➡ The host of Nino’s Corner TV discusses with Judge Joe Brown about the potential preemptive pardons by President Biden. They discuss how these pardons could force those pardoned to testify on any matter, potentially incriminating others. They also delve into the history of such pardons, citing examples from Presidents Ford and Lincoln. Lastly, they speculate on the potential implications of these pardons, suggesting they could be related to alleged conspiracies to prevent Donald Trump’s presidency.
➡ The text discusses the legal consequences of breaking the law, particularly in relation to conspiracies and harboring fugitives. It emphasizes the importance of deterrence in criminal law, making the penalties severe enough to discourage others from committing the same offense. The text also touches on the complexities of immigration law, the role of administrative judges, and the concept of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Lastly, it explores the concept of corporations as legal entities with the same rights as individuals.
➡ The text discusses the American political system, focusing on the role of the Electoral College and the importance of the oath of office. It explains that the Electoral College prevents any one area from dominating the election, ensuring fair representation. The text also clarifies that the act of swearing an oath, such as when a president is inaugurated, is more about the promise to uphold duties than the physical act of placing a hand on a Bible. Lastly, it discusses the power of prosecutorial discretion and the validity of actions taken by a president, even if their election was later found to be fraudulent.
➡ Even if a person is found to have held a position of power illegally, any actions they took while in office are still considered legal. This is because many people have relied on their decisions, and invalidating them would disrupt the entire system. If the person is found to have held the office illegitimately, they can be held accountable for their actions, even after leaving office. This principle applies not only to political offices but also to other roles, such as a preacher performing a marriage ceremony without being officially ordained.

What’s up, folks? Welcome to Nino’s Corner tv. I’m with the honorable Judge Joe Brown, back again. Thank you so much for joining me, Judge. It’s been a. It’s an honor. All right, here I am. Showtime. All right, so wasting no time at all, I want to talk about the Biden pardons. But first, folks, stick around because if you have digestive issues, this is caused by potential toxin that’s in all the, quote, healthy foods that scientists have been telling us to eat with a fraudulent food program for the longest time. And this potential toxin causes digestive issues.

According to Dr. Gundry, a world renowned cardiologist, this is affecting millions of people nationwide. Warning signs include weight gain and fatigue and digestive discomfort and stiff joints, even skin problems. Well, Dr. Gunder explains these side effects are often mistaken for normal signs of aging because digestive issues develop usually over a matter of years and sometimes even over decades. Folks, I can assure you that the damage is probably caused by these health foods and it’s far from normal. The good news is you can easily help fix these problems from your own home. It’s very simple. You just have to know which foods are actually healthy and which foods contain this potential toxin.

Go to gutcleanseprotocol.com forward/nino. Folks, get started on it today. Gut Cleanse protocol. Nino. All right, Judge, let’s get into this man. So the pardons that Biden is giving, they’re like preemptive pardons. What is this? I’ve never seen anything like this before. To me, it’s showing who’s guilty and who’s not, shining a light on the guilty, in my opinion, and from what I understand is one does not have to accept a pardon. In this case, the pardon was never granted. A person who has been pardoned can no longer take the Fifth. With these blanket pardons, the pardon can be compelled to testify on virtually anything, even if it indicates incriminates others.

Refusal to testify can have all the consequences of contempt up to including serious fines in prison time. Am I right in saying that? I’ve been boasting that for some time. The maybe this got it from you, but yeah, the process is called a prophylactic pardon. It’s not unusual. In fact, the most recent event where it occurred most people ought to be familiar with is what happened when newly appointed President Jerry Ford pardoned Tricky Dick Nixon as a condition of his resignation. So he did not have to face any charges of any nature stemming from the water deep fiasco.

So you also have Abraham Lincoln having issued a large number of prophylactic pardons during his administration at the end of the Civil War for purposes of achieving reconciliation after the war. So it’s nothing new. And under the Constitution of the United States, the President is given absolute authority to issue pardons. He doesn’t have to explain them, he doesn’t have to rationalize them. Nobody can hold him to account. There are some sound reasons for that that we don’t need to get into, but we don’t understand that. And that’s what they used to teach us in fifth grade.

In other words, you’re 11 years old in elementary school, but they don’t do it anymore. So he exercised the presidential pardon. Now you brought up the points that I thought were funny. If you pardon somebody, the question is, is the microphone goes up and gets stuck in somebody’s face. All right, what did you get pardoned for? What were the wrongs that you did? Well, I didn’t do anything wrong. Well, why did you need a pardon? And as George Washington famously said, who needs a pardon who is not done wrong? And that’s when the Brits offered him a blanket pardon during Revolutionary War if he would surrender.

So that is sort of an operative thing. The other point is that perhaps when you get to committee there is a little bit wrong that is being hidden and they are complicit in disguising something, which is what goes on around Nancy Pelosi et al, arranging or facilitating what became the disturbance involving about 180 people that wound up with approximately eight times that many in jail. 1600 who are in prisons right now awaiting their release after foot dragging has occurred, when only 180 got in and committed essentially misdemeanor vandalism and trespass. Now what was supposed to be up on January 6th is called the Confidence and Elections act of 1877.

It’s been on the books for 140 years. So what it’s about is if there is widespread distrust or lack of confidence in the election, the Vice President is supposed to refuse to accept the proffered electoral college count. And Sheldenstead called for the appointment of a 15 member committee. Five from the House, five from the Senate and five from the Supreme Court, with the Chief justice of the Supreme Court being the presiding officer over the 15 person committee. They are instructed, in fact, it says they shall take a minimum of 10 days to conduct an independent audit of the election process or such extra time as is reasonably necessary and report back on the validity of the election process and its integrity to maintain public confidence in 1877, there was a similar lack of confidence as occurred in 2020.

So it was not something unusual that was the next item up for consideration. Now, when this wasn’t forcible because the doors were open and they were invited in, episode occurred, that was the next one up on the congressional agenda. So Pelosi, when saying everyone had to vacate the chamber, was able to table that. Now, perhaps what is being pardoned is in fact criminal activity, but it’s complicity in this process, that’s the thing that most reasonably suggests itself. Now, America has conspiracy laws and conspiracies are interesting. You can do something that is legal, you can do it in a perfectly legal way, but if you are conspiring with somebody else to achieve something illegal, then it becomes a felony.

So in other words, the agreement would be, we agreed to get together and prevent Donald Trump from, from being the president in the United States and is part of that conspiracy. We’re going to have these hearings and we’re going to scapegoat these people to distract. Now, if that’s what’s going on, that becomes a felonious conspiracy. And the interesting thing about a conspiracy is if you can establish probable cost, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but probable cause that a crime is committed, I mean that a conspiracy was committed, then all of the rules kick in and that means a relaxation on evidence.

So what happens is if any one member, any one member of this conspiratorial group, however widespread it is, commits any act in furtherance of the conspiracy or its objectives, then all of this kicks in. And what that means is no one member has to commit an overt act. If any one member commits any overt act, then because the rest of them are in agreement, they would be guilty. Now that’s the problem that could spread very wide. And as you see, 1600 people in custody and only 180 people went into place. So that’s roughly eight times as many people in jail as who actively participated in the so called criminality.

So what happens is what is Biden pardoning people for? I don’t understand the pardon against Fauci unless something else way beyond what’s out in the public comes up because it just looks like ineptitude, stupidity, ignorance, lack of discretion, poor judgment, not criminality, but it implicates him. And again, sir, would you mind explaining to the public what you got pardoned for and why you accepted it? Well, we haven’t done anything. But why did you need a pardon? You see, so it’s very Embarrassing. This is almost like they put him in the spotlight now. So now everyone’s looking at him like, okay, so why do you need a pardon? Okay, now, yeah.

So let me explain the bigger ramifications since they no longer can say, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. Well, since you no longer have criminal liability, you can’t exercise that. So you can be locked up for contempt until you answer the questions under oath, testify in front of a grand jury, and here’s what’s out there right now. You have to go to Georgia Wade, Attorney Wade has been probably singing like the proverbial canary in front of various committees telling what’s going on. And there is ample probable cause to suggest that Fannie Wade, Kamala Harris, Biden and others met up in the White House to conspire to defeat Donald Trump’s chances to become number 47.

There is a high probability that Nancy Pelosi and other people, the people who say in Congress who were on committee, they were part of this process, too. You can get Bragg and Letitia James in New York, the U.S. attorney who just resigned in New York, Governor, I mean, Judge Meon, you can get Fox in Illinois, you can get Smith down in Florida, who are pardoned but implicated in this agreement to get Donald Trump. Well, I don’t know if Smith is, but the rest of them acted statewise, but they did have meetings, even though it was within the state purview, with Harris in the White House.

So you can set up a conspiracy. And now all of these people can be compelled to give evidence or be locked up until the matter is otherwise disposed of. And now you might bring it to light. And I think they ought to, because we ought to set up what is in the criminal law known as deterrence. In other words, make the consequences of breaking the law so terrible that others who are similarly situated will think once, twice, three times more than they otherwise would about committing the same offense, which is a whole bunch of things wrong with violating the Bill of Rights, which is designed to prevent what is now termed lawfare.

So you use the criminal sanctions of the country for political oppression. That being the case, it ought to be very interesting. So do you think these preemptive type pardons is going to be. This is actually causing a bigger problem for them. And it’s going to be a bigger problem because anytime you do something like that, there’s a two edged sword. Now, everybody knew what Tricky Dick Richard Milhouse Nixon was up to or had some idea with the Watergate Hearings, but there are a lot of hearings that could have been had based on criminality. It’s probably coming to light with Wade opening his mouth in the testimony he’s given to get not a plea bargain, because in the federal system you cannot bargain for sentence.

You can only bargain for the crime you’re charged with. And in federal criminal law you want something with a certain sentencing cap. In other words, he wants to plead guilty probably to something with a five year cap on the sentence that he would be subjected to. You can’t bargain on the exact time. That’s up to the judge using sentencing guidelines. And thanks to Biden himself and Eastland and Byrd 40 some years ago, those sentences are now very strict since there’s no such thing as federal parole anymore. And if you get a 65 year sentence at 60 months, out of which you would be subject to federal control outside of parole, you don’t have that anymore.

But it’d be 56 to 58 of those 60 months with all good honor time that you would be under federal sentencing control. So it’s pretty draconian. Now how that started is Fannie Willis, district Attorney, did one of the most ignorant stunts I have seen in my 50 plus year career when it came to being unresponsive to hey, you have a right to remain silent, shut your dumb mouth instead of trying to go off and talk. And I stopped taking notes when I got to the fourth page of fine writing about stuff she had implicated herself on, money laundering, you know, and all kinds of other stuff.

So it’s going to be interesting. And by the way, we must talk about something else. It’s called Title 8. What’s Title 8? Section 1324. Okay, explain that to me, to me and my audience. Harboring a federal fugitive or conspiring to hide a federal fugitive, etc. Etc. Giving aid and the comfort inviting in etc. And in this case it’s talking about illegal immigrants. It even says even if later their presence is attempted to be legitimated. And it’s been on the books for a while. And 45 years ago I had some federal cases I defended where my clients were charged with harboring federal fugitives.

So I know a bit about it. So our sheriff, well, not our sheriff, but remember the sheriff last week who was talking about he was going to refuse to cooperate with ICE and the governors and the mayors and the congressmen who want sanctuary city set up. All of that is defined by American law as a felony and it is all totally illegal. So I will find it absolutely Fascinating. When they can deal with setting up the conspiracy or the direct commission of harboring a federal fugitive to give in. Better start. They better start cooperating. Yeah. So I’m just saying, wow, this is going to be very interesting when it develops.

How do you see these mass deportations happening? I mean, I. I mean, they’re already closing down the border in El Paso, Texas, where I’m from. I mean, what’s going to be the legal way to go about this? What’s going to happen to the immigration judges? I know that Trump already fired a few of them. I don’t know how many exactly. But the immigration lawyers, how are they going to go about this? I mean, is this. I wouldn’t call them judges. I’d call them administrative judges, which correspond to magistrates who tend to get him appointed. What their job is, is to not act as per se, what you probably think of as a judge.

They’re acting as judges over issues like, let’s say you have a denial of Social Security benefits. Somebody is an administrative judge for the feds who just has a hearing on whether you got appropriately denied your Social Security benefits or your disability benefits, with there being a different level of redress above that, where you go to court. So they’re subject to appointments by pleasure and maintenance of those appointments. So they aren’t what you are really thinking of when you think about a judge where somebody sits in a court and there’s a jury impaneled in the courtroom. And that’s what they do.

They deal with administrative matters acting under the direction of a federal court judge who’s over them. They sort of act like glorified clerks for the judges. But what’s going to happen to all of them now that he’s. He’s billed this as a national emergency, the border. What. Are they going to have any room to stand at all these judges and these immigration lawyers, or are they just. Well, here’s what you look at. I dealt with this same issue in another way. Let’s say I had a single parent, typically female, who busted for running a crack house and running a theft ring, boosting marketing stolen goods.

Okay, well, what happens if you lock her up because she doesn’t qualify for probation because she’s got a long rap sheet and many convictions? Well, she’s got a child or children. Does she get to take the children into the penitentiary with her? No, you call Child Protective Services and Child Protective Services takes custody of the children, and that’s the way it swings. She doesn’t have the children and the children are in an agency now, for humanitarian basis reasons, we have this thing that we call an anchor baby. Technically, if you break the law, you get sent out.

But the problem is, is the 14th Amendment, which was not designed for outside immigration. It was designed to remedy what had happened with the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was an escaped slave, and the case involving him wound up in front of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court, in one of its worst decisions under Chief Justice Taney, ruled that Dred Scott and no other slave could have citizenship status. So what wound up happening is when the 14th amendment said birthright citizenship, anybody born in the United States. And at the time in all of the legislative discussion on the proposed 14th amendment dealt with, slaves were born in the United States.

Therefore, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, they became citizens. So that’s what its purpose was. And then later on, some enterprising lawyers dealing with immigration problems started raising the issue of saying, well, it doesn’t specify where the person comes from. It just says if somebody’s born in the United States, they are a citizen. So this thing that was set up for the benefit of the recently freed slaves became something that was used to defend on immigration matters, undocumented legal immigrants. Yeah. So what happens similarly, the 15th Amendment was set up for the benefit of freed slaves, was used to legitimate corporations which are deemed to be fictitious person.

So they had all of the rights of any other person. The United States, by the way, for those who insist on saying it’s a corporation, it is not. But corporations that came after the United States came into being are modeled on the United States as the corporate model. You have D.C. the corporation. I mean, didn’t that come into act in 1871 or something like that? No, it’s. That’s not. Corporation C were supposed to confer liability on business adventures like the ltd limited liability entities that came about by crown edict for England. So we had no such.

So the United States comes into being in 1789 and much later, what came out is that by the time the Civil War hit here, we had states that were saying, we will create these things called corporations. We will give them the status of being people with all of the protections that people have, and they can assume liability for things. So if it all goes bad for this collective business entity, the investors are immune like they are for the English limited liability businesses. And the corporation, which is a fictitious thing, will absorb all losses. Okay, now what happens is that you then apply that status to these corporations.

So the Supreme Court just a few years ago said they Reiterated it. Corporations cannot be denied the same benefits an individual has when it comes to political involvement or political financing or political donations, because they are persons, even though they’re fictional. So what you have under the American system that touches on exactly what we were talking about earlier is this. You have the citizens, the citizens elect a board of electors. You have corporate stockholders. They elect a board of directors. The board of electors selects the chief executive officer, known as the president, and the board of directors selects the corporate chief executive officer, known as a CEO or president of the corporation America.

Yeah. So the reason you have that is because you have these states that are really nations. When you get the 13 colonies that become the 13 states, at the time that they use the term states, that was synonymous with nation. So you had 13 small, powerless nations that joined together like the Euro Union has, most recently, where you have France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, as sovereign nations that used to beat the crap out of each other for several thousand years are now sovereign states in a collective entity. That’s what the United States set up. United nations is what another term would be, a sovereign nation that has surrendered portions of their sovereignty to the collective whole.

Let me ask. The reason they have the Electoral College is so that no one geographic area, no one state, no one minor nation gets overwhelmed by all of the rest. If you just left it on popular vote, then what would happen is, is everybody could stay home except Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, and they would determine who would run the country. And they want to avoid that because they don’t want a civil war. They already had one, but they don’t want them in general. So that’s one of the reasons you have the Electoral College rather than popular selection of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, AKA President of the United States.

So let me ask you this. There’s a lot of rumors flying around right now and conspiracies on why Trump didn’t place his hand on the Bible when you’re sworn in on the oath. And I saw the. You never have to put your hand on a Bible, all right? Because there’s people saying, well, he wasn’t swearing into the corporation. I mean, there’s all kinds of wild stuff. Okay? That’s why I want to ask you. That’s why I’m bringing you on Judge a fact. The Constitution specifically forbids that, but it’s an overlooked forbidden, and it is subject to really.

This is what’s being said. If I have a witness, the witness is supposed to make a declaration that he is being held to hold himself to the truth. So when I swear in a witness, it’s not, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? And is, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give here today will be the truth? So swear or affirm whatever you take. In other words, you have put on notice you’re subject to penalties of perjury if you speak less than the truth. That is a tradition that George Washington started.

Now, to see where this is the very first treaty that the United States ratified in the US Senate. The very first was one with France. And it said, france, Catholic Christian nation, hereby entreaties with the United States another Christian nation, as follows. The Senate ratified that treaty with a specific caveat. It said, france is put on notice that the United States is not a Christian nation, but as per its Constitution, is forbidden from being a respecter of religion, which at that time meant that it had an official religion. With that understanding, we hereby ratify the proposed treaty.

So that is a very. By Trump not putting his hand on the Bible, that wasn’t any kind of statement. No, it’s no statement. It has no impact. The whole thing is his promise to adhere to his regulations so he can be held accountable for deviating from it. In other words, see, the point is, is that if you go through and you give oath or affirmation that you are telling the truth or you’re going to uphold the promise. When you sign an affidavit, it does not say you are swearing to God. It just says the fight hereby agrees to or honor about such and such date.

Mr. John Doe gives affidavit and hereby affirms, subject to penalties of perjury, that the following is true. You are giving an affirmation. So there is absolutely no impact on what goes on. So I don’t know if he didn’t put his hand on the Bible, but what happens if you have a Jewish somebody? Now that has happened. One of the very first presidents in the United States was Madison. Madison was born in Jamaica. He was a Jamaican citizen at one point or a Jamaican subject, but he was a subject of the English monarchy in terms of being a resident of its North American colonies, one of which was Jamaica.

He was also Jewish, so he did not put his hand on a Bible himself. He actually didn’t have anything at all there. He just. Yeah, right. I mean, I, I agree with that. 100. I. I just. I’m just wondering if that was some kind of statement. There’s a lot of Wild conspiracies floating around the social, social media right now. And I thought, well, no better person asked than Judge Joe Brown. It’s no big things, precedent. And then you have. But I mean, she was holding it. The, the surprising thing to me was Melania was holding it there and he did not have his hand on it.

So you don’t have to like, it was kind of a statement, but it’s present. And you have had some Christian presidents in the United States who were very devout that you have now Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who do not take can’t swear. So if you put your hand on the Bible, you’re swearing and that might be against their faith or religion. So they affirm that they’re going to tell the truth. You don’t have to put your hand on the Bible. Some people I’m aware of think that that’s blasphemous because you’re involving the Bible as a holy instrument in your frailty as a human.

Let me go rewind once again. One more, I want to just get some clarification on one more thing here. So like, let’s say they start investigations in the committee and everyone involved there and Trump and Biden has given them a pardon, a blanket pardon. Are we not going to see justice in this? I mean, in other words, it’s like this committee was relying on is the certain exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which under the US and the English systems is absolute. A prosecutor has absolute authority on who will be prosecuted and who will not be. So they were depending upon the previous administration’s attorney general declining to prosecute them for the violations.

So they acted with impunity. Now what happens is they are immune to any prosecution individually. But that is no more, no less than the prosecutorial discretion that is exercised when somebody says, if you agree to testify in this organized crime trial, we will put you in a witness protection program and we will make you immune from prosecution if you give us evidence against somebody else. So that is the exact same thing that you would have here. You are not taking what Biden did on his terms. Whenever you do something like that, there’s a two edged sword that swings.

In other words, you can flip the script what’s on the other side of the coin. And so, okay, now you got a pardon. There’s no personal liability that you have. So since you have no personal liability, we have a vested interest as a society in going after others who are dealing with your situation who did not get a pardon. So let’s go have at it, we can’t do anything to you. But that’s no more, no less than a witness in situation where he becomes subject to witness protection because his evidence is viable and valuable and getting somebody else that we want to get.

That happens all the time in national security situations. The immediate person is not prosecuted because if he gets up on the stand, he might tell some vital national secrets. So you decline to prosecute him and what you wind up doing is you get his evidence. That’s not unusual. Remember, there are 1600 people that were locked up behind January 6th, but only 180 people that were in the Capitol building trespassing. Let’s say there’s a, you know, I’ve had some guests on talk, talking about, you know, if they go back four years, and this is probably something I would want to take on the back channel to talk about.

If they were to go back four years and we could just brush on it here, but four years and find out that 2020 was completely fraudulent and they were able to prove that, that everything that Biden has done in this period. No, it isn’t. It isn’t. It’s still valid. See, that’s. They wouldn’t be able to say that’s all null and void. No, it’s not. See, what happens is, is because this used to come up a great deal in the early Republic, it is important. Explain this because I’m confused. I thought if we go back and walk it back and we prove that it’s, it’s fraudulent, that everything he did is null and void now.

No, but, but that’s not what the issue is. All of the rest of the people that relied upon it, all that is necessary is if the person has taken the oath or the affirmation assumed and been confirmed in the office. Even if he turns out later to be illegally in the office, everything he does under the auspices of the office becomes legal. You can’t go invalidate that because too many people have relied on him. All of the statutes that have been signed into law, all of the appropriations and enablement acts that have been passed by Congress would be invalidated and that would break down the entire government.

They’re not going to allow that to happen. What happens is that the person who does this becomes subject to action. And since the Democratic Party went after Donald Trump after he was no longer president, that’s the second impeachment episode they’ve set up the precedent of people can be proceeded against for things they did while holding an office, even though they no longer hold that office. So he broke the seal. And then in that. In that saying that a boomerang could happen to go after them now. Yeah. And then tell you what else happens. You know, where the case comes up, a lot of the law gets decided.

It’s on marriages. Somebody gets married, they have six children, they’re going through a divorce. And then somebody finds out that the preach was never officially ordained and didn’t have the reverend status and under the state’s law couldn’t perform the marriage. What do you do? You got six children ranging from 12 to 34. Now what do you do? Well, do you invalidate all of that? No, it’s if the ceremony was gone through and people participated in the ceremony as though they believed it was real. Everything comes out of it is real. You go after the preacher for doing it.

What about the people behind him? I don’t understand how they. Well, I mean, you can proceed on criminal basis against the people who did the wrong, or you can invalidate him officially holding it, but you can’t do anything about the fact that the office was duly occupied with the ceremonies having been completed with the appearance of propriety at the time. So everything is official from that point when somebody assumes the office, takes the oath, and now is empowered to act. So you can’t undo that. That’s long established American law. You can’t go back. There’s no way to walk this back and do anything about the last four years and everyone he’s pardoned, basically, now they’re good to go.

The issue is when he exercises the power, if he holds the office, it’s legitimate. The only thing that happens is here and after. If you found that he was holding the office illegitimately, then anything else he did would be illegitimate, assuming he still held office, but he no longer holds the office. So, wow, wow, it’s a God deal for me today. In other words, you snooze, you lose. Somebody should have done this three and a half years ago and brought impeachment proceedings and proved that he was holding the office under false pretenses because the election was invalid.

See, in other words, the government has to go on. It’s like an interesting thing happened. The Marine Corps had a problem about 25 years ago. We’ve got Gulf War going on 24, 25 years ago. All right, Gulf War 2, there were some vacancies by people who retired in the position for the Marine Corps of general and major general. Well, technically, under American laws, it deals with the military. You cannot be an official general or major a brigadier general A major general or a lieutenant general. That’s one through three stars or four stars without the concurrence of Congress.

That was even the rule in the Civil War. So what happened is they had some colonels who were breveted up to act as generals because the ranks were unfilled. So what happened is Congress got mad at it. And when they came up to become official brigadier generals, major generals, lieutenant generals, Congress balked and refused to affirm their status as acting brigadier generals, major generals, lieutenant generals. So you had this cadre of Marine officers at flag rank that were forced to take early retirement because they could not be promoted to the offices that they were holding. And under the rules, you had people who could be promoted, but not while somebody was in the position of being an active brigadier general, major general or lieutenant general.

But everything they did, the orders they gave, the people that died, the units that succeeded, all of that stood under them. See, it’s rules. And the rules, I mean. Oh, you cleared up a lot for me. Now they call it common law because you’re supposed to understand what’s going on. And the people that got elevated to the flag rank knew good and well because a lot of them wrote about it, what are we going to do? But we accept the call because our beloved Marine Corps needs the command authority to keep operating in this active war.

And this clarifies a lot for me. Judge Joe Brown. I. I appreciate you coming on and really letting me look through this in a different lens. I. I gotta tell you, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about military law and potential military. That’s a lot of the talk right now on where this can go. Would you be willing to do that? I don’t want to talk about. Yeah, Marshall Courts. Courts. Marsh, can we do that on the back channel? Sure. Thank you, Judge, so much for joining me. Folks, get to Nino’s Corner tv.

I’m going to talk about the military. I appreciate you, Judge. Thank you so much.
[tr:tra].

See more of David Nino Rodriguez on their Public Channel and the MPN David Nino Rodriguez channel.