Speaker 1: Keep on riding with it, says. We continue to broadcast
Speaker 1: the balance and defend the discourse from the Hip Hop
Speaker 1: Weekly studios. Welcome back to Civic Sipher. I am your
Speaker 1: host Rams's job. Big shout out to q Ward, who
Speaker 1: is in Los Angeles right now for obvious reasons, and
Speaker 1: we are going to get him back safe and sound
Speaker 1: to the studio soon enough to share all that he
Speaker 1: has learned out there. But in the meantime, we have
Speaker 1: a special guest in the studio. He is the one
Speaker 1: and only Vladimir Gajic. He's an independent, nonpartisan political and
Speaker 1: legal commentator, a former lawyer, and social media influencer who
Speaker 1: can be found online at Toxic Vlad that is t
Speaker 1: xik v Lad. Thank you for sticking around for the
Speaker 1: second half. First, thank you for having so stay tuned,
Speaker 1: because we're going to be talking about some of the
Speaker 1: things going on in the country insofar as the president
Speaker 1: is concerned and the courts, so the executive branch versus
Speaker 1: the judicial branch, and kind of where things live. Before
Speaker 1: we move any further, it is time to Baba become
Speaker 1: a better ally Baba. On today's Baba, we want you
Speaker 1: to check out NBJC dot org again NBJC dot org.
Speaker 1: Founded in two thousand and three, NBJC initially sought to
Speaker 1: address specific sets of challenges facing the black community, the
Speaker 1: erasure of black, queer, trans, and gender expansive people, and
Speaker 1: a political push to define marriage in ways that deny
Speaker 1: black LGBTQ plus slash SGL people recognition and access to economic, social,
Speaker 1: and political rights. Having faithfully and successfully fulfilled its original purpose,
Speaker 1: NBJC has rebranded henceforth the NBJC is the National Black
Speaker 1: Justice Collective. NBJC has accepted the charge to leave Black
Speaker 1: families and strengthening the bonds and bridging the gaps between
Speaker 1: the movements for racial justice and LGBTQ equality. NBJC connects
Speaker 1: to grasstops to the grassroots authentically. The organization is equipped
Speaker 1: with targeted messaging and data that brings voice, builds networks,
Speaker 1: and takes action on behalf of the black LGBTQ, slash
Speaker 1: SGL community. Nbjc strategic advocacy efforts have historically focused on
Speaker 1: the impact of federal public policy on the lives of
Speaker 1: black LGBTQ, SGL people and Black America as a whole.
Speaker 1: The organization's cornerstone issues are health and wellness hib awareness
Speaker 1: and prevention, safe and inclusive schools, employment, non discrimination, relationship
Speaker 1: and family recognition, anti violence, and economic justice. Again wants
Speaker 1: you to check them out at NBJC dot org. And
Speaker 1: this is my personal co sign for these folks. Doctor Johns,
Speaker 1: who is the CEO of the NBJC, is a dear,
Speaker 1: dear friend, has become a dear friend of the show
Speaker 1: in recent months, and we really do believe in the
Speaker 1: work that he's done. Actually, both Q and I got
Speaker 1: a chance to hang out with him in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: and we really do want you to check out the
Speaker 1: work that he's doing NBJC dot org. All right, mister Gagik,
Speaker 1: So we were talking about not being a fan of Judges,
Speaker 1: not being a fan of Democrats, which is fair a
Speaker 1: lot of folks that have gripes of Democrats. Would you say.
Speaker 2: It was a Democrats behavior the reaction to his election,
Speaker 2: not the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Sure, okay, okay, thanks for sharing that up. Thank you
Speaker 1: for clearing that up. But do you think that many
Speaker 1: people that come on this show, and we don't want
Speaker 1: to be an echo chamber, but many people that come
Speaker 1: on this show will say loudly and indeed I might
Speaker 1: be one of those people myself, and in fact, I
Speaker 1: think I would be that these times are unprecedented. This
Speaker 1: president is anti democratic and is not beholden to the
Speaker 1: entire country really just one specific facet of the country.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people who it doesn't affect them
Speaker 1: one way or the other. So maybe this strong man
Speaker 1: sort of whatever appeals to them, because ultimately, if it
Speaker 1: doesn't affect them negatively, and it might affect them positively,
Speaker 1: they don't have a dog in fight. But this president
Speaker 1: has at least it feels like this president really doesn't
Speaker 1: care about anybody else. And this coming from a person
Speaker 1: and people that come on the show course that have
Speaker 1: seen attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and when
Speaker 1: you think about the language there, that feels crazy to
Speaker 1: a lot of people because you would imagine that this
Speaker 1: country stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the heart
Speaker 1: of this country, at the heart of humanity. Lot of
Speaker 1: people would argue that this president has fired people who
Speaker 1: considers dei hires. He's defunded institutions that affirm black history.
Speaker 1: He has defunded institutions that celebrate black achievements, which are
Speaker 1: rare and unique in the story of this country and
Speaker 1: often overlooked or buried and so forth. And these attacks
Speaker 1: feel very pointed and very personal to a lot of people,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people again that come on this
Speaker 1: show feel that way. And he's doing this all legally.
Speaker 1: Would you argue that that is imagined and whole are
Speaker 1: in part, or that people are being extra sensitive to
Speaker 1: this president, or would you argue that, no, these are
Speaker 1: valid criticisms of this administration. This is unprecedented, and this
Speaker 1: president is changing the culture of this country to suit
Speaker 1: one specific fact of the country and more or less
Speaker 1: enshrining that into law.
Speaker 2: What would be your position, I would say, any criticisms
Speaker 2: that a person has is a legitimate criticism. And if
Speaker 2: you're asking me, is it legitimate criticisms for some of
Speaker 2: the say African American or gay or whatever, to have
Speaker 2: this particular criticism of the president? Is that valid? I've
Speaker 2: never walked in those shoes. You can't ask me to
Speaker 2: to know what's in somebody's in somebody's thought process, right.
Speaker 2: I will say this though, I mean, you're talking about diversity, equity,
Speaker 2: and inclusion. I think those are viral, valid points. I
Speaker 2: think talk about the founding fathers, there's a there are big,
Speaker 2: big fans of the Roman Empire, and if you know
Speaker 2: Roman history, the Romans were Their whole thing was diversity, right,
Speaker 2: That's why the Roman Empire lasted for so long. It
Speaker 2: was actually had an Arab imperor at one point. And
Speaker 2: those are fair points. I will just say from my perspective.
Speaker 2: For somebody with the first name Vladimir, when every single
Speaker 2: thing you hear out of the Democratic Party is how
Speaker 2: evil Russia is and how evil Vladimir Putin is, it
Speaker 2: starts to wear thin when you start hearing the other
Speaker 2: side about, oh, the Republicans or this the Republicans or that,
Speaker 2: or Donald Trump is this because the republic you know what,
Speaker 2: the Republicans were doing it just as much as the
Speaker 2: Democrats hating on Russia, trying to provoke a nuclear war
Speaker 2: with Russia for some god forsaken reason I don't know why.
Speaker 2: And then they talk about that the pe tape and
Speaker 2: all this stuff that Donald Trump did when he was
Speaker 2: in Russia and Putin has all this.
Speaker 3: Sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: We heard that for sixty eight six years and I
Speaker 2: was personally affected by it.
Speaker 3: I was assaulted in court.
Speaker 2: I think one of the contributing factors, if not the
Speaker 2: proximate cause is my name. My experiences of the past
Speaker 2: three and four years, six years since twenty eighteen in Phoenix,
Speaker 2: Arizona have been directly caused by hatred of Slavs, of Slavophobia,
Speaker 2: of xenophobia, of anything to do with Eastern Europe, anything
Speaker 2: to do with my name. And that's been directly caused
Speaker 2: primarily by the Democratic Party, but also certainly the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: So fear mongering, fear mongering, bread baiting is the word,
Speaker 1: red baiting.
Speaker 2: Just like Joseph McCarthy back in the day, they're bringing
Speaker 2: up people are bringing back, Oh, how would Ronald Reagan
Speaker 2: react to Donald Trump or being called by Vladimir Putin
Speaker 2: that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you one of the things that I did
Speaker 1: read about you is you were disbarred, the facto disbarred,
Speaker 1: This facto disbarred. Okay, So talk to us about what
Speaker 1: that means and what happened to you as a result
Speaker 1: of this.
Speaker 2: So for twenty years, I'm a lawyer with zero history
Speaker 2: of any sort. I was in the Marine Corps. I'm
Speaker 2: an honorably discharge you US Marine. I was a reservist
Speaker 2: for twenty years. I have no discipline. And I'm a
Speaker 2: public defender. You know, public defender is I basically work
Speaker 2: for free. I get I have to defend the people
Speaker 2: in court who have nor so poor they have no
Speaker 2: they can't hire their own lawyer. Right for all sorts
Speaker 2: of charges, from DUIs to whatever else. Right, I'm a
Speaker 2: public defender. I get a client, his name is Jamal Pennington,
Speaker 2: who's innocent. I don't think he's innocent at the time,
Speaker 2: and he's charged with sex trafficking basically being a pimp.
Speaker 2: Turns out the police reframing him. And keep in mind,
Speaker 2: I am not some radical left winger. I am not
Speaker 2: a member of Atifa. I'm not a member of the
Speaker 2: Communist Party.
Speaker 3: I am a normal.
Speaker 2: Tax paying citizen who's never been in trouble with the
Speaker 2: law and never been in trouble with the state bar.
Speaker 2: I don't even speed, I don't do drugs. I don't
Speaker 2: do any of those things. And when I point out
Speaker 2: the fact that the police falsified a DNA search warrant
Speaker 2: for my client's DNA, they just falsified a search warrant.
Speaker 2: They just made up the evidence to get a search
Speaker 2: warrant to test his DNA. It's not even a contested issue.
Speaker 2: It's not one of those things like, oh, maybe they did,
Speaker 2: maybe they didn't.
Speaker 3: No, they did. Everybody knows it.
Speaker 2: The case agent bribed one of my witnesses, a defense
Speaker 2: witness who says my client is completely innocent in somebody else.
Speaker 2: The case agent, meaning the detective who's running the case
Speaker 2: in secret, gave that witness money to change your testimony.
Speaker 2: And I know that not just because she told me
Speaker 2: that and because she told my private investigator that. I
Speaker 2: know that because I actually have the Facebook records proving it.
Speaker 2: I actually have Facebook written proof that the Phoenix Police
Speaker 2: Department agent in charge of a case was bribing and
Speaker 2: tampering with my witness to change your testimony.
Speaker 1: So how did this end up with you?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm a public defender, so I bring it.
Speaker 2: So what do you think of the first defense attorney's
Speaker 2: supposed to do in those circumstances. You bring it to
Speaker 2: the court, right, And so guess what happens When I bring.
Speaker 3: It to the court.
Speaker 1: They side with the police.
Speaker 2: The judge who's a Democrat. They're all democrats, All these
Speaker 2: judges are Democrats. He files a bar complaint against me
Speaker 2: based on what he says I'm being conspiracy theory, that
Speaker 2: sort of stuff. Keep in mind, I have this in writing.
Speaker 2: I have it in writing. I have zero history. He says,
Speaker 2: I have a personal grudge against the prosecutor. So the
Speaker 2: same prosecutor who called me a sexist just randomly started
Speaker 2: calling me a sexist and angry and started resorting to
Speaker 2: ethnic tropes, and the judges were going along with it.
Speaker 2: I asked then DOUBLEACP for help. Guess who then Double
Speaker 2: ACP sides with. They sided with the prosecutor. Hmm, because
Speaker 2: they have zero interest, zero interest in fighting systematic racism.
Speaker 3: Zero interest.
Speaker 1: That's a bold claim.
Speaker 2: It is a fact, and I will prove every single
Speaker 2: word of it. And so what happens is the bar,
Speaker 2: the judge files a bar complain against me, the state
Speaker 2: bar gives me a year's suspension without a hearing. Every
Speaker 2: lawyer in America, it's ordered by the Supreme Court of
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 3: Every lawyer.
Speaker 2: Before they take your license, it's just like taking your kids.
Speaker 2: They must give you a hearing. They must give you
Speaker 2: a hearing to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Speaker 2: So it is harder for the state to take your
Speaker 2: child from you than it should be to suspend a lawyer.
Speaker 2: But guess who happens to be the only lawyer in
Speaker 2: the history of Arizona who's lost his license without hearing,
Speaker 2: without being defaulted, or without consent. There's only one Guess
Speaker 2: who that lawyer happens to be. That's me.
Speaker 3: That's me.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I see why there's a lot to be
Speaker 1: frustrated about there, and I see why, you know, the
Speaker 1: pivot to you know, social media activism and those sorts
Speaker 1: of things. Now, one of the things that I've learned
Speaker 1: is that and maybe this is maybe these things are
Speaker 1: not connected, but I seem to recall I have a
Speaker 1: friend who's a lawyer in New York City, brilliant lawyer,
Speaker 1: went to the London School of Economics, THENTO Harvard Law
Speaker 1: you know, and her firm had to change. I couldn't
Speaker 1: get into it. I couldn't give you the details of
Speaker 1: it because I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers speak a
Speaker 1: different language. But her firm had to change some fundamental
Speaker 1: elements about either their culture or whatever it was, in
Speaker 1: order to remain compliant with the current administration's politics, and
Speaker 1: in doing so they would be able to retain certain
Speaker 1: contract government contracts and represent the interests of the government
Speaker 1: or something like that. And if they did not make
Speaker 1: these changes and align themselves politically, I guess that would
Speaker 1: be the right way to say it with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: two point zero, other than they would lose out on
Speaker 1: this significant amount of business. And I was told by
Speaker 1: her that that maneuver is unprecedented, not unlike many other maneuvers, like, hey,
Speaker 1: your funding is done. We're just going to take away
Speaker 1: your funding. What they're doing with Harvard, what they're doing
Speaker 1: with Columbia, all these other places.
Speaker 3: Do you know what you're talking about?
Speaker 1: Do you feel like these things are connected?
Speaker 2: Like no, I think what you're talking about, and I
Speaker 2: think what you're talking about in particular. And it's something
Speaker 2: that made me very upset because when when Donald Trump
Speaker 2: was running, his whole kind of thing was free speech,
Speaker 2: like liberty comes first. You're right, because he's he put
Speaker 2: himself out there, and I think legitimately as a victim
Speaker 2: of of of prosecutors and cops gone wrong, gone rogue,
Speaker 2: particularly the FBI agents.
Speaker 1: He was the victim. Donald Trump was the victim of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because he was talking about the classified documents case
Speaker 2: and the prosecute. You know the classified documents case in Yes,
Speaker 2: in mar Alago, and there were a number of prosecutions,
Speaker 2: and there was also the one in New York. And
Speaker 2: the ultimate point, you have prosecutors like the criminal system
Speaker 2: has been weaponized. That was kind of his whole pitch.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that's valid that he's saying that, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you what I interpreted.
Speaker 2: The way I interpreted was that it was a criminal system.
Speaker 2: And also the state bar was weaponized against lawyers who
Speaker 2: were representing his causes in state court after the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty election, Right.
Speaker 1: That's okay, So we got to you got to help
Speaker 1: me because I'm sure that now that we're here a
Speaker 1: lot of folks might want to hear so we don't
Speaker 1: have to dwell on it too much. But so, there
Speaker 1: was a phone call that Donald Trump made in Georgia
Speaker 1: saying to it might have been the election commissioner the
Speaker 1: I forget the name of the person, but some individual
Speaker 1: who was in charge of the election the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: and he says, hey, I need you to get me.
Speaker 1: It might have been thirty thousand votes. It's like, I
Speaker 1: need you to get me thirty thousand votes. I don't
Speaker 1: know that that's the number, so please fact check me
Speaker 1: if you're hearing my voice. But Donald Trump said that
Speaker 1: on that phone call, the call was recorded, was least
Speaker 1: to everybody. We heard him say that. And then there
Speaker 1: was the election interference case, right, which was that in Georgia,
Speaker 1: the one where the mugshot famously came from. Fannie Willis
Speaker 1: prosecuted him. But we heard him say that. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has famously had many accusers of him being let's put
Speaker 1: it kindly and say, sexually inappropriate. And he himself has said,
Speaker 1: you know, I love going backstage in my past. I'm
Speaker 1: making I'm making a point here, I'm making a pointer.
Speaker 1: But he himself, he we heard him before the first
Speaker 1: election say, you know, when you're a celebrity, you can
Speaker 1: just walk up to him and grab him by the
Speaker 1: P word. He said that, right, and then he loses
Speaker 1: in court to Egene Carroll. He found he's found liable
Speaker 1: or something. He's somehow he's an adjudicated rapist. This is
Speaker 1: what the term, this is what the term that.
Speaker 3: Is now adjudicated Civilly response.
Speaker 1: Civilly response, Well, we'll go with that, and we'll go
Speaker 1: with that, okay, mar A lago those documents. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: also famously had documents in his garage, right, and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump had documents in his garage and the government said,
Speaker 1: that's not supposed to happen. You're not supposed to have
Speaker 1: those docus certainly not supposed to have next to the toilet.
Speaker 1: And then there was a case there, and then Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's position was the criminal justice system is being weaponized
Speaker 1: against me. And that is the position that you think
Speaker 1: is valid for him to do.
Speaker 2: I think what I'm saying is that's the position he
Speaker 2: was arguing. Okay, And if I can just tell you
Speaker 2: what was saying, that's the position he was arguing. Corollary
Speaker 2: to that was his position that Republicans are the party
Speaker 2: of free speech. Okay, Corollary to that, And if you
Speaker 2: listen Tucker Carlson, he said something that I think resonated
Speaker 2: with me is you only get in trouble when you
Speaker 2: tell the truth. You never get in trouble when you lie,
Speaker 2: because lives don't matter. It's the truth that matters. So
Speaker 2: my assumption was when Donald Trump and he actually signed
Speaker 2: an executive order saying that during the past four years
Speaker 2: during the Biden presidency, any acts by the federal government
Speaker 2: to limit the citizen's right to free speech will be punished.
Speaker 2: The federal government has no right, or no power, or
Speaker 2: no immunity to limit the free speech of private citizens.
Speaker 3: I was ecstatic with joy.
Speaker 2: I was absolutely jumping through the roof and joy because
Speaker 2: I've been the victim of federal I've had the FBI
Speaker 2: at my house because of what I.
Speaker 3: Tell sure, I'm very upsetive.
Speaker 2: While Biden was president, all right, while Democrats were running,
Speaker 2: while all these free speech, all these Party of Equity
Speaker 2: and all this fairness and blah blah blah blah, they
Speaker 2: sent the FBI out at my house in secret because
Speaker 2: I was telling fact jokes on X about the kind
Speaker 2: of attorney. But anyway, so when he goes, when he
Speaker 2: starts deporting these protesters at Columbia, I forget the names exactly,
Speaker 2: but the one kid.
Speaker 1: What was his name?
Speaker 2: I think my mood, yes, yeah, I can't tell you
Speaker 2: how disappointed I was.
Speaker 3: I can't tell you.
Speaker 2: I wasn't crying, but I was pretty close to it
Speaker 2: because I felt like that was a betrial, because I
Speaker 2: felt like, finally we had a president who actually really
Speaker 2: really did believe in the first Amendment, really really did believe.
Speaker 3: In free spece.
Speaker 1: But does this not make my point that the point
Speaker 1: I made earlier where Donald Trump has shown that he
Speaker 1: is not the president. I mean, while he technically is
Speaker 1: the president of the United States of America, in terms
Speaker 1: of the people, he's the president of some people.
Speaker 3: He won the vote, well, then that's all that matters.
Speaker 1: But some people he's acting on their behalf and other people.
Speaker 2: So put up somebody against them, put up a better candidate.
Speaker 2: It's very very simple, have a p primary, have a
Speaker 2: candidate who actually goes to the primary. The Democrats rigged
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, so so Bernie Sanders, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: That I know.
Speaker 2: You then can't be complaining all the other guys an
Speaker 2: anti Democrat when you don't even have a primary to
Speaker 2: put us up the candidate that the people actually want
Speaker 2: to win. That party has forsaked and for they're done
Speaker 2: saying all the other guys are anti Democrats. They've lost that.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, how about this for the people that are
Speaker 1: going to compare apples to apples, Right when you look
Speaker 1: at a Joe Biden, a Joe Biden was not to
Speaker 1: the degree that Trump is anti all of us.
Speaker 3: I disagree with that fundamentally.
Speaker 1: Obama do the same thing. I'd go back as far
Speaker 1: as Clinton, because that's as far as I've been like
Speaker 1: kind of politically aware. But I'd throw George Bush Junior
Speaker 1: in there as well.
Speaker 3: As far as which category, in which.
Speaker 1: Category Democrats are part of this country too, Donald.
Speaker 2: Trump, George W. Bush, the Patriots, the Patriot Act guy,
Speaker 2: the guy who started a war over a lie and
Speaker 2: killed ten thousand Americans and his father, No, no, no,
Speaker 2: George W. Bush who invaded Iraq and killed how many
Speaker 2: iraqis that's fair, fairpoint. Okay, However, Donald Trump, relative to
Speaker 2: all of them, has famously been very you know, uh,
Speaker 2: it's almost like a witch hunt on Democrats. Everything in
Speaker 2: his social media posts as Democrats did this, that and
Speaker 2: the third.
Speaker 1: And you're out of time. Twice we're out of time.
Speaker 1: So obviously we have to have you back up again
Speaker 1: because this is a spirited conversation. I certainly do appreciate
Speaker 1: your time, because this is something that's really necessary. You know.
Speaker 1: Obviously you said you're an independent, and we've had, you know,
Speaker 1: people who fundamentally disagree with everything that we leave on
Speaker 1: this show. But you know, there are people with different
Speaker 1: perspectives and they're all valid. We believe in that, even
Speaker 1: if our president doesn't. So again, I want to thank
Speaker 1: you for your time. Once again, our guest has been
Speaker 1: Vladimir Gagic, an independent, nonpartisan political and legal commentator, form
Speaker 1: a lawyer, and social media influencer who can be found
Speaker 1: online at Toxic Vlad That is at t XI k
Speaker 1: V l A D. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: all social media at Civic Cipher. You can hit civic
Speaker 1: cipher dot com and make a donation to support the show.
Speaker 1: The show grows with your support, so keep helping us grow.
Speaker 1: You can find me on all social media at Rams's job.
Speaker 1: Q I am q ward and until next week, y'all Peace,