Castro V Trump Lawsuit Series Transcripts Part 1 Ft. John A. Castro, Plaintiff

Castro V Trump on Video - The Neoliberal Round by Renaldo McKenzie?

The JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO Versus DONALD J. TRUMP trial/lawsuit before the US District Court Southern District of Florida, (AKA Castro V Trump) started January 25th, 2023 when Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO filed a Lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida of the US District Court challenging Donald J. Trump’s candidacy. Mr. Castro’s Lawsuit argues that Mr. Trump’s candidacy violates section 3 of the 14th amendment due to the comfort he provided the January 6th insurrectionists. Donald Trump has officially responded to Mr. Castro’s lawsuit filing a motion to dismiss on February 16th, 2023. The Neoliberal Round has been following and covering the case and Mr. Castro’s lawsuits and we came together to create a new show The Castro V Trump Series. The first episode was held on Monday March 13th, 2023 via Zoom meeting. Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO is a US 2024 Republican Presidential Candidate and Plaintiff and the Host was Rev. RENALDO MCKENZIE, Creator/Host of The Neoliberal Round, Author of Neoliberalism and Adjunct Professor. What a powerful conversation we had on The Neoliberal Round via Apple Podcast -

Below is the transcript of the conversation between Mr. Castro and Rev. McKenzie on The Castro V Trump Trial that is before the US District Courts. This Part 1 of the Series.

?

?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Good afternoon.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Hey! How are you?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Can you hear me now?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I can, I can. How are you? Good evening! How are you?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Good! Good. Let me just change the

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: yeah really quick. There we go. How are you doing, John?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Good! Good it was as you can see the way I’m dressed. It was just a regular work day.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I love it.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Yeah, I love that. I love that. I love that attire. It's nice. That's it. That's what you call it GQ. That's post millennial. I like it. That is good.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I mean, and you got style. I mean Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, the us 2024 Presidential candidate has style, and that's good. That is

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: welcome to another episode.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: let's do the official welcome. Welcome to the Castro v. Trump Series, and we have with us none other than the than the person who is featured. And the start of this new episode series that we will be doing where we try to give an update as to what's going on regarding the Castro v. Trump Trial case, and we have with us Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, who is the main Plaintiff of the Castro V Trump trial.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: And he's with us. He's running for President. and we are happy to have him. And just so, you know we've had several shows, and several people have been sending me emails,

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Twitter comments, messages, YouTube comments. They want to know what is going on. They want to know what's going on with the case, and we'll be talking about it. But just so, you know.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: We want to know about the case a little bit more.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: The case started on July 25th, 2022. But that was when you filed the lawsuit in the District of Columbia, DC. Against the FEC (Federal elections Commission. To have Trump declared ineligible to run in 2024 saying that his candidacy would be a violation of Section 3 of the fourteenth amendment

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: for his part in January sixth insurrection. and for those of us who don't know

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: what section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is? Can you give us some more details about that, and then can you give us a timeline? what happened from July 25th 2022 up to now?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. So it it's best to start from the beginning because it's really important to understand this. So, for the viewers that went to law school. It's going to feel like a law class for those that didn't get ready. This is what a law class feels like. So, it's the 1860’S. And America's at Civil War. and the Confederacy is beginning to lose. And things are getting really bad, and the Confederates are trying to figure out a way like, okay, how do we surrender? We need to recognize we've been defeated. The Union, you know, is just superior in military machinery….

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Long-Story-short, Jefferson Davis is the President at that time of the Confederacy, and so he when he goes ahead, and he pretty much negotiates the surrender. Part of that surrender was, of course, the adoption and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. There were 5 parts to the Fourteenth Amendment. The most notable is going to be the part, one part that had to do with equal protection. Right? So you can't discriminate against people anymore based on the color of their skin or their prior indentured servitude status so pretty much former slaves - -

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then there was sections 2 that had to do with public debt and some other random things. Section 5 was an Enforcement mechanism for section 1; basically said that Congress can pass all necessary and proper laws to enforce equality, right. So that's why they call the necessary proper clause and then there was Section 3

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Section 3 said: If you fought for the Confederacy you're pretty much banned for life from holding public office, because you fought in a rebellion or an insurrection against the established authority of the of the United States Government. So with that being said. what the goal of Section 3, the Fourteenth Amendment was it basically allowed the Unions to come in and completely take over the entire infrastructure, the power structure of the of all the Southern States. So, for example, in Alabama and Mississippi.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: If you fought for the Confederacy in any way, shape or form, even just expressing support, you know, and waving the Confederate flag. You could not hold public office. You couldn't be even elected to city Council.

?

So what ended up happening is all these Northerners, all these Unionists moved down to the South and basically became like military occupiers. They took over city Councils County Commissioners. They took over the State legislature, the Supreme Court, the governorship everything. So imagine today. If the Democratic party had the power to… a point, Alexander Ocasio Cortez is Governor of Alabama, you know. I mean like it. It would be startling right, you know. So Senator Elizabeth Warren becomes your you know your lieutenant Governor, you know, and you know it's going to freak everybody out right, because it number one that doesn't even align with their political views. And number 2. They are viewed as basically foreign occupiers, right? They're from the North that they were at war with.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so the South didn't have a choice at this point. Right? They let's just be blunt. They were getting their “ass*s” handed to them. They had to surrender. And so they basically said, Look, you know we lost. That's how war works so tough. So they signed as part of that surrender. Of course they gave up all political power, but there were a lot of Confederates in the South that were not happy. With this. They just felt like it was military occupation which in every sense of the term it was military occupation you need came in, took over everything.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So they had absolutely 0 political power, 0 military power, and completely occupied. At the same time, they put Jefferson Davis on trial for treason. Right. He was the President of the Confederacy, waged war against his brothers in the North.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And it was time that he fest up to his crimes of treason against the United States Government.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Well, at that time, in 1869, When he was standing trial for this, his lawyer came up with a really good argument, and it was actually accurate. His lawyer said.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Wait a minute. Section 3, the Fourteenth. And it says that if you wage war against your own government, you know, through rebellion or instruction, your ban from public office that's already a punishment.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So to charge him criminally with treason would violate the double jeopardy Rul. The double jeopardy basically says that if you've already been punished for a particular commission of a transgression that you can't be punished again. Right? You can't be placed twice for life or liberty. And so that was the argument that that would violate the double jeopardy clause. Because what Section 3 the 14 amendment effectively did? Was it reduced insurrection to a political crime?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so it shielded you from criminal prosecution, but you were banned from public office for life. So at that time

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sam and P. Chase took a look at that argument and said, you know what

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: he's right. It would actually violate double jeopardy.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so he dismissed the criminal charges for treason against Jefferson Davis. But the agreement that time Jefferson Davis agreed, and he said, yeah, I agree. 100. I am banned from holding public office for life. I can't even be elected to city council. So he accepted that as his fate.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Now, shortly after that there was a lot of anger brewing in the South about this whole. You can't hold public office for life, right? Some of them were waiting for their teenage kids to turn 18 so they could run for office and try to reclaim some of these seats, but they were starting to get really agitated.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So at that time, the President decided, and this was after. Of course, you know Lincoln's assassination and everything. The President at that time decided. You know what…

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: for the good of the country. There's a lot of talk about a second civil war brewing and it and it was. It was a legitimate, incredible threat that was about to. It was about to be just the boiling was there. We were about to go into a second civil war because they couldn't accept the fact that they had 0 political power.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So the President at the time deciding, and his argument was for the good of the nation --

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: to heal the nation and bring the nation together again. We cannot treat our Confederate brothers as second class citizens.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and we cannot strip them of the power to hold public office.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Everybody in the South at that time it was just considered common in their culture that they supported and away with the Confederate flag, many of them not knowing what it even meant.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so it would be unfair to ban all of them from public office for the rest of their lives.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it's going to effectively create second class citizens in the South.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it's not going to foster the healing of our nation and what we just went through.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So on that basis he decided to grant amnesty to everybody that fought for the Confederacy and, like that. the Confederates took over the South again and of course the South became racist again. I mean not that Unionists and Northerners weren't racist, but you know, to obviously a substantially less degree, and for the most part it wasn't really about racism at the time. It was more about like, let's just like let's not have slavery pretty much like that was just like the starting point.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then, of course, we had the Fourteenth Amendment. So we figured, hey, Congress can still Section 5 in force, Section one. And if we catch you guys doing anything. We're going to try to hold you accountable.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And there started the 150-year battle of trying to make sure that black Americans in the South were simply treated the same as anybody else and we've been fighting that fight for 150 years. They tried first to make sure that they couldn't vote. They never said you can't vote, but if you showed up you'd have a burning cross on your front. On the next day they beat up your kids on their way to school. You know all kinds of stuff, right, you know, all of a sudden, Lynch, you know, because you voted. So it had a chilling effect.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and of course we passed, a lot of the North passed a lot of laws. Basically. Saying, hey, we catch you doing stuff like this? You go to prison for life, but obviously culminated in the 1964 march on Washington led by Martin Luther King, and of course they passed all that. So the rest is history. So Section 3. The Fourteenth Amendment sat there dormant for over a 100 years. It just sat there, and everybody. I mean. We never thought about it right, because there's never going to be another rebellion there's never going to be an instruction against the United States Government.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so before I get into that topic, I want to do. I want to discuss one thing which, when I first started looking into this issue - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: because I love watching news from both sides. I'll watch MSNBC for 1?hour.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then I’ll watch Fox News for 1?h. That is, I want to see where. Where's the disconnect? And then, of course, I like going to the middle of the road. You know the Associated Press and Reuters right just pure facts. I just give me the facts. I don't want to hear opinion.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: what I saw on Fox News is a lot of comparison to. Oh, why, Aren't, the BLM protesters been from public office right? I mean. They are tipping cars burning building, you know, stomping on police cars. Why is that not an insurrection?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So I would like to draw a [LINE] between what an insurrection is - - and what a riot is.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, in in the words of

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: both. Martin Luther King. A lot of you said that, Martin Luther King said it. Malcolm X. Said, it

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Riot is this, the speech that we see with our eyes when the Voiceless are tired of being unheard. And so it's that frustration that it it's it to a certain degree. It's an incoherent act of violence right in the 1995 of right La riots, or whatever year it was in the mid-nineties, and the riots, you know a lot of people we're correct to point out like, you know. Oh, 80 of all the businesses burned. Were black owned businesses. How does that make any sense? Well, that proves the point that they didn't know what was wrong with the system they just knew. Why am I being treated differently for the color of my skin, and they were frustrated, and they just finally lashed out

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And the fact that they attacked black owned businesses is proof that that they didn't have a plan right like they were just angry and frustrated. Same in in the sixties. And Watts, you know it, like all the businesses looted, were black owned businesses, but again had nothing to do with that right I mean, because

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: they weren't racist they weren't trying to attack white only businesses. They were just frustrated like; why am I being treated differently? Simply because I have more melanin in my skin? It doesn't make any sense - - and so - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But the difference between a riot and an insurrection is simply that an insurrection is more organized. They have a very particular goal and mind.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and that goal is trying to undermine the foundations of our democracy, including the certification of Biden's victory. So, as we now know, in the whole Dominion V. Fox News. A lawsuit

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: is that Tucker, Carlson, Fox News, and Sean Hannity knew the election claims were ‘BS’.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They knew it was a lot. Tucker Carlson texted Janine. Whatever the hell her name is, I forgot what it is. He texted her and says. Excuse me, I just caught sending Austin lying to my face.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Oh.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and so he basically says, like, hey, look, I just caught them lying to my face and like what am I supposed to do? And then literally, 5?min later, the cameras turn on.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and you know there he is, you know, basically spouting the same lies as before. So, it's pretty crazy, but, but it's you that if I don't think but it seems like the fox doesn't really.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: you know, when you the news recently about to a Carlson, and what he said about Donald Trump in private which differs from what he's saying in public.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: It's not matching up in public. He seemed to be supporting Donald Trump and denouncing the BLM but in private he seemed to be saying something else, something opposite. So what's going on at Fox News.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But see, that's the difference between a general riot and an insurrection is that insurrection was sorry I issue with my light. Here an insurrection has an unlawful and well organized political goal. And see the way that we established to that. It was in an insurrection not just. Your general right is with the conviction of Ben Rhodes. He was the leader of the oath keepers, and now they're going after Enrique Toore as the leader of “the Proud Boys,” and they've already now established seditious conspiracy, sedition, and insurrection.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They're synonymous, and the If you check a dictionary, they're exactly the same rebellion, insurrection, sedition it's all exactly the same. So Ben Rhodes has been convicted of conspiracy to commit an insurrection that's basically conspiracy to commit a riot that has a very targeted and well organized political goal to undermine the nation's democracy. That's the difference.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so now the, yeah, now, with the Ben Roads conviction. There's no question. January 6 was in this direction. Now we also know that communications between the White House and members of the oath keepers and proud boys. We still don't know who and why? Because Trump is asserting executive privilege, and to a certain degree.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: That's it. So everybody's confused about his claim for privilege, right? Because the executive privilege claim is viewed as absolute, but it's not absolute. It's the same as attorney client, privilege, right like. I can advise somebody on the law.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and my advice is covered by the attorney client privilege, but not if I advise them on how to break the law right like. If I’m like an attorney for a mob boss, and I’m telling them like, hey, this is how you kill somebody and get away with it. And it's how you commit tax evasion. I'm going to prison right like, and they can get around the attorney client privilege, because it's called the crime fraud, exception.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: crime, fraud, exception. That's really important, because the crime, fraud, exception, is recognized in every claim of privilege, spousal privilege, whatever it is, you cannot tie a crime or fraud behind a claim of privilege, and the same applies to the executive privilege. But that has not been settled yet right? So we have to litigate 18 to 24 months to resolve that issue before we can get around Trump's claim of executive privilege. But we don't even need that right now - - because we're not trying to prove that trump engaged in the insurrection right? Which would require more evidence. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment says: You merely have to provide aid or comfort.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Comfort is a much lower threshold that's already been resolved by the Supreme Court. They asked what constitutes aid or comfort, and they said words of affirmation. If you simply said like, I feel really bad for those guys, you know, like they they're being treated really badly. And you know I kind of sympathize with their cause and their situation. Bam Section 3. The 14 amendment kicks in your Ben from holding public office, but it doesn't apply to ordinary citizens.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So I have an ordinary since the because the way it works is Section 3 to the fourth Amendment says that if you've ever taken an oath to defend the Constitution. so that would mean prior military - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: ?- - anybody that's ever held public office if you did, or you were an elected politician at the time that you expressed those words of support. Then you're done, and that would apply especially to Marjorie Taylor Green. Right? She's going around there hugging the January 6 people and making it seem like they're political prisoners. You're gone. But nobody knows how to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's the problem.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so when this came up, I immediately started doing legal research, right? Because I love going down to the right rabbit hole on these types of constitutional issues. So that's when I found the Jefferson Davis case. There was also the case where

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: well, there's some history behind it. But when what at a point in time. The predecessor to DOJ.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Congress passed, enabling law that allowed the what was effectively at that time the US Department of Justice to go after people that were holding public office in violation of Section 3.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But they passed, enabling legislation to tag on criminal charges.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so they ended up, actually going after the - - they removed the entire Tennessee Supreme Court.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and this was back in 1869. They brought criminal charges against the entire Tennessee Supreme Court, because they were all Confederates. They kicked them all off and replaced them all with Unionists.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But, see at that time. The reason there was back and forth is because nobody knew that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was Self-executing. It automatically applies by operation of law; you don't have to pass any enabling legislation to back it up.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Well, Jefferson, David said that it was self-executed, and that was the whole basis for his treason and criminal charges being dismissed.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But now, all of a sudden, the Supreme Court started backtracking on that, saying, Well, hold on a minute. Maybe it's not self-executing. It's just like all right. Come on, guys. You can't have it both ways like you already ruled this in 1869. How are you going to completely back, Pedal? Only 3 years later, in 1872 right that would be the most intellectually dishonest supreme court ruling in the United States history, and it simply was Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase first rules in Jefferson Davis's case, that it was self-executing to shield it from kernel prosecution - - and then later reverse that in a separate case and said.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I don't think it's self-executing anymore. But of course, how convenient now that, of course, amnesty has been passed. You, Don't, really need Section 3 to Fourteenth Amendment anymore, and you know, DOJ had already been given the enabling legislation to on their own, bring criminal charges against violators, you know, previously so - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: long-story-short, is this: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment just sat there like it again for about 150 years until this day and Trump is on television

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: saying, we love you. You're very special people, and this is after watching for a 180?min. 3?h him watching on television them breaking windows.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: taking a crap on Nancy Pelosi's desk, you know, looting Congress looting Congress, you know.

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But you know, when you see it in Hurricane Katrina, you see people walking around with television. They're looters. You see a white guy walking in Congress holding the speakers thing. It's just like oh, you know he's smiling. He's a nice guy. No, they're looting. That's what they were doing. They were looting. They're pillaging they're rampaging through and ransacking our United States capital.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and all of them, every single one of them, if they've ever served in the military, or if they've ever held public office. They are banned for life for public office, and after I'm done with trump going after everybody. Now starting a political action committee that's going to basically be in your trials like I'm going to hunt down every single person that was there, every person that violated an oath of offices they previously took, and I'm going to make sure that they are not even elected to city council in this country.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: if they like, they can move to another country. So, first things first, we are going after Trump holding them accountable.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: That's going to be the most important thing. And so that's what the Castro V. Trump is all about

?

RENALDO McKENZIE: Now you filed it, was it January 6?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yes, and that was very intentional. I waited specifically to January 6, 2023, the 2-year anniversary of the attack on the United States capital, and I filed a lawsuit the first thing that judge. Oh! And then, of course, randomly, Judge Eileen Cannon was aside to the case for those of them familiar

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Judge Eileen Cannon is the Federal judge that interfered and tried to shut down the FBI's criminal investigation into Donald Trump that was later overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the eleventh circuit, they found that her intervention violated the constitution, separation of Powers principal, so it was an unconstitutional act. They also viewed it as an abuse of her discretion. So it was both abusive and unconstitutional. And it that was on a different case.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, that that was back when the FBI rated or not rated. I take that back. It wasn't a rate. When the FBI searched to Mar-a-Lago or top secret documents that Trump was clearly possessing and trying to hide from them.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So they went in. There they searched the place. They found documents, so you know. And then, of course, Trump tried to say like, oh, they planted it.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And it was very clear from all the affidavits that Trump had been intentionally hiding those documents in a particular area. The FBI was aware of it. They were basically trying to figure out. Why is he doing this? What is he trying to hide it Doesn't make any sense he is? It was very clear that he had the

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: mental state they already have the email where he specifically told the attorney. Don't let him see this room, and later, when the FBI searched that room. That's where they found those documents. So it's very clear that they were hiding those documents there. But we still don't know what the content of those documents were or like. Why, Trump was obsessed with trying to keep them. It may have been just something stupid like a memento, you know. You know something with his ego, or it could have been worse. I don't know, but I do know he held a golf event

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: one week before the FBI went on to the property. and there was a ton of Saudi officials there, Saudi government officials. So all we know, you know we don't know if he sold those documents, you know, or allowed somebody to go in after hours. Turn off the cameras. They got to read those documents and get Intel on. You know Israel's nuclear capabilities we have no idea. But we do know that that Saudi officials were there, and those areas were compromised. So, that being said. that's what the Castro be. Trump lawsuit is all about. Now

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: And for those person who are following you this is, just so you know this one is different from the case that you filed on the twenty-fifth, and that case it's no longer in before that's no longer before the court? Am I correct?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Oh, well, yes, so oh, you're right. Let me go back in time. So we're going to pause really quick. I Filed January 6, 2023 against Trump. But there was a case before that that I had been working on. So before that last year we all knew that Trump was running for President right. He was going around from Rally to rallied right. He couldn't stop going to freaking rallies for thousands of people the signs, say trump 2024 he's asking people to donate to his 2024 campaign I mean he was running right we all know that, and it was frustrating me, because the regulations, the way they've written it. It's not right. They don't enforce it properly.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so I was suing the Federal Election Commission to have Trump declared a candidate. because I wanted to subject him to scrutiny, because when you are declared candidate, there's a lot more reporting requirements. So, I sued the Federal Election Commission. First, I followed the complaint against Trump with the Federal Election Commission basically, said, hey, look, he's running for Presidency. And not only that he needs to be declared a candidate after he's declared a candidate.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I wanted his FEC form to be rejected, because he's an ineligible candidate, and by submitting the FEC form to he's basically committing Federal perjury. He's lying on a document saying that he's a viable candidate, and he's not so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And then also argued that the FEC's acceptance of that would contravene section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and be an unconstitutional act that under the administrative procedures act that the court could file an injunction basically prevent them from doing that. So basically shut down his campaign's ability to raise campaign funds.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: The Federal judge in that case. but he ruled that. Yeah, I didn't have standing. There's 3 elements to standing. Well, if you're going to Sue, someone in Federal Court you have to say

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I was injured. This is the person that injured me. and this is what the court can do to remedy my harm.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and so those are the very simplified version, but that's basically the 3 elements of standing in order to bring a suit. So a lot of people say, hey, I’m a voter. How come I can't Sue Trump.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Well, because you're not directly being harmed right like you have a generalized harm that that every voter shares. But what's your particularized harm.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: If you're a fellow primary candidate, your particularized harm is he's taking away votes from me.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So a fellow primary candidate has a direct harm. Right? He's taking votes. He's taking donors away from me.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So, that was my argument for standing; it is that. But my case was a little bit unique. I said that the FEC. Is the one that's harming me because they're letting him raise funds.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah. And

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I’m being harmed in the sense that I'm losing access to potential donors, because obviously, you know, he has a stranglehold on all the GOP donor base. And so the judge didn't buy that argument. And he basically said, No, he said, the FEC. Only has the power to regulate campaign finances, not to determine eligibility. But that's not necessarily true. There's a way to interpret the definition of candidate under the Federal Election Campaign Act. But I will say that I can see some judges being convinced. But I could probably convince 3 judges on the Supreme Court. But I think 6 judges will ultimately probably disagree with me. But nevertheless there's a viable argument. So I’m going to pursue it. So right now, that case is on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the DC?Circuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and they're going to determine whether or not the definition of candidate can be interpreted that way which it can, but it would also give an executive agency a brand new power they've never really had before and so I can see how the conservative wing of the Federal judiciary is not keen on expanding agency powers. They're about pull it rating in the Federal bureaucracy not expanding them.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: You said that the courts ruled that that’s not the FEC's role, it is just to regulate financing. But then doesn't that affect their ability to do anything else, because we thought that it was more than just regulating financing. That means they can't do anything else outside of regulating financing?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, that that's basically what they're saying is they they're basically the referees for finance. That's it. We just make sure everybody follows the rules, but we can't get into the business of saying who is and isn't eligible to run for office.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So they claim right. And so and like. I said Ultimately, if I had to do a political judicial analysis, I would say that it's going to be a 6. 3 decisions against me.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: That's just me being intellectually honest. But I want to have that issue settled that way. It's case law, and it's no longer a question. So now that we identified that, basically you know that was not a viable route. Now it's the Castro be trump lawsuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: This one is me directly against Trump directly against Donald Trump. He injured me because he's taking away votes, or I was injured, you know, in the sense of political, what they call reduction in votes and donors.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Donald Trump is the one that is causing the injury through his unlawful and unconstitutional candidacy and the court can remedy this by

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: declaring that he isn't eligible, which will then give me a Federal judgment that I can take to State court, and then enforce it and force the State election authorities to kick them off the bout.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that's the game plan right now, and so right now, Trump is, and his lawyers. At first I think they dismiss this as like this guy's just like, you know, looking for his 15?min of fame. He's a political nobody. We're going to squash him in court. What they failed to realize, as is number one. I'm a legal strategist, and I know the Constitution and the Federal rules like the back of my hand.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: When you file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit. anything in the complaint. Anything that State is, the fact has to be accepted as true, it has to be accepted as true. So if I say that I’m a candidate, and I’m running for office.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I’m a candidate and running for office period.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so they've tried to attack my candidacy to say that, oh, he's not a bona fide candidate. First of all, that's ridiculous, but I still responded right just to, and then and let me just interval because I actually read the art, the and you said I did. Did he find the motion to dismiss on the sixteenth, and on the third, and on the second?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: or Was it just one motion that he filed?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So what they do first is they file a motion to dismiss and then that's when we responded with this a very comprehensive reply, brief, and it was also a verified reply. The reason it was verified is because that transforms all of the statements of fact into admissible evidence which then again, boxes in the judge, because now anything stated in the reply brief now forms a part of the factual record. They still Haven't realized this.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah. And I think they're slowly realizing the legal ingenuity behind the filings. But that's when they freaked out. And then, of course, they tried to attack the bona fetus. So I responded just again to humor them, even though I know I didn't need to. But I basically pointed out the fact that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: she pointed out in her in her motion, dismissed that. Oh, he's been trying to get Trump kicked off, you know, or declared in eligible since last year, and I’m like oh, thanks for making it clear that I've effectively been running for office for more than a year now. So there was that that admission on her part.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And then what was it? Because I know you responded on the 20 eighth. So he filed on the

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: you find on the 60 you find the most into this, miss. On the sixteenth, then on the twenty-second of February, there was a writ of mandamus to remove Judge Alien cannon. The first the first thing we did is I requested access to e filing. I can electronically file multiple jurisdictions in this country. Right? You know it's not a problem. But she said, oh, you're not a Floridian, and therefore I’m not granting you the right to electronically file that I mean it's kind of a pain in the ask, because now I have to like, pay a runner to go there all the time and paper file. But you know it's just these petty, this pettiness, right? So what she doesn't realize is any limitation on your first amendment right to petition the Federal judiciary to redress your grievances in an inefficient manner, is considered a violation of the first amendment. So I let her know right away. I'm not messing around, filing this writ of mandamus before the first circuit, I said. Her denial to allow me to like E. File is a violation of my first amendment. Right then I motion to recuse. I was said, hey, you need to be taken off the case you've already expressed bias. Then she denied that, too. So within 24, not even within 24?hours, I had writ of mandamus before the United States Court of feels for the eleventh circuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So, at that point they realized like this Guy's not messing around like as fast as we deny his stuff. He's gonna have this before the Appellate Court, and same morning to the eleventh circuit. I've already told them. You guys deny it. It's off to the US Supreme Court. I'm going to fast track this to the Supreme Court, and so right now

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: we then, of course, they filed the motion. Dismiss, I replied, and then at the same time I also filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings. So I asked the eleventh circuit to basically order her to stand down until the that case is resolved.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: A whole week passed, and we didn't hear from them. We filed that last Monday on Friday, though, Jim Trustee, which is another one of Trump's lawyers. You can just type in Jim Trusty and Google, Jim Trusty Trump and you'll see all about him. You know basically he's the partner of a lot. He submitted a notice of appearance in both the “Writ of Mandamus” cases.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So it's very clear at this point that's unusual for them to do that, or they'll be well if they. I would say this if they were confident that the writ was just going to be some summarily rejected by the eleventh circuit. He wouldn't have submitted a notice of appearance. He did that because there has to be an indication at this point

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: that the Court Hasn't denied it right? So

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I’m seeing it as the glass half empty, which is, hey? It's been a week, and the judge hasn't the appellate Judge Hasn't approved it right. But Jim trust he's also seeing it from his perspective. He's like a week has passed, and they haven't denied it. That looks bad, too. So we don't know that's the Judges gonna do as yet. So, that would be the 2 cases Where am I entitled to electronically filing, and should Aileen cannon be kicked off the case?

?

RENALDO McKENZIE: And so what is the what is the importance to electronic? How is it like? What is the importance of electronically filing to you to the case? Why is it? How is it?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's just easier after I finish, let's say. let's say the brief is due today, and it's due at 9 pm.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Or it's, it's due at the end of business, I Can e-file at 10:59 Pm US Central time, which is 11:59 pm, Eastern time, and it would be considered timely.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But if I have to pay for file, I have to have it done the day before, have it printed and sent to a court-runner?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So, I have to then email it to a court runner. I have to pay them $50 to run down to the Federal courthouse, go to the third floor, and then actually file it in person there, and that's assuming they get there in time. You know what I mean. It runs the risk so that you could miss deadlines and stuff like, and they know that they know that. So they want to make it hard, right.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So they want to make it hard. They want to make it difficult, but that's why we've been very quick and very fast to file anything. It's my way of telling Judge Eileen you're not going to stop this. There's nothing you can do, because I’m ready, and we have 3 runners on. Stand by so anytime that we give any document to one runner. We already have another runner on queue as backup. So, we're ready to go. They don't realize, like I’m not messing around like, those that know my background know that I’m a West Point drop out.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But my father was 20 years’ special forces, and I've had a lot of military training. I know exactly what I’m doing, and when I decide to engage, it's not to play around. I'm here to I’m here to retire trump permanently. So that being said.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: You know she refused to recuse. They file the motion to dismiss. I found the reply brief humorous, her argument that I wasn't a bonafide candidate, I basically pointed out like, hey? Look, you know, I ran for Senate. I ran for Congress as a Republican. Nobody ever questioned that I was a Republican. But now that I’m running for President challenging trump, they're like, oh, who's this guy? He's a rhino, you know, and they don't realize, like I've literally studied conservative political philosophy. I if I there's anyone that's literally

qualified to teach a class on conservative political philosophy. It's me and I can definitively tell you that today's Republican party does not represent conservative political philosophy. They're big government. They want to encroach into your personal privacy. And that ladies and gentlemen, is fascism.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: That's what it is, they put on this this mask of fake Christianity, and they use that as the guys to push some of their fascist ideology. But if you look at what they're actually doing, they're trying to expand the power of the executive branch. They're trying to expand the power of the Federal Government. They're trying to create new powers for us. Intelligence agencies to spy on Americans. I mean, these are big government fascists they are not. They are not you’re your grandparents and your parent’s Republicans. So I recognize that right as a student of conservative political philosophy, and as a teacher of conservative political philosophy.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But I’m not going to try to explain that to you know these trump, you know. So you know they they're going to believe whatever they want to believe. I mean, they. They believe that Democrats are like Satan worshipping Pedophiles right? I mean. There, there's no talking to people. They're completely low. IQ brain dead people. So

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: that's where we are now.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I know this one was being so, I might. I might ask you some point by point question, because I, as I said, I read the motion. Let's say

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Donald Trump is challenging you on these 4 things of 5 things. He is challenging you. he said. That one you oh, the court lacks jurisdiction to act on this matter; I think he referenced sighted William V. Poach. So I’m going to ask you about that and 2. He says that you lack standing, and then 3, because even if you do not lack standing, you like ripeness. And then fourth, and then he says, how many states? Then he said that you're not registered in the lock, and you only registered in just a few States and a lot of states. And then finally, he says that you have not distinguished yourself from the public to go, that some of the 4 things that I dialed from the motion. Would you like to respond to each of those?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, yeah, Absolutely. So there was. It was all in my reply, brief, but basically where he says, I don't have standing. You can tell that that the attorneys are not well versed in political competitor standing, because this has only been recognized and rightfully so in the United States Court of appeals for the DC circuit. Because that's where all these issues come up right with the FEC. And you know political issues. But political competitor Standing basically says that a political competitor automatically has a des your injury. Because if I’m competing against you for votes.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: clearly, I’m going to suffer a definition which is just a fancy word for a reduction, a reduction in votes. Right? You're going to take votes away from me, and it doesn't matter if it's one vote or a 1 million votes. If you take one vote away from me, I have an injury right?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I mean it's not like a like. I have to have a punch in the face, you know, if you even if you slap me with one finger, it's an injury. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: they they're trying to focus on that part. But, like I said. anything stated in the complaint has to be accepted as true if it's a factual statement I've already said. I'm running for office. I've already said that I've spoken with people that said they would support me.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: if and only if Trump was not on the ballot, which is a true statement. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it was verified that was actually verified under penalties for perjury, which is, you know, makes it in miserable fact. So, and that that's not even technically required. That's only required. If you're seeking a temporary, restraining order, which we will later. But that being said

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: that argument is basically false because they're trying to argue ripeness in that we - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: we're not in a primary right? So I’m not how. My, I'm not losing votes. Yet.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it’s just kind of like. Oh, my God, you don't have to wait until it's an actual primary election, right, because then it's a non-justiciable issue because you have an ongoing election.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So, right now. There's a competition for political support would-be-voters, and that in of itself is enough to suffice. So

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: this has already been settled by the United States Court appeals for the DC. Circuit, and this they tried to challenge it. The Supreme Court basically rejected it, which is Basically, them, saying, we agree with that.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that issue is dead. So their standing issue is out the window.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: The ripeness issue is out the window, both of those go out the window together right? Because anything stated in the complaint has to be accepted as true for purposes of the dismissal. So I went on that issue.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So the next thing he's trying to say is he Hasn't stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Now his argument there is, that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: though normally, in order to bring the cause of action in federal court, you have to cite first what your constitutional authority is, and then, after that, Congress has to give you a remedy.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So the way it works is, the Constitution provides a right of action. But

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: what's your remedy. Your remedy is provided by Congress.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So, for example, Fourteenth Amendment Section one, I have the right to be free from discrimination based on the color of my skin or my national origin.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So if I go into a restaurant, and the owner says. are you Hispanic? And I say, yes, he says, Well, then get the hell out of my restaurant.

?

He's violated my section one Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights to be free from discrimination based on national origin.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: All that stuff right? But what's my remedy? My remedy would be 42, USC. 1,983 the civil rights act of 1,964, and Congress said that I can sue for emotional distress any financial damages, attorneys, fees, things like that. So Congress provided the remedy.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So the Constitution provides basically the jurisdiction.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: That's what he's going at the jurisdiction. And then Congress provides the remedy. So what they're saying here is - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Well, yeah, Section 3. The Fourteenth Amendment says that Trump is in eligible for what gives you the cause of action? What gives you the right to bring this law? So Congress never said that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: a fellow candidate can bring this lawsuit. Well, what they fail to realize there - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: is that the Us. Supreme Court has, in fact, found implied rights of action directly arising under the Constitution.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: There is a very famous case called Biven’s versus the 6 unnamed agents of and in that case, it was basically the modern equivalent of the DEA. They kicked down Mr. Biven’s door, rated his house. didn't find anything caused about $16,000 worth of damage, right? It was concrete damage. No, nobody questioned that. He has receipts for all the damage to the door and all that stuff and all the inventory.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and so he turns around. He sues directly into the Fourth Amendment

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and the southern district of New York. The Federal judge looked at it, and its just like - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: the same thing that Lindsey Han will get insane right now, which is like, yeah, I mean, the fourth of them says you have the right to be free for an unreasonable search and seizure. But Congress never provided a remedy, and you're trying to sue them for $16,000 in damages.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and Congress never said you could do this so case dismissed right, I mean, sometimes these Federal judges. I wonder if they even have a positive IQ. In a working brain. It's like guys.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: our founding fathers said. We have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by the Federal Government.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and here you have the Federal Government kicking down a man's door, causing $16,000. One of the damages to his store.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And you're saying, Well, sorry, Congress never said what you can sue for, or what your remedy is like

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: like. Come on, like to turn your brain on for a second, and look at the practical reality. So this went to the United States quarter, feels for the second circuit. Second circuit, looked it as well, and just said.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: sorry you have to have a remedy that that Congress allowed.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: He went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, thank God. had their brains activated, and said, Guys. if we dismiss this case. we basically Green light the FBI and the DEA.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and the CIA, and God knows who else to kick down anyone's door.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and they don't have any way to hold them accountable.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's going to render the fourth Amendment Worthless words on 200-year-old paper. We can't let that happen. That's ridiculous, like

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: The American people shouldn't wait on Congress

to create a remedy for the rights that hundreds of them of American Revolutionary soldiers fought and died for just so that you know. So I mean, think about this. There's a dead American Revolutionary soldier on the ground.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: says, hey! You fought for this Constitution awesome but sorry. Congress forgot to pass a remedy. So we're kind of like shoot out of luck. It's like no, that's not the way it works. So the Supreme Court at that time looked at that and basically said, no like, we're going to recognize an implied right of action like, and they allowed his case to proceed, and he ended up collecting his damages.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and rightfully so, because, if not, you render the constitution meaningless and toothless, effectively defanged the fourth Amendment. If that case had been allowed to uphold thankfully, the Supreme Court said no, and they allowed it to proceed

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: so, for Lindsay and I cited this in my reply, brief, which again Trump completely ignored in his final reply. You! He again obsessed about like oh, he doesn't even have a donation link working on his website. And I’m like, go on. Is that the best you got like? If that's the best you got. That's pretty freaking pathetic, and I know that people reviewing this Aren't attorneys. But I can tell you from an attorney, and you can run this by any constitutional perspective. That reply, that final reply, brief by Trump, was pathetic. It was sad.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It was assigned that they realized this Guy figured it out.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: He knew exactly what to do to establish himself as a candidate, and I am running for the Presidency in the United States, and I will see Trump in New Hampshire, and I'm going to be on that debate stage, and I cannot wait, because

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: well, I’ll save that for the debate. He's going to be surprised, because, you know, he likes to. He's really snappy. And you know he likes to embarrass people.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Yeah, we have a lot in store for him. So you guys know that we are. We are live on Facebook. We're trying to be live on YouTube, but I was having some problems with connecting the feed. But and we will carry this as a premier later, so we will edit and put and make it dynamic for you guys. But, Facebook, you are seeing it now.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: but if you are, the other fee will get it delayed. So sorry about that. Yes, that we are. We are. We have with us the us 2,024 Presidential candidate Republican presidential candidate, Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: and he's running for President, but he also has an active case. The Castro, the trump case.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: which was filed on January, sixth 2,023, and right now. I had, as he. He was responding to Mr. Trump's motion to dismiss, and he has a very powerful legal argument and response to Mr. Trump. Also. We know right now that there is a written from a Davis

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: that is, which is a which is a suit that is, in actually moving or recusing John. Judge, alien cannon who is on the case.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: But apparently there is a conflict of interest. Yes, and we have for those who are joining us. You guys might have missed that when you listen to the re-broadcast you'll hear that. Okay, but you are. But you are. But you are giving us some you are responding to.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: So to Donald Trump's motion, and I think you were at you. You talked about. So you have standing. You have rightness. You're talking about, you will be meeting him in. You are in New Hampshire, and he said that you have not distinguished yourself from the public. Is that the release you are referring to just now?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: No, so that that's the again. The attack on ripeness and sort of sign that I’m not a bona fide Canada and I’m not really running for office, and they're like trying to say that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I Haven't registered to be on the ballot in any States. Neither has trump, because you can't file right now. It's like the so it's just kind of like if that's your standard for who a candidate is, and trump's. Not a candidate either.

?

RENALDO McKENZIE: Oh, so he's levying an attack against you, and he himself is not registered

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Exactly. So it's. It's ridiculous. Right. It's. I get it right there. There it's, Trump's attorneys right. They get paid to file a response. You have to file a response, no matter how it is.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And then they tried to miss quote the Golden Vs. Wickler case to try to say that. Oh, the Supreme Court said, that courts can analyze whether a candidate is real. That's not what that case said, and I even warned the attorney. I was like. You're getting dangerously close to being prone to sanctions which we've already seen. One trump attorney I already got here with a 1 million dollars in sanctions.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and I said, like you are intentionally misrepresenting that case, and that is an indefensible misrepresentation. There is no reasonable person that can interpret that case that way, unless - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: unless it's on the lost. She's actually that dumb, you know, which I mean. I I don't think she is. I think she's highly intelligent. She just knows that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: she's grasping at straw, and she has a losing argument.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that being said, oh, yeah, yeah, it's, it was a very, very weak and pathetic reply. If the judge - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and who knows, you know, like Judge Allen Kennedy Doesn't care right? She's going to abuse her position as much as she wants. But if she dismisses the case based on ripeness or standing.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: She is. She's done because that's going to get overturned like that on appeal so.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But she has a couple of options right like she can do that. But now she risks that I'm going to appeal the case, consolidate it with the writ of mandamus.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Then she's going to be at risk that she gets kicked off the case. The courts find that I do have standing, and then send it back down, but then recycle it, put a new judge.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and so she's gonna lose control of the case. So I think if she was smart she'd want to hold on to the case. Go ahead and say, you know what?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: For purpose of the motion dismissed, we have to accept, it is true, so we're going to accept that he's a candidate. But we're going to get into the details of whether Section 3 of the 14 amendment is self-executing, and they're going to have to. Of course argue that it's not so that I don't have a cause of action, and then dismiss it on that basis.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But then there's a risk with that, too. Now it fast tracks that issue before the Appellate Court, the Eleventh circuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then eventually also before the Supreme Court. But if I have standing

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and the claim issue goes straight to the Appellate courts, and they determine that Section 3 and 14 is self-executing. Then it gets remanded back down for a full phone trial. At that point I get to depose Trump and put him under oath, and that's something that the January sixth committee couldn't even do, and in my case I’ll be able to get him into a deposition.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So this is a and we'll actually not even go there because I’m just gonna need to be most for judgment on the pleadings to basically say, hey, look, the record is irrefutable. We know what he said. I don't need to get him in a deposition. And the thing is that I’m gonna do that because I want to fast track it to Supreme Court. So we're gonna do what's called a motion for judgment on the pleadings. There's no factual issues that dispute. Trump knows what he said.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But now it's funny. He put out a message on truth, social

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and a lot of people don't know why he said this. I know why he said it. He immediately started basically saying that on January sixth. that when he made those statements. He was talking to the innocent people that were just walking around, not the ones that were inside the capital. So he was saying, you know what I mean. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Then all but I mean it's like, how do you get around the fact that you were at a campaign rally? And you said the January. 6 defendants are being treated very unfairly, and we're gonna have to look at pardons if I get into office, you know he's gonna try to say. I never said I'd give them pardons doesn't matter.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's aid or comfort. You're giving them comfort. You're comforting them in the idea that they might be, you know, executive, executively pardoned

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: for their crimes, even if you suggest that as a possibility that qualifies as comfort. So I mean he's trying to wiggle his way out, you know, and but he knows that the walls are closing in, and

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I hate to be blunt. But I want to be honest, which is that the attorneys at the US Department of Justice suck. I am sick and tired of watching them try and fail miserably to hold Trump accountable, and it is because they lack strategy and they lack ingenuity.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They think within a strict box, and you can't get them to think out of that, and it takes somebody like me a renegade, a free thinker, to come in. Come up with a plan and execute it flawlessly, and there's a lot of people out there that think like

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Oh, somebody has to be behind him. Right, George, show us well. But first I find that insulting because it's like.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: You can't believe that that Hispanic man is the one that actually figured it out. And the answer is no like. If you look at my fan. This is you. Look at my company, you even look at my background. I bumped heads with Georgetown and the Dean. There I had beef with them like here’s a lot of drama pretty much you know. I bumped heads with the republican party. I’ve bumped heads with the Democratic party, with a lot of people

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Some people might call me a rabble Rowser, a troublemaker, but it's good trouble. And so but when I saw what happened on January 6, 2021, I made it my life mission that I’m going to run for President. I'm going to challenge Trump. I'm going to get him kicked off the ballot. And where DOJ and the New York Attorney General and the Georgia District Attorney, where they have all tried, and all failed, miserably. I will not fail. I've plan to this meticulously. I'm executing it. They're seeing it now, and now with Jim Trustee. Finally, notice of appearance. They're finally realizing this guy is not messing around. He is going to have this. He is one step away from the Supreme Court right now. Right he's like. Within 30 days there was a rid of mandamus before the United States Court appeals for the eleventh circuit. And yeah, this is gonna be fast track to the Supreme Court.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I have with me Mr. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO himself the 2024 Republican Presidential candidate who is suing trump, and is the main plaintiff on the Castro, the trump case where he is suing Donald Trump, as is a civil action against Trump under the declaration of Relief Act.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Is that am I correct?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah. Yeah. So that's the other thing, too, is that nobody knew exactly how to do this because there was all these debate among constitutional scholars, and I talked with a few constitutional professors of mine. You know I went to you and M. I went to Georgetown. I spoke with a lot of them and they said, Well, John, it's really complicated, because

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: if you sue them in State Court right. If you wait till the primary start, you zoom in State Court. Then.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: even if the if the let's say Pennsylvania Supreme Court says Yes, he violated Section 3, the Fourteenth Amendment. The Trump attorneys can remove the Federal Court, because that's a Federal question. And so then the Supreme Court could technically overrule them or a lower Federal court could technically overrule them. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: they were just like it's really difficult, and we could. They couldn't figure it out, and I was the first one that just said script, I'm gonna sue the FEC. We'll see what happens, and then, after I’m done with that, I’m gonna Sue trump and see what happens. And everybody else was so afraid of like making mistakes or like oh, what if I get it wrong? It's just like, Look, man, we can stay here talking all year and be talking heads like all the talking heads on TV that don't actually do anything. Or - -

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: you could go out there and get your hands dirty, and I’m gonna be the one to do it, because apparently I’m just gonna be really blunt. They're too chick and shit to do it. So I was like I'm gonna do it myself. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and you know, just for viewers out there. The reason I’m just normal right now is because I’m not a puppet. I'm not I’m not here to be polished, and everything I’ll be polished when I'm in New Hampshire. But I, when I sued up, believe me, my suits are custom tailored really nice, but like right now, like you're seeing me casual, because this is who I am. And so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: so yeah, I decided to bring this. And yeah, Trump's lawyers are now realizing the full gravity of this, and they realize the existential threat. This is posing to his candidacy. And what I’m doing here also is, I’m, charting the path number one.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's going to go to the Supreme Court, and I can tell you right now we have the vote. It's going to be 5, 4.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: We don't know who the fifth person is going to be, but we know it's going to be 5, 4,

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: By when do you think it will go to the Supreme Court?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: October.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Oh, wow, by October 2023?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: …Probably will. We'll make it to the Supreme Court by October 2023.

?

Renaldo McKenzie: So, we will, and we will. And you guys will get a chance to subscribe to the show guys at least once every other week or so. We will be here with Mr. Castro all the way up until the US Supreme Court on this case. But, sorry I was interjecting, because I know people out. People are watching now and want to know more. But continue, sir.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So. So yeah, I mean, that's pretty much what we're at right now, which is that the Judge Cannon is about to roll on the motion dismiss, and when he did this within the next 21 days, I think about maybe 2 more weeks, because generally they rule within 30 days. She could decide to try to pocket veto it and not do anything, but we already have a plan for that as well. But what is this? Oh, sorry, sorry. A POCKET VETO is an analogy. She could basically choose to just sit on this forever and not make a ruling.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: but on that as well. So and that that would only further.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah. illustrate. You know her biasedness in in this case so, or her just for advice. So

?

Renaldo McKenzie: But you are staying, but also you file an emergency stay which prevent her from ruling right now on the on this correct?

?

John Anthony Castro: yeah, we asked the eleventh circuit to do that. They haven't done it yet, but very oddly. On Friday Jim trustee submitted a notice of appearance. So Jim Trustee is Trump's appellate lawyer.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: He's a lot. He's a lot craftier. He has the only trump attorney that has former experience at the Us. Department of Justice. But I can tell you right now that that

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: we overestimate the intelligence of DOJ attorneys. You know a lot of people like to put that on the resume and like oh, you know I was. I was an attorney at the US Department of justice.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I might consider hiring somebody like that at my firm, you know, as a - - as a junior attorney, maybe, but to me that doesn't add any credibility to a person's resume.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that being said. Jim is now officially on the eleventh circuit writ of mandamus cases, both of them and I emailed him on Friday, and I let him know, like, hey? Just FYI. There's also a DC. Circuit case, if you want to follow notice of appearance there. But I don't expect him to do that, because you know---

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: the idea there is as you know it. It could end up leading to a lot more legal bills for Trump, and I don't know if Trump would want him to do that, because all these lawsuits to all these legal defense, it is draining trump financially. It's depleting his financial resources, right, and he's using the pack money to pay, and he has a lot of that pack money.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But to get a---

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: He didn't take you seriously. I'm just thinking about it because one of my one of my friends on the YouTube, said. I don't remember the name of what was the attorney, that had initially said that you didn't have standing initially when you had just filed the case.

So, is that is, is she still on the case?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yes, yes, yeah. So Lindsey Hannigan Halligan, Sorry is the lead attorney in the Federal District Court level.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And then Jacob Grumman. Yeah, he's an attorney from DC. It's where he does like online gaming sports law so like Vegas things.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I don't know that that's all. Some can apparently like, you know, scrape from the bottom of the barrel. So he filed a notice as well. He's really the one drafting everything, I believe, for Lindsey helicopter. I basically threatened to report them for the unauthorized practice of law, and then he immediately filed a motion… and the judge instantly granted it, which basically says, although you're not a Florida license attorney will let you practice here. So she gave that to him, but not to me. But whatever so yeah, that being said, you know, though in the Lindsay Halligan is not licensed to practice before the eleventh circuit. And so that's why she couldn't file a notice of appearance when I file the writ of mandamus. So that's why Jim Trusty had to step in and follow the notice of appearance in the eleventh circuit, because, if not Trump would not have an attorney before the eleventh circuit right? I mean that that would be embarrassing for a former president to not be able to scrape up an attorney to do that. So

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that's kind of what's going on right now and then. There's the DC circuit case dealing with. You know whether to expand the FEC's power to determine eligibility. So those are all the various cases and all the avenues that I am fighting trump right now. DC. Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, Federal District Court level.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: The Judge is going to have maybe about 2 to 3 more weeks. Now, the reason that Judge Ken is going to take her time is because there are a lot

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: of political angles to decide here

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: again. If she dismisses it based on standing.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: she is going to basically guarantee that it's going to get appealed consolidated. And she's going to likely get cycled off the case. and then it's going to get remanded back down. and now she can't protect trump.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But if she agrees and says that I do have standing that undercuts my argument that she's biased right. because now she's shown, hey? I'm not biased. I found that he is standing.

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: but I’m going to attack his Section 3. The Fourteenth Amendment argument--

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: that would somewhat make it more difficult for the eleventh Circuit to find that she's biased.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: but it would also fast track. The section 3 of the

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Fourteenth Amendment argument and Trump's Legal strategy has, and always will be to delayed delay.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So he'd probably want her to rule on the standing issue, but she'd probably be advising against that Like right.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: We know they have that channel communications right? I mean, we know kids, trump people, you know, probably meeting them at midnight at Mar-a-Lago, you know, by the golf course before the sprinklers turn on. So that being said. I mean, we know that they're strategizing on this, and they're trying to figure out what the best

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: best way to handle this, but it's like trying to stop a comment. Come into earth. It's like you guys. I already have contingency plans, whatever they decide---

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: it doesn't matter. This is going to the Supreme Court.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it's going to be fast tracked.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So whether they like it or not, it's going to happen, and if I had to project, it would be by October. which is perfect and I’ll tell you why I know the Supreme Court is going to take the case.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And it's the same reason why the Democratic leadership wants Trump to be the nominee for the GOP. Every hypothetical that they run in computers doing these analyses Biden v trump Biden wins by, and v DeSantis to Santi’s wins. so they do not want to scientists to be the nominee.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I know that's a risk that. I'm running, but we have to. We. We cannot allow Trump to get this close to the to the White House again. So you know it's just like, hey, Democrats, instead of focusing on trying to undercut them. Just try to focus on doing better. Run the economy. Better get this banking crisis under control. All you have to do is not burn down the country, and by so. But yeah, we'll see. But

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: the idea here is that we know the Supreme Court wants to close the chapter on Trump. They want to pave the yellow brick road for Desantis, and this case gives them that possibility.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They can take this case. Gorsuch and Kavanagh can show that, although Trump appointed them that they can be. you know, neutral, and one of them is going to turn right, because they want to demonstrate that they're not loyal to trump, that they can rise above politics, and that's their one chance to do it.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And I think it's going to be Gorsuch. So that's how I think we're going to get the 5 4.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So Gorsuch crosses over and basically, says, you know what I want to also seal the deal as well, and prove that I have absolutely no loyalty to this man, even though he gave me a lifetime appointment to Supreme Court, and officially chop them.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: so that would also guarantee an increase. The probability of a GOP president being elected in 2,024.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So all of that, and I’ll tell you right now. The GOP establishment is supporting this case, including Fox news. They do not want trump to get re-elected, and they're also trying to force a rally behind to Santi’s. And again, this case provides that. So this case is making for odd alliances and bedfellows.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, but again. We got to focus on one step at a time. So I also do not want to Santi’s to be the Republican nominee.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Now, I heard that DeSantis, Florida’s Governor who is seeking to ban black books was in Philadelphia. The pastor at Enon Apostolic Church a Major Church in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania very important Church. Very influential Church. I understand that they are very upset; that the scientists came to Philadelphia and gave a speech at the Union. One of the unions here, this this this this is Philadelphia, about 46%.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I'm an African American and they have a lot of black academics. Philadelphia that had the rail the Underground Railroad.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: He came to Philadelphia, the guy that's trying to ban Black Academic books, black books, Critical Race Theory where it is that.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: and I’m hoping that. I mean. I'm hoping that well at the I don't want. I don't want to sound too political on this show. But no, I mean in my book in my book the DeSantis is a fake conservative. He's not right.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: He's one of those Christopher fascists that are basically trying to hide behind a fake racist version of Christianity to try to mask their fascism. So yeah, it's fascism, masquerading this Christianity, and with a sprinkle of conservatism. But what they're doing is they're adapting the cultural wars of the conservative movement and then trying to basically militarize that, you know, and use that as a Trojan horse to push a fascist. Ideology agenda.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: So one question I was going to wrap up, but that is what, Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he's saying that even if he was to be indicted or held responsible for January 6.

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: He is not giving up. He will still run. He will still be out there running what I mean he has to, because he's either out of prison, and he knows it in his mind. This is what Trump's thinking. If I continue campaigning, I get elected president, then they can't put me in jail.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it's just like it's like dude. That's not how it works like I’m going to get you kicked off the ballot in Pennsylvania. Georgia etc, I can tell you this right now. A 100% Pennsylvania. He's off the ballot. Why? Because Democrats control the Supreme Court. He's done in Arizona.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: We got the end the Secretary of State. There he has the unilateral power already granted to him by the United States Court appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or Court appeals for the ninth circuit to kick, trump off the ballot on his own. But either way we'll get it through judicial action, so Trump is off the ballot of Pennsylvania. He's off the ballot in Arizona. We're going to get and kicked off the bout in Georgia as well.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then next we're focusing on Wisconsin and Michigan, Michigan. We also almost there Wisconsin, though we got that down, so that's it. He can't get the critical swing states that he needs to win to get to 2 70.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So it's impossible. He doesn't realize that. Yeah, of course. And of course he's going to fight to the nail. He's. He thinks that he could beat me.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But the problem is that Trump has never run into somebody like me, which is that it's a mix of a legal strategist with somebody that has been boots on the ground. I used to be a union organizer, by the way, for those that don't know. I trained with the United Steel Workers of America in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I'm. A certified Union organizer. So I've been

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So I’ve been down on the streets right with union helping organize city workers’ sanitation workers. I've been out there getting my knuckles bloody with them, so I know what it is to be a political fighter, and not only that, but having that knowledge it, and that's what I was doing when I was 1819 years old.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: having that knowledge very young in life. Not only that, but also a military training. And then, on top of that, you sent me to Georgetown. I learned everything about the law---

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: that's what created the perfect storm here for me to come after Trump. So Trump has never dealt with somebody like me. Right? He's always dealt with those guys that you know the polish They're Bivens the speech like Marco Room right? Teleprompter goes off, and he just stares the camera like I don't know what to say. Guys Somebody like you know somebody puppet me or something.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And again, it's because these guys are all fake, you know they're all controlled by their donors. and I’m not. I'm. I'm a free thinker, you know, I and I know exactly what I’m doing. So Yeah, it's going to be fun. It's gonna be wild. Oh, yes, but looking forward to it. And guys just so, you know. I mean, we won't give you too much, and we gonna we're gonna to wrap up. Now, we've been on the show.

?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: We've been on here for about an hour a little bit over an hour, and we're gonna be doing this at most, just as we regularly as possible, and then and whenever there are updates we will

myself and Mr. Castro will come together. We we're doing the castle, we Trump Series, so you will be updated because one of our fans, one of our fan, says that said that. Why is it that people are still not following the Castro? We from, and many people want to know about it. What's going on? You know what's---

?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: well? How do you respond to her? And she might be watching to

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: This is what I love about the Internet age, right like we used to. I mean, if it's not on CNN it’s not real right, you know. But now we have the Internet. And the thing is that look the mass media here.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: there, there's a bit of corruption. I don't like criticizing my friends in the media, because I don't want to, you know, alienate them. But I need to be honest about it again.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Remember what I told you earlier. The leadership and the Democratic party wants Trump to be the nominee.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They don't like my lawsuit Democrats, the different, not Democrats. Sorry the Democratic leadership does not like my lawsuit. They want trump to be the nominee.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: so they don't want me to challenge it because they're like dude. You're making it harder if it's to Santi’s decent. This is younger. He's more handsome. His wife looks like freaking Jacqueline Kennedy. He has a back shot of actually winning the Presidency.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And then you have somebody that's just like Trump, but is actually intelligent, you know, and will actually be able to get some of these things done and really push a fast fascist ideology. So that is the reason why a lot of the left-wing controlled media doesn't want to cover this now as far as the right-wing media as far as fox News.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They're in a bit of a cash 21. Like do we cover his lawsuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: but then he's attacking us also right, because I’m criticizing Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. I'm rooting on dominion bankrupt fox news. Like I want to see them finally pay for all their lives.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So I just said that right? So you think fox news is gonna bring me on their show? Of course not. So now you have the conservative wing that doesn't want to cover me, either. So it's. No wonder why I’m completely shut out of the media. The Liberals don't want to support the lawsuit. The Conservatives are like Well; I mean he's criticizing us too. So it's like he's your friend, but not really so.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So if you want to know why the mass media is shutting me out. That's the reason why they They're both playing loyalties to their own sides for their own political agenda on being iced out. Now here's a thing.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I Don't give a damn, whether the media covers this right. I'm in this because whether the media covers this or not. If I’m successful, I’m carving out a page in history for myself.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and it might, but it just be a footnote.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: But I’m gonna be there in that footnote, and I'm gonna be an integral part of American history and holding a former President accountable right? So Random, attorney from Dallas, Texas is the one that finally held his feet to the fire and held him accountable.

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: And so here's the thing they can ignore me all they want.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: They're not going to be able to ignore me when the United States Supreme Court rules in my favor.

?

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: So that's that they're going to be fast, whether they like it or not, they will bend the knee. They will cover this, give it time, but watch it here with Renaldo`s show, you'll be able to say I was with them from the beginning, and it's the Castro V. Trump series.

?

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Featuring. JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, who's running for President, the president of AI. Tax a company that's value that 187 million dollars, a young man, a powerful era that gentlemen, that, he will tell you he wasn't born in money, but here he worked hard, and now he's a multi-millionaire. He 2 companies graduate of George still University graduate of Harvard University. Let me tell you, guys, this is a young man who you should check him out – https://johncastro.com

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Don't be narrow minded, or myopic. Okay, just expand your thinking guys. I appreciate what you're doing Mr. Castro. We support what you're doing, and we will continue to, and we will continue to pray for you. And, by the way, before we wrap up. Just so, you know, you know I thought about something with the FEC - -

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: because when the courts make legal determinations, sometimes it becomes a law of the land or it creates a precedence. This thing about the FCC. Is quite interesting, because the ruling about the FEC only regulating financing then it means, we well I would think that the FEC did more than just regulate campaign financing. I believe that they do more than that. But the thing is, if the judges, if the courts are now saying or ruling that the FEC only regulate financing, that means going forward, they can be challenged if a candidate feels that the FEC is overstepping based on this ruling. The FEC has done more than just regulate financing, so this ruling means that they can be sued for acting outside of their jurisdiction - - acting outside of the jurisdiction based on this particular ruling. They are only supposed to regulate financing and nothing else.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, yeah.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Okay, that's quite interesting. You get the last word.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah. So we should. We should get an update within 2 to 4 weeks, possibly less. But my guess is that it'll probably be another 2 to 4 weeks in full, because as of right now, the Judge Cannon has issued paperless orders for everything right, denying my electronic filing, denying the recusal. Granting the that is for Jacob Grubman, and it's just it's this level of disregard, you know, and looking down and having her nose up in the air when a paperless order is a really rude way to just basically dispense with something as like.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: almost like frivolous. And but you can't do that with a motion to dismiss. So, he's gonna have to sit down

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and very carefully draft an opinion that she knows is going to be scrutinized by both the eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I'm going to be really blunt. She is simply, intellectually outmatched. She, I am more qualified to be a Federal judge than she is. If you look up her transcripts, if you look up to the where she went to school. Everything it's

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's not up to par right. She got that job by basically kissing Trump's *ss, and she got then nominated to sit on the bench, and the reason why she's continuing to protect him is, she probably got promised that if Trump retook office that he probably tries to get her on the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court. So she's a trump round nosing sycophant. We all know that

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: she's gonna try to and use. Rub her 2 IQ points together to try to come up with a good order. But it's gonna bail, so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: it's gonna be interesting. So I think the next one, though the next episode should be definitely when she rules on the motion to dismiss that. Yeah. And then and then from there will, of course, appeal to the eleventh circuit.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: and then we'll have another episode to kind of go over that and discuss all the dynamics of it. But the thing is that the eleventh circuit already proved that.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: See, the thing is that the eleventh circuit. They're old school Republicans. You're talking about Bush, Senior Republicans, Reagan Republicans. So they don't like trump. They're like me. They're Conservatives, and so

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I. My guess is they are going to rule in my favor, and then that is when it's going to create a media firestorm

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: because they're going to remove it back down. And who knows? At that point Trump could be the one that if there's an unfavorable 11th circuit court opinion, he appeals to the Supreme Court, which he likely will right. He always does that. So it would be. It would be very uncommon or uncharacteristic for him to not do that. So it could actually be Donald Trump, who actually fast tracks this before the Supreme Court. But we'll have to see. But either way we'll have a very substantive update within 2 to 4 weeks.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: 4 weeks. Okay, Great. Okay, guys, you got that then? Thank you so much. Did. By the way, Judge, who appointed Judge Cannon, was it, Mr. Trump.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Yeah, it was true. Yeah. Oh, wow.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: wow, wow. what do you - - think about the issue of judges and justices being appointed by The Executive? Then now that you find that executives are immoral and bias I mean, executives also commit crimes. Are we gonna be able to revist the powers of The Executive to appoint or nominate judges and justices

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: I mean, they said, it's not a conflict of interest, because judges are above that. But we are human beings.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: Exactly. So. Yeah, we did. We didn't take that bait, either, because I knew that that argument has failed in the past when some somebody trying to say like, oh, well, this president pointed this judge. So therefore they're disqualified.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It has to be more than that. The Supreme Court's already ruled on that, too. So but we all know, like what you said, we all know the reality, but of course the judges are like. Well, we don't want our judgment being called into question just because this person nominated us, you know. So, I get that. But that's why our argument focused solely and squarely on that. It would give the appearance of bias. So, rather than saying she actually biased, which we don't have evidence right, because she's never publicly stated it, and an adverse ruling isn't in and of itself evidence of bias, even though the Appellate Court said it was abusive and unconstitutional. But judges script sometimes right. So that's why our argument was very carefully, narrowly tailored to saying, like Look, we can all at least agree. It gives the impression of bias, and on that basis alone recusal is mandatory.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: All right, thank you so much. And on that word we will end. But just when we wrap up this, so you know, guys please support Mr. Castro and his campaign. He has a website. You can go to Castro, John.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: It's Johncastro.com. Yeah, John, and good news is that fundraising goes live on Friday, so we'll be able to start raising campaign funds.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: I mean, we already doing camping funds, you know, through private events. But yeah, now, now, we're gonna really unleash. And we're doing that in preparation of the media coverage, because we know that once the mass media is forced to cover this story through a. You know, a successful eleventh circuit reversal that that that's going to draw a lot of attention at that point. I'll be able to then raise a lot of funds, but actually, well, I got a surprise for the next meeting next meeting. I was surprised.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: Thank you. Kill us. Yeah. So pretty support, Mr. Castro, and of course you can subscribe to the show for free, and you'll get notification notified when the show becomes available. It's The NeoLiberal Round ? A podcast on Spotify for Podcasters ?We are now in over 36 countries on every single audio and streaming service. We are everywhere, guys, there is no way where we are Not because you know why we took a book out of Mr. Castro's book who has been advising us indirectly. He says we must leverage technology, and we are leveraging technology, and we are everywhere. Thank you guys for supporting us, and for believing in the NeoLiberal Corporation, continuously subscribe, https://theneoliberal.com. And we will end on, of course, a note of prayer. Since I’m a man of faith. I thank you for this great time, Lord.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: and some people were, in Buddha’s Allah’s name or whoever’s name you pray in, we, we do not judge, but all we say is, thank you, ultimate for this awesome time, and this amazing gentleman, and what you're doing in his life. Grant wisdom, favor, strategy and power.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: We tell you thanks, Amen.

?

RENALDO MCKENZIE: and I hope you become the next President of the United States of America. We are rooting for you because we like your platform and what you are about. Okay.

?

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO: yes, sir, take care, bye, bye, bye.

?

?

?

?

End of Part 1 of the Castro V Trump Trial Series Transcripts

Renaldo C. McKenzie, Plaintiff: John A. Castro

The Neoliberal Round

March 13, 2023

March 13, 2023

?

Renaldo McKenzie is the Creator and Senior Publisher and Writer at The Neoliberal Corporation. Renaldo is author of?Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resistance?and Adjunct Professor at?Jamaica Theological Seminary. Renaldo graduated with twice from The?University of Pennsylvania?and is currently reading for his Doctorate at?Georgetown University.?

?

?

?

The Neoliberal Round by Renaldo McKenzie YouTube Channel:?

The Neoliberal Round Podcast

https://theneoliberal.com

https://johncastro.com

https://renaldocmcenzie.com

Email us:?[email protected]

Submit to us:?[email protected]