June 14, 2025 • 27 mins
Today’s guest, Vladimir Gagic, is an independent nonpartisan political and legal commentator, former lawyer, and social media influencer found online at @ToxikVlad
In the first half of the show, we examine Trump’s challenges to the Judiciary Branch of the government, and ways that Republican leadership are ensuring the strengthening of the Executive Branch. We discuss the protests in Los Angeles and the legal justification for Trump deploying the National Guard.
Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/civiccipher?utm_source=search
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Broadcasting from the Hip Hop Weekly Studios. I'd like to
welcome you to another episode of Civic Cipher, where our
mission is to foster allyship, empathy and understanding. I am
your host, Ramsey's job. Big shout out to q Ward
who is in the City of Angels getting you the
coverage that you need and out there making it happen.
(00:20):
And have no fear. He will be back in the
studio soon enough. But in the meantime, we have a
very special guest in the studio with us today. He
goes by the name of Vladimir Gagic. He is an independent,
non partisan political and legal commentator. He's a former lawyer
and a social media influencer found online at Toxic vlad
that's t xikv la D.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So welcome to the show with thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yeah, I appreciate you coming on. And the crazy thing
about kind of the goings on right now around the
country is that one of the things that we were
concerned about when we did the episode on Project twenty
twenty five when we had to kind of cover the
(01:03):
rulings from the Supreme Court once Trump took office and
his attempts to circumvent certain rulings and ultimately limit the
powers of the courts. Is that for a lot of folks,
they don't really know what that means or how that looks.
People hear words like authoritarianism, they hear words like tyranny.
(01:24):
They hear all these sorts of things, and they sound
like scary words. But you know, there's a way that
folks can do this legally, and that Trump is doing this,
and the lay person who doesn't you know, work with,
you know, the law very closely, may not know about it.
(01:44):
So what we're going to do today is try to
bring folks up to speed on what's happening and maybe
even what things folks can do to support their lawyers
as the lawyers support communities around the country, and so
stick around for that and so much more. But before
we go any further, it is time, as always for
some Ebony excellence, and today's Ebney excellence comes from Black
(02:06):
Enterprise out of Charlotte, North Carolina. For those that know,
Charlotte is one of the country's premier cities for black
owned businesses, and a new effort from Kathy Dawkins and
other members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Chamber of commerce
is set to create a hub designed specifically for those businesses.
According to The Charlotte Observer, the Chamber acquired an unused
(02:28):
property and has poured resources into transforming the building into
what Dawkins called a one stop shop for professionals in
small businesses and hopes of helping entrepreneurs, improving Charlotte's economic growth,
and fighting food insecurity. The Innovation Center, as the property
is now known, will feature an agritech program for farmers,
event spaces for businesses and business meetings, co working spaces
(02:52):
for startups, entrepreneurs, and nonprofits, as well as a retail
store and a distribution center for small businesses. The Chamber
spent approximately thirty thousand dollars to acquire the building and
is in the process of launching at three point seven
million dollar fundraising campaign to attract funding but the necessary
renovations to accommodate the chambers vision for the space, and
(03:12):
this obviously is very important, especially in trump two point
zero America, where things like this that you know, there
have historically been funds delineated for programs like this, community improvement,
things like that, those sorts of things are limited, particularly
(03:34):
insofar as marginalized communities are concerned. So anybody doing anything
under this current administration, we want to make sure that
we shout them out. We also want to take the
time to shout out you know, North Carolina, it is
a resilient state and Charlotte is a resilient city. And
for those locally that tune into us on ninety eight
point seven every Sunday morning, So big shout out to
(03:56):
Charlotte for holding us down out there. All right, So
Vladimir Gagic there are Well, you know what, before we
get into the weeds here, we wanted people to know
who they're hearing from. So talk a little bit about yourself,
a little bit about your journey, and then we'll get
(04:18):
into the weeds, just so folks know, you know what
it is that you have to offer this conversation.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Well, thank you for having me on the show. Absolutely,
it's nice to be here.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
I was a former attorney. I was a lawyer for
about twenty years. I was born in Europe. My folks
are from the Old Country Eastern Europe, Yakaslavia. They escaped
communism back in the day. I was born in France.
We moved to Sunny Slope in the eighties, went to
school u of A University of Arizona two times, became
a lawyer in two thousand and two, and I've basically
(04:51):
been working as a criminal defense lawyers for twenty two
years until the last couple of years that changed, and
then I went on I want on social media just to.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Tell everybody would happen to me. Okay, that's where I am.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well, I think twenty years certainly does qualify you to
help us make heads or tails of what's going on
nationally right now. Now. I also want to frame the
conversation we're about to have, because again, for folks that
don't know kind of what's going on nationally, for folks
(05:27):
that are just coming to this conversation, it certainly does help.
So you and I know each other through the National
Action Network, the Phoenix, Arizona chapter, but it is the
National Action Network. It is all over the country, and
this is a Reverend Al Sharpton's sort of organization. So
they sent over a statement to me, and I want
to read it in its entirety because I think it
(05:48):
helps paint the picture for the conversation we're about to have.
So for those listening, buckle up. This is going to
be a bit of a read, all right. Attorneys from
across the country and even abroad have contacted the National
Action Network NIX Metro Chapter, sharing deeply troubling accounts of
disparate and often retaliatory treatment by their respective state bars.
While many of these stories involve the Arizona State Bar,
(06:10):
this is clearly a national issue, not a local one.
We've heard from attorneys who were disciplined over minor clerical errors,
while others for more privileged backgrounds face no consequences for
more serious infractions. Some have been disbarred after whistleblowing or
representing marginalized clients. One attorney was sanctioned for using a
routine format in a legal document. Another faced retaliation after
(06:30):
exposing prosecutorial misconduct. These stories share a common thread, a
lack of due process, selective enforcement, and an alarming lack
of transparency. Every day, new attorneys come forward asking to
have their stories told. This is not just about an
individual grievance, but it is a civil and human rights
issue affecting the integrity of our legal system. The NA
(06:51):
and Phoenix Metro Chapter will continue to raise these concerns
nationally and work to ensure these voices are not silenced.
Many of the attorneys who have come forward to the
National Action Network Phoenix Metro Chapter have not only been
disbarred or disciplined unjustly, but have also suffered devastating personal
and professional consequences as a result. When an attorney is disciplined,
(07:11):
especially without due process or for politically or racially motivated reasons,
the impact goes far beyond professional embarronment embarrassment. It affects
their ability to maintain a livelihood, to support their families,
and to serve the communities that rely on them. Their
client base often disappears overnight, and their reputation is irreparably damaged.
We've spoken with attorneys who have dedicated their entire lives
(07:32):
to this profession, some of whom have also served this
country and the armed forces. They upheld the law both
in the courtroom and on the battlefield, only to return
home and face institutional retaliation simply because they didn't align
with the Arizona State Bar's way of doing things. These
are not people who neglected their duties or violated ethics.
These or individuals who stood up for what is right,
who represented marginalized communities and who sometimes challenge power for
(07:53):
that they were targeted. This is a systemic problem that
raises serious civil and hu rites concerns, and it exactly
why ANA in Phoenix Metro continues to elevate these stories
and to ensure that attorneys are not signs for doing
the very thing the profession calls them to do advocate
for justice. Attorneys from across the country and even abroad,
have reached out to the National Action Network Phoenix Metro chapters,
(08:15):
sharing their personal experiences of unfair and disparate treatment by
state bar associations. This is not an isolated event. This
is widespread and each day we continue to receive new
accounts from attorneys whose careers and lives have been derailed.
These stories must be heard, not just for justice to
be served in individual cases, but to ensure systemic accountability
and restore our faith and legal institutions. So a lot
(08:38):
of stuff going on. Obviously, the lens that we're viewing
the country is through the lens of Arizona based on
that document, But this is something that has been happening nationally.
So how this affects, you know, people on the ground. Obviously,
the topic of the day is you know, the protests
in Los Angeles, and on this show, we've covered Donald
(09:05):
Trump's decisions to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings or circumvent
the rulings. Indeed, there was a conversation that we had recently.
I had with a gentleman named Amy Horowitz, who is
a sort of a Fox News political pundit, and he
(09:29):
was surprised to learn that the Big Beautiful Bill has
a section to actually seven zero three zero two which
seeks to limit the ability of the courts and the
Supreme Court from enforcing court orders, which would again limit
the power of the courts, but also allow more power
(09:51):
in the executive branch of the government. The president himself
would have more power. And you know, one of the
big things that happened over the weekend was Donald Trump
deploying the National Guard in the state of Los Angeles,
which is something typically that a governor would do. And
now Governor Newsom is suing him. So I guess the
(10:12):
question that we're going to start with is is this
something that why is this something that people should be
concerned about. Limiting the powers of the judicial branch and
ignoring the executive branch, ignoring court orders by the legislative branch.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I would say, in theory, we have three co
equal branches of government, and the idea is that the
courts interpret the law. But it's I forget which Supreme
Court justice or which president was.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think it was actually Andrew Jackson.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
You know there was a if you remember Andrew Jackson
from eighteen twenties, there's a court decision.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, I remember that guy, just the name, but he
said that commedy divisions.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Does the Supreme Court have the Supreme Court? The power
of the Supreme Court to enact its rulings is predicated
on a president who's willing to enforce it.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Sure, So in nineteen was in.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Nineteen fifty four or nineteen sixty four to Brown versus
Board of Education?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
I think it was nineteen fifty.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Four, Eisenhower says, I'm going to enforce broad versus Board
of Education. I'm going to put I think it was
eighty second Airborne, one hundred first Airborne, and I'm going
to enforce these kids they can go to school. Because
if Eisenhower doesn't do that, nothing happens. So how concerns
should the public be ignoring? It should be very concerned
(11:41):
it should be very concerned. I will caveat that, and saying, though,
is he is he ignoring? I mean, can you say
genuinely that he's doing something different from other presidents? Like
what is the thing that Donald Trump has done or
the instrument administration has done that's different from other presidents.
(12:01):
Because as far as the National Guard goes, I distinctly
remember after the Rodney King riots that I think the Marines,
even from Camp Pendleton, were deployed in the Rodney King riots,
if I remember right, and that was President Busher did that.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Okay, so the president deployed the Marines, and the now
things are not the governor the Marines is doz. Yeah,
So that's actually and that was in nineteen I remember
Marines walking.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Through Indy streets in ninety two. You remember that during
the Rodney Kings, the Rodney King riots. So I don't
think that's on President Well in New Orleans too, I think.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
So, So here's the thing you're going to know more
than I do and all of our listeners do. But
my understanding is that typically a governor calls out the
national Guard. So there may be what he federalized.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
That's what happened in nineteen fifty four, the president federalizes
and because so this is actually Browns's board of education.
The governor didn't want to call out the National Guard
because he was it was that one.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
What's I know what you're talking about, you.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Know, siguration now seguration to Mars.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
He didn't want to do it.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
He didn't want to let the integrate the schools, and
so the president needed to deploy the Star.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
So that's so the ultimately, because I know I saw
that lawsuits like by Gavin Newsom got to me is
show like a governor can't sue the president and say
you can't use the army this way. Like the president
can bomb anybody he wants. He bombs Cambodia if he
wants to, He bombs Iran if he wants to. He
(13:34):
I think it's theatrics on his part, that's what That's
how I interpret it, because he is the commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Sure. Sure, So with that in mind, this this remember
when I talked about the big beautiful building section right, right,
So let's make that live a little bit more because
that's been widely covered as almost like a secret like
(14:01):
back door, like a sneaky like provision or section or
whatever that many of the people that voted on it
didn't know about. It was rushed and it was like
really long, and then that was just kind of buried
in the middle, and it had nothing to do with
budgets or anything like that. It just kind of limited
the court's capacity to hold people that violated lawful orders
(14:26):
in contempt, meaning that the president would be able to
or you know, anyone, anyone who aligns with the president.
I'd imagined this is how it will be used, would
be able to go against a judge's ruling as long
as they're reacting behaving on behalf of the president, and
they would kind of exist outside of judicial reach. This
(14:48):
is sort of my basic level understanding of it. So
talk about that, right.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
So the way I understood and looked up the law
is whoever is a plaineff? So this is talking about
like a pri a party. Let's say it's like someone
like the not thenac like the ACLU see somebody, right,
plan parent who sue somebody and the other side isn't
isn't falling the judge's order that the planiff, the private
(15:14):
party has to put up some amount of money to
make sure, it's insurance. Basically, it's what it's saying right.
The way around it, though, is the judge can just
make it a dollar. You can literally just say, all right,
the amount of money the planeff has to post for
me to enforced to have a contempt order is a dollar.
So it's not saying what the minimum amount is that
(15:36):
because there's a security provision, it's requiring security posted by
the planiff before any contempt order is issued. That's kind
of boiler plate. As far as I do criminal law, right,
I'm not a doorce lawyer. I don't see big law firms.
I don't do any of that stuff. But when I
did do a little bit of it, like like you know,
(16:02):
like forcible entry entertainers, that sort of stuff. A plaintiff
having to put like a bond to protect the other
guy in case something goes wrong. That's not Adolf Hitler
or Joseph Stalin. That's pretty straightforward stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So if that's if that's the case, then why is
this buried?
Speaker 2 (16:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
In uh, you can never use much So how could
how about this? How could this benefit Trump? With what
many people feel is a very authoritative approach to my
way or the highway.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
So I get and I understand what you're what the
question is, and the point being is that he's going
to ignore a judge's order. And the enforcement provision is
that a judge says, I'm going to hold you contempt
if you don't follow my order. And this makes it
(17:04):
harder for a judge to have a contemporaruling because he
has the plane if has to post a bond. But
think about it, though, the problem Okay, so Trump is
using this this loophole, let's say, to ignore a judge's order.
He's ignoring a judge's order. What difference does it make
if that's really the case, if this dude, if this
(17:25):
president is King Trump and he doesn't care what a
judge says. Now, what difference does it make if it's
even easier for him to ignore an order?
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Like what like he's ignoring an order.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Okay, But it's going to make him easier for ignoring order. Okay,
So it's going to make him easier for him to
do what he's already doing anyway, Like what's the well as.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Far as I think that, I think that at least
for those of us who've been like paying a little
bit of attention. Donald Trump is still somewhat mindful of
the fact that he is playing a game that involves
(18:07):
all of us. And if he can appear decent enough,
if he can gives optics, if he can give people
enough cover to say, see, he's still a good guy.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Right.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
If Donald Trump went and like chopped the head off
of a baby and everyone saw it happen, then he
would obviously everyone would turn on him. Right, That's an
evil thing to do objectively, Right, But if Donald Trump said,
you know, if he manipulated the optics somehow, you know,
there's a group of people that need to believe Donald
Trump's version of the truth, whether or not it's the
(18:42):
shared reality for all of us. Right, and he does
this in real time, he will change the optics of
the narrative in real time. And so my estimation is
that something like this might serve to provide him some cover,
something to fall back on, something to you know whatever.
(19:02):
And again, if he's ruling, one of the things that
he did initially when he was signing all the executive
orders was, you know, when judges would would hold up
his executive orders with lawsuits or rulings or whatever, he
would start to say, oh, well, this judge is an American,
(19:23):
this judge is you know, somehow it would be the
judges a personal attack on the judge, rather than accepting
and respecting the fact that this is a coequal branch
of government and this is a kill that the administration
has to we have to meet this challenge, and you know,
and so forth. So so, having something buried in a
(19:45):
in a budget bill like this feels a little sneaky.
And maybe it's to that end, but you know, I
don't know, so your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
So just let me say one caveaty or disclaimers. I
hate judges.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
I absolutely hate judges.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I think judges are the lowest form of life on wow.
So any so, not pro Trump, not anti Trump, none
of that. Anything that has judges on one side and
anybody else on the other side, I'm going to side
with the other side, all right. I don't care snake
oil salesman. I'm with the snake oil sales. I don't
care who the other side is. I will never ever
take side with judges.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Ever, will you? Will you admit that in this country
that framework that was established by the Frown founding fathers
based off of previous empires, going back perhaps to the
dawn of civilization, where you know, this society learned from
society society before and so forth and so on. We
(20:40):
got to where we are, and this is a newer
country in terms of like superpowers. We got the sum
total of all that human knowledge and all these great societies,
and our founding fathers built this country based on that,
so that this empire could last, you know, like five
thousand years, like a China or something like that. Right,
And so far it worked, and so far there hasn't
(21:01):
been any challenges to the foundation of the country like
this one. So would you at least would you allow
for judges to have some place in society.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I think it's been recent.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
I think, you know, my disdain for judges and the judiciary,
it's very very recent. I think, you know, I started
practicing in two thousand and two, thought that all the
judges back two thousand and two pretty much up until
twenty fifteen or so ish, were awesome, just awesome, straight shooters,
like it really worked the way it's supposed to.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So I think just recently it's changed.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
So what changed. I think the Russia Gates stuff had
a lot to do with it personally. I think, personally,
for me, just with my own background and my own name,
having to share the same first name as the president
of Russia, I think the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia all
the time. I think I felt that personally. I think
(22:00):
I felt with my name, I'm always the bad guy,
no matter what, like literally, no matter what, I'm always
the bad guy. And I think judges are just as
partisan as anybody else.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Oh okay, okay, I see what you're saying. So the judges, Yeah, okay, gotcha, Yeah,
that makes sense all right. Now now for the people.
For the people, talk like, give us your reaction to
maybe Trump's general approach to how about this when we'll
(22:30):
call it, half the country is half the country, for
the most part, voted for Kamala Harris. Half the country
voted for Donald Trump. It's typically the way that things
like that go. Democrats famously lost a lot of They
lost the White House and then lost the races in
(22:51):
the Senate and the House, and everything after that became
at least for a moment, Okay, Now our fight goes
to the courts. Democrats are going to take their fights
to the courts, and for a lot of people that
really respect the two party system in this country, or
(23:12):
people that respect the coequal branches of government, people that
expect and respect a democracy where people have voices and
they can say how they feel, air out their grievances.
All these people that respect the constitution and so forth,
things have worked. And when Democrats are down, there are
still some recourse, there's some path for them to be
(23:35):
heard and to affirm their reality and have representation. And
then Republicans are down. They Republicans have never really gone anywhere.
But you know, the same thing holds true. We saw
it under Obama. Obama was blocked at every turn. That
was Republicans exercising their limited power at the time. So
(23:58):
when Democrats say, okay, after they losing the last election,
we're going to take the fights to the courts, and
then again for half the country to see Donald Trump
ignore the courts or launch a tax on the courts
based off of things that many folks read in Project
twenty twenty five. You know document, do they have a
(24:19):
right to be concerned about this because and when people
say that this erodes the foundation of a democracy, are
they correct? Your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (24:25):
All?
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Right? So one thing I wanted to say too, and
you had brought it up. Is about how the provision
was kind of snuck in at the last minute. One
thing I will say, though, is you can never be
wrong by just assuming government is incompetent and lazy and.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Does everything.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Don't. Of course there'sences. Of course there's cynicism and evil
and things like that, but something like that. I have
a really hard time believing that Donald Trump had this
master plan of.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Sticking in this person.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
No, I don't know that it's Donald think I had anything. Yeah,
he's not a writer. But the people that want to
fortify him, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
It's just such a weird It's just such a weird provision.
And I don't see Trump as being the kind of
guy who resorts to the technical. Don't look right to
resort to technicalities like I see. My opinion is the
appeal of Donald Trump is I'm going to do it.
I don't care if I have this legal provision or
I do have this legal provision. He's not the kind
(25:28):
of guy who resorts to technicalities. The appeal of Donald
Trump is I'm going to do it because I can
do it. Period. As far as eroding the democracy is
I will say this, and this goes back to my
own name and my own experiences with Russia Gate. I
saw them, I saw the Democratic Party impeached Donald Trump.
(25:49):
And I'm not even Russian, right, my name is Serbian,
so I'm not Russian. But I took it very personally
that the Democratic Party, of this party of equality, of
of egalitarianism, of your identity doesn't matter, It doesn't matter
if you're black, you're white, you're gay, you're straight, you're religion,
any of that doesn't matter, really really hates Russians. And
(26:12):
I took that very personally. So I find it very
rich for all of a sudden the Democratic Party to
be griping about him fighting the courts and eroding democracy
when his entire and I'm not saying I agreed with
his positions or any other politics, and you forget all that.
(26:32):
I'm just saying that the man was blamed for being
a Russian agent. And you could not have said that
about any other country.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
In the world.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
You couldn't have said that about Israel. You can have
said that about Mexico. You could not have said that
about any other country but Russia. And I'm still and
I felt that personally okay
Speaker 1 (26:49):
All right, Well, obviously we have a lot more to
talk about, so, you know, as we make sense of
what's going on in the country, hopefully you'll stick around
for this, Okay, appreciate it.
Broadcasting from the Hip Hop Weekly Studios. I'd like to
welcome you to another episode of Civic Cipher, where our
mission is to foster allyship, empathy and understanding. I am
your host, Ramsey's job. Big shout out to q Ward
who is in the City of Angels getting you the
coverage that you need and out there making it happen.
(00:20):
And have no fear. He will be back in the
studio soon enough. But in the meantime, we have a
very special guest in the studio with us today. He
goes by the name of Vladimir Gagic. He is an independent,
non partisan political and legal commentator. He's a former lawyer
and a social media influencer found online at Toxic vlad
that's t xikv la D.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So welcome to the show with thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yeah, I appreciate you coming on. And the crazy thing
about kind of the goings on right now around the
country is that one of the things that we were
concerned about when we did the episode on Project twenty
twenty five when we had to kind of cover the
(01:03):
rulings from the Supreme Court once Trump took office and
his attempts to circumvent certain rulings and ultimately limit the
powers of the courts. Is that for a lot of folks,
they don't really know what that means or how that looks.
People hear words like authoritarianism, they hear words like tyranny.
(01:24):
They hear all these sorts of things, and they sound
like scary words. But you know, there's a way that
folks can do this legally, and that Trump is doing this,
and the lay person who doesn't you know, work with,
you know, the law very closely, may not know about it.
(01:44):
So what we're going to do today is try to
bring folks up to speed on what's happening and maybe
even what things folks can do to support their lawyers
as the lawyers support communities around the country, and so
stick around for that and so much more. But before
we go any further, it is time, as always for
some Ebony excellence, and today's Ebney excellence comes from Black
(02:06):
Enterprise out of Charlotte, North Carolina. For those that know,
Charlotte is one of the country's premier cities for black
owned businesses, and a new effort from Kathy Dawkins and
other members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Chamber of commerce
is set to create a hub designed specifically for those businesses.
According to The Charlotte Observer, the Chamber acquired an unused
(02:28):
property and has poured resources into transforming the building into
what Dawkins called a one stop shop for professionals in
small businesses and hopes of helping entrepreneurs, improving Charlotte's economic growth,
and fighting food insecurity. The Innovation Center, as the property
is now known, will feature an agritech program for farmers,
event spaces for businesses and business meetings, co working spaces
(02:52):
for startups, entrepreneurs, and nonprofits, as well as a retail
store and a distribution center for small businesses. The Chamber
spent approximately thirty thousand dollars to acquire the building and
is in the process of launching at three point seven
million dollar fundraising campaign to attract funding but the necessary
renovations to accommodate the chambers vision for the space, and
(03:12):
this obviously is very important, especially in trump two point
zero America, where things like this that you know, there
have historically been funds delineated for programs like this, community improvement,
things like that, those sorts of things are limited, particularly
(03:34):
insofar as marginalized communities are concerned. So anybody doing anything
under this current administration, we want to make sure that
we shout them out. We also want to take the
time to shout out you know, North Carolina, it is
a resilient state and Charlotte is a resilient city. And
for those locally that tune into us on ninety eight
point seven every Sunday morning, So big shout out to
(03:56):
Charlotte for holding us down out there. All right, So
Vladimir Gagic there are Well, you know what, before we
get into the weeds here, we wanted people to know
who they're hearing from. So talk a little bit about yourself,
a little bit about your journey, and then we'll get
(04:18):
into the weeds, just so folks know, you know what
it is that you have to offer this conversation.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Well, thank you for having me on the show. Absolutely,
it's nice to be here.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
I was a former attorney. I was a lawyer for
about twenty years. I was born in Europe. My folks
are from the Old Country Eastern Europe, Yakaslavia. They escaped
communism back in the day. I was born in France.
We moved to Sunny Slope in the eighties, went to
school u of A University of Arizona two times, became
a lawyer in two thousand and two, and I've basically
(04:51):
been working as a criminal defense lawyers for twenty two
years until the last couple of years that changed, and
then I went on I want on social media just to.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Tell everybody would happen to me. Okay, that's where I am.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well, I think twenty years certainly does qualify you to
help us make heads or tails of what's going on
nationally right now. Now. I also want to frame the
conversation we're about to have, because again, for folks that
don't know kind of what's going on nationally, for folks
(05:27):
that are just coming to this conversation, it certainly does help.
So you and I know each other through the National
Action Network, the Phoenix, Arizona chapter, but it is the
National Action Network. It is all over the country, and
this is a Reverend Al Sharpton's sort of organization. So
they sent over a statement to me, and I want
to read it in its entirety because I think it
(05:48):
helps paint the picture for the conversation we're about to have.
So for those listening, buckle up. This is going to
be a bit of a read, all right. Attorneys from
across the country and even abroad have contacted the National
Action Network NIX Metro Chapter, sharing deeply troubling accounts of
disparate and often retaliatory treatment by their respective state bars.
While many of these stories involve the Arizona State Bar,
(06:10):
this is clearly a national issue, not a local one.
We've heard from attorneys who were disciplined over minor clerical errors,
while others for more privileged backgrounds face no consequences for
more serious infractions. Some have been disbarred after whistleblowing or
representing marginalized clients. One attorney was sanctioned for using a
routine format in a legal document. Another faced retaliation after
(06:30):
exposing prosecutorial misconduct. These stories share a common thread, a
lack of due process, selective enforcement, and an alarming lack
of transparency. Every day, new attorneys come forward asking to
have their stories told. This is not just about an
individual grievance, but it is a civil and human rights
issue affecting the integrity of our legal system. The NA
(06:51):
and Phoenix Metro Chapter will continue to raise these concerns
nationally and work to ensure these voices are not silenced.
Many of the attorneys who have come forward to the
National Action Network Phoenix Metro Chapter have not only been
disbarred or disciplined unjustly, but have also suffered devastating personal
and professional consequences as a result. When an attorney is disciplined,
(07:11):
especially without due process or for politically or racially motivated reasons,
the impact goes far beyond professional embarronment embarrassment. It affects
their ability to maintain a livelihood, to support their families,
and to serve the communities that rely on them. Their
client base often disappears overnight, and their reputation is irreparably damaged.
We've spoken with attorneys who have dedicated their entire lives
(07:32):
to this profession, some of whom have also served this
country and the armed forces. They upheld the law both
in the courtroom and on the battlefield, only to return
home and face institutional retaliation simply because they didn't align
with the Arizona State Bar's way of doing things. These
are not people who neglected their duties or violated ethics.
These or individuals who stood up for what is right,
who represented marginalized communities and who sometimes challenge power for
(07:53):
that they were targeted. This is a systemic problem that
raises serious civil and hu rites concerns, and it exactly
why ANA in Phoenix Metro continues to elevate these stories
and to ensure that attorneys are not signs for doing
the very thing the profession calls them to do advocate
for justice. Attorneys from across the country and even abroad,
have reached out to the National Action Network Phoenix Metro chapters,
(08:15):
sharing their personal experiences of unfair and disparate treatment by
state bar associations. This is not an isolated event. This
is widespread and each day we continue to receive new
accounts from attorneys whose careers and lives have been derailed.
These stories must be heard, not just for justice to
be served in individual cases, but to ensure systemic accountability
and restore our faith and legal institutions. So a lot
(08:38):
of stuff going on. Obviously, the lens that we're viewing
the country is through the lens of Arizona based on
that document, But this is something that has been happening nationally.
So how this affects, you know, people on the ground. Obviously,
the topic of the day is you know, the protests
in Los Angeles, and on this show, we've covered Donald
(09:05):
Trump's decisions to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings or circumvent
the rulings. Indeed, there was a conversation that we had recently.
I had with a gentleman named Amy Horowitz, who is
a sort of a Fox News political pundit, and he
(09:29):
was surprised to learn that the Big Beautiful Bill has
a section to actually seven zero three zero two which
seeks to limit the ability of the courts and the
Supreme Court from enforcing court orders, which would again limit
the power of the courts, but also allow more power
(09:51):
in the executive branch of the government. The president himself
would have more power. And you know, one of the
big things that happened over the weekend was Donald Trump
deploying the National Guard in the state of Los Angeles,
which is something typically that a governor would do. And
now Governor Newsom is suing him. So I guess the
(10:12):
question that we're going to start with is is this
something that why is this something that people should be
concerned about. Limiting the powers of the judicial branch and
ignoring the executive branch, ignoring court orders by the legislative branch.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I would say, in theory, we have three co
equal branches of government, and the idea is that the
courts interpret the law. But it's I forget which Supreme
Court justice or which president was.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think it was actually Andrew Jackson.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
You know there was a if you remember Andrew Jackson
from eighteen twenties, there's a court decision.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, I remember that guy, just the name, but he
said that commedy divisions.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Does the Supreme Court have the Supreme Court? The power
of the Supreme Court to enact its rulings is predicated
on a president who's willing to enforce it.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Sure, So in nineteen was in.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Nineteen fifty four or nineteen sixty four to Brown versus
Board of Education?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
I think it was nineteen fifty.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Four, Eisenhower says, I'm going to enforce broad versus Board
of Education. I'm going to put I think it was
eighty second Airborne, one hundred first Airborne, and I'm going
to enforce these kids they can go to school. Because
if Eisenhower doesn't do that, nothing happens. So how concerns
should the public be ignoring? It should be very concerned
(11:41):
it should be very concerned. I will caveat that, and saying, though,
is he is he ignoring? I mean, can you say
genuinely that he's doing something different from other presidents? Like
what is the thing that Donald Trump has done or
the instrument administration has done that's different from other presidents.
(12:01):
Because as far as the National Guard goes, I distinctly
remember after the Rodney King riots that I think the Marines,
even from Camp Pendleton, were deployed in the Rodney King riots,
if I remember right, and that was President Busher did that.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Okay, so the president deployed the Marines, and the now
things are not the governor the Marines is doz. Yeah,
So that's actually and that was in nineteen I remember
Marines walking.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Through Indy streets in ninety two. You remember that during
the Rodney Kings, the Rodney King riots. So I don't
think that's on President Well in New Orleans too, I think.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
So, So here's the thing you're going to know more
than I do and all of our listeners do. But
my understanding is that typically a governor calls out the
national Guard. So there may be what he federalized.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
That's what happened in nineteen fifty four, the president federalizes
and because so this is actually Browns's board of education.
The governor didn't want to call out the National Guard
because he was it was that one.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
What's I know what you're talking about, you.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Know, siguration now seguration to Mars.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
He didn't want to do it.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
He didn't want to let the integrate the schools, and
so the president needed to deploy the Star.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
So that's so the ultimately, because I know I saw
that lawsuits like by Gavin Newsom got to me is
show like a governor can't sue the president and say
you can't use the army this way. Like the president
can bomb anybody he wants. He bombs Cambodia if he
wants to, He bombs Iran if he wants to. He
(13:34):
I think it's theatrics on his part, that's what That's
how I interpret it, because he is the commander in chief.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Sure. Sure, So with that in mind, this this remember
when I talked about the big beautiful building section right, right,
So let's make that live a little bit more because
that's been widely covered as almost like a secret like
(14:01):
back door, like a sneaky like provision or section or
whatever that many of the people that voted on it
didn't know about. It was rushed and it was like
really long, and then that was just kind of buried
in the middle, and it had nothing to do with
budgets or anything like that. It just kind of limited
the court's capacity to hold people that violated lawful orders
(14:26):
in contempt, meaning that the president would be able to
or you know, anyone, anyone who aligns with the president.
I'd imagined this is how it will be used, would
be able to go against a judge's ruling as long
as they're reacting behaving on behalf of the president, and
they would kind of exist outside of judicial reach. This
(14:48):
is sort of my basic level understanding of it. So
talk about that, right.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
So the way I understood and looked up the law
is whoever is a plaineff? So this is talking about
like a pri a party. Let's say it's like someone
like the not thenac like the ACLU see somebody, right,
plan parent who sue somebody and the other side isn't
isn't falling the judge's order that the planiff, the private
(15:14):
party has to put up some amount of money to
make sure, it's insurance. Basically, it's what it's saying right.
The way around it, though, is the judge can just
make it a dollar. You can literally just say, all right,
the amount of money the planeff has to post for
me to enforced to have a contempt order is a dollar.
So it's not saying what the minimum amount is that
(15:36):
because there's a security provision, it's requiring security posted by
the planiff before any contempt order is issued. That's kind
of boiler plate. As far as I do criminal law, right,
I'm not a doorce lawyer. I don't see big law firms.
I don't do any of that stuff. But when I
did do a little bit of it, like like you know,
(16:02):
like forcible entry entertainers, that sort of stuff. A plaintiff
having to put like a bond to protect the other
guy in case something goes wrong. That's not Adolf Hitler
or Joseph Stalin. That's pretty straightforward stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So if that's if that's the case, then why is
this buried?
Speaker 2 (16:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
In uh, you can never use much So how could
how about this? How could this benefit Trump? With what
many people feel is a very authoritative approach to my
way or the highway.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
So I get and I understand what you're what the
question is, and the point being is that he's going
to ignore a judge's order. And the enforcement provision is
that a judge says, I'm going to hold you contempt
if you don't follow my order. And this makes it
(17:04):
harder for a judge to have a contemporaruling because he
has the plane if has to post a bond. But
think about it, though, the problem Okay, so Trump is
using this this loophole, let's say, to ignore a judge's order.
He's ignoring a judge's order. What difference does it make
if that's really the case, if this dude, if this
(17:25):
president is King Trump and he doesn't care what a
judge says. Now, what difference does it make if it's
even easier for him to ignore an order?
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Like what like he's ignoring an order.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Okay, But it's going to make him easier for ignoring order. Okay,
So it's going to make him easier for him to
do what he's already doing anyway, Like what's the well as.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Far as I think that, I think that at least
for those of us who've been like paying a little
bit of attention. Donald Trump is still somewhat mindful of
the fact that he is playing a game that involves
(18:07):
all of us. And if he can appear decent enough,
if he can gives optics, if he can give people
enough cover to say, see, he's still a good guy.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Right.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
If Donald Trump went and like chopped the head off
of a baby and everyone saw it happen, then he
would obviously everyone would turn on him. Right, That's an
evil thing to do objectively, Right, But if Donald Trump said,
you know, if he manipulated the optics somehow, you know,
there's a group of people that need to believe Donald
Trump's version of the truth, whether or not it's the
(18:42):
shared reality for all of us. Right, and he does
this in real time, he will change the optics of
the narrative in real time. And so my estimation is
that something like this might serve to provide him some cover,
something to fall back on, something to you know whatever.
(19:02):
And again, if he's ruling, one of the things that
he did initially when he was signing all the executive
orders was, you know, when judges would would hold up
his executive orders with lawsuits or rulings or whatever, he
would start to say, oh, well, this judge is an American,
(19:23):
this judge is you know, somehow it would be the
judges a personal attack on the judge, rather than accepting
and respecting the fact that this is a coequal branch
of government and this is a kill that the administration
has to we have to meet this challenge, and you know,
and so forth. So so, having something buried in a
(19:45):
in a budget bill like this feels a little sneaky.
And maybe it's to that end, but you know, I
don't know, so your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
So just let me say one caveaty or disclaimers. I
hate judges.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
I absolutely hate judges.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
I think judges are the lowest form of life on wow.
So any so, not pro Trump, not anti Trump, none
of that. Anything that has judges on one side and
anybody else on the other side, I'm going to side
with the other side, all right. I don't care snake
oil salesman. I'm with the snake oil sales. I don't
care who the other side is. I will never ever
take side with judges.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Ever, will you? Will you admit that in this country
that framework that was established by the Frown founding fathers
based off of previous empires, going back perhaps to the
dawn of civilization, where you know, this society learned from
society society before and so forth and so on. We
(20:40):
got to where we are, and this is a newer
country in terms of like superpowers. We got the sum
total of all that human knowledge and all these great societies,
and our founding fathers built this country based on that,
so that this empire could last, you know, like five
thousand years, like a China or something like that. Right,
And so far it worked, and so far there hasn't
(21:01):
been any challenges to the foundation of the country like
this one. So would you at least would you allow
for judges to have some place in society.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I think it's been recent.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
I think, you know, my disdain for judges and the judiciary,
it's very very recent. I think, you know, I started
practicing in two thousand and two, thought that all the
judges back two thousand and two pretty much up until
twenty fifteen or so ish, were awesome, just awesome, straight shooters,
like it really worked the way it's supposed to.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So I think just recently it's changed.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
So what changed. I think the Russia Gates stuff had
a lot to do with it personally. I think, personally,
for me, just with my own background and my own name,
having to share the same first name as the president
of Russia, I think the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia all
the time. I think I felt that personally. I think
(22:00):
I felt with my name, I'm always the bad guy,
no matter what, like literally, no matter what, I'm always
the bad guy. And I think judges are just as
partisan as anybody else.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Oh okay, okay, I see what you're saying. So the judges, Yeah, okay, gotcha, Yeah,
that makes sense all right. Now now for the people.
For the people, talk like, give us your reaction to
maybe Trump's general approach to how about this when we'll
(22:30):
call it, half the country is half the country, for
the most part, voted for Kamala Harris. Half the country
voted for Donald Trump. It's typically the way that things
like that go. Democrats famously lost a lot of They
lost the White House and then lost the races in
(22:51):
the Senate and the House, and everything after that became
at least for a moment, Okay, Now our fight goes
to the courts. Democrats are going to take their fights
to the courts, and for a lot of people that
really respect the two party system in this country, or
(23:12):
people that respect the coequal branches of government, people that
expect and respect a democracy where people have voices and
they can say how they feel, air out their grievances.
All these people that respect the constitution and so forth,
things have worked. And when Democrats are down, there are
still some recourse, there's some path for them to be
(23:35):
heard and to affirm their reality and have representation. And
then Republicans are down. They Republicans have never really gone anywhere.
But you know, the same thing holds true. We saw
it under Obama. Obama was blocked at every turn. That
was Republicans exercising their limited power at the time. So
(23:58):
when Democrats say, okay, after they losing the last election,
we're going to take the fights to the courts, and
then again for half the country to see Donald Trump
ignore the courts or launch a tax on the courts
based off of things that many folks read in Project
twenty twenty five. You know document, do they have a
(24:19):
right to be concerned about this because and when people
say that this erodes the foundation of a democracy, are
they correct? Your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (24:25):
All?
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Right? So one thing I wanted to say too, and
you had brought it up. Is about how the provision
was kind of snuck in at the last minute. One
thing I will say, though, is you can never be
wrong by just assuming government is incompetent and lazy and.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Does everything.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Don't. Of course there'sences. Of course there's cynicism and evil
and things like that, but something like that. I have
a really hard time believing that Donald Trump had this
master plan of.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Sticking in this person.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
No, I don't know that it's Donald think I had anything. Yeah,
he's not a writer. But the people that want to
fortify him, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
It's just such a weird It's just such a weird provision.
And I don't see Trump as being the kind of
guy who resorts to the technical. Don't look right to
resort to technicalities like I see. My opinion is the
appeal of Donald Trump is I'm going to do it.
I don't care if I have this legal provision or
I do have this legal provision. He's not the kind
(25:28):
of guy who resorts to technicalities. The appeal of Donald
Trump is I'm going to do it because I can
do it. Period. As far as eroding the democracy is
I will say this, and this goes back to my
own name and my own experiences with Russia Gate. I
saw them, I saw the Democratic Party impeached Donald Trump.
(25:49):
And I'm not even Russian, right, my name is Serbian,
so I'm not Russian. But I took it very personally
that the Democratic Party, of this party of equality, of
of egalitarianism, of your identity doesn't matter, It doesn't matter
if you're black, you're white, you're gay, you're straight, you're religion,
any of that doesn't matter, really really hates Russians. And
(26:12):
I took that very personally. So I find it very
rich for all of a sudden the Democratic Party to
be griping about him fighting the courts and eroding democracy
when his entire and I'm not saying I agreed with
his positions or any other politics, and you forget all that.
(26:32):
I'm just saying that the man was blamed for being
a Russian agent. And you could not have said that
about any other country.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
In the world.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
You couldn't have said that about Israel. You can have
said that about Mexico. You could not have said that
about any other country but Russia. And I'm still and
I felt that personally okay
Speaker 1 (26:49):
All right, Well, obviously we have a lot more to
talk about, so, you know, as we make sense of
what's going on in the country, hopefully you'll stick around
for this, Okay, appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.