about the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as Remain in Mexico. Well,
Speaker 1: in December, the Trump administration implemented this program, called the
Speaker 1: Migration Protection pro to call MPP Remain in Mexico. What
Speaker 1: it would do is it would authorize the CDP, the
Speaker 1: Customs and Border Protection to return people who were not
Speaker 1: from Mexico, so they were third country nationals, meaning people
Speaker 1: from either Central America or somewhere else to Mexico for
Speaker 1: the duration of their removal proceedings. So what would happen is,
Speaker 1: even if you were found to have a credible fear
Speaker 1: of persecution, you would not be led into the United States.
Speaker 1: You would be placed into Mexico and then told Okay, well,
Speaker 1: on this day, your appointment is for your immigration case.
Speaker 1: We're gonna pick you up and bring you across. So
Speaker 1: let's say the San Diego immigration courts or the Brownsville
Speaker 1: immigration courts, and we will do your hearing then. But
Speaker 1: during this whole time that you're waiting for your hearing,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't be waiting in the United States. You'd be
Speaker 1: waiting in Mexico for the hearing. Biden came into office
Speaker 1: and rescinded the policy. Texas and Missouri sued to challenge
Speaker 1: Biden's recision. What did the district court judge rule and
Speaker 1: what did the appellate court rule? These cases were brought
Speaker 1: in the district court first in the Northern District of Texas,
Speaker 1: and then it went to the Fifth Circuits, which is
Speaker 1: the court of Appeals that governs Texas, and what the
Speaker 1: court's ruled in both of those occasions was that under
Speaker 1: the Administrative Procedure Act, the recision of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: Remain in Mexico memo was arbitrary and capricious, meaning that
Speaker 1: the reasons that they gave for rescinding the memorandum weren't
Speaker 1: in accordance with the actual facts on the ground, so
Speaker 1: to speak. And so from that perspective, what they were
Speaker 1: basically trying to say was that how could, for instance,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration say that they don't have the resources
Speaker 1: to detain people when they're not detaining anybody. That that's
Speaker 1: not true. You know, they have the resources to detain people,
Speaker 1: and then when those resources are filled, then it would
Speaker 1: make more sense to keep people in Mexico than to
Speaker 1: have them come into the United States. So that was
Speaker 1: the first thing. Then second that if the DHS had
Speaker 1: previously said that the Migration Protection Protocol contributed to decreasing
Speaker 1: the number of people coming into the United States, why
Speaker 1: would they now say that that's not true? Also the
Speaker 1: same thing about if the termination hadn't led to the
Speaker 1: border surge, why is there a border Third, so they
Speaker 1: kind of flipped every single thing that the administration had
Speaker 1: given with regard to the facts of the reasons why
Speaker 1: it was rescinding the program and saying that none of
Speaker 1: those reasons we're matching the reasons you were seeing on
Speaker 1: the ground. Isn't it true that the program was dormant
Speaker 1: even under the Trump administration in the later years, Well, right,
Speaker 1: It was very rarely used. They was used, no doubt,
Speaker 1: but it was very rarely used because it actually is
Speaker 1: even that program a resource intensive program in terms of
Speaker 1: having to track people and if you're gonna do it
Speaker 1: actually the right way. And there was a lot of
Speaker 1: lawsuits on this policy that hadn't really been settled. You know,
Speaker 1: they were working their way through the courts. You need
Speaker 1: to figure out a way to track people, give them
Speaker 1: an opportunity to find counsel, all kinds of things that
Speaker 1: aren't necessarily happening when someone's in Mexico. You know, they
Speaker 1: have a lot of barriers finding the government again when
Speaker 1: it's time for their hearing. And so a lot of
Speaker 1: people had just missed their hearing. And those people were
Speaker 1: waiting in Mexico still for their hearing and they just
Speaker 1: missed it because they didn't have access to all of
Speaker 1: the resources they needed to actually attend their hearing. So
Speaker 1: that was one, but then two, when the remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico policy had actually been put into effect, that was
Speaker 1: still sort of in a piloted manner. It was the
Speaker 1: end of and once we got to then COVID happened
Speaker 1: and they just switched to Title forty two, which is
Speaker 1: just they'd even bother processing anybody in the United States
Speaker 1: and returning them into Mexico. They just at that point
Speaker 1: just excluded everybody. And so that was the main reason
Speaker 1: that Remain in Mexico program kind of went away, was
Speaker 1: because remain in Mexico requires you to process someone in
Speaker 1: the United States and then return them to Mexico. And
Speaker 1: what was happening after COVID was no one was getting
Speaker 1: processed in the United States. They were just being immediately
Speaker 1: pushed back into Mexico the second they were encountered. Since
Speaker 1: the president has authority over immigration policy, how can states
Speaker 1: or district court judge till the president what he can
Speaker 1: or can't do. Well, So this is what super complicated about,
Speaker 1: not just this case. There's another case headed right up
Speaker 1: the same highway where a district judge has basically decided
Speaker 1: to appoint himself director of ICE for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: where he issued about a hundred page opinion saying if
Speaker 1: ICE is going to have prosecutorial discretion against any individual
Speaker 1: that it has encountered, it needs to tell the court
Speaker 1: and explained to the court why it won't actually move
Speaker 1: forward with that person removal proceedings, which is quite an
Speaker 1: intrusive order, something that goes against what had been the
Speaker 1: decisions of the Supreme Court in the past about the
Speaker 1: federal government having the ability to determine who it does
Speaker 1: and doesn't place into removal proceedings and who it does
Speaker 1: and doesn't remove. At the end of the day, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of Supreme Court case law on that issue.
Speaker 1: So I think that second case probably gets overturned by
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. The wrinkle here when the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: looks at it is this is still a memo. And
Speaker 1: so there was a memo putting in the remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico program, and there was a memo rescinding the Remain
Speaker 1: in Mexico program. And so just like DOCCA was the
Speaker 1: same concept where people said, hey, can't DOCA just be
Speaker 1: put in and taken out and the courts can't look
Speaker 1: at any of this. The courts decided they could look
Speaker 1: at the memo rescinding DOCCA and say that the memo
Speaker 1: did not have sufficient justification. And so this is essentially
Speaker 1: exactly what's happening here is potentially the Supreme Court could
Speaker 1: get five votes, I'd imagine, will wait and see on
Speaker 1: whether this memo resending MPP had sufficient justification. The court
Speaker 1: affirmed the district court judges ruling. There was a thirty
Speaker 1: four page opinion, not affirming necessarily on the merits, but
Speaker 1: denying the stay. And so when you deny the stay,
Speaker 1: you do take a look at the merits. And the
Speaker 1: court thought that there was no factors that warranted a
Speaker 1: stay here because there was a likelihood that the government
Speaker 1: will succeed in the case. Because they went through all
Speaker 1: of those factors that the District Court went through and
Speaker 1: there was a unanimous three zero decision. They went through
Speaker 1: all of those factors and agreed with the District Court
Speaker 1: that the government doesn't have sufficient detension resources. It's a
Speaker 1: question about the stats, but they you know, if you
Speaker 1: do look at the stats because of COVID, whether you
Speaker 1: attributed to COVID or not, the numbers were less in
Speaker 1: and so it's kind of a hard thing because then
Speaker 1: they say, well, in remain in Mexico was in effect
Speaker 1: and there was no crossings. You took it out and
Speaker 1: the crossings went up. Well, there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that changed because of COVID, but they use that against it.
Speaker 1: They found that the termination then of the MPP led
Speaker 1: to the surge they found to increase people being entering
Speaker 1: into the United States and school age children going into
Speaker 1: school and all of that stuff, and so all of
Speaker 1: these things went together to say that the purpose of
Speaker 1: the memo, which said that remain in Mexico didn't actually
Speaker 1: reduce unauthorized immigration, turns out to have been not true.
Speaker 1: So that's basically what they're resting their laurels on both
Speaker 1: the District Court and the Court of Appeals. So now
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito grants the government a stay until Tuesday,
Speaker 1: is it yes? So what the order of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court says is at eleven fifty nine pm Tuesday night.
Speaker 1: So basically maybe Wednesday morning, you can say the full
Speaker 1: court will consider the application, but the responses do from
Speaker 1: the Texas and Missouri side five pm on Tuesday, and
Speaker 1: so then the decision, I guess will be made at
Speaker 1: eleven fifty nine, And so the question is will there
Speaker 1: be I votes? I think the most interesting part of
Speaker 1: this case to me is the foreign policy aspect of
Speaker 1: this case, which is this is not just about the
Speaker 1: US and a memo at a policy about immigration enforcement.
Speaker 1: Remain in Mexico actually requires Mexico to cooperate. And so
Speaker 1: this is I think the issue that the courts on
Speaker 1: the lower end did not really take it to account,
Speaker 1: which is that Mexico says it's not going to cooperate
Speaker 1: with remain in Mexico anymore. And so that's something that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is siting, saying, well, what are we
Speaker 1: supposed to do with this injunction in Mexico doesn't cooperate anymore,
Speaker 1: to which the only answer really that the lower courts
Speaker 1: have is, well, Trump found the way to make them cooperate.
Speaker 1: So you're just accepting that they won't cooperate without actually trying,
Speaker 1: do you have a burden to at least try to
Speaker 1: get them to cooperate? And so I think this is
Speaker 1: the most fascinating part of this case. Will the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court force the US government to try to force Mexico
Speaker 1: into accepting romaine in Mexico? Again? I mean that seems
Speaker 1: to me outside the bounds of what courts usually try
Speaker 1: to do with regard to intervening in foreign policy. But
Speaker 1: we'll see. How would courts possibly monitor what the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is doing with Mexico? How would they possibly monitor
Speaker 1: how much pressure they're putting on Mexico. It seems almost
Speaker 1: ridiculous to try to force the Biden administration to restart
Speaker 1: a program that has been dormant for more than a year. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the only thing a court could do if
Speaker 1: the federal government came back and said, Mexico refuses to
Speaker 1: do m p P again, because here's the thing. Mexico
Speaker 1: has verdens to take back Mexican nationals, but they have
Speaker 1: no legal obligation to take back a non Mexican national
Speaker 1: into Mexico, and so they refused to do it. The
Speaker 1: only thing a court could do, I suppose, is to
Speaker 1: just put in contempt government officials that they feel aren't
Speaker 1: trying hard enough. And I mean, is that really? Is
Speaker 1: a court prepared to do that? Actually start finding and
Speaker 1: throwing US government officials in jail who they feel have
Speaker 1: unsuccessfully persuaded Mexico to take back non Mexican nationals into Mexico.
Speaker 1: That's what has to happen. And so it seems wow
Speaker 1: like that would be a very difficult bridge to cross.
Speaker 1: Ere So can we read anything from Justice Alito issuing
Speaker 1: this stay? I think when the Solicitor General asks for
Speaker 1: a stay of a immigration program that is always taken
Speaker 1: very seriously by the Supreme Court, and you'll always get
Speaker 1: a chance for nine justices to weigh in before a
Speaker 1: policy goes into effect where the federal government is telling
Speaker 1: you that they on it to be stayed. So I
Speaker 1: don't read too much into that yet, especially because I
Speaker 1: think Alito will probably side with the Fifth Circuit. But
Speaker 1: the question is will there be five justices who will
Speaker 1: actually figure out a way to side with the federal
Speaker 1: government here? And I mean, I don't know. It will
Speaker 1: be very interesting to see what gets cobbled together in
Speaker 1: terms of a coalition if there are five. Obviously Justice
Speaker 1: Roberts would join, but I don't know between Gorsege, Coney, Barrett,
Speaker 1: and Kavanaugh, which of those three would join. They would
Speaker 1: be very interesting to see which, if any of those
Speaker 1: three would join. What do you think Roberts would join? Well, no,
Speaker 1: I'm saying if there's five that end up staying this decision,
Speaker 1: I would find it very hard for that five not
Speaker 1: to include Justice Roberts because Justice Roberts, at least on
Speaker 1: his part, has a track record signing onto the Arizona
Speaker 1: Versus United States decision, which talks about the federal government
Speaker 1: having discretion over who it the ports, who it doesn't
Speaker 1: the pore when it does, etcetera. And so he's at
Speaker 1: least signed onto that. So he would definitely have to
Speaker 1: be one of the five if there are gonna be five,
Speaker 1: because if they lose him, there are not gonna be
Speaker 1: five votes. Then for paying this decision, Leon remind us
Speaker 1: about that case. In the Arizona versus US case, Arizona
Speaker 1: had a law that basically they wanted to have state
Speaker 1: law enforcement of immigration. Roberts ruled in favor of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration and said that the Obama administration. He signed
Speaker 1: on to a decision from Justice Kennedy that said that
Speaker 1: the Obama administration had the authority to decide who who
Speaker 1: to the port and who not to the port, went
Speaker 1: to deport them and went not to deport them, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So that's in that decision. So my point being, I
Speaker 1: find it very hard to figure a scenario where just
Speaker 1: as Roberts ruled in favor of keeping the program, and
Speaker 1: yet there are two other conservative justices who have then
Speaker 1: uphold the stay. I I don't see that happening. How
Speaker 1: are the numbers at the border. Well, the numbers at
Speaker 1: the border, this is the problem, are the highest they've
Speaker 1: been in the last twenty years. Uh. When July ended,
Speaker 1: we were talking about over two hundred thousand apprehensions. Now, again,
Speaker 1: the problem with statistics is you can start parsing them
Speaker 1: however you want. And so some people say, well, the
Speaker 1: reason there are so many apprehensions is because this kind
Speaker 1: of forty two is still in effect, which permits the
Speaker 1: Biden administration to push people immediately back into Mexico the
Speaker 1: second that they're apprehended. So what that creates is multiple
Speaker 1: crossings by one human being. And so you know, people
Speaker 1: are having that debate how many of these are multiple crossings,
Speaker 1: how many of these are unique crossings, But in any case,
Speaker 1: there certainly is a high number of people crossing the border,
Speaker 1: so much so that the Biden administration is fighting in
Speaker 1: court for its ability to continue using the title forty
Speaker 1: two authority, saying that the conditions are so difficult on
Speaker 1: the border that they need to be able to continue
Speaker 1: using it. Thanks Leon, that's Leon Fresco of hollanden Knight.
Speaker 1: The U. S Military report its biggest day of evacuation
Speaker 1: flights out of Afghanistan but the deadly violence that's blocked
Speaker 1: many desperate evacuees from entering Kabul's airport persists, and the
Speaker 1: Taliban has warned of consequences if the U S delays
Speaker 1: withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan passed the August thirty one deadline.
Speaker 1: A group that includes veterans who served in Afghanistan has
Speaker 1: started a fundraising effort to support the evacuation of Afghans
Speaker 1: from a medical clinic that's been threatened by the Taliban,
Speaker 1: launching a go fund Me page for Operation We Care
Speaker 1: Global Afghan Evacuation. One of those leading the effort is
Speaker 1: Atturning Mario tel a Rico, a partner at Honigman, and
Speaker 1: he joins me now, so tell us what's happened and
Speaker 1: why you started this fundraising campaign. Thank you for the
Speaker 1: opportunity to talk about this. This is very important to
Speaker 1: myself as well as my family, So my family members,
Speaker 1: in particular my aunt Annatlarrico, who is a veteran, opened
Speaker 1: a clinic in Afghanistan in Kabul just over nine years ago.
Speaker 1: A history of being in the country as a medic
Speaker 1: and a medical officer. As she retired as a major
Speaker 1: in the Army, but she saw the need for continued
Speaker 1: growth in the medical services in Afghanistan and is a
Speaker 1: kind hearted person and dedicated to helping others. Founded this
Speaker 1: clinic along with help from other members of my family
Speaker 1: as well as other individuals. But we got word on
Speaker 1: Sunday when the Taliban entered the capital that a group
Speaker 1: of men had entered the clinic looking for information. This
Speaker 1: was coming from staff members of the clinic who sent
Speaker 1: us images as well as messages describing what was happening
Speaker 1: on the ground. When they sent this information, we know
Speaker 1: quickly realized that what they were likely looking for with
Speaker 1: information and relating to the clink's efforts in helping the
Speaker 1: United States, but also information relating to the African nationals
Speaker 1: who worked at the clinics. And it's our belief and
Speaker 1: information that the information relating to our staff members was
Speaker 1: taken and now all of our friends and their families
Speaker 1: aren't hiding in the capital. They have been sending us
Speaker 1: very agonizing messages explaining what's happening on the ground and
Speaker 1: including one of them as has been beaten by the
Speaker 1: Taliban and injured. Another one message just that deep scared
Speaker 1: for his life and that they're going to kill him
Speaker 1: if they find him, so right away, what our our
Speaker 1: interests was was to do everything that we could, So
Speaker 1: we mobilized the team of former veterans, former d o
Speaker 1: D members or employees, and former Afghan refugees. We've been
Speaker 1: working around the clock since we got word that they
Speaker 1: rated the clinics and luckily we've been able to work
Speaker 1: in conjunction with other veterans, other or d D members
Speaker 1: and have created essentially a task force to evacuate our
Speaker 1: friends and other Taliban targeted Afghans. We have planes ready,
Speaker 1: we have resources ready, we have assets on the ground
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, and we have plans for what will happen
Speaker 1: to our friends after they leave the country. We we
Speaker 1: have host countries that are in Europe that are willing
Speaker 1: to take all of our friends and help them start
Speaker 1: a new life, a safe, protected life away from the Taliban.
Speaker 1: Since the US government is having trouble getting people to
Speaker 1: the airport, how can you get people out? So without
Speaker 1: getting into too much detail, for security purposes and the
Speaker 1: safety of our our assets in the country, you know,
Speaker 1: we have creative solutions to help our people out. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we're doing everything we can to work in conjunction with
Speaker 1: all governments agencies as well as non government agencies to
Speaker 1: make sure that everyone is safe. But I don't want
Speaker 1: to touch too much on the the actual logistic given
Speaker 1: the security risks. But you are confident that you can
Speaker 1: get these people to safety. I am confident that we
Speaker 1: are doing everything we can to get them out as
Speaker 1: safely as possible. Obviously, with the uncertainty of what's happening,
Speaker 1: it is very difficult to safe with any certainty that
Speaker 1: we can do everything with certainty and safety. But we
Speaker 1: have very, very experienced people that are helping. What we
Speaker 1: really need, because this is a non government effort, is
Speaker 1: a private partnership of like minded people you know personally
Speaker 1: have raised several hundred thousand dollars to make this effort possible,
Speaker 1: and we're looking for more help though, because it is
Speaker 1: self funded, we're looking for people to help in any
Speaker 1: way that they can, including we've launched in conjunction directly
Speaker 1: with executives that go fund me go fund me page.
Speaker 1: It's called the Operation We Care Global Afghan Evacuation. To date,
Speaker 1: since launching, we've raised around four hundred fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Our goal is to get north of that hopefully to
Speaker 1: or around two million to to be able to get
Speaker 1: all of our people out. That that's right now what
Speaker 1: the object dip is and we're running parallel paths to
Speaker 1: get people out on the ground and as well as
Speaker 1: trying to make sure that we can once they get
Speaker 1: into the airport to you know, properly escape safely. Are
Speaker 1: you trying to do this before the August thirty first deadline? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: you know we're working around the clock and order to
Speaker 1: meet that deadline. You know, even if our president extends
Speaker 1: the deadline, our friends in in Afghanistan face more and
Speaker 1: more dangerous as everyday passes until we're able to get
Speaker 1: them out. And obviously this situation is deteriorating and from
Speaker 1: reports on the ground, you know that's public. It is
Speaker 1: not a safe area to be in, and especially for
Speaker 1: those our friends in their family who are on the
Speaker 1: ground that they're very scared. We're very worried for them.
Speaker 1: So how many people are you trying to get out?
Speaker 1: Roughly so the clinic has roughly a hundred and thirty employees,
Speaker 1: but they have family members that obviously we are not
Speaker 1: going to leave behind. So there's several hundred at least
Speaker 1: with our group, and our broader group has other talibant
Speaker 1: targeted to Afghans. So there there are several hundred people
Speaker 1: that we are trying to evacuate. So you said that
Speaker 1: you have other countries that they may go to do
Speaker 1: any of them have you know, special immigrant visas? So
Speaker 1: our family UM is working with so our friends in
Speaker 1: their families. Until recently, we're not eligible for the SIVING program.
Speaker 1: That's why we're focusing upon this private partnership. They until recently,
Speaker 1: like I said, we're not eligible because I think it's
Speaker 1: because they were not directly working with the US government.
Speaker 1: I know recently that has expanded. So while some of
Speaker 1: them have been able to apply, it wasn't until recent
Speaker 1: and given kind of the decuration of the situation on
Speaker 1: the ground, you know, their their applications, if they were
Speaker 1: even able to apply in time, have you know, have
Speaker 1: diminished in terms of priority. I think you know, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot that they can do I think at
Speaker 1: that point. So to do everything we can because they
Speaker 1: you know, we believe that they're being directly targeted and
Speaker 1: we know they're beeting targeted by salaband. So we're doing
Speaker 1: everything we came from a private partnership to get them
Speaker 1: out as quickly as possible. We need help. You're an attorney.
Speaker 1: Have you ever done anything where you encountered you know
Speaker 1: the morass of problems you have here. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: as an attorney, we often deal with very complex, intense situations.
Speaker 1: I'm a corporate lawyer, so I do deal with very
Speaker 1: complicated situations, but nothing like this. You know, this is
Speaker 1: people's lives are at risk. Especially these are people who
Speaker 1: friends and their families who, knowing full well the danger
Speaker 1: and potential consequences, sacrifice their own personal stafeties to provide
Speaker 1: essential medical services to the community, to Americans, to other
Speaker 1: allies of the United States. You know, we need to
Speaker 1: do everything we can to help them and get them
Speaker 1: out as quickly as possible. And for anyone who's willing
Speaker 1: to help, you know the best way to help us
Speaker 1: directly in every dollar that goes to go fund me
Speaker 1: will be dedicated to helping our people escaped. It's amazing
Speaker 1: that people of stepping up to actually make a change
Speaker 1: in this world rather than just complaining about it. It's
Speaker 1: it's incredible. Thanks Mario. That's Mario Desco of Honigman and
Speaker 1: the fundraising effort Operation we Care Global Afghan Evacuation. And
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Wall Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always at the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law.
Speaker 1: I'm June Brusso and you're listening to Bloomberg