322- Quiet Power Plays: Fighting Bad Bureaucracy with Julian Raven

We trace how a misclassification by New York’s DEC snowballed into media damage, lost tenants, and a fight to restore due process. Julian shares the legal roadmap he’s using—Article 78, TROs, and FOIL—to check agency overreach and updates his Smithsonian case.

• DEC’s legitimate role versus ideological overreach
• Dry-cleaner chemicals PCE and TCE and migration risk
• Conflicted reports and a 2017 letter that misclassified the property
• Statutory notice requirements and due process failures
• Media rollout without owner notice and tenant fallout
• Article 78 strategy and emergency TRO to halt actions
• FOIL requests and withheld communications
• Institutional inertia and accountability in government
• Smithsonian case update and structural independence
• Practical steps for citizens to document and push back

Check out episode 298 for the Smithsonian Cases

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeLawJhSgnE

Follow Julian at ...

https://smithsoninstitution.com/

https://www.prlog.org/13110258-emergency-court-hearing-set-in-raven-nys-dec-property-rights-battle-alleged-misclassification.html

https://714baldwinstreet.com/

Chapters

• 0:00 Setting The Stage And Guest Intro
• 2:45 The New York DEC Case Emerges
• 5:20 Agencies’ Purpose Vs. Ideology
• 8:05 Contamination History And Dry Cleaner Chemicals
• 13:20 Due Process And Statutory Power
• 17:00 The 2017 Letter And Hostage Feeling
• 21:10 Testing, Media Blitz, And Lost Tenant
• 25:15 Statute Requirements And Notice Failures
• 29:40 Misclassification And Institutional Inertia
• 34:10 FOIL Roadblocks And Article 78 Strategy
• 38:25 TRO Hearing And Attorney General Response
• 43:10 Competence, Errors, And Public Meetings
• 47:30 Civic Grit, Self-Representation, And Faith
• 51:20 Smithsonian Update And Judicial Options
• 56:20 Private Smithsonian, Presidential Limits
• 1:01:00 Takeaways, Citizen Action, And Wrap

Transcript

SPEAKER_02: 0:12

Welcome everyone to politically high tech with your host, Elias. Just because you haven't heard anything in the while doesn't mean it's not happening. You know, a lot of things happen quietly. It's just what the news tells you, or whatever you look in your social media, that's what you're aware of. There's a lot of moving parts of this world that are happening that you're not aware of, okay? And trust me, this legal battle, remember Mr. Julian Raven with his glorious battles. I'm gonna say like that because multiple motions, not just one, against a mighty Smithsonian. Well, it expanded into the state of New York. And trust me, he's gonna provide so much updates. So much updates with that. And then, you know, take this as your I don't know, you take this entertainment if you want to want to be passive, but I recommend you take some notes and get some learning and analysis how the court systems really work, and maybe you can strategize around them. If I was you, I'll take the more active approach with this. So without that, yeah, not much monologues. I know it's a miracle to some of you. Let's welcome back Julian Raven. Alright. And he is, and I'm gonna say this again, he is more American than a good chunk of native-born Americans. This is what we should be doing when we're dealing with systemic injustice. Yeah, I don't want to sound a little woke, but this is systemic injustice with these things that are going on. You know, the the government, they just think they're oh or even some private institutions, they just think they're just better than everybody. They're too big, too mighty, too powerful. And and they got away with it for so long that of course they that attitude just gets worse and worse. They start doing more bizarre and blatant things that eventually a regular person will just say, Well, what just happened? Is that even legal? Yeah. So let's go Julian Raven. He's gonna give us some updates of the Smithsonian. I'm not gonna promise to order because I'm gonna let Julian Raven take, I'll let him use his discretion on that. And of course, the state of New York. Yeah, I mean, yeah, the battlefield's just growing, and I don't know how you can maintain this stamina. Amen to that. So welcome back. Before we get started, what do you want the listeners and the viewers to know about you before we get into this litigacious this legal journey, this legal battlefield, more like it?

SPEAKER_01: 2:41

Well, good evening, Elias, and thank you for having me on. New case, which is against the new New York DEC, and this has been a contingent a contention for nearly ten years as well, and that is 714 BaldwinStreet.com. W.714, the number Baldwin Street S-T-R-E-E-T.com. That's the website to find out all the goodies on the current lawsuit against the New York DEC.

SPEAKER_02: 3:16

Well, look at that. And we're gonna get to some of those litigate so we're gonna get to some of the details here. Why I can't talk. Come on. Come on, Brain. You were so good. Now oversign can get it together. There's your comment section right there. There's your host becoming like Biden, no, not mentally there. Each severely downgraded. Feel free to comment on that. I don't care. To me, it's just lighthearted. Even if you mean it maliciously, I'm gonna treat it like it's lighthearted. The end of the day is how I interpret it, okay? Even though you can spew your venom through the screen. Doesn't make you very tough or smart. But hey, you're titled to do that. That's usually 1A very immaturely, but hey, it's legal. Alright, so let's get to the New York case because I read I was reading this article, and I mean they're doing funny things environmentally. I mean, what's the department? A department of environmental conservation. Oh, how moderate. How moderate. Using left-wing, right wing language and their naming. Yeah, good. I mean, I say that's a little good, I guess. So just sounding far left or far right. And what are defendants? Oh, the governor. And I'm gonna speak pre briefly about the governor. If I think she should tread her, she should tread carefully. She's not very popular. And preliminary polling suggests there's a very tiny chance. I'm gonna emphasize this very tiny chance we could get the next Republican governor. That's how bad she is. So far, Lee Stefan Egg has been polling by two to four points on average on a blue state. Massive blue state at that. That's horrendous. She should be beating her by at least, at least 10 to 15 points. She's not very popular. So I don't know if this is gonna affect her politically. I'm not too sure about that. Unless the news wants to make it a big deal. Hold the powerful to account. You're supposed to do that anyways, but uh someone with partisan hacks, let's be honest. Alright, that's enough of my little commentary with her. And let's see, she's gonna be contentious with the new mayor of New York City, a very progressive young man, Amzora Mandani, and she's already clashing with him in the policy level, so that's gonna be very, very interesting at that. Yeah, so they s well the DEC, the DEC, the Department of Environmental Conservation, they have they have faced they put con they they do controversies as is already already. And they have seized uh a rescue animal that's committed to their sensation. Wow.

SPEAKER_01: 6:09

They've done that a few times. A crocodile, and they did with it, they did it with a 30-year-old crocodile in some guy's garage. He grew he took it and grew it and built a sanctuary in his home for it. And as the rules changed, they kept changing the the goal the goal line for him and then or the goalposts, and then before long, oh you can't have a permit for him anymore, and then we're gonna take him away, and they shipped his his 30-year-old crocodile, they shipped it off to Texas. And then there was the squirrel, which happened to me, peanut the squirrel. That was a big internet news story, and they that's down the street, that's about five miles from me at a sanctuary here. So let me let me just say this first. The DC has a legitimate purpose. It has a sadly a a I think, I believe, a mission that can be easily co-opted by ideologically driven demagogues. And yet at his foundation, the the uh you know an agency of the government that goes after genuine, massive polluters, environmental polluters, that goes after the preservation of wildlife that goes after the preservation of natural spaces, there's lots of legitimate jobs that they have and do. The problem that I've learned is that once it gets under the control, like I said, of ideologues, people whose ideology is or they're even they're virtually bearing on their their faith of their religion is the environment, and they are somewhat obsessed with it, they become very dangerous when they're given that level of statutory power. And I'll get into why that is because my case is a perfect example of where these bureaucrats have, and I don't I'm not gonna get into motive because I do not know that yet. I am digging deep through a current current FOI appeal to get to the behind the scenes activity. But right now what we're dealing with is the following. I'm gonna give it in a summary. I bought a building in 2014, knowing that there was suspected contamination, there was a lot of confusion about the site. There were official DEC reports that I read about the site, and the the reports were full of conflict and inconsistent recommendations. They could not point a finger. They just were like, we don't know this stuff, but we think it's migrated from another property. Because what it is is perk or PCE or TCE are two chemicals that are used in dry cleaning. When you I don't know if you the last time you had a shirt done at a at a at a dry cleaner is it has that chemical smell to it. That's that is that is called TCE. Oh that's PC, that's perk, and it your your clothes are literally washed in a straight chemical. That's why it's called dry cleaning, because there's no water involved, and then they are dry dried in a big dryer, and it still has the odor of the chemical when you when you get it. And you you you air it out in your home, or you air it out, you wear it, you can put the thing straight on, and you put this stuff right on your body. And it's been going on for many, many, many years. And so this chemical, there was a dry cleaner 300 feet east of me, upstream, or upgradient, as far as I'm in a valley, I'm at the bottom of the valley, and upgradient from me was this dry cleaner that years ago had been a massive polluter. You know, before the 90s, the disposal of PCE and TCE was not regulated. So people in these dry cleaners, they would literally dump the stuff out the back door, they would pour it down the drains, the stuff that was spent once the machine had like used up the the liquid, no hand on the power, they would dump it out on the in the backyard. They would just pour it out on the ground. All of the the residue from these machines, they would dump that in the dump, throw it in the trash. So the pollution was was was massive because of there was no regulation and because people were just they had no consciousness of being good stewards of these chemicals. They were irresponsible and they were criminal many times because they had no regard for other people since that chemical concept into the groundwater and eventually into the drinking water. And that happened as a result of other sites. It was part of the reason why this property I'm in, which is my studio, was investigated because in the 90s it was in 2006, they discovered traces of PCE in the water in the wells that are 5,000 feet north of me. And so it's impossible that anything from here traveled upstream because I'm in the downflow of the valley of the river that goes to the main river, it's about a thousand, it's a mile south of me, which is the Shimong River, which is the main river that runs downstream, and then eventually I think it it it goes to the Delaware, if I'm not mistaken. But it's you know, the chemical problem is is a problem. The DC has a legitimate job. What is very important, and this at the point that you made at the introduction about for your listeners to learn and realize is that when the state, for example, when the state gives through the legislature the power to the executive branch of the state to form an agency which can suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Those are the two amendments that deal with property rights. You know, property rights, you can have no unreasonable seizures, or you cannot be deprived of your property in the Fifth Amendment without the due process of law. So those two property rights specifically and the 14th Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, those are specifically what are suspended by the DEC when they begin to take action against a property that they see as a violator, a genuine polluter, a property that they've discovered has somebody has been dumping all this stuff in the ground, it's poisoning the water, there's a genuine threat. All of that is legitimate. And the way that the legislature designed the law, the statutes, is that there are meticulous procedural steps that they have to go through, like dot and you know, dot every I and cross every T because it's only in that way that the state can suspend the Constitution. You think you know what I'm saying? They're saying we're gonna suspend the power of the U.S. Constitution, which is protecting the property owner, and we're gonna be able to go into your property, take over your property, dig up your property, take the soil from your property, dig up the floor of your property, go through the floor. They can do whatever they want. They have massive statutory powers that only work once they have faithfully, diligently obeyed every minute part of the process they have to go through to establish that it's legitimate, there's a legitimate, responsible party, that party is no longer willing to clean it up, that party is technically guilty in this way, and they are now obligated by law to go for the sake of the public and the community, the state is acting on their behalf. Well, good, well done. That's that's that's good government in my mind. But because it suspends the power of the Constitution, it has to be so precise in the way they do it. Can you imagine you're taking away constitutional rights, suspending them while you go and dig up their lawn. So what's happened in my case, and I won't go back too much too much into those details anymore, other than this, after I spoke to the DACDC before I built the building, bought the building, the people that I spoke to were like, well, it's inconclusive basically where you are. I said, Is there any reason why I can't buy the building? They said, nope. And I went ahead and bought it because I knew that if a problem ever developed, the science that I had read in the reports was so contradictory and inconclusive that there were grounds in that data for a lawsuit back then, that's in 2014. So I knew it and I went ahead and purchased it. I didn't hear anything for like 2014, three years, 2017, when I get a letter in the mail, certified letter. And the way that I explained how that felt when I got that letter was I I I woke up that morning, I lived in the country, and I peeked out of the blinds of my bedroom, I looked outside, and my house was surrounded by state troopers. That's what it felt like when I got this letter. They this letter came with such menace and threat. You are this it it accused my building of being a dry cleaner's in Greece, New York, which is 130 miles away. It it called my property a significant, a class two significant threat. All of these things that I was like, what on earth? I I bought this in 2013 with 2014 with the DC telling me, yeah, it was inconclusive. They haven't done any more tests since then because the deal with the D with the DC that I wanted back then was they said we have to complete our tests from the inside of the building. It's a big building, I mean, it's a big warehouse. And they couldn't get inside the building. So I said, okay, well, you indemnify me, I buy the building, you I open the doors, let you guys in, you do your tests, you find out the bad guys, if there are bad guys, you go after the bad guys, and I'm just gonna fix the building up. This building was an eyesore right on the main artery of the city. Upstate New York, as you may know, is full of millions of square feet of abandoned blight. Buildings that are just an eyesore. This was one of the right on the main thoroughfare in the city of Elmira. It'd been like that for years. No one wanted to buy it because there were whispers that, oh, contamination and everyone's afraid. I'm the type of person that's like, I'm gonna read the books, read the law, read what's going on and see if there's a real reason to be afraid. And there wasn't. There was concern, but there wasn't a reason to be, it was good, it was a good excuse to be educated and then to actually make a decision to move forward, which I did. The 2017 letter turned out to be, which is now, I'm now from that time on eight years forward. From that moment, like I said, it felt like a hostage situation under the power of DEC statutory authority. And I just I was like like a hostage I felt. I couldn't do anything. So I didn't do anything. I protested within their system, meaning I didn't do anything legally at the time, but I tried to work with them, I tried to appeal to their reason, I tried to explain all the mis the misunderstandings that they had in their original letter. And there were other things that transpired, and before long, 2018, 2019, things went quiet, and I didn't hear anything more from them. So I didn't push, they stopped pushing. But the like the sword of Damocles was still dangling over my head. They'd written this letter, and it was it was an exercise of statutory power. Again, it was like we this is the first step of us taking control of your property. So that never changed. And they started then drilling and digging in 2020, end of 2020, 2021. I let them do this because I wanted to help them conclude their their testing to actually prove what I believed was the case. Was the original report said there wasn't a source. This was just a uh it was contamination that had drifted or migrated onto the property. So they went ahead with their they they and again under compulsion, basically you let us in or else this is going to be, you know, it just every time was under this duress situation, it felt like. So they did their testing and we got to 2023, 2024, uh, 2023, and sorry, I went to Spain. And before I went to Spain to take care of my mother, I wrote them an email and said, I'm leaving for Spain. They still hadn't got any conclusion. There was no final determination. I said, when you do, when you plan to have your public meeting, you need to tell me. I had someone in the building renting the building at the time. I have a tenant. We're not going to suddenly throw him under the they knew, but we have to respect them and give them time or accept they need to know anything that's going to happen before it happens. And I went to Spain, and then a year later, I get a phone call from a friend of mine, and this was March of this year, March 13th, and he calls me up and he says, Your building was on the news. And I said, Really? They told me that they were going to tell me if there was gonna ha anything was gonna happen. Well, they didn't. They didn't notify me, they just went around my back, they went to the media, and they started brandishing my building this false classification. I was furious. I immediately knew my tenant would probably pack up and leave. Two weeks later he did. He gave me the notice, he says, I'm gone. We came back to the US and the process started because they had basically arranged a public meeting. You want to get mad, Elias? You want to feel like uh how we said at the beginning, the unlawful exercise of statutory power. They they arranged a public meeting, they went to the press, they told everyone, they they said my building's this contamination, blah blah blah blah, which is not true. The level that they said, they never told me. They never told me about the meeting. They were gonna have this meeting. They knew I was in Spain because I had emailed them. They were gonna have this meeting without informing me and telling me. So I was like, you guys are planning a public meeting about digging up my property, and you have not informed the very owner of the property. This goes to what I said to you at the beginning. It's very clear in the statutes, and there's one statute which is called ECL, which is the environmental conservation law of New York State, ECL Section twenty seven thirteen thirteen, three A and four. Those two statutes are meticulously clear. If a designation like the attached to my building is determined, if they conclude that that is the case, they must immediately tell the owner of the property, give them notice by certified mail fifteen days before they do anything public so that the owner of the property has a chance to contest, appeal, dispute their findings before they go and br tell the community, oh your property is a poison to the community. Do you understand that the the detrimental effect that has? They didn't do it. They completely, and that's where I said to you, they cannot to since March 6, 2017, they have assumed statutory authority over my property based on classifying it as a dry cleaner from Greece, New York. They they called it your your your building is the per former perfecto dry cleaners on this much land, and I'm like, no, it's not. And they conflated it with a dry cleaner, another property that's a real polluter in in Greece, New York, man. And then instead of them saying, we're really sorry, we've made a big mistake, you know what they did? They keep going. There is something called institutional inertia that I've learned a lot about in my lawsuit with the Smithsonian and this this institution, where you mentioned it at the beginning, when these institutions begin to move and they have a lot of people or part of this movement, it is very rare that people in the system will say, hold on a second, this is a mistake. They all seem to just get dragged along with the inertia, because I cannot understand how this person persisted in this false classification since 2017. I asked, I started to say, it's either because there is a level of incompetence at the DEC that is stunning because we can't imagine that they are so incompetent and they don't know what they're doing. That's a possibility, and there have been so many mistakes that I think it may be. But again, like I said, I don't know the motive right now. There's a political side to this. As I was in March of 2017, I was right in the middle of my first lawsuit against a Smithsonian. There was a lot of news about it. People in this town were very angry at me. I had the banner at the front of my building, or was complaints to the code office all the time. It was a lot. So I was front and center in March of 2017. I just filed my lawsuit against the Smithsonian. It was all in the news. It was in the news locally. And there is a possibility that this is also a political hatchet job. That there are people in the DC who are politically opposed to me. They might have got a call from somebody local who said, Hey, this guy, we know there's some problem with this building, there's this guy, and he's got a banner up. And I have my banner of my painting that I that Trump painted for seven months on the front of my building, like a 300 square foot banner.

SPEAKER_00: 23:08

And people were so mad.

SPEAKER_01: 23:10

So a lot of people were happy, a lot of people were mad, and and so there is a great possibility that there is a lot of skullduggery going on here. And when I filed my recent FOIL request, which is demanding all of the emails, digital communications, memos, considerations, determinations, anything to do with the classification process that happened prior to them giving me this false classification, even if there is or isn't. I asked for it like two weeks ago. They refused to give it. They wrote back to me and said, we've kept back these emails this certain, we've kept back, they didn't say the amount, but they've kept back because of these laws. One of them was attorney client privilege, we've kept back these emails from and I was like, attorney client privilege, what in the world is this? So I've had to appeal that FOIL request because they have already shown that they're not willing to tell me what's really going on behind the scenes. It is clear, that's why I sued them. It is clear in their oh, see, the lawsuit that I have against them is what's called a Rule 78 lawsuit. It's an expedited, very quick lawsuit against a government a government agent or agency that allows you to demonstrate to the court that they have acted arbitrarily, preciously, they have failed to follow procedure. It's all a technical administrative lawsuit. I'm not going there with any evidence of my own to show them that what they said is not true. I'm going there to show them what you have said is not true because your own documents show that it's not true. Do you understand what I'm saying? That the error is theirs and it's in their documentation. So what we talked about beforehand was the November 19th, it was called an order to show cause hearing. Once the Attorney General got involved, and that's who represents the DEC, they're like, Oh, we need more time, we're very busy, we have holiday schedules, this pathetic, excuse pathetic request for more time that the court was really miffed at. The court took five days to get to respond to them, and they were emailing the court saying, Are you going to consider our request for time? It's pathetic, you should have seen it. It was like the first weakness on their part. But the court, because it's like a courtesy that happens in the legal game, he extended their reply time past November 19th to January the 6th. So immediately I was ready. I filed another claim inside that same lawsuit, which is a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. The same thing that you would file against a neighbor who's trying to kill your dog. You know what I'm saying? It's a mad relative that's like harassing you and turning up at your doorstep every two minutes, and you're like, I need a restraining order on this. It's the same thing, except it's against a government agency. And it's, how can I say, it's going to be, God willing, one of the sweetest things that I've accomplished in my life. DC, the battle that I've had over there for ten years, the courts and the judges have refused all of my motions for hearings. They've never let me go down there and argue my case in person. They've refused, they've denied me motion after motion, and it's it is a it's like a crime of their legal games that have prevented me from acting in DC. This case, right here in the Supreme Court of New York, it's down the street from me, it's about 500 yards, I've got an emergency temporary restraining order November 14th, this coming Friday, 10 a.m. You can come up here if you like. You come up if you're not doing anything, or your visitors, you can come up here, these guests, and come to this hearing and see what's going to go on. But I hope, by the grace of God, I am very the only thing will be some legal game that they play that they manage to slither out like a snake, which is always possible. But I think it's not because the documentation is so watertight, but they are gonna get some handcuffs put on them and they're gonna have to sit in the naughty chair under a temporary restraining order until January the 6th. What it says is basically the DC, you can't do anything. All of your seizure of authority, statutory authority and power over Mr. Raven, his property, all of your plans, all of your email, any any everything stops until January the 6th, until we determine the origin uh order to show cause. And that is where we stand today. I filed last night my response to the Attorney General. His response was an insult to law. His response was a dishonorable response. I call it that in my response to his response. This is it was he has no arguments, he has no rebuttal. It was just it was a joke. And if you're interested, you need to go to 714Baldwin Street dot com and go to the Raven versus NYC NYSDEC tab and scroll down, and you can see the di the D the Attorney General's response, and beneath it you can see my response, which is brutal. And I took apart his response word by word, fallacious, disingenuous, evasive, dishonorable response that they wrote in defense of their corrupt partners. And this is it's such a disgrace for the Attorney General. And when they're acting lawfully, yeah, they're protecting New Yorkers from like bad actors when it comes to pollution. I'm not one. It's all the errors are in their in their field, and this is where they should have the honor and the decency to say, you know what, you guys really blow you guys really blew it. And they should throw their colleagues under the bus instead of saying we're going to defend them with all of this smoke screen and all of this dishonorable arguments when they never addressed a single point in my in my cli. I mean it's just it's an embarrassment. And my reply was so meticulous and precise that I hope and I believe if I was that man, I would resign and not f not come out of disgrace because the disgrace that one can that he should experience because of the way that he behaved would cause any honorable person to resign, or if not, to go to his boss and say, This is out of my hands, I've made a mistake here, I need to have someone else take care of it because I can't do this, if that's his way to save his skin. But if he turns up, it'll be like somebody slithering into that snake, into that courtroom on his belly. That's what it's going to be like.

SPEAKER_02: 29:51

Wow. Listeners and viewers, I hope you was paying attention to that. This is such a fascinating story. They don't even know what is going on. Going on, they have inconclusive, contradicting ports, and yet they're attacking you like you're the villain. Oh, yeah, you're you're this, and they went behind your back. You did everything right. They this is yeah, and they they told the media, oh, this is a contaminated site, blah, blah, blah. For free, correct me if I'm wrong on the details. In a media press, it was just to let you know. No, no, no. That yeah, I wouldn't talk about it.

SPEAKER_01: 30:26

It's outrageous. It's outright. And you know what's really outrageous? The 2013, it's called the company is called MACTEC, a big geological company that did the research. Their report being completely inconclusive, at the end of it, in the summary, it had like seven points, all recommending you need to do that, we need to do this, this. It's all un unresolved. It's all inconclusive. They re and so rather than complete the testing, I got that letter on March the 6th, 2017, saying it's a significant threat. It's this, it's the and and I was like, they didn't even complete the tests that they were recommended by the by the very own organization they hired to do the report that told them to complete the testing, they didn't do that. And it's it's this is what I'm saying, it's bizarre. It's like, is this incompetence? Is this just people that are just illiterate or stupid? Or are they overworked and they've got hundreds of properties? Because that's a possibility too, because when he confused my property with the Profecto Dry Cleaners in Greece, New York, they their their paperwork that was issued to them happened in the same month. I have the documents that show it was in March of 2017. So there is a possibility that these things were open on his desk on you know what I'm saying, and they got conf they got mixed up. There's a possibility. Or there's a possibility that this guy was had some uh uh animus and said, we're just gonna slap this name on here. Uh, you know, I I don't know because I can't think like that. I just I can't believe someone would do that. But they could've. So I don't I don't know the answer motivationally right now, Elias. I just have the facts, and the fact pattern paints a devastating picture.

SPEAKER_02: 32:10

Yeah, they can't even get uh the story straight. I mean, that's sure it could be uh administrative error, yeah. You know, some of them were overworked and they you know mixing up. Yeah, I mean that's uh I would say that's a more yeah, that could be sadly, you know, that could be sadly the case. But instead of just introspect or say, oh, we actually made a mistake, yeah, because they used to identify you as that dry cleaner. That should be the main suspect, mind you.

SPEAKER_01: 32:35

Now they don't identify as me, but now they identify me as the classification that that dry cleaner had, which is called a class two significant threat classification. So they kept the classification without completing the reports. It's insane. Now, the other thing you want to say about level of incompetence, when they find with about that public meeting, and I I like was like, you've got to be kidding, they canceled the public meeting because now I turn up and I'm like, what are you doing? You guys told me you were gonna let me know you didn't, and they're like, oh, we made a mistake. I'm a new employee here. So I got I've got an email from them saying, I'm a new employee and I made a mistake. So you made a mistake of this magnitude dealing with statutory authority where you are suspending the the constitutional rights of a citizen of New York and of the United States. It's such amateur hour. But it might be only that because when I went to the meeting a month later and I walk into the meeting with my son, on the it was in a library, they had like a like a whiteboard with one of those sort of wipey boards, and they had like the the DC's meeting, their public meeting. They had the address to my building wrong. They had it as 723 or 24 Baldwin Street. They had the meeting the the the address completely wrong. So I said, are we talking about another property today? I said, and they they were like, oh, we're sorry. We so you so so you can make a mistake on the actual address of the property at the public meeting? I mean, that's like this is amateur hour. And there were six DC officials there. There were four people from the public. There were more DC officials there than there were members of the public. That's how interested the public was. It was my son and myself and two neighbors who I don't know who they were. So it's very bizarre, Elias. It's very sad. Um it's very sad because they they seem to have complete disregard to any sort of adherents wanting to adhere to the Constitution. It's as if they're like, we have the power, we're just gonna steamroll, we don't care who gets in the way, and if they we we crush a few people on the way and they don't complain, good. If they complain, whatever. I I don't know. I can't understand that there is such an irreverence for the property rights of somebody like myself.

SPEAKER_02: 34:52

So far, I'm I'm this is just listen to me carefully, listeners of you. This is just my opinion, pure speculation here. You know, I'm just making it pure speculation here. Allegedly, if you want to throw it in there. It could be the mid big administrative error, but instead of owing up to it, they're high on their own ego and power trip.

SPEAKER_03: 35:11

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 35:12

You know, allegedly. Yeah, allegedly. So but that that's what I think. And it but thing is that that will just it will piss me off. Yeah, I go through this fight and they they got your address wrong. Numero not more than once already, basically. Three times. Oh yeah. So yeah, no, it's they don't even they don't even got the fundamental facts, they don't even know what their own foundation story is.

SPEAKER_01: 35:36

I just I can't it it's it makes me bang my head against the wall, like, what are you guys doing? You you you want to hear another one? The the attorney general who's he re he rep it's it's an assistant attorney general in the D in the environmental department of the Attorney General's office, Letitia James, it's in her office. He made so many mistakes in his response, and one of them was a compounding injury against me, where the DC themselves, where this is how how messed up they are. In their letters of threat, they issued me another one in September, they call me as a classification, and this again is an unproven, unprocessed, unappealed classification. They just call me a PRP, which is it it said it is like a PERP, right? It's not a PERP. The PRP is a potentially responsible person. And they're so stupid because when I contested their letter, I said, you're calling me a potentially responsible person, and yet three paragraphs down, you're threatening me with statutory authority to clean up this site when you're admitting that I'm just potentially responsible. So how does that work? You know, you have to be a responsible party to be forced to do that. They don't even get that right, but then get this. The attorney general made such a mistake in his briefing that his own response is now evidence against them in my follow-up. He calls me a responsible party in his attorney general official response. So without due process, without a hearing, without the opposition, the opportunity to appeal and to refuse the determination, he's now he's twisted the classification. My my property was misclassified. I have been misclassified, not just by the DC, now by the attorney general. He called me responsible. And I said in my response, I said, the DC didn't even call me responsible. They called me potentially responsible. It's like get get a get a grip, man. It's so it's pathetic, Elias. It's absolutely pathetic. It's embarrassing. It's absolutely embarrassing that these people hold these esteemed uh uh offices and they act like such buffoons. It's not even funny, man.

SPEAKER_02: 37:48

And the worst thing that pisses me off, this is tax dollars at work here.

SPEAKER_03: 37:55

This is that's the worst part. I mean, what the hell is going on, my New York State tax dollars at work? What the hell? No, I can't be trying to be.

SPEAKER_01: 38:10

Oh god, it's so terrible, man. So patho. This is I thought they I thought they were cosplayers.

SPEAKER_02: 38:16

This is how buffoonish they were. You know, I I will laugh. This was just a whole prank. You know, I would just laugh if that was the case. Wow, what a twist. Oh man. But it became kind of no, but I I doubt that. Let's I mean, oh my no, no, no. I mean, wow. This is why you need to study, know your stuff, people, because institutions will come up with such factually wrong. And I know, and I know Julian Raven enough already that he is meticulous. He documents things to the most minute, iortic detail.

SPEAKER_01: 38:52

And you have to, Elias, that's such an important point for the American citizen, for the New York citizen. We have to arm ourselves with the facts because when you don't, you are so powerless against the natural esteem that we give to an organization like that. You know, with the if the if the state comes, I'm a person that gives de great deference, I have great respon respect for authority. I have great respect, you know, as a Christian, you know, it's it's a it's a posture you have this is the state of New York, you know, this is the attorney general. It's like I want to sort of like, you know, give him a bow of of recognition. And then they behave like these, like buffoons. You're like, oh God, this is just this is unbelievable. And your only defense at that time is you either have a lot of money and you have very good lawyers, which I'm not that person. I am my own representation. That is my my blessing in this country that gives us the freedom to do this. It's the greatest thing about this country, I believe. That the the citizen can arm himself with the facts and redress his own government individually. That is the you can only do that in very few places on earth. The the rest of the world is completely as we're talking about problems here, the west of the rest of the world is worse. So if you don't know the facts, you are so vulnerable to excess and abuse, and you have no recourse. You're just like, you're gonna be meat in their grinder. And I refuse to be meat in their grinder. Refuse.

SPEAKER_02: 40:19

You want to be the screw that disrupts the system and poof their track. That's really, you know, like screw them. There you go, pun intended. There you go.

SPEAKER_03: 40:28

There you go.

SPEAKER_02: 40:29

I'm proud of myself there. No, but you know what, the speed this up. This is gonna be released at the night of my birthday, ironically. Thursday night. So it'll be last minute, get up there. I wish I could be there, my goodness, but I I I can't, but I will be cheering you on. And if the court thing goes on, I'll probably join, I'll join us, I'll see events, because definitely at 2026, my schedule should be more open. So God willing on that, or maybe even sooner, you know, God works in mysterious ways. Who knows? I can't even say, I know for sure. So let me just be a real humble Christian there because sometimes you can just God could work super fast or super slow depending on the trial. That happens. So, you know, as Christians, God believers, I'm just gonna just cook God believers, they have broadened up. You know, God works in mysterious ways, and we don't always understand it. But once uh once the plan comes to fruition, it it's perfect. Easier said than done. Trust me, this New York mind combats it sometimes. Can it be any faster, God? Come on, hurry up, hurry, hurry up. Let's be real. The flesh is anxious, the flesh is mentally ill, the flesh is all these things, okay? Let's just be honest. Um, so yeah. I sidetrack a little bit of spirituality, but it's very, very important, people. Um yeah, no, keep up that that that good fight, really. Just keep keep it up and shoot.

SPEAKER_01: 41:56

Yeah, let me give you a quick update on the Smithsonian, real quick.

SPEAKER_02: 41:59

Oh, yeah, yeah. I almost forgot about that. I was already so caught up with New York state buffoonery that, oh god, yeah, oh yeah, provide us some updates.

SPEAKER_01: 42:08

I'll give you a quick update. My New York case, which is pending, still has been slowed down because of the government shutdown. They've added the amount of days to the government was shut down to any time briefing that the DOJ Department of Justice had to reply to my preliminary injunction that's going on in the DC federal court, in the district court for the District of Columbia. Now, once again, before Judge Trevor McFadden, who was the same judge in the first case in 2018, my first motion that I filed is that he, I filed it in the original case that was closed. I filed it that they would reopen the case, which they did, and it's a it's a motion to vacate the judgment. There is a rule 60b where a judge can look at a ruling, whether he did it or someone else did it, and say that ruling, because of new extraordinary circumstances or evidence, that ruling is completely bogus, and he can vacate the judgment. So my motion, based upon what happened this year in May and June of 2025, I have argued, again, I believe it's watertight, that he must vacate that judgment, and then the other three motions are in the current case, that one of them is that then the judge takes notice of that other case, and it's a way that you cause the judge's gaze to now look at the other case while he's in this case, and he brings the issues that he vacated the judgment on, he brings them into this new case. So that he brings the error that was bad that he made, he brings it now as an opportunity into this new case that he can fix it all and to rule correctly finally. The other motion then is the number two is a motion for them to him. I believe it's the motion to compel that, if I'm not mistaken, and the third motion was a motion of recusal that he I'm giving him a pathway that he can redeem himself and the record and actually make a right ruling. And if he doesn't, the third motion is to recuse himself and to say, I have too much invested in this case. If he denies me the rec the vacation on the the vacateur on the 2018 case, he needs to recuse himself and get off this case because there's no way that he can honestly, unbiasedly rule again in my case when he's already made such a mess of the first case. So it's either vacate the case, bring it into the new case, judge the whole thing anew, and come to a right conclusion, or recuse yourself. And that's the the pathway that I've given him. And let's see, and that's gonna happen soon because the government's back in business. We might have to wait now another 30 days. It might be now we might be into December, and then it might be January by the time we hear from it. But we're gonna hear very soon the DOJ's response to my response to their response, and then it's the judge who's gonna come back and give a final determination that's gonna be very, very interesting. So we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_02: 45:16

Yeah, look at that. Good stuff. Look at that. The govern the government shut down, essentially stall this case for the most part. I don't know. I mean, in a way, if I'm gonna be optimistic, you'd be break just to I don't know, take a breather, I guess. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. That's you you you you have you have you know more credibility on that.

SPEAKER_01: 45:39

It gives it gives more time for the judge to think about it, which is good. He's gotta really realize this because this judge was a baby judge when he judged my case. It was like his second case. He was 37 years old, newly appointed to the bench. He didn't know what he was doing. He did not know his j his ruling is an embarrassment to law, and now he has a chance. Now, eight years later, he's grown up, obviously. He's uh he's been uh you know acting as a judge for eight years. He can then say, you know what, I gotta fix this because my legacy, my future's involved, and this thing's attached to it, and it's all in the news, and people know about it, and it's like if this really gets really big, if he appeals this again, which he's probably gonna do if I deny him, he's gonna go and which I'll do, I'll appeal it to the the uh Circuit Court of Appeals and I'll go to the Supreme Court again. We he he's on the docket for being the same judge who made this terrible mistake. So he has a chance now to do it right and to actually say, no, this the I made a mistake and I'm gonna fix it. That that would be an honorable man if he did that.

SPEAKER_02: 46:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 46:41

When you when you have to address the judge as your honor, we are hoping that they are honorable men and women. Women and honorable people will do the right thing regardless of the cost that it is.

SPEAKER_02: 46:53

Yeah, well let's see, yeah, let's see. Either he'll be a much better judge, more mature, experienced judge, because you already say he was a baby judge.

SPEAKER_01: 47:01

Yeah, he he should be more experienced by now, probably wiser, yeah, probably more clear-headed, instead of his he might hire he might have his eyes on the Supreme Court, and he might be hoping to get the bump up to the Supreme Court, and he's gonna want to have a real record of some judicial honesty and integrity. That would be something. So we'll see. You never know. He could be like right, he could have changed his whole posture and it could all fall my way. It really could. Or he can be the same old stubborn, proud person who has no humility to recognize this. It's such a glaring mistake, man. It's such an embarrassment. It's such an embarrassment. It's so clear. The case, you know, what happened in June of this year, it's so clear because everything that he said in his ruling, all the Smithsonians of the government through and through, it all fell apart this year when the president tried when listen, the president tried to fire Kim Sayet, the woman who was the primary defendant in my case before that judge. The president of the United States said, Oh, she's fired like this, and guess what she did the next day? She went back to work. She completely defied him. Why? Because he had no authority to fire her. The president has and why is that? Because the Smithsonian is a private institution. It's like the president trying to fire a pastor of a church. It's like, what are you doing? You got you have no authority here. And and here's the judge saying, Oh, the Smithsonian is the government through and through. And I said, Well, here's the example of the president of the United States firing this woman, and she goes back to work the next day. And the the Board of Regents, the Smithsonian Board of Regents, meets like two weeks later, June 9th, 2025. And guess who was there? The Smith, the Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, the Vice President Vance, three members of Congress, three members of the House, nine members of the public. They have their private Smithsonian meeting that no one was allowed into. Again, no public government organization can have a meeting like that closed to the public. It doesn't happen. But it's because it's private. And they have this meeting. And the New York Times article that told a little bit of my story as well, they said a congressman in that meeting was like banging his fist on the table, sort of saying to the Chief Justice, you need a fire or we need to fire, Kim say it, because the president has said fire her. And the Chief Justice said, Nope, we're not doing that. And there again, it's like saying the president of the United States has tried to fire this woman, and the Smithsonian institution is rebuffing the president. The Smithsonian is either the most powerful government organization in the world, or it's just a private organization that the president has no authority over. And the statement they came out with the next day, you know what it said? We are the Smithsonian. We are an independent entity. We hire and fire. They rebuked the president like that, and judge Trevor McFadden is saying, no, the Smithsonian is the government through and through. It's like, what type of a cockamamey contradictory world do you live in? What type of an what type of a nonsensical world do you live in? So he has a chance now to do the right thing and say, yeah, I was wrong, because the Smithsonian is not part of the government because they rebuke they rebuffed the most powerful man in the world. That woman went back to work the next day in defiance to the order of the most powerful executive officer in the world. But then she resigned because she was such a hack job and she knew that they were going to come after her anyway. And so she resigned under pressure for sure from the Smithsonian. It's great. It's such a great story.

SPEAKER_00: 50:37

Such a great story. And it's still going on, brother. It's still going on.

SPEAKER_02: 50:42

Oh yeah. Oh, you give her a little applause to that. Yeah. That's right. She was not a good person.

SPEAKER_01: 50:48

Never give up, man. Never ever, ever give up.

SPEAKER_02: 50:51

And I've wanted to fire you. But you know what? Pressure cooking tactics always works. Pressure. Pressure. Unless you are super defiant. Only very few could resist that kind of pressure. Right. So hey, good, no, good, good, good. Listeners and viewers, I hope we were really paying attention. Me, when it's something really good, I don't need to talk as much. This is really, this is awesome stuff. This is what this should give you inspiration to challenge. Even your local, it may sound insignificant, you know, compared to this case, but you know what? It's important enough to you to fight. Because sometimes institutions be real, they could be brazen, careless, it's just wrong. You know, and if they don't get their if you if you see that they can't get their facts straight, that is the open wound you need to file. So look, they can't even get this straight. They say I'm a class, whatever. I didn't I didn't read that part, but I just thought they were already misrepresenting you with that whole contamination thing, and they they they couldn't get their facts straight. When when you know something is erroneous, not just your gut, but you could also prove it, you know, document it legally, you know, prove it legally, then Yeah, you just go for it. Go for it. You know, and you're right, in this country you could represent yourself. You could be your own lawyer, slash your own advocate, your own researcher. You know, you're not gonna be able to do it.

SPEAKER_01: 52:18

Because if you don't if you don't if you don't do it, somebody is gonna go out there and they're gonna have you're gonna have somebody who is gonna take away your rights, or they're gonna and you have nothing to stand on. And so I hope that your admonition is heeded because people can rise up and be an they can be a force for good in their community. And like I always say, you know, stop cursing the potholes in your street. Get out there and advocate and get them fixed.

SPEAKER_02: 52:42

Yep. You know, this look shouting at Twitter, Instagram, TikTok. Yeah, it's garbage. Yeah, I mean, you could get attention. I mean, you know, you did this strategic use for it, but just thinking that's the be all and all, oh, it's complete garbage. But if you can use that as your tactic, you gotta be careful too, because I can also be against you if you use so it's a double-edged sword. Social media is not the holy grail. Let's be uh, I mean, it could be used if it could be used strategically. Sure. So you'll put it in proper place, but it cannot be the be all and all. And if you want to defame someone through social media, oh, you just gave the opposition ammunition. Thank you. So be careful when you use social media because some of you you just think social media is all it is a powerful tool, but if you use it wrong, it you might as well point the gun and shoot your shoot your foot. That's how bad it could be. I mean, it it could be that bad. And certain people have done that, have gotten lawsuits arrested, even you, you know, YouTubers, you know, you think you're the next class celebrities. Yeah, so we got locked up for stupidness that's well documented by you. That's the that's that's that that's uh that's the juicy part. So my point is look, shouting at social media is not the be all and all, and normally you gotta keep that stuff private. You're gonna document it, document it for legal purposes, and be very careful when you do when you do that, because if you just do it for fame and cloud, and you know, you could be exposed to sensitive information, all that, oh forget it. You're you're just a big trouble, and you don't want to know from there. And you know, that's all I'm gonna say about that. So just be careful, people, and just you know, fight with civil restraint, fight within the system. Like easy, ease working within the system.

SPEAKER_01: 54:30

That's right, so because on the earth, it's the greatest system we have.

SPEAKER_02: 54:34

Yeah. And so Americans, especially Native war Americans, migrants. I don't have to shout as much. I just so to some degree, I not to some degree, to a great degree, migrants get it more. Today's more Americans are just don't do much. This is inspiration. Look at it. I say he's more American than most Americans that are born in this in this land. Really? This is what we should be doing. You know, going against a tyrannical government. This is government being pretty tyrannical. It doesn't have to be, you know, guns and all that. This is tyrannical. They are they're abusing their power.

SPEAKER_01: 55:07

Declaration of Independence 101, my friend. Right.

SPEAKER_02: 55:10

So this is it right here. This is it right here. Anything else you want to add before I wrap this up? This has been good.

SPEAKER_01: 55:17

It's been great to be on, great to share, and I hope your listeners are encouraged to get into the fray and make a difference.

SPEAKER_02: 55:24

Yep. So, listeners and viewers, I'll put his usual stuff with addition to 714 Boldwinstreet.com. So you get to the juicier details. If you want to read it for yourself or even fact check me, I doubt you're gonna fact-check Julian. But you know, feel free if you dare. I don't recommend it. That's all I'm gonna say. Very ridiculous.

SPEAKER_01: 55:50

It's right there.

SPEAKER_02: 55:50

So it's right there. If you want to get to the more details and all that, you want to read it for yourself, go ahead. Because I challenge, you know, I don't mind you being skeptic. But don't be an idiot, cynical, and say, oh, you know, all it's doom and gloom, there's no hope. No. There is, but you have to be ready to fight for it and be tough. This is not for the faint of heart, but you know what? You could become strong. That's right. You think you think, you know, everybody is born weak, but you can become strong.

SPEAKER_01: 56:15

We have to grow.

SPEAKER_02: 56:16

We have to grow. You have to grow. You know, so that's exactly. So I'm gonna put a link to the article as well at that lawsuit. Forget about that November 19th.

SPEAKER_01: 56:26

Yeah, I'll send you, I'll send you another link right now which talks about November 14th.

SPEAKER_02: 56:30

Yeah, I'll put that link on the in the description up as well. So you can read, read it for yourself, and it's gonna be released Thursday night. Thursday night. I don't normally do this. But since I got free time, there it's gonna be Thursday night. So if you're a last minute preparer, check it out. I joined them in Almara. It's fortunately, I can't, but I want to join at some point because this, and I want to see some of the, I want to see some things in the ground level. So I can just say, oh, look at this. Look at how you know I could just even gossip in my pockets. Look how these decouples, they can't even get the address right. These are cosplayers. I mean, I could probably come up with comedic level gossip. And guess what? That is my and I'm using my 1A for that, my first amendment. Yeah, you know, this is not defamation, they prove how incompetent they are. Defamation would just be like Kathy Hokel look like a drunken man or something. You know, like uh even then, but even then, she's a public figure, so I could get away with that. But it was a private citizen. Ooh, that's why I'm in trouble. Yeah, private citizen that adds him in trouble. No, she's a public figure, so I can get I can I can actually get away with that. Let me correct myself right there. So, all right, so for my shameless plug-in, like, comment, subscribe, and the whole YouTube Rumble thing, and give an honest review at Apple Podcasts. If it's a five-star review, give at least one reason why this episode is great. And if it's four stars or lower, give reasons why it wasn't so great and how can I improve? Alright, took care of light. Alright, put some things in the back. Uh well, actually, no one talked about that one, except one person verbalized it to me. But hey, I listen to your feedback. That's the main point, okay? And then I got some three links for you. If you want a new paper, short, straight to the point news with no political flair, okay? If you just want to read just politics, geopas, and so that's gonna be one or two minutes. But if you want to read the entire thing, that's five minutes. That's how short it is. Short, straight to the point, especially if you're busy, you don't got time to go through the noise, it cuts off a lot of the noise, okay? That's the free the new paper, okay? It's very easy, just click on the link to join. It's very it's free. It's just gonna cost you a little bit of time and energy. That's the most it's gonna cost you. And then now for pod match. Join pod match. You know, do things 21st century. Don't do this whole email thread thing with the one pager, and if you have to update it, you gotta do that whole work again, and it gets lost sometimes. Join pod match. It's nice and organized. One pager, you can update it um instantaneously, save it. You know, it it you know, we don't it it's so organized, it's so clean compared to, you know, just keep doing email threads. Get it together, people, especially those who don't have pot match. There's a few guests, there's a few of you that don't have it, you know who you are. I'm not gonna call you out. Join pop match. At least give it a try. At least give it a try. That's all I that's all I can say. I'm not gonna be a super pushy um salesperson there, but at least give it a try and then give your reasons why it doesn't work. You know, and by, you know, I can't stand the soul just join and quit. I said, well, you didn't give it a try. You didn't give it a fair shot. If you did it and went through crappy experiences, at least I'll understand and maybe give that feedback. You could give me money without breaking your wallet by clicking on the free website, guys.com. Okay, if you need a website or need a new one, check them out. It's affordable. And yeah, it's you know, they help you build a website that works with you. They're patient, they're standing, they're very smart, they give you clear instructions. Very good. You'll be helping this podcast financially. Without giving much in your wallet, or sometimes even none, if you get a very social deal. Okay. So the free website, guys, dot com. Check them out. Check them out. And then the final one, just if you if you're feeling generous, if you want to donate, this would be three dollars a month, and you're gonna have access to old content. I'm gonna start putting exclusive content. If you want to get to know how crazy this host could be, trust me, this is very tame compared to the wild side. I need to hurt your wallet if you want me to review my wild side. So join so, yep, so that's gonna be podcast politically high-tech unleash, okay? Alrighty then. So once you complete this visual or audio journey, you have a blessed day, afternoon, or night.