Elliot Goldberg and Pacific Legal Foundation

0:00Welcome to the Real Power Family Radio Show, brought to you by Family Success Triangle. Where we talk about how we achieved financial freedom in two years, by the time we were 30. If we can do it, so can you. We will bring you the people who can help you achieve financial freedom, time freedom, and location freedom. Learn how we integrated our business, investing and homeschooling into everyday life. And now, here is the Real Power Family, Eric, Lila, Devon, anything. Welcome to the Real Power Family Radio Show, I'm your host, Eric, well, when we have my lovely wife, Lila, and two very important guests today. We have Alison Daniel, she is from the Pacific Legal Foundation. You might remember that when we took on the CDC a handful of years ago, they were our major representation. It was Pacific Legal and 1851 Center for Constitutional Law for the Ohio portion of

1:02it. She is here with one of her clients who she is helping to figure out, do we really have rights? Do we have three branches of government? An Elliott Goldberg, well, let's just say that the government went after him, and he can tell you about what he presumably did or did not do. And they decided they were going to bill him $14 million, and he had to go to the same people to get a fair and impartial hearing in front of his peers. I mean, the people that work and gave him the fine to find out, yeah, can you waive some of this? But I don't want to get ahead, let's Lila read you a little bit more about what's going on, and then we'll ask Alison and Elliott to tell you how is the system stacked against us, and what can we do to make it more fair for us common people? Go ahead, Lila. Elliott Goldberg has worked as a financial professional for over 20 years.

2:02He was shocked when Pennsylvania's Department of Banking and Securities accused him of violating provisions of the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972, even worse, rather than bringing its case to an independent court and proving its allegations to a jury, the department prosecuted the case before a department appointed hearing officer who, of course, sided with the department. Elliott's only option was to appeal to the department itself, meaning the appeal was to the very department that accused him. Now our Constitution says that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Pacific Legal Foundation, who we have talked about in many of our previous shows, is currently representing Elliott for his right to a jury trial. This case will affect every one of us as the right to a jury trial is critical protection against government over each. He's joined today by an attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, Alison Daniel, so any legal aspects can be covered appropriately. Elliott, I want to thank you not only for being on the show, but for standing up for

3:05constitutional rights that affect all of us, that takes a lot of guts to do that, and I just want to say thank you. And Alison, I want to thank everyone at Pacific Legal Foundation also because you guys are fighting for our rights every single day. And I know that takes a lot of effort and a lot of research, and everything you do is so important. So Alison, thank you for all that you guys do as well. Of course, it's our pleasure. Now, Elliott, Alison, do we want, who do you want to explain this? Can you give us a five minute recap of exactly what the state accused your client, Elliott of doing? How about I give the legal background? And Elliott can explain that a little bit more, I'll just give the basics. So I'm an attorney and the separation of powers practice group. And that means that I focus on cases where the government branches overstep their constitutional boundaries. And we also have property rights and environmental natural rights team and an equality and opportunity

4:08team, which works on economic liberty and individual rights. And Eric, just to note, a pretty big day for our team because the Supreme Court decided the tariff case. I think that you guys talked about it in your previous show. But I just read that, by the way. And I know a lot of Trump supporters are going to be furious about that. The problem is you can't let that's exactly what Elliott's case is about. And my untrained opinion at least is you can't let one branch. Many branching government have way too much power. It was set up to have three different branches, right? Precisely. And I just skimmed it. But they basically said that the IEEE PA, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act doesn't authorize President Trump to impose tariffs. It has to go through Congress. So in this case, we represent Elliott for jury trial rights, which is, again, not having the executive branch have too much concentrated power.

5:10And as Lila explained, this is something that most people probably don't think about until it affects them with the right to a jury trial. But Elliott was accused by the state agency of these anti-fraud securities violations. But instead of filing the case in a court of law, the agency prosecuted him in their own in-house administrative system before a hearing officer that was appointed by the agency itself. So at the end of that process, as Elliott will go into more detail, they impose nearly a million dollars in civil fines, even though no alleged investor suffered any loss. And the department will actually use those fines for things like paying department salaries. Or in other words, it's not to provide restitution to any sort of victims because there are no victims here. Like I said, there was no jury, no independent judge. It was just the agency acting as investigator, prosecutor, and decision maker. And we argue here, it was decided at the Commonwealth Court by a three-judge panel. And now we are in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a, it's called a petition for allowance

6:14of appeal. If you're thinking about Supreme Court litigation, it would be like a cert petition. So we're arguing that when the government seeks severe financial penalties, especially penalties that look like traditional fraud claims, that the constitution requires that decision to be made in a real court and before a jury of your citizens. Just to explain the broader historical point, this isn't just about Elliott in his case. And it, you know, hopefully it's really not just about Pennsylvania's, it's about incorporating the seventh amendment into the states. People probably aren't aware that not all of the Bill of Rights are incorporated. But and the seventh amendment is one of them. So we are hoping that this case will be the, the so-called vehicle to apply the seventh amendment to state actors as well. And if we can take a pause really quick, the seventh amendment in suits it common law, where the value is conversely, where the value in, yeah, do you have this right here?

7:17And coversly shall exceed $20. So a million dollars by my math is way over $20. The right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact, tied by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, then according to the rules of the common law. And this, I know we talk an awful lot about property taxes on this show. We're having a lot of problems in Ohio with the property taxes. This is exactly what we get. The auditor decides to raise a property taxes and then we have to go to a three-member board led by the auditor that rose our property taxes to say, hey, I don't think they went up. I think you are wrong. And they have to decide if they were right or wrong to begin with and if they're going to keep the higher property taxes are low on them. But that isn't that exactly what Elliott did. One board decided he was wrong for something and then you had to go, talk to the same people that made that decision and convince them that he wasn't. And he had obviously over $20 in damages here and had no ability to see an elected judge

8:24who had a loaned jury of his peers. That's right. And so you're talking about, so right now because the seventh amendment is not incorporated, it doesn't apply to state actors. So each state has their own state constitution that provides a jury right, however. Ohio and what our petition is, we made two claims. And under the seventh amendment, that the seventh amendment should be incorporated. And the other one is that Article 1, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution says that the jury trial right shall remain in violet. And courts analyze that by walking through like three core questions. First they asked they say, okay, what kind of claim is this? Does it look like a traditional common law claim that would have been decided in a court of law in the late 1700s? So what we say in our petition is that courts don't require the exact statute to have existed in 1790. That's when the current Pennsylvania Constitution that we're working off of.

9:25The question is whether the type of claim like fraud or debt or a breach of fiduciary duty was historically tried before juries. And Eric, maybe the tax, typically there's tax courts, but perhaps that would be an action in debt, for instance, they're trying to collect money from you. The second question they ask is, what is the remedy being sought? And this is typically the most important factor. Like if you're familiar with the SEC redarketese decision, that was the core factor that was dispositive for that case. If the government is seeking punitive civil penalties, which is money meant to punish or deter the conduct, that historically required a jury. But if it's if it's an equitable relief and said, like an injunction or maybe true restitution to actual victims to restore them in their status quo position, that historically did not require a jury. And the final question is whether the case involves so-called public rights. And this is something that the government argued here that it was, you know, securities

10:27law and anti fraud provision to protect the public. And that is one case that is a kind of a thorn in our side as Atlas roofing. That was an other case against OSHA that was also involving with the courts that called public rights, like public safety. That historically could be resolved outside of the common law courts. And this was like historically it was things like immigration, terrorists or like I said, the public benefits. So when the government brings what looks like a traditional lawsuit for fraud and seeks money penalties, courts have said that that usually involves private rights that require article three courts and juries. And that's what we're claiming here. There's three Supreme Court cases that are giving us really the backbone of this challenge. One is called toll the United States from the 87. The other one is Grand Financial European Nordberg from 89. And in the most recent, the SEC, the dark EC case, which involved anti fraud provisions. And in this case is essentially the state court equivalent of that.

11:27So in toll, grand financial era and dark as to you, this Supreme Court applied the three question framework that I just walked through and emphasize that legislatures can't eliminate jury trials simply by labeling them a statutory claim and assigning it to an agency. So what the law recorded here was say that this exact securities violation didn't exist in 1790 and therefore Mr. Goldberg doesn't get his jury trial. And we absolutely love Alison and her incredibly large brain and the Pacific Louis Foundation. But we're going to take a quick break so the rest of us normal people can recover. And then we're going to ask Elliot to say this in human and we'll be right back. Have you ever loved one benefacted by inflation? Yes. We have the product for you hard assets that hold their value like the real power family self-around are available at American Gold Exchange.

12:28You can visit American Gold Exchange at AMERgold.com or by calling 1-800-613-9323. Welcome back to the real power family radio show. Today our guests are Elliot Goldberg and Alison from a Pacific legal foundation. Alison, you are doing a great job giving us all of the legal. I want to know Elliot from your perspective. What was it like in the beginning when you found out that they were accusing you? Well, I went to my mailbox one day and got a letter from the department. They had asked me for information before and I had provided it to them. And I opened it up and I saw in order to show cause of why I shouldn't have to pay $14.4 million to them for alleged violations. I immediately got on the horn with my lawyer and he was flabbergasted too.

13:30Especially since they were no complaints, no harm to any of our note holders. So I just took it from there and I said see if we can work something out for them. Maybe we can change the way we're doing business. If there's something that needs to be changed, certainly if it made sense, I'd be happy to do that. And when they tried to negotiate with them, they took a very hard stand and eventually said, okay, we'll settle for a million dollars. And I said, well, that's a nice discount, but still a lot of money. And I didn't do anything wrong. Okay, let me reiterate. None of your customers or clients or whatever the appropriate legal term is called the complaint about you. None of nobody turned you in just the government for whatever reason decided you did something wrong and owed them $14 million.

14:32But then miraculously after you paid a much illegal bill, that $14 million dropped to $1 million. Is that accurate? That is true. Okay. I can't hear you. Sorry. All right. At that point, my lawyer said your rights are you can get a hearing. And I said, okay, hearing that makes sense. We're going to provide evidence and somebody is going to look at this and digest it and come up with a fair approach. And they did that. And the hearing officer came back and basically rubber stamped everything that the department had accused me of, but threw me a small bone and said, we're going to reduce it to $931,000. And I think that's because the math worked out that way for them. It was X number of violations times X number of money per violation.

15:32Yeah. Just to tell you real quick, just to explain how arbitrary it is, it correct me if I'm wrong I let it. If it was 133 violations and they just said each one of them is $7,000, right? That's lovely. Yes. I like the number seven. Let's make it. I think they made it eight, just speculation. It would have taken over a million and that probably is not the way they wanted to go. So I said, you know, this is, you know, maybe we can just settle that. I said, you know, really didn't do anything wrong. We'll offer $15,000 to settle. They said, we'll take $985. I said, I can see where this is going. They want to have a million dollars from me to settle this case. And in the meantime, I had found out that the department on its website said that all of their funding doesn't come from taxpayers. It comes from assessments. So I think about it and I say, well, how do they reward these people who work in the department?

16:34Obviously, they're almost on commission. They're, you know, if they can provide X number of dollars, they're doing their job because that's what they have to do. So now I'm looking through the lens of, I'm not going to get a fair trial, I'm through the lens of they're going to try and justify what they're doing to me by however means they can to squeeze a settlement off of me. I always love not something not being paid for by my tax dollars, but what you're saying is the whole organization, the whole group, this government entity, all of their salaries come from the fines they take from people like you. And then to reiterate, there was no complaint. Can they break about it on their website? It's really, I mean, if you're not a victim, that's great. And I guess if you're going to get elected and you only need 51% to get elected, they're

17:37not going to go after 50% of the population. So at that point, I knew what I was dealing with and everything from then was typically to put pressure on me to settle. And in many cases, punitively punish me for daring to not settle with them. It was infuriating and not good for blood pressure and not a good situation, but to pay a half a million dollars to settle a case, what would I say to my note holders or anybody that heard about this? What would I say? Why did you write? Why did you give them a half a million dollars if you didn't do anything? People don't understand the physical dress and its upset stomachs and not sleepless nights that you go through with something like this hanging over you.

18:37We were the lila and I were there. We understand it's not pleasant at all. And you're going to ruin your whole image because you pled guilty to something you didn't do. Right. In the, either you do that and ruin your business and your reputation, you, hey, millions of dollars or you have the, you know, they threaten you with millions of millions of dollars. And that's kind of the playbook of every city and government agency I've ever taken on. Yeah. You remember the old frame, oil filter commercials where they said you can pay me now or pay me later. Exactly. This is, you can pay us or you can pay your lawyers. So and that's the leverage that they know they have. And for a company, for a large company like Microsoft or Apple have shareholders and billions of dollars to spend, if they had a $500,000 fine against them and settled for $25 million, it doesn't hurt anybody's reputation and the shareholders pay it.

19:42You know, this, this is something personal that is my reputation and my money. And I also have to tell you, I'm a history buff and I look to read history because it always is a, a great indicator of what's going to happen in the future. And when I was reading in the 30s about Stalin in Russia and, and the trials that they had reminded me of what I was reading. It was like I was guilty before even they decided to look at any of the facts and just some of the ludicrous, ludicrous ways that they justified some of the things that they did are ridiculous. And if, if they really wanted to help investors or noteholders of mine, they would have worked with me to, um, to achieve that goal.

20:45But, um, and, and if you want a case of that, what I had said to them when they had, when they, uh, said your, your fines, uh, million dollars, I said, you know what, I'll, I'll pay the million dollars. But only to the Pennsylvania residents who are current noteholders who want their money back because they feel they've been defrauded in certain ways. And so all of your clients or customers who never had any problem with you because you did exactly what the paper said you were going to do and what you promised at the beginning, you have no problem refunding them if they think you did something. I, I don't want to do that, but if somebody feels that they've been wronged and this is a way to resolve it, if I've done something wrong, then let's make them hold not, not you whole, because if your job is to protect Pennsylvania investors, then do your job. But this, this was, this was total that they, they just threw that out and said, no, we're,

21:50we're not going to accept that why they would, why they, they never justified it. It would seem to me to be, uh, a really good compromise. If there's harm, you would want to or potential harm, you would want to give them the, the opportunity to say, yeah, you know, what I'm not comfortable with this, I'd like my money back. And, but no, they would not have any of it. And as we get into some of the other things they've accused me of and we could, you know, you'll, you'll see that it's really, they're, they're just doing anything they can to apply pressure to, uh, to get the money. It's all about the money for them. It must be because, well, without tax revenue, that's how they pay their salaries and bonuses. We are going to take another quick break. We'll be right back. Ethan, you're known for being the youngest teenager on the real power family radio show on the brushwood media network. You're also known for being quite successful and you're only 15.

22:51How'd you do that? Well, you've always taught me to buy more hard assets faster. And one of those hard assets that I've bought is the real power family silver round from American Gold Exchange. Get your real power family silver rounds by going to AMERgold.com or calling 80613-9323. Welcome back to the real power family radio show. Our guests today are Elliot Goldberg and Allison Daniel. And we are talking today about rights, really, this is what it comes down to. And there are so many government agencies that just think that they can throw out fear tactics or threats and pressure people into doing things, whether it's the right thing to do or not. And Elliot, I think you're spot on. You were offering to do the right thing if someone was hurt, make them whole. But no one was hurt. There wasn't a victim. So there was no reason for any of this to be going on. And the fact that you were being pressured and having to feel all that pressure had to be a terrible situation.

23:53And you said they were accusing you of even more after that? Can you continue your story because I'm fascinated? What I was doing was offering what are called regulation D offerings, which were started in 2012 under Obama for the Jobs Act, which allowed small companies like mine to raise money if they followed certain rules. And what they've tried to accuse me of is not following the rules. And therefore, I do not get the exemption that this law. So any little nitpicky thing they could find, lose my exemption, that's what they went after me on. One of them was that one of the rules and one of my funds was I couldn't do any advertising, which I did not, never made a video, never did anything. All I did is on my LinkedIn page, said in my job description that I was the fund manager

24:54of this particular fund. So they accused me of advertising because it's on my LinkedIn profile that I was the fund manager of this particular fund. No, no, isn't that what LinkedIn is? Isn't that a business social media site where you tell them who you are, what your position is? I mean, literally, that's what LinkedIn is for, for my point of view, is to get my name out there for, you know, who I am, that doesn't seem like advertising to me. No, that's so you can connect with people that do similar things or you may be able to relate to. Right. I've never looked at that as advertising, I've always looked at that as a way to connect with people. You know, if people were to go to my profile, they'd see that I was the manager of this fund, this fund, and this fund. I went to a certain school, I grew up here. And if I, if I decided to post some things, which I did, but none of them were ever

25:58in violation of this particular issue. And that's what they, they accused me of. And they said, because you advertise, you have lost your exemption, and because you've lost your exemption, you're selling unregistered securities in Pennsylvania, and we're going to hit you with X number of violations at, in the beginning, $100,000 apiece, but at the wholesale price of $7,000, so that, that was another one of them. They, they accused me of, in my hearing, I have, I have a, let me give a little background. I have a, I have a fund for accredited investors where I can do advertising. So this is not an issue, but one of the rules for an accredited fund is that you have to get proof from each of your potential noteholders that they are indeed an accredited investor.

27:00They just can't check a box. They have to provide something in writing. Now all, and I'm aware of this, so all of my potential noteholders fill out a form that says, I qualify to be a purchaser of a note from you as an accredited investor, because I have assets of more than $1 million, and here is proof of it, in other words, a cover, sheet of a brokerage statement, a bank statement, they can get a letter from their attorney, they can get a letter from their CPA. There are a number of ways to qualify, can qualify by income, there are a number of ways to do that. I got that for every, or every no-boulder. They, in, in the hearing that I had, they asked me point blank, do you know that you have to, you know, a accredited investor's thing? I said, yes, he said, how did you do that? I said, and this is, this is transcript, this is like public knowledge.

28:01I said, I have them. I said, you never, you never asked me for them, so I didn't provide them to you, you would ask me for everything else under the sun, but you didn't ask for that. And I said, I have them, they said, where do you have them? I said, I have them in my files. Well, the hearing officer decided that he had a discretion to decide if I would have good enough character to take my word for it, even though I was under oath, and he decided that he didn't have to take my word for it, and that somehow I should have provided this. So because of that, I am now in violation, again, of an exemption for my accredited investor fund, and because of that, I've lost my exemption, and because of that, I now have X number of violations $7,000 a piece. But the story goes on, we say, okay, when the next level where we go back to the commission will provide that information to them, which we did, we provided every noteholders information

29:07on accreditation, thank you, and it's very emotional for me, you know, I'm sorry, it's oh, don't apologize, trust me, we get it. And we provide this stuff to the commission, and they decide that they can't take any action because they're going to rely on the hearing officer and his judgment, and that brings up the question, well, why are you there? If you're not going to look at the evidence that's presented to you, why are you there? And obviously, the answer is in their interest to look at that and to acknowledge it would me to hurt their case, and their case that I have to lose the exemption of it from that point of view. They wouldn't even look at your proof of accreditation. Well, it didn't stop there.

30:08The next step in Pennsylvania is to go to a three-judge pal who are, quote, independent, and they did the exact same thing. They said, we do not, we don't feel we have the power to override what somebody else does. To me, it would seem that an appellate court is exactly there to look at the evidence and make some decision. They didn't say it was wrong. They said that we're going to defer to them because they've been obviously doing this for a much longer time than I have, and they knew ahead of time, in my opinion, what was going to happen. So for them, this is just another day at work, and I would imagine most people just settle. So when you don't settle that obviously annoys them, they have to do more work. They don't get their money. These are the incentives that they're working under. So you can understand why they do what they do, but the fact that if you rob the bank,

31:10you're incentive would be to get money, but somehow you have to be accountable for your actions. Hopefully, at some point, they will be accountable for their actions. If any of our listeners think that this is so illogical and unfair, it just smacks of impropriety, this guy's got to be nuts. This couldn't really happen in the United States of America. Let me tell you, I think that way too, or I did until it happened to me, and it makes no sense that they can accuse you of a victimless crime, give you an absolutely outrageous fine. You have to appeal to the people that gave you the fine to see if you can lower the fine. And by the way, the people that gave you the fine, the fine pays their salaries and bonuses. So they have a financial incentive. And then you go to the appeals process, they either are the same people again, or they're a different group that says, well, we can't really overrule the first group.

32:14Well, then what do you hear for? So if you're as confused as Elliot, Lila and I, we're going to take a quick break and maybe Allison can shed some light on this. We'll be right back. Brushwood, media network. Hi, my name is Lila Woolwyn. I'm a part of the real power family. Many people ask us how our kids became financially free before they could drive. My husband, Eric and I wrote the book, Family Success Triangle, to answer that question and to help other families learn the important lessons we taught our kids. This book is available on Amazon or at realpowerfamily.com. Listen to our show, The Real Power Family Radio Show, Monday through Friday at 7 a.m. on the Brushwood Media Network. So your family can learn how to have more financial freedom and time freedom in your life as well. Welcome back to The Real Power Family Radio Show. Today we're talking to Elliot Goldberg and Allison Daniel about the right to a jury trial is really what it comes down to, but Allison, it's more than that. What Elliot's talking about is frustrating and a lot of people would give up and just say, hey, let's settle and get this done.

33:16The problem with that is we're incentivizing them to do it again to the next person. Isn't that correct? Yeah, that's right. And Elliot really explains the problem here and the juries are a check on government power. The government doesn't get to be the investigator prosecutor and, you know, terminor of the sentence. It's to explain the historical background in the United States. Before the American Revolution, the British officials bypass local juries and sent cases to special courts, you know, without juries, especially in tax and trade, these specialized admiral T courts that there was some things to. So the colonists were furious about this because they believed that juries were the community's protection against government abuse. If the government accused you of wrongdoing your neighbors and your community, and not the government, should decide the facts. And the Declaration of Independence even lists the denial of jury trials as one of the crowns

34:17abuses. So when the founders wrote state constitutions and the Bill of Rights, they made jury trials a core protection. And in this case, here's where the Pennsylvania court went wrong. Instead of asking whether securities fraud claims or these material omissions here that they're accusing Elliot Goldberg of making, when they're seeking large punitive penalties that resemble these traditional fraud actions of common law, the court focused on whether this modern security statute itself existed in 1790. And this statute was most of these violations are from the securities act of 1972. So obviously, these particular laws weren't around in 1790, but it treated the fact that securities regulation is statutory as essentially dispositive when that's not the analysis it should have gone through. And it's not the correct historical test. So fraud existed at common law. If somebody cheated you, you could go to a court and say, hey, I was cheated.

35:18I want my money back. I want this person prosecuted. You can get a jury for that. In action seeking money penalties existed at common law, claims in debt existed at common law. I mean, we kind of have fun in the office looking at these like 1,500, 1,600 cases in these English common law cases involving, you know, kind of sometimes obscure maritime issues, for instance, or like dice games and you just kind of imagine what that looked like. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that you don't need a precise one-to-one statutory match from 1790. You look at the substance of the actual claim and not the label. But here, the Pennsylvania court that Elliot Goldberg was before, they said effectively, they allowed the legislature to remove jury trials simply by routing these traditional fraud type claims into the administrative process. And so what that does, it makes the jury right dependent on this legislative drafting. And if that reasoning holds, the jury trial right becomes fragile.

36:19Like any common law action could be converted into like some sort of quote unquote regulatory violation and then assigned to an agency. So you know, the legal here error isn't subtle. The court applied this overly narrow historical inquiry, and treated the statutory labeling as controlling rather than analyzing whether the nature of the claim and these punitive fines placed it within the traditional domain of juries. So that's the constitutional question now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. And it also, just to talk about another issue that were involved in the, Eric, you were talking about big corporations and that they can defend themselves. So ironically, the FCC went after AT&T and Verizon for revealing customer location data. They said it violated the Federal Communications Act. So Verizon sued in the second circuit and the AT&T sued in the fifth circuit and they have conflicting holdings.

37:19And it's now before the US Supreme Court and it's being argued on April 21st. And it's really a follow on to the SEC, the JARCICY decision, you know, as I just discussed earlier in the program, JARCICY held that if you're, if you have these civil monetary fines, you get a jury trial. So now this question is about when do you get that jury trial? You have to go through the whole agency administration proceeding and then get maybe a Genovo trial on the back end. Like when, when is your jury trial rate attached? So the fifth circuit says, Allison, that's important to people like me because that means I might spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers just to get to the jury trial, right? Yeah. That's right. And that's what we're arguing. We're writing in an anarchist brief in support of basically our cases and our clients, but also in support of the fifth circuit's reasoning, which said that you should get a jury trial when the liability is determined. So if maybe in Eliot's case where the hearing officers said, hey, you know, we think that

38:20you're violating these anti-fraud provisions of the Pennsylvania Security Act, they say, okay, well, then take me to court or I'll take you to court and we'll have a, you know, a jury of my peers determine whether or not I've violated these provisions or whether this law makes any sense. And then you get it then you don't have, you maybe pay a lawyer one time versus paying them through an administrative proceeding and then perhaps again on a trial court and an appellate level and beyond. I would imagine you'd want to get most of the, you'd want to get your jury trial done first. Otherwise, everything else is a waste of time, effort, money, like that's the incentive for them to settle. It is. That's how the government goes after us. They say, look, you can get life in jail for the death penalty for something maybe you didn't do or we can find you $14 million for maybe something you didn't do and there were no victims. Or, and this is why we've got people like Allison defending our rights every day because obviously when things happen like this, we need to slam on the wrist.

39:24Yeah. Yeah. And just to let you know what the second circuit said, they said that it's okay because liability is determined in this case by the FCC and then the government can go after and file a collections action in a trial court and then you get your day in court after that. So it's really dependent on what the government does and then in Verizon argued, I think correctly, that they had this judgment against them that maybe is not collectible because the FCC doesn't have an enforcement arm. They have to go through the DOJ to get the funds collected. Look at the reputation damage. I mean, think about if you're a small business, you have like Elliot, if you have this claim against you, you know, it affects, it affects loans perhaps, it affects your customer base and that, you know, even just the thought of them revealing customer location data in this particular instance, who, who wants that liability determined already and then

40:25have to go vindicate their name and court? Yeah. I would like to see more protections for people. I don't like the fact that Elliot's got to go through this. I don't want to go through what she's going through and I am just thrilled that there is something like Pacific Legal Foundation out there that is willing to stand up. I think everybody's afraid to fight the government and the problem with that is if we're not standing up for our rights, the government will trample them. They're, they're, while they are supposed to serve their citizens, if they're going after the citizens to start with, I think it produces more of a problem. And Elliot's, you're right. Their incentive is completely against what is right and more for what is right for them. And that's, that's problematic. Before we take our last break, I just want to point out that there is a significant monetary burden on people that are willing to stand up and Pacific Legal Foundation represents their clients. They represent us without any charge to us.

41:26So if you are not willing and man, do we need more people like Elliot that are willing to stand up for what is right in this world? And they didn't really give him a choice. He was forced into it. If you don't want to be the person in the front, which most of us don't, then at least go check out Pacific Legal Foundation at PacificLeagle.org and you can make a contribution to them. So that's a good thing to do over this break. We'll put that in the show notes, but PacificLeagle.org. And please, make a quick little donation, it really can help out saving our constitutional rights. We'll be back after this break. I am Ethan Walwind from The Real Power Family. My book The Treehouse is a story about a group of teenagers looking for a place to their own with some scrap wood and a lot of help from their friends and neighbors. They built a treehouse relationships and a dream that turned into a business. And a copy of The Treehouse by Ethan Walwind on Amazon today. And don't forget to listen to my family on The Real Power Family Radio Show on The

42:30Brushwood Media Network weekdays at 7am Eastern time. Welcome back to The Real Power Family Radio Show. Today our guests are Elliot Goldberg and Alison Daniel talking about constitutional rights and having to fight the government, which is what Elliot is currently working on now with the help of Pacific Legal Foundation. Again, if you haven't already gone there, go to PacificLeagle.org. You can make a donation there. You can read about the different cases that they're currently fighting on our behalf for our rights. And Elliot, again, I want to thank you because it takes a lot of strength, a lot of mental capacity to be able to stand up and say, no, this isn't right. And I'm going to stand up for my rights. I think it's wonderful what you're doing. Alison, do you need to add anything else into what we're working on now? Do you want to talk about where the case is at or where it's going next? Yeah, sure. Well, I just wanted to say that, again, this isn't just about Elliot. This is hopefully, Elliot is leading the charge here and taking the risk and have his own

43:33skin in the game. But the right to jury trial is one of the oldest protections in Anglo-American law and it exists to prevent exactly the scenario. Right now we are waiting for a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on whether they will hear the case. If they do decide to hear the case, then we will have briefing and then the court will hear oral argument and then make a decision. And after that, we did preserve our seventh amendment and corporation argument for the US Supreme Court. So whether or not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides to hear the case, we will be going on to the US Supreme Court, writing a petition for a writ of surgery to hear this issue. And we think that there's a good chance that they'll take the case. There was a case decided in the fall. They declined surgery in a similar case. It just involves this incorporation of the seventh amendment. It was Morgan v. Humboldt County and Justice Gorsuch wrote a, a, a, concurring opinion

44:39of respecting denial of cert. But in that, you know, denial, he said that this is not the best vehicle. But we're looking, basically, we're looking for a case like this. There's a, early 1900s railroad case where the Supreme Court said that the jury trial right was not incorporated in the States and Justice Gorsuch basically said that we need a case to overturn that and, you know, inviting people like specifically go foundation to file one. So here we are. That's wonderful. Glad. Yes. Thank you for that. I'm so glad that you did. And you had brought up something about, you know, a jury trial. It's kind of a check on the government's powers. And it started that way here in the US back in the late 1700s when we were unhappy with the crown. Wasn't there just a judge that overruled the jury? Do you know anything about that? How can a judge ever rule the jury? Do you know which case I'm talking about?

45:39It was not one. I don't. I know that sometimes they can overrule certain verdicts in a criminal context. So I'm not sure if it's, if you're talking about a civil case. I don't. Yeah. If I all looked that up and talk about it some other time. But it just, there's so many of these things that don't seem like they should be able to happen. I thought that judges had to be, you know, judges and not employees of the system that was finding you and got to keep your money. That it just seems so illogical. How could we have ever let that grow into this behemoth that then controls us through threats and violence? But thanks for pointing this both of you. Yes. Of course, Eric. Okay. What else do you have to say, Allison? Well, that was it. I was just going to just mention one point that what juries practically do. I mean, they decide facts and I worked briefly for a trial court judge where sometimes I had to substitute in for the bailiff to go get the jury. And it was really interesting because you know, sometimes juries get a bad rap.

46:41They're like, oh, you couldn't get out of this, huh? But, you know, and like a half joking way. But, you know, really it is, it is a jury of your peers. And then when you're, you're before you're looking at the, you know, and this was a criminal context in the prosecution of defense, they get strikes that are challenges to certain jury. So it's kind of a competitive pool of your peers. So it's not like all for one side or all for another. There's really a, you know, it's like it's just the most objective and fair way to get process. So to exclude that and to put all that power into one branch, to make that decision, it's just so inherently unfair. And we are hoping to put it into it. On that note before my wife takes over on that note, uh, yeah, I think many of us common people thought, oh, I don't want jury duty. I've got it. At first, I had a college exams and I think I got an exemption because I could miss exam week.

47:42And I never skipped. I wasn't your average college student that didn't go to class. I never missed class. I miss like two classes my senior year for medical school interviews. And then I realized as much as I want to get out of this, this is our duty. It might be a thankless job. Of course, you're not going to make any money. But that is like my children having to mow the yard and do the dishes. That's how they earn the right to live in my home and to earn the right to live in our great country. We need to be there to do jury duty when they call on us. I want my fate if I ever have a jury decided by people that aren't the only ones that couldn't figure out a good excuse to get out of jury duty. I want them to be decided by people like Elliott who has far better things to do than sit there and listen to somebody else's case. But I want somebody with his brain and logical to be there judging me rather than the system. So just a public service announcement. If you get that summons, please, if at all, if you can do it, go and do your civic duty

48:47to help because without us standing up to make the world a better place, who's going to do it? The people that can't figure out how to get out of it? Well, Eric, that was really where I wanted to go with that. But on top of that, life will be what you think it is. So if you think a jury duty is going to be this terrible thing, you won't enjoy it. But if you look at it from the standpoint of, oh, maybe I can bring some logic and insight and I can, you know, be fair in this case. If you go in with the right attitude, not only can you learn a lot, you can actually be that person that's making a positive impact in the world because you're making sure that that is a fair trial. I think it's an important thing to note. And the way we look at it, our mindset's going to make a huge difference in that. Don't you think, Eric? I absolutely do. Now let's go back to Elliott real quickly. We've got about five minutes left. And this, and nobody knows that you don't even know if your Pennsylvania Supreme Court is going to take this case. So I love that Allison Kludeson were teed up that if we can't get a hearing in the Supreme

49:51Court of Pennsylvania, then we absolutely will, well, no, we have a second chance. Now we absolutely, we have a second chance at the federal Supreme Court. And that waiting, man, it's nice for nobody's attacking you and going after you, but you still have stuff hanging over your head. The waiting's pretty awful, isn't it? Well, I tried not to think about it. When you have conversations about it, you think about it. You're always thinking, what can I do to make this situation better? It never leaves you. And first of all, it's really not good for business. I am very, very fortunate that my noteholders have stood by me, have made donations to Pacific Legal on my behalf and have written letters on my behalf. Very grateful for that, beyond the call of duty, in my opinion, it's a small payback for

50:58time and money that has to be wasted for something that could have been resolved had not the monetary incentives not been there. And honestly, just a feeling of vindictiveness, I just feel that you didn't settle with me. I'm going to make your life hell, just because you didn't. And if somebody else sees it, then maybe that'll be an incentive for them to settle with me. Now, what we want in this country, and I firmly believe that, and I've always felt that it's the same amount of energy, but it's a positive thing, instead of negative things, financially, you'd be better off, and mentally, you'd be better off, and that's just how I run my life. Well, I love that you are holding everything together and doing well and the clients that the government is going after you for hurting, are standing up and writing letters on your behalf. That tends to tell me that you are the right type of person that shouldn't win something

52:03like this. And just like you said, the financial incentives for the government to abuse the citizens are far too great. They need to be checked. Lila, Allison, before we close out, do you have anything else you would like to add to wrap it up? I'd just like to thank you guys for having us on, and I think Elliott for standing up to the government here. We can't bring cases without clients, and his could really make history here. Thank you so much for your time and support in all of Pacific Legal Foundation. Elliott, thank you as well. What would you like to say to wrap up? I would like to say that I grew up in this country, I love this country. The more you read history, the more you realize how special it is, and if you, again, like I said before, spending time in a trial in Russia in the 30s is not where we want to be.

53:07I want to thank Allison and Pacific Legal. They've done the human's work, tremedis, and I think ultimately we will prevail. And for those of you that maybe don't have a case like this to bring, understand that this can happen to anyone at any time, and Pacific Legal Foundation is out there working every day to protect our constitutional rights. So even if you don't have a case to bring for them, you can help by donating to PacificLeagle.org. Go to their website, listen to what they've been doing, and help support them. I, one of my heroes is a young lady that grew up when the communists were taking over Russia. And it's so odd that this calendar that my wife makes for us every year. This week's page perfectly describes what Elliot is going through. So a quote from Einran, do not keep silent when your own ideas and values are being attacked. If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the fault of those who keep

54:09silent. We are, we are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. Well, Elliot, you are the person that didn't keep silent. You are the one that stood up and refused to pay them what might as well be termed a bribe and whatever they say you owe and stood for what is right and just in the world. Because if they can walk all over you, then they get emboldened and do it to 10 other people. Thank you for your time. Thank you for standing up. Thanks for the great organization that is Pacific Legal Foundation. It's PacificLegal.org. And thanks to all of the people out there that have helped in some small way, whether they had their own case or sent a contribution or just wrote a letter to Elliot Goldberg or some other person like him that was fighting the fight for us all. Think about that and see what you can do to help make our great country even greater and a world of better place.

55:10We'll be back tomorrow. We hope you enjoyed the Real Power Family Radio Show brought to you by Family Success Triangle. We want you and your family to be financially free so you can go where you want, when you want, with whomever you want. Learn how we can help you live the life you've always dreamed of at realpowerfamily.com. To hear more, subscribe to Real Power Family on YouTube. Until next time, go out and make the world a better place.