Legal vs Lawful: The Hendrix Verdict, Mortgage Court Reality, and the Tate Extradition

Hey, Patty!

Hey!

That song will always remind me of driving to high school. My brother played He played AC/DC Back in Black like every day. I mean, every day, every day, every day, right? It is the best.

It's the best.

I probably get married to that song.

Well, right, I would be there, right?

Hey, I'm Gianna Miceli, the founder of the Legal Focker University, and my co-host is Patty the Silver Stacker. Hey Patty!

Hey, what's going on?

And, uh, today, uh, we've given a name to our show called We the People because we might have some potential for something on a streaming service. Maybe, maybe, maybe we're in some conversations. And so we gave it a name, We the People, with Patty and Gianna— Gianna and Patty. And then, but we still have our segments Legal Fockery Friday, Money Monday, and Tax-Free Tuesday. And you know, we'll figure out how to incorporate those should we move on. We're still going to be here even if we do get this weekly show that we might be getting, which is— please God, it'd be so much fun. So we're going to cover the top stories of legal fuckery today. This is everything I always wanted to to do, and it took us a while to just sort of get everything together to do this. I want to talk about what's going on in the current climate and culture, what is legal versus what is lawful, and we got some legal fuckery happening today. We're going to talk about the big news of X is the Shiloh Hendrix trial of absurdity, as I am calling it.

It's a good name, right?

Patty has some mortgage fuckery fraud, and I wanted her to talk about it because a lot of people yip yip yip on X and they don't understand The legal system is not fair at all, as we're going to demonstrate with the Shiloh Hendrix trial. And then I want to talk about the Tate brothers extradition because a lot of people are talking about that being unfair. And we want to talk about what's your rights, what's actually in the statutes, and what you're obligated to. And so this Shiloh Hendrix is absolutely a First Amendment right to speak, and we have a right to speak about what we say. Some people like, oh, you're not an attorney, Gianna. Yeah, I don't want to be an attorney, and you're lucky I'm not, okay? I ended up going to paralegal school because no attorney is going to handle things in my case, my traffic ticket case, the way I want to, that I am handling it, because they just want to make a deal. They work for the state, they're state licensed, they're friends with the people in the court. Nothing about it is fair. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Yet, as we'll see today, and you know, Patty isn't a licensed financial expert and she doesn't have to be. We are describing to you what we actually live, right, Patty?

Yes, that's, that's exactly right.

And then the way Patty even came to be my co-host is because she was talking about what she talks about, because she's just been doing it for her friends and family. And now, you know, the community, the Legal Fauquierie community, is her friends and family. And we made it into a course and people are very happy and she has got lots of silver stackers and it's super fun. Today we were talking about the monthly program, the MAP, the Monthly Acquisition Plan. And so we don't need the government's permission. So I wanted to talk about the First Amendment, right? I want you to be free. That is my motivation.

Okay.

I want you to be free. I want you to walk the earth like a bad motherfunker, like I do, because you are a child of God and you know, your rights come from God. And you would never disrespect God by waiving the rights he gave you. That is who is watching me every day. Every day. If you don't understand this, you're not thanking God every day for waking up to the beauty that you see. Patty, please recite the 5 tenets of the First Amendment.

Okay, well, the first one is no establishment of religion. The government cannot create an official church or favor one faith over another. This is—

pause for a minute— this is very confusing to people because the Founding Fathers, using the common law, did have a requirement that you were Christian, and they made an exception for one of the people who was Presbyterian. And I have that in a lesson in the university. It did not mean that the government was making that establishment, but it has been established on those Christian principles. Go ahead.

Yes, free exercise of religion. You may believe and worship as you choose, and the government cannot punish you for it. But what did they do during COVID They shut them churches down, didn't they? You weren't free to worship then.

The churches, the synagogues, the mosques, everywhere. And the entire reason that we're sitting here with the Legal Focker University is because in the COVID I started to research how can they make that happen? How can they tell businesses and churches to shut down? And the reason being is that you ask for a state structure like a license a corporation, an S-Corp, and even though it mingles with the IRS, a 501, that's still part of the state and that's where they have the authority. Go ahead, number 3.

Right, freedom of speech. We're going to talk about that today, aren't we? Yeah, the government cannot punish you for expressing your ideas, even unpopular or offensive ones.

Like ours. Yes, right.

Notice the key word in the text. Congress shall not make no law. This restrains government, not private actors. Your employer or a private platform is not bound by it, which is unfortunate because there's some legal fuckery happening there with their 230 protections.

But I digress. It is a private company and we have to follow the rules. Free speech but not free reach. I don't know if that's changed in X. Go ahead, sweetie.

Yeah, freedom of the press. The government cannot censor or control what publishers or journalists report. In the age of social media, we are all publishers.

Nobody contacts me. I, uh, only YouTube. YouTube makes me eliminate my AC/DC song, but I see other reels with AC/DC. But I'm going to get new music because I don't want to deal with it. I've got new music coming this week.

And number 5, number 5, assembly and petition. You may gather peacefully with others. You may— and you may demand that your government fix its wrongs without fear of punishment. Yeah, what's going on now with our government, right?

Right, right.

Yeah, lots of wrongs.

There are some people in the freedom world that have a very good theory on this fifth tenet of the First Amendment, that if we have a right to petition our government, we have a right to assembly and petition which includes getting to the assembly and the petition, which includes the right to travel. But I digress, we're not going to cover that today. But that is, um, I am the Rosa Parks of the right to travel. And so two, two points that everyone should remember is through the 14th Amendment, courts have applied these limits to state and local governments, not just Congress. It used to just be Congress. So like a city police department is just as bound as the federal government about your First Amendment rights. They didn't used to be prior to the 14th Amendment, which was nothing I knew until I learned it today as I researched for this show. But it begins with Congress shall make no law, and then that bound it only to the federal government. But in 1833, the Supreme Court confirmed exactly that the Bill of Rights did not apply to all the states. And that's less than 100 years ago.

Not that long ago, really.

Not that long ago. We are very young in this stuff. And so all the fuckery happening People have to realize it's very young and recent and unnecessary and requires your consent to do business with you. So, you know, we have a, a common law campus in the Legal Focker University to unwind your brain. Like, oh, the government says it— who cares what they say? They have to do things with your commitment or your consent. So a state or city could in theory censor your speech or establish a church until the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, which says No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. That liberty is very vague. And there's a thing called the rule of lenity. When a statute— I mean, I know this isn't a statute, but when a statute is vague, it favors the defendant. So that's what I'm using in my liberty questions. So then, you know, it becomes what counts as liberty in the clause. And over time, the Supreme Court answered that the fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights are that— that means all of them. However, however, however, so when a state violates your free speech, as we're going to discuss today, it violates the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, which does bind the states. And that landmark case was Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Freedom of speech and the press are among the fundamental, fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment from impairment by the states. So let's see, um, this prosecutor today— I'm going to skip this part here. Uh, this, this is called— this thing that happened with the Shiloh Hendricks, which she has a cool name, you know, I mean, that's easy to remember. A prosecutor, a county judge, and a municipal police officer are every bit constrained by the First Amendment as Congress is. It's called a state action, and it's why the Shiloh Hendricks prosecution brought by a city attorney under a state statute is a First Amendment case.

Hmm.

I think probably everybody watching it saw today what happened, but when they do violate it, it's 42 USC 1983, a federal civil rights statute. That's the vehicle for nearly every free speech, excessive force, and unlawful arrest lawsuit. They're very hard. I have grounds for one too, but they're very hard. You have to make the elements. Patty, please tell the Legal Fockery audience what exists in according— in regards to our rights under the 14th Amendment.

Incorporations of our rights happened selectively, right by right, over about a century. Nearly all the Bill of Rights is now incorporated. I didn't know that, but nearly all is not all. The notable holdouts for the 15th Amendment grand jury—

Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifth—

okay, Fifth Amendment grand jury requirement— that the Seventh Amendment civil jury right, which still binds only the federal government.

Pause for ridiculousness.

Wow.

This only proves that there is legal fuckery. These state courts District courts, administrative courts, anything that's not an Article 3 judge is legal fuckery. And they can say, like, this lady's case today had 6 jurors. Where's the 12? Okay, you're not going to get these rights in these state courts and not traffic court. Go ahead, sweetie.

So who decides the 6? I mean, is that— I've never heard that.

Crazy.

So for the traffic tickets and state court, there is still tremendous legal fuckery, and this is why you have to know your rights. Any government actor at any level, from the U.S. senator to a small-town code enforcement officer, is bound by the First Amendment. The private citizens standing next to them is not.

Gianna Miceli.

So here's the story with Shiloh. Last night in Rochester, Minnesota, a shithole— I helped save a baby from that area a couple months ago, let a lady move into my home to help save her from CPS— a 6-person jury returned the verdict in the Shiloh Derek's disorderly conduct trial, and she was found not guilty on the count involving the child, which was a 9-year-old allegedly autistic child. She was found guilty on the count, on the count involving the man who filmed her, and she's already been sentenced a $1,000 fine, 1 year of probation, 200, 200 hours of community service, and a stayed 90-day jail term. And so tonight we asked the question the jury was never really allowed to escape. Can the government criminally punish ugly words? There was no violence. There was no threats. It was just words. And it's really a lot of actual fuckery. Now I know I'm not a great producer, but I am going to share because I want us to watch it. See, here we go. Share screen, entire screen. Bum, ba-da-bum. Let me pull it up here. Oh, can you get the volume?

Hold on.

We'll see what the internet has to say about you. Now, how do I stop sharing?

Oh, I want to punch that guy right in the mouth.

Well, you know, you and I are mouthy ladies.

Yes, he'd have got popped.

We are mouthy ladies, and I'm not taking any shit. But let's break it down legally. So most of the normal world views this as the lady doing not the illegal or unlawful. So what are the elements of the statute? So this is where you got to go to your legal brain. So Minnesota's disorderly conduct statute makes it a misdemeanor to engage in offensive or abusive language tending to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment. Now, reading that literally, the statute would criminalize half of every comment in the social media sections. But the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowed it in 1978. The court said when the charge is based on speech alone. She was walking away from him. He harassed her. The statute reaches only fighting words and nothing else. So I did not hear any fighting words. She was just walking away, calling him names, giving him the bird.

She was— he was bullying her.

He was bullying her. He was following her. He was chasing her. And nothing was relevant to what the other child did to her child. Didn't matter. It only matters that, you know, they feel racist. So here's the thing. It The key to the, the statute, the element, is immediate. No hurt feelings. He did not express that his feelings were hurt. He dared her to say it. There's no viral outrage. It did not make him attack her. There was no imminent violent reaction. He followed her. She was walking away. What do you think, Patty? What are fighting words?

Well, I, I think the fact that if he would have been following me, he'd have— yeah. He'd have gotten popped. So not only would he have gotten popped, once he fell, I'd have probably kicked him a few times.

She's brave, because if a man was following me, I would be on high alert, 100%. So Patty, go ahead, tell us the legal basis for the conviction. Let's see, what does it say?

Um, well, the exchange of the conviction, it rests on the count she was convicted on, is not a playground exchange with the child. The jury acquitted her on that. The conviction is for the exchange with a man filming her. And here is the details, the coverage that the coverage buries. He dared her to say it, his words on the video, 'Why don't you have the balls to say it?' Well, she did, and she only did this too, right?

He said that to her, right?

Well, but then she wind up saying it though, but that doesn't matter.

It's not Keep going, keep going.

Right, so right, she said it. He did not swing, he did not advance, he kept filming and told her, well, we'll see what the internet has to say about you. So ask yourself, where is the immediate breach of peace? The man who heard the words responded with the camera and a hashtag, #NotAFist.

Exactly. And so here's the First Amendment prompt. So let's get to why was she, you know, why was she convicted? The government cannot punish speech merely because it is offensive. One man's vulgarity is another's lyrics. The fighting words doctrine has never been used by the Supreme Court. Okay, the doctrine cannot be one-sided. If a slur is a crime when it offends, the government is picking which viewpoints get criminal protection. And then there is the invitation problem. Words spoken on a direct dare to a man holding a camera who wants the utterance recorded are the opposite of a spontaneous provocation to violence. So what's wrong with the jury? Now, did you see the defense attorney, Shiloh's attorney? Did you see him talk today? Hold your— hold your horses while I pull this one up. Hold on. You know, we don't have a show producer. I have to do all this stuff by myself.

You're doing a great job.

Well, you know, I don't think people expect us to be ABC as long as we get the, uh, information across. I just gotta open up a bunch of windows. Wait till you hear this shit. You can hear it, right?

I can't hear it, Gianna. No.

Oh my God, what? People can't hear it. They might have not heard her because I have headphones. Hold on, can you hear that?

Yes.

Uh, shocked. Never heard of that one before. Most courts, most counties, what they do is around 4:30, 5 o'clock is they say, okay, we're gonna send the jurors home. They got kids, they got families, they got things to do. No, we're keeping them. I've never heard of that before, so That alone— I know this is a thing, I guess, Olmsted County, they do this. I thought that was bizarre. Uh, but the verdict itself— let's make something clear here. Let's make something very clear. She's acquitted. Not guilty, right? Not guilty with the child. The state reads, uh, what, a 5-minute victim impact statement about the child? She was acquitted about the child. She's convicted on the count involving the cameraman, who they never called to testify. Keep this in mind, they never called the cameraman to testify. This judge prohibited us from telling the jury that Jamali— Shire Jamali had a GoFundMe page, $340,000. He testified that it was done in May last year. Done. That's not true. There's a link on the bottom of the page that goes to another open account. My investigator hit the link last night, donated $10. It's open. You can donate right now. You can donate right now to Shire Jamal's GoFundMe page. Right now. It's open. He testified under oath and perjured himself. He perjured himself over and over and over and over again. This was without any stretch of the imagination. It was like I was fighting the prosecutor and the judge. It was like I'm taking on two parties at the same time, the judge and the prosecutor. It was very bizarre, very bizarre. GoFundMe. Huge worldwide giant. It's like Google, right? This is so big. My investigator was going to testify that this page with Shireen Jamali's name on it— 5-year-old, the kid's 9, 5-year-old, $340,000 he raised— the judge would not let me show it to a jury. Sorry, the judge would not let me show it to the jury. Okay, and if you go through the— any of you right now can go online right now, right now, and just like, you can't authenticate this, you can't lay foundation. This prosecutor is telling the judge, oh, how do we know this is real? How do we know this is real? So anyone can make this up. You can go online right now, today, right now, go on that page Unless they run and take it down. Scroll down. He has an open GoFundMe. He said on the stand he does not. He lied and lied and lied and lied. This entire thing's a shakedown. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. The prosecutor should be ashamed of himself. The judge should be ashamed of herself. I had a battle here for 4 days on a stupid misdemeanor, disorderly conduct. This is nuts. This was crazy. $340,000. Nope, can't show the jury. 5-year-old kid was 9. His name's on it. Can't authenticate it. Still open account. So we're gonna appeal it. We will appeal it. We have so many appellate issues, I don't even know where to begin. Judges screaming at me during the trial. Judges interrupted me every time I want to make a record. Judge says to me, Mr. Corrales, you keep, you keep wanting to make a record after I rule. This is crazy. Most rulings during a trial by a judge are made during the trial, and then when you take a break, you make a record, right? You take a break, you make a record. I kept asking. You're in there and you watch the trial. I kept asking, I need to make a record, I need to make a record. She'd get upset, run in the back, get upset, run in the back. Your Honor, I need to make a record. It started piling up, all these objections started piling up. Your Honor, I need to make a record, I need to make a record. But she'd run in the back. I'm like, Judge, we got to make a record. This is, this is insane. This isn't law, this is a circus. This is funky court. This is nuts, right? You make a record. The judge should come out and say, okay, I made my ruling, Mr. Corrales, what is your record you like to make? I try to make a record, she interrupts me from the beginning, right from the start. Every time I tried to make a record, she interrupted me. Every single time. Every single time. Like, Your Honor, I'm trying to make a record. That's what we do as lawyers, right? I don't know if the lay people or the, you know, people in the community understand us. The way trials work is judges make rulings during trial. We don't want to interrupt the trial to make a record every time someone objects and there's a ruling. So when there's a break or you go to lunch or at the end of the day, you make a record. She wouldn't let me make a record. If you're in there, you heard it. She talked over me, she interrupted me, wouldn't let me make a record over and over and over again. Why? She didn't want anybody to hear what— they didn't disclose the name of Shire Jabali until Monday. The first day of trial— no, I'm not done. Sorry. Until the first day of trial, they didn't even disclose his name. Think about that. A trial, a jury trial in the United States of America. I didn't get the name until Monday when we started the trial. Until Monday. And then my investigators do a record check, then we uncover, oh my God, he's got this GoFundMe. $340,000.

Mr. Prell, a couple of things.

Sure.

According to the court, you agreed to those free trial terms by not getting the witnesses beforehand and did not agree to it.

Here's the deal, here's the deal. I thought I was coming down here to try a free speech case. You all saw the video. I thought I was coming to Rochester to try a free speech case based on the video. Then it took on an entirely different— it just turned, right? Mr. Jamali takes the stand, wouldn't answer any question I asked him. He sat there like this, oh, I don't understand. He looked at his interpreter, I don't understand, I don't understand, over and over and over again. When the prosecutor asked him the question, he had no problem through the interpreter understanding. Never had a problem understanding, not one time. I put the detective on the stand. Detective, did he ever have a tough time understanding you? Never had a tough time understanding him. Never had a tough time. Not one time did the detective have any problems understanding. You're in the jury room or in the trial. You're in the courtroom. You're in the courtroom. You're in the courtroom. He acted like he didn't understand any question I asked him. Every single question was like pulling teeth. It's like, huh? Oh, they went on and on and on. This is a fraud. This whole thing's a fraud. The cameraman, the cameraman. By the way, let's make something clear. They didn't convict him with the child. Your headlines could be about the child. No, they convicted her on the video with the cameraman. The disorderly conduct is about the cameraman. And from what I understand about the cameraman, he has a GoFundMe. And his GoFundMe— hold on— his GoFundMe is he died. He's a GoFundMe that he died. Give money to the cameraman who died. And from what I understand, he is well alive. This whole thing is fucking bullshit. This is a fraud. This is a fraud upon the community.

How about that?

Wow.

Did you see that today at all?

I didn't see it.

So that was not that guy.

I like him.

Yeah, well, he was definitely on target. It seems to me like they were trying to make an example out of her in some way, to— right, uh, maybe kind of a race-baiting situation.

Well, of course, but everything's for likes and money and everything on social media. It's why people are getting beat up. Oh, I just went off for a second.

Yeah, you are.

I'm back now, right?

Yep.

Okay, Patty, what happens next on this case?

Well, the defense counsel has vowed to appeal on multiple grounds. The Minnesota Court of Appeals will decide whether this exchange constitutes fighting words as a matter of law. The core appellate question: does a single profane exchange invited by the listener, recorded for publication, and answered with online shaming rather than violence fall outside the First Amendment? Watch this one. Whatever you think of what she said, and it was vile— I didn't think it was too vile, but anyhow— the precedents will apply to everyone. Speech law built is hard case governs to easy ones too.

Now what's the most scary to me is that this is the Somali community, that's a Muslim community. They're becoming police officers in some cities. They're becoming police officers. If you haven't traveled the world— not the world like I've been everywhere, I've been many countries though— they're not raised with the values that Americans are. They don't understand. They don't have a Constitution. They don't have a Bill of Rights. The way we do. No one has free speech, a First Amendment like we do, and they don't understand it. My brother's married to a European. She thinks I'm nuts. Of course she— oh my God, because she— I think she's worried that just being related to me through marriage is going to unwind her naturalization of citizenship. But they're so terrified of the government, which is the opposite of us. But this man said in the video, her words were hate hate speech, which is one of the most widespread misconceptions in American civic life, especially in the low-IQ, challenged snowflake crowd. The legal regality— the legal reality is there's no hate speech law in the United States. It's just blah blah blah on social media. It does not exist. Um, there's no federal statutes about it. And in 2017, Justice Alito stated speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or similar grounds is protected. And the idea that the government may restrict speech expressing offensive ideas strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. And the court was 8-0 on that one. So it protects— it doesn't exist to protect polite speech. And so the Shiloh Hendricks case sets the precedent. I'm sure it's going to be overturned because the appellate court isn't a trial. The appellate court only looks at what happened in that court. And if this man is— who I try, I believe him, you know, he's raging that there was tons of legal things that happened wrong. It will win on appeal, but it sets the precedent that you can be harassed, pestered, and filmed, but if you react at all, you will be the one charged with disorderly conduct. And this person on X said, well, if you're white, you know, All right, so that's the end of that. That's the, uh, Gianna's legal analysis. Patty, you are in our Mortgage Fockery class. That's not the name of the class, but I just say that for the show. That class is a class that you can get a forensic audit of your loan and see if the person or the entity you've been paying has— is the rightful collector of the payment. So, you know, yes, I'm gonna sit here. We have a fair system. The system is not fair. And so, Patty, tell us about your case. Go ahead, because this is your first time. You're, you're not standing in front of a judge yet. It's just paper. You're in paper court right now, but you're seeing, you're seeing it.

Go ahead. What do you think? I'm definitely seeing it. So, uh, what we're going to talk about is the note versus the deed of trust.. And you know, under Maryland law and general mortgage doctrine, the deed of trust or the mortgage is not a standalone asset. It is necessary to be—

to—

the debt is secure. The note is the actual promise to pay. Courts decide with this well-known shorthand: the mortgage follows the note. Now everyone remember that— the mortgage follows the note.

Whoever's going anywhere.

Well, well, we're gonna see where this went.

Yeah, it just— but what you sign, it creates a negotiable instrument. You do not sign 100 pages of documents and the bank goes into their cash register and pulls out $500,000 with— that's not what happens.

It travels, it goes far and wide, doesn't it? So whoever holds the right to enforce the note is the only party entitled to invoke the deed of trust. Or if you're in a foreclosure— and I want to make every—

every—

make it clear here, I am not in foreclosure. I am simply asking the courts to allow me to ask the bank under a derogatory judgment, who have I been paying for the last 10 years? Okay, basic simple question.

You had the forensic analysis done, and what does Joe's affidavit tell you about what the analysis said?

So Joe's affidavit clearly states— and that was done, okay, so let's, let's go back to when, um, I purchased my home, which was June 30th, 2016, through SunTrust Mortgage. On September 8th of 2016, the deed of trust recorded— now it's just the deed recorded in Baltimore County. On June 29th, stated closing date of Freddie Mac, uh, the Freddie Mac multi-class certificates series 4599 to, um, to Trust Loan. Now on January 9th, 2025, a licensed investigator, which is Joe, he performed the forensic audit.

Audit.

So, and during that forensic audit, um, what happened here? Well, let me go up here. So this is, this is why all this—

can you summarize it?

Well, I can—

I don't want to get too technical.

Yeah, so basically he, you know, found that there was no recording of, you know, the language assigning the transfer, forferring, or endorsing of the note itself. There was no endorsement stamp.

Layman terms, layman terms, not Joe terms. You can summarize this. I've heard you say it.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, they basically didn't file and record things properly is what they didn't do.

And why don't they?

You know, well, because, you know, I just think that they just don't do it because no one questions it.

No, there's a whole scheme happening.

Well, the scheme is—

there's a whole scheme happening.

You know, the scheme is, is that your debt sold to Arimic Trust. Okay, and that, and that was, uh, discovered in, you know, January 9th, 2025. But there's one thing the Truists didn't realize. So when I started questioning Truists, um, you know, wondering what, you know, where, where's the proper paperwork here, and asking questions on June 25th Truist decides to, to record a corporate deed of assignment from the mortgage electronic register system, which is MERS, which they would never do if you were not questioning this. That's correct. So as a nominee of SunTrust Mortgage directly to— no, while SunTrust directly to Truist Bank, its operative language assigns the deed of trust It's too technical though.

Yes, I have to slow you into— just tell your story, tell the story. No one's going to understand that, you know.

So basically what this boils down to, they didn't, they didn't record things when I purchased my home. When I started questioning their procedure, um, they decided to, you know, record something, which was the corporate deed of assignment. And You know, they can't do that.

They—

that is— that's security fraud. That's basically security fraud.

There you go. It's security fraud. It's fraud. Now, did this just happen since your last court filing? How long ago did they do that?

They did this, uh, June of 2020. Corporate Deed of Assignment, uh, they filed that June of 2025.

Okay, so, you know, had you started this process before?

I had, I had just started it. I had just—

okay, so because you started it, that's why they did it. Yeah, they think they're gonna backtrack because they think you're dumb. And so recently in your documents, you've had a little back and forth tennis with the documents in the courts because she is seeing the legal fuckery. So you have put them— you put, uh, I don't know what to say, like put your— you put them against the wall where they have to do this or that. What is this or that that you're waiting on right now?

I am waiting on that. I'm asking you either remand— because first it was filed in state court, circuit court, and under a derogatory judgment they immediately pulled it from state court and had it filed in federal court because typically the federal court sides with the banks, which—

who even knew you could do that, right?

Well, they did it under— this is called a diverse jurisdiction rule, being that I live in Maryland, MERS is out of Delaware, and they're stating that their headquarters is out of North Carolina. Well, they were served here in Maryland. But anyhow, we've asked for it to be remanded back to state court or, or discovery, you know. So we haven't heard anything yet.

Oh, you just did that like a week ago, I think, right?

Yes, but the deadline was the 22nd, so I'm I'm kind of hoping next week we should, you know, we should hear something.

So hopefully, um, what is on the line is a judge that rules on them versus you. Is a judge willing to commit legal fuckery to risk their pension? You know, I've been standing their job.

Yeah, I mean, um, the documents are clear. I've cited the right court cases. All I'm asking for is who have I been paying for the last 10 years? That's all I'm asking.

And then they keep responding with what? With their so-called standing. Because this is why you have them by the balls, Patty. What do they keep talking about in the case? They're citing—

they're citing foreclosure cases.

Uh-huh. Which you are not.

I'm not. I am not in foreclosure. And that's what makes this strong. You know, I'm, I'm current on my mortgage. I'm not in foreclosure. All I'm asking for is, you know, who have I been paying for the last 10 years? That's why they went and filed that corporate deed assignment back in June of 2025, because I was questioning their, um, their paperwork.

Is that what they should have done upon your closing in 2016?

Yes.

Yeah, okay, there's some legal fuckery happening.

Yep.

Well, You know, so, you know, we'll see, we'll see what the judge comes back with. I actually think that she's going to rule in my favor. Um, you know, I did some digging on her. She's, um, you know, they actually want people to file pro se cases as long as your, your, your, your paperwork is correct, you're, you're citing the right cases, you know, and there's you know, and everything is in form that they, you know, and the procedures.

They're very big on the procedures. And before they even get to any content of the case, it's got to be jurisdiction, then procedures, and otherwise they're going to kick you out. And there are other so-called freedom people, they're like, oh, the judge is unfair. No, no, you've got it. You're entering their ring, and that's all they ask because, you know, they're like this. I must be correct now in my traffic ticket cancer, doing all kinds of things wrong. I mean, there's so many wrong things, it's hard for me to even know where to begin. So we'll get to that when I have it all wrapped up in a bow, which I don't yet. All right, so what would be the outcome for you?

Well, the outcome for me would be, um, a release of lien, you know, uh, you know, or someone's gonna have to come based on fraud, like based on fraud of, you know Who— where's my money gone for the last 10 years? Who have I been paying? You know, should I— should I been paying Freddie Mac? Should I have been paying Truist? Should I have been paying SunTrust? SunTrust bought Truist, but at that time they sold the debt to the, uh, to the, to the REMIC Trust. So there's a lot of fuckery going on. The paperwork's not clear, and you I'm up for the fight.

So, and we've got, I don't know, 50, 60-ish people going through this. It takes longer than expected. It takes longer than expected. So, all right, well, we are, um, dying to hear what happens, and that's why we're here every Monday, Tuesday, and Friday. We're going to bring you into our drama, okay? Our drama. And then the last story I want to touch on tonight is the Tate brothers, who are not far from me in South Florida. And because this is for We the People. That's the people I want to speak to. Legal is not the same as lawful. And what does the Tate case reveal about our American justice? So we don't need to retell the story. Everybody's seen it. The whole world knows it. What everybody has not seen is the fantastic Andrew Tate interview from May with Jack Neal, who was like this amazing interviewer. Jack just sort of fades in the background. He's this young guy. He's very fabulous. So here's what I want to talk about as far as, you know, the rules, uh, legal versus lawful, and if there's any fuckery happening with the Tate brothers. So two American citizens sit in federal detention and America has charged them with nothing. So I want you to think about that because this extradition was made on a treaty, and I'm going to go into the details of that. They are sitting in solitary confinement with zero charges in the USA. So by the end of this segment, I think you'll understand the difference and you'll know why it matters to every American, not just those two men sitting in a Miami cell. Did the arrest meet the American standard? Okay, we'll start with a concession because that's, you know, what the honest legal education requires. The arrest itself was done exactly the way America arrests anyone, although his attorney Joe McBride, who has blocked me on X—

has he really?

Oh, you know, because I say things about attorneys and This was long before this case happened, but he does block me, you know, which is kind of funny. I like the guy, so we're gonna see what he does. But it's just, I don't feel attorneys are ever going to really do what you can do for yourself. Okay, well, why is this—

why are— why are they still sitting in?

Well, let me— I'll tell you, I'm gonna go through that tonight. But he did speak on PBD the other day that they have always told the authorities, because this was some rustlings the last time they came to Miami. That they would surrender and turn themselves in should the Florida DOJ find it necessary. So the arrest itself was done exactly the way America does it. A sworn complaint summarizing the facts was reviewed by a federal judge and a warrant was issued. Now that's the Fourth Amendment process, the same one used on any citizen in any county in this country. The Department of Justice— I'd love to know who who, who reviewed the UK's request. Its criminal division leadership approved it, and the magistrate judge— not Article 3— Lauren Lewis issued the warrant. So according to resources, no corner was cut on the arrest, and that's that. But there's part 2. Let's look at what the arrest was based on, and here's what should get your attention. The warrant was issued on a summary packet of the UK's charges. This. A warrant and a factual outline, not the evidence file. It's not a trial with our DAJ, DOJ. It's just an outline. No witness statements, not one document the defense can test. So it's basically hearsay. The defense says they've been shown charges and nothing more. That's what Joe McBride said. It. They only know the charges. And as a person who went to jail last year, I understand that they rattled the charges to you. Boom. Okay, your brain can't process them, you know. So at this stage, that can be completely true because the treaty allows America— allows America to arrest first and receive the evidence later. So the UK has 60 days from the July 18th arrest to deliver its formal request with the actual supporting evidence. So that's good news that there's going to have to be some supporting evidence, but we don't know if it's going to be legal fuckery. As you can see, it happens all the time. But right now, these men are in cages. Cage first, proof later in 60 days. That's not really the American way. And that's the disparity worth sitting with. And I don't know how many times this has happened that we've extradited people to the UK. I should have looked that up. The US side required only a summary to take their liberty, and I'm not okay with that. A summary, okay? We require an affidavit of probable cause by someone who signs it under penalty of perjury that they spoke the truth, and I have personally seen that not happen in almost every case I help people with. And so the UK's obligation to actually show evidence hasn't even come due yet. This is legal. Is it lawful? We'd have to review the actual treaty. Okay, so they arrested an American on domestic charges. Well, I'm not—

they—

if you arrest an American on domestic charges, a machine switches on. You get a grand jury, usually, and a preliminary hearing. You get discovery. The Brady Rule is invoked. The government must hand over evidence of your innocence. Not happening in my traffic ticket case. And you are allowed to confront your accusers face to face, a jury of your peers, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They've seen nothing so far. So no discovery, no confrontation. They don't even have names. They are anonymous, identified as Jane Doe. It's hearsay. No jury ever in this country. And here's one rule your civics teacher never mentioned: the rule of non-contradiction. Conviction. So check this out. Here's where what I would totally consider it to be legal fuckery. Oh, I said fuckery. Legal fuckery. Okay, I try to be nice for Google, I really do. In the Miami courtroom, these men may offer evidence that— listen to the words— explains the government's case, which Andrew Tate does make a good case on the Jack Neal podcast, but they are forbidden. Oh, the scary word of forbidden. From offering evidence that contradicts it. For instance, what if the timeline is that we weren't even in the country, which is what Andrew says for Girl A, which he calls in the—

he's very funny in the video.

Yeah, he calls her the Omega, the one girl that started all of this multinational problem for them. She came to their house on Tristan's dime, which Tristan offered to just come hang out. Apparently there were many girls there. They are very open that they have multiple girlfriends at one time. Of the 5 days she was there, there's CCTV that she came and went, and Tristan and Andrew were not there for 3 of the days. And the way Andrew tells the story is that they came back and she was gone, and Andrew said to Tristan, hey, where's that girl? They're not allowed to say her name right now And Tristan's like, I don't know, she left. And Andrea said, why? And Tristan said, she's probably jealous of my other girlfriend. You know, that part's very funny. But in this courtroom, they may offer evidence that explains the case— that is so vague— but they are forbidden from offering evidence that contradicts it. Like I just said, you cannot say I am innocent. The sentence the judge is not permitted to weigh. And so ask yourself the question they cannot escape: how does a man explain evidence no one has shown him, made accusers no one will name. Legal versus lawful. So the distinction in the case teaches better than any law book. I hope you're interested. I, I'm riveted to all these things. I don't know, I am just a law geek, you know. Legal means the rules were followed, and so far the rules of the treaty have been followed. But in the common law, you're locking up men without evidence just because the UK says so. And then if you haven't really been paying attention Andrew concludes the video with this, that the Romanian case, which is for, I think, around 3.5 to 4 years at this point, and they were in jail for 90 days. I think they've been put in jail 3 times, but they were let out on house arrest. House arrest, okay, we still have something, you have to stay in the house. But then they were let out to be in Bucharest, then they were let out where they could go in Romania, and then they were let out to go anywhere they wanted in the world. Their freedom has been, you know, refunded, restored, kind of restored, where they can go anywhere. They still have to check in monthly on a sort of probationary basis, which they have been. They will fly home from Dubai and do these things, which is a good faith effort that they're not trying to run. They're very famous. I mean, everyone knows them everywhere. But Andrew says in the podcast that at this point, if Romania lets the case go, which they should, because they have nothing— I mean, where on earth can you be under this for 3 and a half years without a trial? They don't have rules like we do with like speedy trial rules in the—

not to mention they were robbed all 3 times.

Well, some of that has been returned, but not all of it, right? But But if they drop it, they know Andrew— well, they both, the brothers, they have a case which Andrew claims to be is worth $1 billion for all the ways they've ruined their life. Some, I don't know if it could be measured, but they became more and more famous the more they've been arrested. And the UK has made an agreement that until the Romanian case is over, they will not seek extradition from Romania. So the fact that they did it through the US is legal fuckery. And so all of this comes down to Marco Rubio. The likelihood of how this will play out is that, uh, there is a trial, there is a court hearing Monday in Miami. They will not be there. They've waived their right to be there. The attorney has said— I don't remember what it's called, but it's just, you know, something official. It's not like the meat and potatoes yet, but some— maybe it's a calendar thing or something. But eventually in the 60 days, they will have to be provided the evidence of the UK. And a— this part— an Article 3 judge will be reviewing this for the treaty approval. And it's likely that how it executes— Marco Rubio isn't going to go sit in the trial. He will have a team there evaluating it and supplying a report to him. I hope that Marco Rubio at least watches the Andrew Tate Jack Neal video because It's not the evidence of the case like in a legal way. Andrew goes through the case like how it began with the Omega Miami girl and what happened and how it went through there, how they were— it's a 3-hour and 20-minute, uh, podcast. It's very riveting because it's just Andrew being a normal guy. There are people that are saying, oh, so One of the girls, Vivian, who I think is the mother of one of his children, was his girlfriend when— and Andrew says somewhere in a video that when, uh, you might have seen there's a video going around where Andrew was spanking her, and she has come out and said— and he's being mean, you know— and she has said that was role-playing. Whatever people want to do behind closed doors, that is their own business. People do have wild and crazy sex, uh, but people were like, well, why would it be filmed? Well, perhaps they were putting it on the internet. Everyone knows they were doing webcam things, and that's where the webcam stuff actually originated. If you've ever been to these Eastern Bloc countries, which I did go last year to Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia, there are— there's not a lot of hope there. They don't have lives like we do. Without the internet, there's really no chance of making money, adult money, get-out money, successful money. They have service jobs. They just don't have commerce like we do in the US. So, you know, everybody can have their own evaluation of webcamming. But in this video, Andrew talks about at the time of the— he spoke in the video that Vivian was 21, and this was 6 years ago. So people are doing the math that she could have maybe been 15 when he was— I don't know what their age difference is. I don't know that. Um, so obviously he was older. But another thing people don't really understand from the US— oh my God, 15 is a child! Well, that's all relative because they finish high school at 16 compared to our 18. So if you're looking at an 18-year-old who maybe was involved in a relationship with a 21-year-old or something, that's not entirely crazy in the U.S., you know. So there's a lot of variables. And, you know, if Vivian is not claiming to be a victim and there's two other girls that have videos going around, I mean, you certainly have to take that into account. They've also said that Dicot, the Romanian justice system has thrown out their, their statements, and they've offered to pay them to testify against the guys and things like that. And so, you know, back to the U.S., you know, this problem of the treaty— we arrest you before we see evidence— I have a problem with that. That is not a problem with Miami or Florida or Rhonda Sanders. That's a We the People problem because that is definitely on the federal level. I would love to see the treaty The treaties and statutes were written by people that we allegedly elect, which we all know there's all kinds of problems right now. So look into that, right? You know, are there rights being violated? 100%. Well, technically no. Could the treaty deserve another look at? Yes, absolutely. So there's 3 things I want you to pay attention to. We'll wrap this up. Tripwire 1 is the evidence deadline. If the UK fails to deliver its formal request and supporting evidence. Which, why does it have to be 60 days? If you got something, show it. You know, you've had all these years. So they have to do it within the treaty window. Maybe they're doing it just to test the US. Maybe they're just doing it because, as we all know, the process is the punishment. So if they don't make that and they— we continue to detain them, that becomes unlawful 100%. They must be released. And Tripwire 2 is the certification hearing. Charges alone cannot win it. If the UK's packet doesn't establish probable cause with real evidence in front of that Article 3 Senate-confirmed federal judge, the certification must be denied. And that's the one true evidentiary test on American soil for us to see, and the whole world is watching. Okay, and then number 3 is the solitary confinement. This is another issue. The Council says they've spent multiple days in isolation. So today is what, 7 days days since they've been there. I think it's a week now. Understand the rules. These men are not convicted, and under the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, an unconvicted detainee may not be punished, period. Now, they're probably holding them in solitary as protection and security because they are famous. You know, that happens too. Um, I don't have any information that they requested that, you know. I mean, maybe they do like it because they're so famous, But, you know, I definitely don't want to be in Miami jail. So the clock is running. And now here's where we land. The arrest was as today the American process, how it designed it. What comes after is a second track of justice that hopefully more Americans are paying attention to, because there's so much stuff on X and the internet that people think, and my rights are being violated. And the whole point of Legal Fockery and the whole point of our books— and Patty has a great book too called God's money. They're free to members in the university. You go on my website at giannamiceli.com and get them. Is that you don't really know what you think you know. And I didn't know this until I decided to put forth a tremendous amount of effort to learn it, because this happened to me. I had legal fuckery in 2006 with my tickets. So if you want to, um, ask us any questions, you can just put up the banner. I've got a community number. If you text 1776 to 954-775-8524, we can have conversations. A lot of people have asked me IRS questions there. I cannot help you without being a member of the university. You have to first learn standing, and then you learn how to fight it. We have all the paperwork included. So Patty, I have really enjoyed this. We're just under an hour right now. Um, I think there was just one question someone had put up in the comments. What happens if the judge rules in your favor? That's for you, Patty. I believe we covered that. You're hoping for a release of the lien. Tell people what that means exactly.

That means that I will no longer have to make mortgage payments. That's what that means. You know, clearly, who have I been paying for the last 10 years? And that's all that I'm asking.

When that is established, then we move to the next phase, which is the slew of RESPA violations.

Yes, yes. Now, up to $75,000 worth of fines.

There are people that are of the ilk— oh, you got the mortgage, so you should pay it. Sure, why not?

And I don't have— look, I never had a problem with it from the beginning. I bought the— I bought the property. But you know, if I have to be, you know, do everything properly, I have to sit there and sign those papers I have to make sure that all my paperwork's in line. I have to make sure that I have the right deposit, you know, the 20%. Why shouldn't they be held accountable as well?

I want to ask a hypothetical, okay? Kat Patty, you have adult children?

Yes.

Say one of your sons borrowed $100,000, and if your parents were still alive, your son goes to Grandma, oh, I got to pay back this money to Mom and Dad, blah blah blah blah blah. And grandma paid you back. Does he still owe you? Because that's what's happening in the loan. Yeah, it was sold, it was paid off.

Yes.

And probably— do you know this to be true, Patty? Probably the servicer is splitting the interest with the person who bought— the entity that bought it.

That is correct.

Right.

And I've never even owned a house, but that is— and I never will. I want to vote I will never sign a mortgage.

Well, you know, so not Not only are they making money through the RE/MEC trust being traded through mutual funds, okay, they're making money off, off of the interest that they're charging me.

So yeah, and, and in the other flip side, every foreclosure is a fraud, even if the people legitimately like can't afford it anymore or don't pay it or purposefully don't pay it. They're all a fraud. Thank you, Mr. Spartacus, he gave us, uh, gave us a little thumbs up for that explanation. Yeah, every foreclosure is a fraud because the home has been paid off. And this is like just tremendous legal fuckery. They have done this to senior citizens. They have people sign loans with arm mortgages that they don't even understand what they're signing. There's probably not a person on the planet that signed a 100-page mortgage process slew of documents that really understood what they were. But you are signing them. They get certified. There's all kinds of attorneys there, blah blah blah blah blah. So, you know, could be cleaned up, should be cleaned up.

Well, it definitely should be cleaned up because you, you should— they— you should know who you're paying. So let's say, you know, I didn't go through this process and all of a sudden, you know, maybe I got Freddie Mac coming after me telling me I owe this money, right? Because everything's been separated.

Yeah.

Or, you know, true— well, Truist is considered the servicer, you know. Towards the end when I was asking these questions, they, you know, one of the last documents is that they're just the servicer.

Just— yeah.

So they passed the buck. So the forensic audit gets to the meat of the matter.

Yes, it does.

All right, well, I have enjoyed this very much, Patty. Our first Legal Fockery Friday. Um, We did record a show I was supposed to put on last Friday, but I was out having fun in the Hamptons and I forgot.

It's okay.

See my New York Yankee beer mug I got from my Patrick Bet-David day at Yankee Stadium? I don't think I'll ever use it, but I have it. Yeah, I hung out at Yankee Stadium in the Hamptons and I forgot to post the show, but we'll do that next week. All right, thanks everybody.

Yep, see you later.