it was late morning Uh I'll say between 4:30 5 in the morning I was um sleep All of a sudden I hear a lot of banging Bang Bang Bang In the early morning hours of October 17th 2017 the FBI raided the wrong house containing a completely innocent family This is not you know some dinged up apartment somewhere in the middle of a city This is a nice house with a nice manicured yard and a garage and uh landscaping and everything that you'd expect in your sort of suburban uh neighborhood And so it's definitely not the kind of place you might be picturing if I'm telling you hey the FBI was trying to raid a drug dealer's house and they missed it by a block and raided an innocent family Gab's across the hall hiding under his sheets while FBI agents have assault rifles pointed at him a seven-year-old They're telling him to keep his hands up They're telling everyone to shut up the the guns that was all in my it was like two guns put in my face at like one time I remember being on the floor and I'm looking up to see what's going on and I see a bunch of like automatic weapons pointed at me and I'm like "Oh man." They ask him what his address is He tells him his address and then just like that the FBI just goes quiet Uh so when they realized they had the wrong house it was no remorse It was just like "Everybody rally up and let's just go to the right house." As all the lights are flashing and stuff you can see the light uh reflecting off the reflective numbers on the mailbox in the officer's body cam So it's not like they would have had to move plants out of the way or getting into a particularly dangerous situation to see the address They just had to look The FBI refused to take responsibility When the family tried to sue the courts gave the FBI complete immunity Now after almost 8 years of litigation their attorney Patrick Jakamo of the Institute for Justice is going to argue their case this case before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday of next week The stakes are high If he loses we all lose because the FBI the ATF Postal Inspection Service the IRS whoever federal police officers can violate your constitutional rights all day long because they will have a constitutionfree bubble around them and there's nothing you can do about it You cannot sue them But thankfully we have this world-class national nonprofit law firm who represents this family and many other families at no cost These cases can cost millions of dollars The J needs our help If you can please use the donation link below to help fund this fight for our constitutional rights All of these agents right now are kind of walking around with a little constitutionfree bubble around them And if we are successful in this case we'll be able to pop that bubble As both a content creator and a lawyer I can assure you that your private data is being collected and traded online by shady data brokers who then create shadow profiles on you that include a frightening amount of personal information Your private information is then used without your knowledge or your consent by businesses banks and the government That's why I use a product called Incogn that not only tracks down the data brokers that have your information but they also have that information and private data completely removed Even for me it would take hundreds of hours of my time to do this by myself Instead Incogn just does it for me working continuously in the background I basically just check it from time to time to see how much data they found and then remove As of today Incogn has located my private information with 533 different data brokers And to date they've had that data deleted with 493 of those data brokers with 40 others still in progress And now you can get an extra level of protection with Incogn's custom removals feature in the unlimited plan and the family unlimited plan You can point to any website where your personal information is publicly visible and one of their privacy agents will get it removed So check out Incogn using the link below or go to incogn.com/sivil to get an exclusive 60% off That's incogn.com/sivil and use code civil or click the link below to take your personal data off the market Now let's get back to the video You may remember Patrick Jakamo from some of my other videos not the least of which was the family court judge search case He was the one who argued that case successfully before the fourth circuit I got to watch his argument there in person and it was impressive In 2020 now former West Virginia family court judge Louise Goldston led the search and seizure of property in my client's private home over his strenuous objection and repeatedly threw threats to have him arrested if he did not allow the search party to conduct the search that it did I really do think he's one of the best civil rights lawyers in the nation He generously took a break from preparing for these Supreme Court arguments to give us the inside details prior to the big argument on Tuesday What was this family's experience when in 2017 the FBI in the middle of the night raids her home Yeah I mean I think this is one of those situations that we all feel like we can empathize with to some degree because we've watched movies about police raiding homes but I don't think you can really put yourself in the shoes of someone and how truly terrifying it is to be you know awakened by some horrifyingly loud explosions and men running into the house with guns and black tactical gear and shouting and screaming and just the uh the sort of complete confusion that you would have waking up to this happening And so that's what happened to the Martin family So we have uh Trina and her then partner Toy and then Trina's seven-year-old son Gabe And so in addition to just the fear and trauma of you know literally flashbang grenades the door being kicked in screaming you not knowing that it's even police because whether they said they were or not you were asleep you're now half naked um trying to figure out what's going on as a mother Uh Trina's trying to rush to her seven-year-old son Gab's room who's hiding under the sheets and Toy as you know the protector of the family is pulling Trina into the walk-in closet um where the guns are to protect themselves from whatever is going on For me on my side I basically just heard a loud bang I was asleep The bang was so loud and so abrupt I just remember landing on my feet out of the bed It startled me Um I remember landing on my feet looking around trying to but just negative stuff So immediately that's what came uh to my brain Uh someone had broken into the house and I need to protect everyone Um and so all of this is just complete chaos completely terrifying It's happening within a split second and you're making all these decisions or you're trying to And so Trina is deciding do I go with do I go to Gabe Do I get do I let myself be pulled into the closet with Toy Now we're in the closet Toyy's deciding do I grab the gun Trina's deciding should we grab the guns At that time we were in the closet He the door was closed He was um reaching for his gun at the time because we thought someone was breaking into the home Um thankfully here no guns were grabbed and I think and Trina and Toy will both tell you that if they had grabbed the guns they would have been killed because shortly thereafter the FBI does burst in So they pulled me out of the closet walked me through the um bathroom and then they threw me on the floor in the bedroom I remember being on the floor and I'm looking up to see what's going on and I see a bunch of like automatic weapons pointed at me and I'm like "Oh man I was 7 years old when the raid happened The the guns that was all in my it was like two guns pointed in my face at like one time." So I I was just really just nervous That was that was my main focus Like I didn't want to get killed That you know my safety came first at that moment So yeah at some point it becomes clear enough that it's the FBI and not just some burglars that that was kind of the initial emotional reaction here Meanwhile Gab's across the hall hiding under his sheets while FBI agents have assault rifles pointed at him a seven-year-old They're telling him to keep his hands up They're telling everyone to shut up Um they're interrogating Toy now He's handcuffed on the floor Obviously you're everyone's in night clothes Trina's wearing just the t-shirt This is all just something that you really can't understand what it would be like to be under the stress of this momentary situation of the most visceral fear that you could ever imagine They're shouting questions at Toy The They ask him what his address is He tells him his address and then just like that the FBI just goes quiet because they realize now they kicked in the wrong door in suburban Atlanta in a nice house in a nice neighborhood Um that's another thing that I think is important for people to be able to empathize with this is this is not you know some dinged up apartment somewhere in the middle of a city This is a nice house with a nice manicured yard and a garage and uh landscaping and everything that you'd expect in your sort of suburban uh neighborhood And so it's definitely not the kind of place you might be picturing if I'm telling you hey the FBI was trying to raid a drug dealer's house and they missed it by a block and raided an innocent family Uh not that that would excuse their behavior but it's just all the more um inexcusable here Uh so when they realized they had the wrong house it was no remorse It was just like everybody rally up and let's just go to the right house I guess the uh officer in charge he came back and he apologized and um left me with his card This is a situation where literally and this keeps happening This is we have a whole spate of IG cases where police go to the wrong house and usually the reason they went to the wrong house is because they never bother to check the address that's posted on the house or in this case on the mailbox before they decide to kick in the door And I just have never been able to understand why that would make sense even from the perspective of law enforcement's own safety Um but it's certainly something we would should expect more from police executing a search warrant than we expect from Door Dash delivering Chinese food And yet the courts basically treat the police with less accountability than you'd expect uh from Door Dash who you'd demand to get a refund from What mistakes were made here by the FBI that led them to the completely wrong house Yeah So here uh what the FBI ultimately said as far as how they ended up at the wrong address was that the lead uh the lead officer for the SWAT team said that he put into his personal GPS the correct address but then it took them to the wrong address and instead of checking again the clearly posted mailbox uh with the number they just went ahead and went in Now I don't know if you believe that Uh I'm very skeptical and I'll tell you that in this case once the lawsuit was filed and that GPS device was demanded through discovery the officer had conveniently thrown it away after the incident and so there was no opportunity to recreate what he claims to have happened here But in any event I think it's again takes us back to the scenario of delivering a pizza where of course you might follow your GPS to a house but even before you'd get out of your car to walk up to the front door and drop it off you'd check and see if you could spot the house number And here you definitely could And we we only have body cam from the Atlanta Police Department that showed up after the fact and actually sort of chatted with the family and said "Yeah we knew that they were do serving warrants today but we knew that this house wasn't the right one." And you have the body cam from them You don't have it from any of the FBI agents And there you can just see like as all the lights are flashing and stuff you can see the light uh reflecting off the reflective numbers on the mailbox in the officer's body cam So it's not like they would have had to move plants out of the way or getting into a particularly dangerous situation to see the address They just had to look and they couldn't even do that before they decided to to execute this warrant Now the legal issue here is not qualified immunity which applies to state and local officers 80 years ago Congress created a statute allowing citizens to sue federal employees who cause us personal injuries or property damage It's called the Federal TOR Claims Act Then in 1973 when the war on drugs began and federal cops started busting into people's homes without warrants Really not a whole lot different than what happened to this family here Congress amended that statute to make sure that it specifically would apply in a wrong house raid situation I will link Patrick's full brief to the US Supreme Court but it's crazy in the weeds highly complicated and actually Patrick does a great job of summarizing it here So the Supreme Court is deciding whether the Federal Tour Claims Act allows Trina's family to sue over the FBI rating their home mistakenly Can you just briefly sort of describe or explain what the Federal Tor claims act is and why the 11th Circuit's ruling basically blocks that lawsuit and what problem does that pose for victims of federal misconduct Yeah So I I I kind of want to start at the big picture level and say without really meaning to at the Institute for Justice we just accumulated three wrong house raid cases at the same time over about a six-month period a year or two ago And it wasn't a specific issue that we had been focused on and we became focused on it because we saw wow like what are the odds that these three cases all pop up in different uh places in the country with different legal issues And in every single case there's been some judicially created doctrine that's precluded the victims from having a remedy And here because you're dealing with federal officers you have to fight a very different battle in the form of finding a cause of action at all So in those other cases you have a statute called section 1983 that allows you to sue official officials who act under color of state law But when you're dealing with officers who act under color of federal law there's no statute And so the last thread of accountability for federal police is in a provision of the statute called the federal tort claims act that says that you can sue federal police if they commit one of six enumerated intentional tors And intentional tors are just sort of harms that someone's intentional action creates So if you think assault battery false imprisonment uh false arrest those are intentional tors They're the ones that are listed here in the statute If a federal officer commits those tors there's a statute that says you can actually sue him And so this is again the last thread of federal accountability And contrary to what the Supreme Court has said with the BIM stuff where they said oh it's not the role of the judiciary to imply cause of action under the constitution we need a statute We don't have to worry about that here because Congress did pass a statute And in fact the statute was amended in the 1970s during the war on drugs when the Nixon administration's drug agents were kind of going a little bit too nuts and kicking down doors to find hippies because they did some wrong house raids pursuant to that in Collinsville Illinois outside of St Louis Congress got whipped up because there was a ton of media attention on these wrong house raids and they amended this the Federal Tor claims act to allow you to bring these claims against federal officers And so that's the backdrop of where we are And so this case is the case from Collinsville This is the quintessential case This is the case that caused Congress to amend this statute and go through all the effort that that takes And nevertheless when the Martin family brings it the government which is always represented by the Department of Justice in these cases says "Oh actually there's another exception to that act that applies and it precludes you from bringing what is essentially the case Congress amended the FTCA to uh to to allow And so what the 11th Circuit fundamentally did was say "We're going to protect Congress from its own decisions where it waved its sovereign immunity and accepted liability here because we think that there should be protections for the government in this case um even though the FBI raided the wrong house." And so really what we're arguing about is whether sovereign immunity comes in here despite the fact that Congress said it shouldn't Is the government claiming that sovereign immunity protects it from these lawsuits Yes So the government here is saying "You just can't sue us It doesn't matter what happened in your case We have sovereign immunity and so you can't touch us in our courts." And the argument is simple which is this is a claim brought under a federal statute the Federal TOR Claims Act And for that reason the supremacy clause can't restrict it because the supremacy clause is supposed to make sure that when they conflict in the right settings federal law overcomes state law But here we're dealing only with federal law even though the FTCA is drawing on state to principles And so that's the first thing no supremacy clause It makes no sense to apply the supremacy clause to a federal statute Now the second thing this is where the government's arguments really uh make the rubber meet the road is that they say okay sure you have this law enforcement proviso and sure it sounds exactly like your case but there's this other exception in the FTCA called the discretionary function exception and it says that if someone's performing a discretionary function there's no cause of action under the FTCA and sovereign immunity protects us and because the courts have never quite figured out what the heck discretionary function is supposed to mean in the past 80 years this court should just allow that exception to swallow this affirmative statement that law enforcement officers can be sued that was enacted by Congress 30 years after that So our position of course is no this discretionary function exception doesn't cover this sort of behavior and I won't get into that because it's very very in the weeds but two and this is much easier to understand the law enforcement proviso is very clear It says exactly what claims you're allowed to bring and these are those claims It was decided 30 years after the FTCA's discretionary function exception was enacted And so that's the thing that should carry the day And another thing that makes this case unique is of course we're often arguing against the actions of Congress at the Institute for Justice because those actions can frequently be unconstitutional But here we actually have them behind us And we actually also have despite the polarized times that we live in an amicus brief that's signed by eight members of Congress from both parties in both houses including uh including Raphael Waro on the Democrat side and Rand Paul on the Republican side And so this is a situation where we go into the Supreme Court and say "Look we're here The language Congress enacted is clear And if you don't believe us we got Raphael Waro and Rand Paul to agree on something and to take the effort to put it in writing in a brief and submit it to this court Your brief mentions that wrong house raids are a recurring issue across the country and that they often end up targeting innocent families How does this case Martin versus United States address this basically systemic problem Yes So I think what we talked about a little earlier is that we've found this whole hidden spate of wrong house raids that are taking place across the country and there's simply no remedy that's being provided In fact we just filed a new one in North Carolina where police also raided the wrong house And there are a lot of different reasons why those claims fail And what this case is about is figuring out a way to stop those claims from failing when the wrong house raid is committed by federal officers This case actually is about is less about um wrong house raids and more about federal accountability because the only thing left if if the federal government violates your rights um and you know arrests you illegally or comes into your home without a warrant or anything that you kind of think of as the sort of heartland of of civil rights um discussion There's really nothing you can do at this point outside of the federal claims act is incredibly important today because it's the last vestage of a remedy that anyone in the country has And so the reason why this case is so important and if you ask Trina Toy and Gabe they'll tell you this is if we win this case in what is sort of the easiest scenario possible You have a completely innocent family minding their own business whose house gets raided because the FBI made a gigantic mistake That means that it'll be easier for anyone whose rights are violated by federal police to come into court and have a court adjudicate the the case And so that covers anybody who falls within the definition of federal law enforcement which is broad And of course covers everybody from FBI agents to ATF agents for instance to uh the the enforcement agents of the postal service or the IRS or the DEA All of these agents right now are kind of walking around with a little constitutionfree bubble around them And if we are successful in this case we'll be able to pop that bubble And the other thing that that should communicate to everybody is if we win this case what what the Martins are getting and what all the people across the country whose rights would be violated are getting isn't an automatic payday of some sort It's the ability to have a day in court And when we're dealing with these sorts of immunity and accountability issues that's almost always the thing that you're fighting for It's not even to win If we win in the Supreme Court we'll set good law across the country but we won't win the case at that point What we'll get is an opportunity to have a trial You're arguing in front of nine justices the US Supreme Court next week Do you get nervous about that So this is my second time arguing and the first time I was very nervous Um this time for some reason I haven't been Um and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing Uh I I think one of the benefits of being able to to to do this civil rights work pro bono at the Institute for Justice unlike if I were at a law firm is that once a case gets granted for Cersiari and the court's going to hear it the Institute for Justice takes the legal team and clears the deck from all their other cases And so basically for the last six weeks all I've done is focus on this case and working out the arguments and making the best arguments and preparing for the oral argument through various moot courts that have been um that have been set up internally or externally with various groups of people Uh and so I'm sure the morning of I will still be a little bit nervous in the way that um you know you might be nervous while you're getting ready to play a football game right before kickoff but once the kickoff happens I feel like the rush of adrenaline and the preparation that we spent the last couple months putting in all sort of just become second nature and then we'll get to to to have our argument and that'll be live streamed for anybody who wants to listen next Tuesday at 10 a.m What justices do you think will sort of grill you the hardest and what what's been your strategy for preparing for the kinds of questions that you might get So I think it's hard to say who will grill us the hardest I can expect that it'll probably come from the conservative wing of the court and you know if you just look historically I think you've got justices Alo and Kavanaaugh who are probably the most sympathetic to policing issues Given that we're dealing with um the language of a federal statute I think the grilling will probably be more about the interpretive issues of how this clause applies to that provision and how we should look at the broader statutory context And I think we'll get grilled um from a lot of perspectives on on that front and I think it will still come mostly from the uh the conservative majority although it's it's hard to say I think Justice Kagan could ask some tough questions I suspect that justice excuse me Sotomayor will be kind of more on our side as she was in the Brownback versus King case But the way that you prepare for them is you know you have a lot of people pretend to be those folks and ask you difficult questions and you try to answer them and then you think about after the fact how could I have answered that better or what's the best way to deal with that And you know in some of these moot courts that we hold we're we're being mooted by former clerks of the Supreme Court justices or other practitioners who have recently argued in front of the justices And so they're able to sort of put on the the hats of the justices and and and they're also especially the the clerks they're able to think about you know what are these ancillary issues Of course like I'm focused on how do I win this case for my clients and how do I make the law better for everyone in America but the justices are thinking about all sorts of things that most people aren't uh associating them with because there are tons of cases the court decides that aren't the sort of hot button political cases that we hear about in the news And so they might be thinking okay well Patrick's here talking to me about this uh this case against federal law enforcement officers but maybe I'm worried that if I side with him here it could have some impact on the way we decide administrative procedure cases or the way that we decide you know contract interpretation matters And so the best questions that that kind of come out of I think other people talking to you or probing your arguments are the ones that you're not thinking of because it's sort of outside of the field of vision that you've uh created for yourself And what you don't want to do is end up at the Supreme Court and just get blindsided by a whole line of case law that's sort of analogous to your position and and and difficult to overcome but something you haven't thought about A lot of these stories about wrong house raids you know sort of exposed government abuses to people who never really you know thought about it How has public attention to cases like this through body cam footage or the media How's that helped push for government accountability Also what role can you know our viewers here on YouTube play in supporting this case in particular the spread of body cameras and dashboard cameras and cell phone cameras has been enormously valuable in in this in this arena because I think um it's very easy as I said earlier to imagine something from a movie and think of the good guys and the bad guys and you get to hear but not see from the police after the fact what happened and they'll color things in their favor as we've seen But once you see the the actual footage of what's happening I think it's a lot harder to disregard what's going on and I think it's a lot harder to disregard the trauma of those actions if you see the the body cam footage of a of a of a wrong house raid you're going to have a visceral reaction to that and it's not going to be one that favors the police Um that being said this case is one where there isn't body cam footage because until very recently federal officers didn't use body cams at all and still it's something that's sort of slow to roll out So I would like to see a lot more of that But I think that the that the the use of cameras has really helped everybody because it has similarly allowed police to vindicate themselves when something bad has happened and there have been bad faith actors who rush in and try to say the police did something bad when they actually had a justification The absolutely daily use of violent police raids is something that I think as a society we should revisit for the safety of Americans for the safety of all the residents of this country and for the safety of the police It really makes very little sense in in many of these cases that we deal with that you'd need to kick in the door in the middle of the night even if you thought who was inside the house was some violent drug dealer In many cases it just seems to be much more practical and safe for everyone if you just wait for that person to go to the gas station to buy cigarettes and then arrest them when they're coming out of the gas station or something like that Um and I've I've yet to really get good answers for that I've heard from some prosecutors who've kind of seen the light on this that a lot of the reason why they do these midnight raids is because then you get the people in their um and they're completely um confused in the situation and you can interrogate them in the state of confusion and maybe they'll say things that they wouldn't otherwise say And if you're dealing with the federal officers you have the 101 criminal charges that'll stem from lying to federal officers And so if you get someone in their underwear at 3:00 a.m who just had a gun in their face and you're rapid firing questions at them that they're answering they could say something wrong and now you've got the leverage to to you know do something else if they lie to you or if they say something that's untrue Uh and so I think there's a lot of reasons that it happens but I think once you see the video um it becomes a lot harder to defend what's going on in in many of these instances and and and people on YouTube I think we've gotten a ton of cases uh and a ton of support from people on YouTube seeing that and recognizing that and having that same reaction that I had you know 20 years ago when when Radley Balo was promoting like all these dog shooting incidents And there's stuff that I think you know you you read on paper and it has one impact but when you see it actually happening it's it's a lot harder to disregard or to let go in one ear and come out the other People getting fired up because they're seeing these videos on YouTube people like you who are promoting these issues and explaining to people hey this is every day in a country where we think that we're living you know the freest way that you can live and we can do a lot better as a society by by seeing what's happening and responding to the actual reality Um and so YouTube has been a hugely powerful vehicle for that Sharing videos elsewhere has been a hugely powerful vehicle for that And of course it also gets you know the ability to reach audiences that you might not otherwise reach And as a nonprofit the Institute for Justice runs on donations from more than 10,000 individual contributors And every time I talk to you about these cases and people hear about what's actually happening and see what differences that J can make that we can step in and we can say "Hey look a random practitioner somewhere in the country might not be able to spend a decade fighting the federal government including the US solicitor general to get to the end of the road at the Supreme Court and win But a place like the Institute for Justice can because we're powered by donations from uh people like your viewers and all the other fine donors for the Institute for Justice that allow us to do what we do that allow me to get up every day and help people And I'm so thankful for that But also to allow me to spend the last six weeks focusing exclusively on this case in ways that if I were at a law firm billing by the hour I just wouldn't be able to do because of the opportunity costs And so all these things I think are incredibly important and make possible what we get to do And really fundamentally what we're doing is helping people who deserve the help and doing it in a way that's meant to help thousands or hundreds of thousands of other people across the country You guys haven't charged this family a dime No Oh and that's my favorite thing about working for the Institute for Justice is I used to be at a law firm and I did a lot of good work for a lot of good clients and at the end of the process they would always get a big big bill and uh most of them had no problem paying it but it still didn't feel like I was helping people in the way that I get to now which is I'll spend five or 10 years working in what would otherwise cost you know a million dollars of attorney time I get to say "Nope not a penny I'm gonna take care of it all If you win a big judgment we don't take a penny of that either The only time that we get any money from these cases is if we win attorney's fees and the government has to pay us directly But it's it's an honor to be able to help people and to be able to do it for free because most of our clients could not for a second afford to pay you know fancy lawyers to go to court and argue these cases because it's just incredibly expensive." Yeah And the the briefing in this case is so incredibly complex that I can't even imagine the amount of time that you guys have put into it Yeah I think you know we we just had a Supreme Court case last year that my colleague Anya argued and the process depending on how you do it could itself cost a million dollars if you went to a law firm So especially at the at the level of the Supreme Court there are big shot attorneys who argue these cases that will charge $3,000 an hour to write the brief and to argue the case And it's great not only to beat those people in court but also to do it and never have to charge our clients a single penny um because we have so many generous donors um that are able to help us defay those costs and we keep fighting this fight that we have been since 1991 There's no doubt in my mind that if you guys win this case it will prevent these wrong house raids from happening to some families who are out there right now who otherwise would have the government bust in their house and point machine guns at their at their kids' faces Because right now that's that's why they don't even bo in my opinion that's why they don't even bother to check the mailbox number before they go in because they just have zero accountability and they know it and if they get the wrong house oh well they they just go down the street and get get the next house Yeah I I think that's absolutely right And and the frustrating thing is that right now we live in a world where oftent times the wrong house raid is is something that happens and the victims are left to pick up the pieces And that means like you said that there are a bunch of costs that exist right now And instead of the government the one who could have avoided this mistake paying them the costs are instead placed on the poor people who were doing absolutely nothing wrong and could have done nothing to avoid the situation which I think is the thing that triggers most people the most when they hear cases like this is they think okay well that could happen to me and there's nothing I could do to avoid it I mean there's if you're going to be the victim of a wrong house raid you don't know when it's going to happen You don't know why it's going to happen because the reason it happens is basically chance and negligence And in our society the costs exist The government who's who's who's creating those costs and who's in a position to as you said avoid those costs is the one that should pay for them instead of the random victims in in the way that we expect that our tax dollars are going to pay the sheriff's salary instead of having a lottery every year where one uh unlucky winner is the one who has to pay for the sheriff's salary And so we're trying to get the government to understand that there are those costs and if it's the one that has to pay them it will then take more precautions to make sure that those costs are minimized All right last question When you go up to the podium at the US Supreme Court do you have anything like do you bring a binder with you or do you just like completely go with nothing I'm trying to remember in in the case that we had together if I took anything up there if I take anything it'll probably be a single sheet of paper Um but I might go up there with nothing because I I my observation from doing uh in particular appallet law for the last decade or more is that there's kind of two types of lawyers There's the kind that has to sort of memorize everything and there's the kind that likes to sort of do it um off the cuff And if you're one kind of lawyer doing it the other way tends to be more uh problematic than just doing it your way And I'm a kind of off-the-cuff guy So I I think maybe having a little outline there as a safety blanket is good but also going up with nothing is sort of the burn the boats situation where you just like I know it I've spent the last couple months preparing Um and so I'll I like I said I'll go up there with either a piece of paper or nothing at all And if I have a paper it's probably more so I can just write down notes to remember the questions the justices have asked for the sake of my rebuttal All right man Well I I appreciate you discussing it and I know you got a lot of work to do so I'll let you get back to it Good luck next week I can't wait to to uh to listen to it There is a link to be able to listen to the the audio live Yeah there will be I'm sure will have it on the website the day of and the court itself will And if if you get up next Tuesday morning after 9:00 a.m and just Google Supreme Court argument live I'm sure you'll be able to find a bunch of different streams C-SPAN runs it And if you miss it live of course it'll all be uh recorded for posterity and you can listen at your leisure So I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me that we're thankful that Patrick now I think the foremost authority on the Federal Tour Claims Act is on deck and hopefully ready to hit a home run As I discussed at the beginning of the video this doesn't just happen out of thin air The Institute for Justice is funded by We the People Remember the FBI did not step up here and accept accountability The government through two different administrations has not stepped up and accepted responsibility for raiding a completely innocent family's home We have to be able to sue them when they don't The J has been on top of not just wrong house raids all sorts of first amendment fourth amendment fifth amendment issues representing for free people across the country of all different types in previous cases that the J has handled This actual YouTube audience using my own custom donation link has donated a tremendous amount of money to the cause This is not just talking about it on YouTube This is funding that fight and allowing it to happen Making new law that protects us not the government So if you can please donate The link is below in the description and I'll also put it in the first pinned comment Thanks again also to Incogn for being a great sponsor who joins this mission as well Remember our rights don't end where your fear begins Freedom is scary Deal with it