So it finally happened. It looks like Alex Moshinsky is finally being arrested and it just happened today. A lot of things do unpack and thankfully I found someone who could help me unpack this the best which would be Mr. Simon Dixon from Bank of the Future. Simon, is it not a great day today? Robert, it's a crazy day. It's exactly one year since Celsius filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and one month prior to that when they paused on June the 12th 2022, my father passed away and they paused withdrawals at the same time. I then had to try and because I was a shareholder in Celsius. I wanted to see if I could support with a restructuring and then exactly about a month later when I told everyone this is going into bankruptcy in this fraud and cell token is in the middle of a criminal investigation. So I broke that on your channel about a year ago and today you invited me to speak on your channel not knowing that today would be the day that the news would be broken and that Alex Moshinsky is arrested. I did warn everybody that it would happen this month but I didn't know it was going to happen today and that just happens that we were scheduling doing the talk. Right it's crazy because we just did NFA live with Guy and Ben. We broke that and I had you on as a special guest unbeknownst to me about what was happening in the background. So let's go over this and break this down for everybody to understand it. So the first thing is this finally Alex is arrested. We're going to take a look at the article about what the actual stipulations are and what the things that are being said as far as legalities. Second one the New York Attorney General is also suing them and the question then is what is the defense here for Alex Moshinsky and lastly is Celsius token earned program of security. Who owns those tokens? So the first things first this is from Bloomberg and you can find this on multiple publications but here's what we have. Today the SEC, the CFTC and the FTC filed lawsuits against Moshinsky and the company. Prosecutors claim that from 2018 through June 2022 Moshinsky orchestrated a scheme to defraud customers of Celsius NLLC and its related entities. Moshinsky's lawyers didn't comment. I can understand why. The SEC alleged that Moshinsky and his company made misleading statements to encourage investors to purchase its cell token and to put money in the firm's earned interest program that promised returns as high as 17% on users crypto deposits. So break that down for us Simon. I guess that would go from there and what do you think about all this? How does this all work out? Yeah so the important thing to understand about Celsius is there was misrepresentation right from day dot. So Moshinsky funded Celsius through 50 million token cell but 18 million of that was shortfall because he wanted to make it look like the token cell was more popular and he actually promised to make that investment because they didn't want to reveal to customers that the token cell didn't sell out and later they papered up agreements because he never actually paid. He still owes the estate 18 million and he took the tokens anyway and then he figured out a way of amongst the directors patching that up. That was in the middle of an SEC investigation but around about 2020 I was in New York and I was looking at investing in companies that allowed you to borrow against your Bitcoin and would share the interest from those that wanted you and we thought it was an institutional peer-to-peer lending model. I'd been involved in peer-to-peer lending in the UK. It was a model that started around 2005 in the UK and this was the crypto equivalent and that was a complete lie. Basically it was an illegal hedge fund. They deviated from the institutional peer-to-peer lending model and they started actually acting like a hedge fund by investing in mining operations, venture capital, DeFi but the difference is that when you're a peer-to-peer lending model it's very you disclose the risks and you understand and you have your lending licenses and various other things. Once you become a security you're now a hedge fund. You have to disclose all those risks. You have to let people know what you're doing with the money and you have to follow a very strict mandate audit requirements and all that type of stuff. Mijinsky started losing money inevitably and never made a profit but represented to everybody that basically 80% of all the revenue was going to customers and they were keeping 20% but then they used the fact that there was a token, a sell token that sat on their balance sheet and Mijinsky took client money and then used that in order to manipulate the price of the sell token on FTX with Sam Bankman Freed and there was massive loans across three areas, capital, Celsius, FTX but the FTX allowed them to manipulate the price of sell token so that they could make the company look bigger than it actually was so they would take the tokens that were on the balance sheet that they printed for free, mark them to market price even though you could never sell them for that and then defrauded investors like me into thinking that there was you know billions of dollars of assets backing this company and then he used that as a way to tell everybody that they should empty out their retirement funds, their life savings, convert their dollars, even created products where you could take your IRA, convert it into a Celsius IRA, convert that to stable coins and then he would earn his 17% number was the highest number because obviously that was the number that Terra Luna was paying in that Ponzi scheme so you know and yeah and from 2020 it deviated from this peer-to-peer lending model, became a hedge fund, lost loads of money, had a multi-billion dollar hole in the balance sheet but represented to everybody that it was safer than a bank and that it was less risk than some of the banks were taking as well and so there is the problem, it started really with the sell token and over the years you know we actually got involved right at the end because they wanted to raise more money, a series B to fill the hole and his plan was that he had a multi-billion dollar hole, he was going to take client bitcoin, borrow against it and invest it all in a mining operation, try and create the next ryer or marathon, float it on NASDAQ and then use that money in order to fill the hole, keep it for shareholders but not actually you know disclose any of that to creditors and when Terra Luna blew up it exposed everything and mass withdrawals happened and then eventually the very last order to try and purchase sell token there was no stablecoins left and so the whole sell token collapsed and revealed this three billion dollar losses that Mijinsky and Daniel Lyon had accumulated for creditors and hidden from them all along. Yeah and that's so there's two things it's Alex Machinzi and I believe also Daniel Lyon has also been indicted as well. I don't think Daniel Lyon has which is very surprising to me, another person is Ronnie, I always forget his surname Ronnie Coven Poen, sorry I'm saying that wrong, I'm butchering the name. I stand corrected. Ronnie actually is still employed by Celsius today and he's actually applied for a bonus in order to get the company sold and out of bankruptcy and wound down and you know he's been taking a salary throughout this whole thing and yeah you know he's an orchestrator and he's one of the people that have been involved in this, I do want to say this broke as we were being interviewed so I haven't actually read the full thing I just know everything that I know about the case from before this so there may be new news that I haven't actually read yet. Yeah exactly this is a very breaking story so everybody watch the video at home just know that we're filling in the gaps as they become available and also there was this piece that was from the article and I want to talk about this and we'll get into you know what is this security but it was the regulators accused Mijinsky of misrepresenting and they said they falsely claimed the firm made 50 million from an ICO when it actually had raised less than 65% of its gold so they said that yes we made 50 million but they didn't make 50 million it was much less and I guess so speak on that then also let's talk about real quick the token itself is it a security and what about the earn program and who owns those tokens right now. Yeah so throughout the last year we've been I've been in court case after court case trying to get to the bottom of this and unwind this for creditors I should disclose I'm you know I wanted to take a small percentage of my wealth and borrow against my bitcoin as well so I had I have a claim it's transparent so you know I can't really hide it but it's like over a thousand bitcoin in total that made me one of the top 10 creditors and the large one of the largest individual creditors and so I've been working to try and get a recovery but built relationships with the 600,000 and there's about 10,000 active in our community you know the that got ripped off in this process so for the last year we've been doing Twitter spaces every week we've been doing a YouTube video updates creating plans of how to take all these assets but it was revealed when you know we we actually at bank to the future wanted to actually bid on the company just to give all of the funds to creditors back and all of the equity in the assets to creditors because we're the first regulated securities business so we had the capability of doing it and so we were involved in in that process there as part of that you know it was discovered that yes there was 18 million dollars that they represented they raised in the token sale that Mijinsky actually was meant to invest but never invested and completely hid that from everybody making it sound like the token was more popular now one of the interesting parts of the case right now is I was an equity investor and my equity became worthless as soon as you hit into bankruptcy but there's a case right now that's being fought because those that purchase sell token are kind of fit into two camps you've got the insiders that defrauded everybody so Mijinsky's largest sell token holder and he used that to represent you know he gave himself a load of free tokens that he said that he paid for and never paid for put them in Celsius and then told everybody use Celsius I'm the I put all my net worth on Celsius but really it was his sell token and then he was selling those sell token to customers over the counter and then putting that Bitcoin back but he withdrew all of his Bitcoin all of his Ethereum and left all his sell token in the estate when he knew it was going into bankruptcy and that's when he was going on a roadshow telling everybody everything's safe don't withdraw you know everything's fine there's no problems he was withdrawing his funds and telling everyone to deposit and he even went on Twitter and said if you deposit at Celsius right now I'll give you a thousand dollars if you're a new customer and various other things anyway there's so much to cover here I kind of go off on these tangents but yeah the sell tokens so one of the cases right now is bankruptcy code states that you get the petition that so the the day you file bankruptcy which was 13th of July 2022 the price of all the tokens on that date determines how many dollars the bankruptcy estate owes you now at that point Bitcoin was $19,000 and also there was a short squeeze organized where people were manipulating it was actually an insider at Celsius that started it and then they made it think it was a bottom-up community movement and Mijinsky was pushing everyone along and still to this day contacts all the sell token holders to try and join his side but they manipulated the price up to 81 cents and this has been investigated and they subpoenaed FTX to try and get the data on the market manipulation because that determines because the basically they believe that sell token is a security because he actually registered it as a security when he sold it with the SEC and the 81 cents actually determines how much they get which is hundreds of millions of dollars ran to the estate there's a bunch of insiders there's people that were giving it for free now remember how Mijinsky constructed it if you get the price up to 153 dollars then all of the employees get free tokens that's extracting value from the genuine victims and then some people were buying genuine victims bought Mijinsky's coins or Celsius's coins at like five dollars eight dollars six dollars but the reality is that that's now being determined the the bankruptcy lawyers worked on Lehman brothers and various other world calm you know various other bankruptcies they said in every case non-equity securities are known as what subordinated which means you get zero just like an equity holder and so they're going through a settlement at the moment but whether sell token is a security or not determines whether that can be subordinated so it becomes pretty interesting and that really ties into obviously the crypto agenda for what is securities and what aren't securities because they get treated differently as well I got you you know I I covered them a long time ago and I could have and I there was a documentation where I don't know when it was it was it was put out but it's an old video on my my other channel Dan DJ and where it said that sell was listed as a security at some point in time and then it got and then they they took it out and they said no it's not a security that was it but and I can't find a documentation anymore so I'll look that up later but I will just say that Simon I mean you got taken for a ride I got taken for a ride unfortunately the people that I talked about it on the channel they got taken for a ride but we all got lied to essentially and we all have our fun stuck on there you have a lot more than me I got a nice little six figures over there but again it's it's it's the the psychosis of the person that is telling the lies and they're coming in front of us and going no no everything's fine every you know just keep putting it in there's a special level of person that that is able to do that and there's very few people that can actually lie to your face that effectively and one of those guys would be like a Bernie Madoff and I think Alex Moshinsky is kind of in that that same category I could be wrong but that's just how I see it and then to to finish this up there was a piece in this very last section here New York Attorney General Leticia James she was she was actually the first and sued Alex Moshinsky in January for fraud so the question I have is this is going on but what is the defense on the side of Celsius Moshinsky and Co how are they saying no no no we're actually in the clear here and how does that all work yeah so this kind of relates to there's two types there's two defenses one is against the lies and the other is against whether it's a security or not and this ties into the earned program so there were many companies offering earned programs you know originally when I invested in the company we were represented that this is a peer-to-peer institutional loans that people you know they'd be sharing the interest and people institutions are willing to pay interest to borrow the coins and then they would be matched up and then they would share you know some of the interest with that but it would be over collateralized always over collateralized because if their bets went wrong then you could just do a margin call and clients wouldn't lose their money it would just cost the yield right think about it that's a very big difference if an institution is putting more collateral than they're borrowing then they're taking the risk and if the risk goes wrong then client money isn't on the line but what they did is they ended up doing under collateralized loans which means that the program the the process of offering interest on a you know on to credit to what's now creditors to customers is a security because they deviated away because now we were taking directional risk three hours capital was playing different games investing in lunar you know doing the GBTC arbitrage trade and then they didn't have enough collateral and so therefore the customers were taking directional risk that's a security and so the earned program is a security and if you look across the SEC they went to Voyager they went to Gemini they went to Genesis they went to Celsius and they said you're offering illegal securities and you need to disclose to your customers ensure they're suitable and they're not betting their life homes and retirement on some trader that they don't know what's actually going on and so that was really the issue right so now you've got a earned program that is considered a security Mijinsky comes along and says two things in his defense he said firstly creditors spent 10 million on an examiner report to investigate all this stuff and it was transparent a 600 page report on all the fraud that Mijinsky did by interviewing all the previous employees and various other things um but uh the yeah he says it turns out I told everybody that we would share a percentage of all the revenue and in his defense he said the examiner's right it was a lie and because it was a lie therefore it's the earned programs not a security because it wasn't dependent upon the efforts of our investments and the yield was all fake and we were just promising to pay people but it had no connection to what we were investing in or what we were doing because we were paying them anyway and so therefore he said yes you know it's not a security because we were just paying yield and the yield was fake defense one wow defense two is he's saying and it's okay that I lied to you because he used um what's the name of the person the Silicon Valley lady that defrauded everybody for the blood Doranus the Doranus founder yeah what's her name um what is lost me Elizabeth Holmes right Elizabeth he used the Elizabeth Holmes defense and the Elizabeth Holmes defense is kind of you know you're going up you're going down for 20 years and you try to get it down to 10 and he used the puffery defense puffery if you look it up if you look up puffery it says my lies were so ridiculous that you were never meant to believe them in the first place so he slapped everyone in the face that has been defending him and said you were never meant to believe my lies because it was just puffery and therefore um and because the yield was not connected to these actions therefore it's not a security those are his two defenses and he was arrested today despite the fact that New York Attorney General was doing it in the in the civil cases and now it's become a criminal case because of his complete not a misrepresentation what he calls puffery and his outright fraud that he says I'll use the fact that um we lied to say that it's not a security and therefore I didn't commit securities fraud so now he's done for seven council fraud and I've got to read the paper uh to go a little bit deeper into figuring out exactly what's come out today perfect so that would so Simon thanks for for coming on there's so much information coming on so fast really what everybody should be doing is uh just to make this simple there's two places you can find Simon a lagging a lagging information which will be youtube but if you want to be up to date you got to follow Simon on twitter and the link to his youtube channel and twitter will be in the link in the description you can check it out but if you want to know exactly what's going on up to the minute and have really essentially uh Simon do all the heavy lifting which is do it reading all the documents reading all the paperwork and telling you what's happening you definitely need to follow Simon so Simon anything else before we take off no I mean it's been such a rabbit hole one final thing that was interesting was the fact that the coins are actually on the move right now and all of them are being converted into bitcoin and if the reason behind that is because um if the underlying asset is a security then they could be dollarized and you'd have to pay out dollars and sell them which is what happened in the voyager case yeah um so the Binance and Coinbase listed all the things they consider securities like ADA and um you know Avalanche and various other things so Celsius got ahead of that they've converted them all to bitcoin and ETH so that the underlying asset um is not considered a security so it can be distributed to creditors but that was only possible because they basically said when you deposited these coins became property of Celsius which means that it's an illegal bank and it was engaging in fractional reserve banking and uh various other things so it's very very interesting there's lots of intricate details and one of the things even if you're not a Celsius creditor um I kind of wear two hats I wear my this is my deep project that I'm in at the moment but then I'm also writing my book and and helping people understand the greater impact that this has on central bank digital currencies bitcoin stable coins the wider crypto market so I take off my Celsius hat look at the grand macro trends and say because of these legal incomes the outcomes where I'm involved in intricate details um here's how it affects the whole market and the bigger geopolitical stuff which we often discuss um when I'm doing interviews with you Rob. Excellent well my man I gotta tell you the timing couldn't be more perfect I appreciate you coming back on the show again everybody you can find Simon's information in the description definitely follow him on Twitter and uh we'll bring you the best information we can thanks so much everybody like today's video thumbs up subscribe all the good stuff to both of us and uh we will see you on the next one thank you


I'm Jay Fidel. This is State Tech Hawaii and we're joining not one but two guests while one contributor Russell Liu and Paul Anderson, Judge Paul Anderson, both in Minnesota. Well actually Russell is here in Hawaii and Judge Anderson is in Minnesota because he's a retired judge in Minnesota for the Minnesota Supreme Court. How do you like that? Russell! I'm going to walk in just a minute here is that you know the title for my position is Justice but the easy way to refer to me is Judge because I tell people Justice is more of a concept. It doesn't roll easily off the tongue as the title so go ahead and say refer to me as Judge. Russell will say Justice I'm sure. Well we'll see in a moment Russell what would you say and can you introduce the judge or can you introduce the subject of our discussion today? Because I'm the youngest guy Jay I'm going to call Paul Justice Anderson out of respect but but I good morning to our audience in Hawaii good morning to or good afternoon to our audience out in the Midwest and wherever you may be. Today we have a really special opportunity to have Justice Paul Anderson or Judge Anderson to share and let us about his experiences teaching American jurisprudence around the world. He's been esteemed Supreme Court Justice for the Supreme Court of Minnesota for over two decades and for the past few years he's been invited by many prestigious law schools and institutions around the world. He's lectured and taught in Russia, China, Philippines and many other places which he can share about lecturing. Forget one of my big failures, Libya. Oh, Libya too. So he's been everywhere and so I think Jay will have a lot of questions too because it's a fascinating experience. What's it like to lecture American jurisprudence to law students and to young lawyers abroad and why is it important and relevant in today's global context? Wow. Thanks for that discussion Russell. So Judge Paul I want to ask you one question. You served 20 years on the bench as a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota and then you spent another well several years almost 10 years I guess running around the world and trying to explain American jurisprudence to people everywhere really. Which was a better time in your life? Ah a Sophie's Choice. As you remember that movie. I really enjoyed my time on the court and I gotta be frank with you I was a better judge or justice than I was a lawyer. It just really fit into my talents and my skills and what I wanted to do. We have mandatory retirement Minnesota 870 could be 872. I don't disagree with that concept. Maybe it should have been 72. But what I've done afterwards has also been fulfilling. I do still do a lot of mentoring as students. I'm doing some writing. I was very involved in the election in Minnesota of 1990. I have about 30 TV shows that I commented on things over the two decades. I'm putting that in the former book. So I'm keeping busy. Life is good. There's a time and place for everything and there was a time for me to move on and I was comfortable with that. But I really loved my time on the court. Well you said you were a better judge than you were a lawyer. What was your what do I call it your judicial philosophy to make that contribution? Well one thing is that I'm a generalist okay. I started out in the practice of law as a generalist and as the law practice in the United States has evolved you got to be specialist. But the ultimate generalists in the area of the law of these days are the Supreme Court. We got everything. Criminal law, civil law all across the spectrum. And I love the challenge of that. I used to say that on the court there were periods of time when I was probably one of the world's top experts on a particular topic because it was involved in the case and I'd move on and I'd lose that. But also and it ties into what we're doing today. It gave me a platform to talk about the law, talk about the Constitution and educate people about how the system works and how it should work. So I've been out and about Minnesota nationally, internationally trying to explain how the law works and that really has fit into who I am. Well Minnesota we've been reading a lot about Minnesota in the past year or two and I wonder if you could also answer this question. How has Minnesota changed? I mean from a legal point of view welcome to sociological point of view since you were on the bench. It's different now isn't it? It certainly seems different to the fellow who just follows national events. Yes it has. Now I will be, it's not patting ourselves on the back, but Minnesota is one of the best run states in the country. We have very little corruption here. The government works well, many dedicated people. But some of that has eroded over the last couple of decades. People have been less kind to each other. They have been less willing to honor the principles of the rule of law. And so you know democracy is an evolving concept and institution and we're evolving in Minnesota and I've never been quite so displeased with the attitudes of some of my fellow Minnesota citizens as I am now. They're too willing to abandon some of our basic principles in our institutions. I'm working on trying to restore that. Good. I believe that that's the duty of every lawyer and every judge. To Tocqueville, he says that the new aristocracy in America is not the wealthy or whatever. You can find it at the judge's bench and the lawyer's bar. You're absolutely right about that. But what about Shakespeare, Judge? Shakespeare said let's kill all the lawyers personally. Yeah, but you've got to read the whole quote. People who don't like lawyers just take that quote that one part out. If you read the whole thing, he's quite complimentary about the role of lawyers in society. Okay. So here you are trying to show American showcase American justice jurisprudence to the world. But you know there are those who would say to you now today, Judge, there's nothing much American jurisprudence can offer because it's falling apart. And there are some cases that have been decided predictably by judges who predictably ruled the wrong way. And we need to take our judges to account also. And therefore, our jurisprudence to account. Do you tell them this when you lecture in far off lands? I do. Now you're going to get me into something. I mean, when I talk about American law and jurisprudence, I focus on the rule of law, human rights, and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And now there are different documents. I tell people to look at the Declaration of Independence for philosophy and inspiration. That was written by basically five people, main author being Thomas Jefferson. I also tell people, I mean, I love the Constitution, okay? But I'm very candid that it is a defective document. You know what they say, if you like sausage and the law, you shouldn't watch either being made. Well, they made a lot of sausage in Philadelphia when they put our Constitution together and has a lot of defects. It recognized slavery. It had in it many ways in which you can perpetuate and support legal discrimination. But the thing about the Constitution that's most important is it is, is for its ideals and the rule of law and humanity. And when I talk about our Constitution, I tell people, I don't agree with Scalia who said it's an original document. Traditionist mother, no, it is a living document. It is the evolving document.  I particularly do not like the human beings, some of the human beings on our Supreme Court right now because I don't think they could do a good job. They do not, in my mind, reflect many of the ideals, the common humanity and some of the principles of rule of law in the Constitution. But then Robert's not going to let it go too far off the cliff. And we'll come back from it. But the important thing is, is that the Constitution has the ideal of the rule of law and common humanity. And so, and it's flexible enough so we can adjust to the times and evolve. Do you want me to give any example of how justices can go really wrong? Absolutely. Justice Scalia, not one of my favorite justices.  He's a bit of a close mind. But he espoused this whole idea of traditionalism and originalism. And is that he said that when he rendered his opinions, that's what he's doing. He is the purest of judges when looking at the Constitution because he's looking at original needs. There's a word I want to use here, but I won't use it because we're on, but he's a way wrong because what Scalia's view is, is that you're interpreting the words in the Constitution. He's saying he's originalist. He's seeing them the way he sees them. They're seeing him in the context of his experience, a very conservative Catholic, a very conservative political point of view. No, I'm not sure that if he were to go back and visit with the founders, they would say, well, Justice Scalia, you didn't get it quite right. And a good example would be the Heller case. We have a public health crisis in the United States with respect to guns, and it's really getting out of control when you say some things are out of control.  When these police officers show up, they're likely to find a gun. Well, Scalia wrote an opinion that basically said the Constitution guarantees everybody the right to have a gun. I mean, he would give everybody a AK-47 and a Howitzer, whatever, guaranteed that in the Constitution. No, the Constitution doesn't say that. I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment. Every American citizen has the right to have a muzzle loading rifle and a flintlock pistol, as long as they guarantee that they will be part of a militia and available to put down a slave rebellion. If you want to be an originalist, that's it. Lovely, lovely. Well, I always wondered why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was so friendly with Scalia. And I felt at least part of me felt that she was friendly with him because she wanted to change his views about things. Do you have a thought about that? It's basically a mutual love for opera. There you go. You're absolutely right. There's some truth to that. Because when I was serving on a judge, and particularly as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, there were multiple levels I dealt with my colleagues. One was administrative. One was on judicial issues we decided. And one was on a personal thing. And I always tried to find something of a personal nature to keep a relation going because you're right. She wanted to influence Scalia as much as she could. He's not very subject to influence. But she wanted to keep that rapport going to make the court work well. So they had a mutual love. That's where they interacted on a personal level, their mutual love for opera. What do you think of that case two weeks ago over the Arizona voter suppression statute? That was of great concern to a lot of people. And that was, of course, the Republican majority on the court. I hate to say that. That's what it was. Well, it is. There was 6-3. And key was Roberts. Roberts does not like cases that deal with voting rights. And he does not like cases that deal with the reapportionment of districts. He will, he's just, that's his background. I haven't sorted out why it's so. But he thinks that states can do whatever they want to suppress the vote. Now, maybe he's right because originally the Constitution didn't allow women to vote, didn't allow non-property owners to vote. So maybe he's being an originalist saying as you've got the right to restrict as many people as you can from voting. He's wrong on that.  But they're just out of touch. Because one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy is the people are sovereign. And they get to express their sovereignty by voting. They do it by speaking, which is being able to show up, which is being restricted, and then being heard, which is another thing that they're trying to do is to, even if you show up and vote, some of the Republicans are trying to restrict how the votes get counted. That is wrong. That is contrary to the basic ideals of our Constitution. But unfortunately, Roberts and the rest of them don't see it that way. That is unfortunate because it goes the wrong direction right now, especially right now, where we're in a voting crisis, if you will. I'm going to say here is that I have some expertise on this area. That's why I was in Tunisia and Libya and in the Philippines, to talk about the right to vote. How you guarantee the right to show up and speak, and you guarantee the right to be heard. Stalin said he didn't care who voted as long as he got to count. So let's go to China for a minute. I want to cover as many countries as we have time. But in China, you're going to be just as straightforward about that, in discussing jurisprudence in China as you are here on the show. What do you say to somebody in China who is telling you that seems inconsistent? Because you have all these high ideals, presumably embedded in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and so forth. And yet the country doesn't follow them.  And so in China, when they criticize American jurisprudence, what do you say? Can you get away with saying, well, it's imperfect. That's what it is. Or do you have another answer? Well, one of the things I do is I tell them what my mother told me. You got to be careful when you point a finger at somebody because in your hand there are three fingers pointing right back at you. And so when China is speaking about criticism of the United States, you have to be careful and measured in that criticism because if you do, there are three fingers in that hand pointing back at you. I mean, China is an autocratic country ruled by the Communist Party, the inner circle, and more and more powers being consolidated in President Xi. But I go back to what I said before. We are not perfect, but the important thing about our system is we have the ability to correct ourselves, to evolve. And in the United States, we have revolutions and we have a mechanism in the law and the Constitution that institutionalizes revolution. That was our elections every two years. And I can point out, I mean, when Trump was elected in 2016, there was a revolution. When Obama beat Bush in 2008, there was a revolution at the voters. In 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress, there was a revolution. So we have the ability, under our form of government, to revolt and change things. Now, the important thing is here is that we've got to get the sovereign entity here to do the right thing. That's the voter. And there are some things going on in society that make that very difficult now. The internet has made it difficult. The role of big money, the Supreme Court has just again said, you know, you don't have to disclose who the big money donors are and do it. And see, and our Supreme Court, I think, has made a mistake. It equates money with free speech. Now, money is not free speech. But my hope is, you know, democracy is kind of like the pendulum on a grandfather's clock. You know, there is an appropriate arc in which that pendulum go back and forth. You know, sometimes it's over here. I agree with it a lot. Sometimes it's over here. I don't agree. But as long as the pendulum is within that proper arc, we're going to be okay. It's when it goes outside of that arc. And I think it went outside of the arc with Trump. And we're going to have to bring that pendulum back into its proper level of swing. Oh, wow. Very important thoughts. Are you sure that you don't want to be on the Supreme Court?  No, I'm too old. You must be reacting to some of this, and I would like your views about what the judge is saying and how it affects America, how it affects jurisprudence in America, and how it affects jurisprudence, for example, one example in China. Well, Jay, I'm listening to all this weighty discussion. Maybe it's beyond my pay grade, but however, let me take a stab at it. You know, there's a saying by Kofi Annan said, good, healthy, democratic societies are built on three billers. Peace of stability, economic development, and respect for real law and human rights. The first thing, peace of stability, that's why I guess Biden is trying to get out, bring the troops back home. You need peace of stability. America has been in war. And to bring some of that focus back to the United States to deal with some of our internal problems and instability. That's correct. And economic development, you know, putting that money that goes out into our militaries around the world, bring them back, put infrastructure development. We need high-speed trains to connect Boston, New York, to Topeka, Kansas, and out to the Rockies. And we need all of that because, you know, this is where America has neglected itself. You know, part of being a democratic society is you've got to share the economic development across the country. And one of the things is a good thing about China that I've been there over 50 or 20 years is that they got the high-speed rail. So the high-speed train stops at every small little city. And people in the small cities can go on the internet. They can sell their things. And they're taken from small cities to the big cities to bigger markets. So we need to tie this up. So that's part of this whole thing of this, what we're discussing, a democratic society. And the third is the killer. Did you read Biden's bill on infrastructure? I'm going through that. We absolutely need infrastructure, something we've ignored terribly. We've ignored that, Paul. And that's part of what I see taking back from China to the U.S., where they've got it down. They've got the part of being economic development. They've got peace and stability. They don't go to wars, except they're getting a little bit edgy now. And economic development also means that's why Biden is trying to get the internet to a lot of the rural communities in America. And that's so important. We can't neglect people. Another important factor here. I mean, the wealth needs to be spread around. And the Republicans are promoting policies that concentrate wealth in a few, an oligarchy. And that way you have fewer and fewer people that feel invested in their former government. And so that's a very dangerous development. China has a bit of a better road because they're on the way up. They're bringing so many people out of poverty. It's people are saying, gee, it sure looks good to me because I'm better off than I was. And there are many people, this is the term thing people are saying, well, I'm not as well off as I should be or what my parents were. And that's one of the tensions and problems that we're dealing with here. And that's correct, Justice Sanderson. And it's like I'm saying is, economic development also means that infrastructure means everybody having internet. It means that everyone has access to a smartphone, affordable phone plans. When you're paying 100 bucks a month for a phone plan, you're locked in a contract for several years. You're not going to afford it. And the law, it's called a contract of adhesion. Contract of adhesion. You have no choice but to sign it if you want the service. That's correct. And then getting back to Jay, like Justice Sanderson said, and I believe that there's 10% of America that owns 80% of the assets and wealth in this country. And that's shocking. And this is the same, they're not redistributing their wealth. So that's why you have a lot of disgruntled Americans. And the third thing, what Justice Sanderson is working on is the rule law. By the way, Biden wants to redistribute it. And one of the ways we redistribute is through taxes. Through taxes, yes. And so, I mean, when he says he wants to impose taxes on the wealthy, it's very much a political philosophy that we need to redistribute the wealth in this country if it's going to be sound and secure in the future. Yes, that's correct. So that's a second pillar, economic development. The third pillar is the respect for rule law and human rights. And I think that what we've seen in the last four years through the Trump presidency, the January 6th insurrection, shows me that there are some chinks in this respect for rule law. Okay. And again, all of this means that in America, our Democrats say it's like on the pendulum, Paul, what you've talked about. The pendulum is swinging. And as we swing, we're trying to make the corrections. But it also looks back to the professor's original question of me. How have things changed? And you put your finger on one of the ways it's changed. There is a diminished respect for the rule of law and the institutions that support that concept.  And I'm picking Libya because you said Libya was problematic for you.  Maybe political ruler is political officials. And you're telling them about American jurisprudence and your view of it.  I'd love to be with you when you make these trips and enjoy the moment of contact. And I see the moment of contact as something like the Sistine Chapel. You know that painting? Oh yeah, a picture of the fingers coming together. Fingers coming together. So here you are, Paul Anderson connecting with people ideally in Libya and various other countries. And you are telling them from your heart what the United States stands for, what law in the United States stands for. How much influence do you have on them? Are you connecting like in the Sistine Chapel? Or is it just going over their heads or around their backs? Well for the most part I think I'm connecting. And I think one of the reasons being they they appreciate my candor and honesty when I talk about American system and jurisprudence. I said I'm going to describe to you the ways that we do things in the United States. It's a system of government that has evolved over two centuries. But what I want to make sure that you understand is you do not want to adopt what we're doing, lock, stock, and barrel. What your job here today is to listen to me and figure out what parts of what I say will work for you. Because and I say that democracy comes in many shapes and forms. So our form of democracy is not an end all and deal. But I say that a respect for human rights and equality and the rule law is absolutely fundamental to any democracy. So take a look at what I say. Try and digest what we are doing in the United States. And then pick and choose what works for you. You have a different structure. You have a tribal background. You have a religious background. I remember sitting in Tunisia and we were going over their constitution. And the first line is that we are an Islamic republic. And what does that mean? Does that mean that you're going to use only Islamic law? Well, Tunisia didn't interpret it that way. But you need to pick and choose and see what I mean. But they needed to have that in there if they were going to get acceptance of the constitution. But then some people may want to think to others that meant Tunisia has done relatively speaking a decent job coming out of April-Spring. Not perfect, but okay. What went wrong in Libya? Well, I met with Ambassador Stevens. He was a wonderful person. And he saved over tens of thousands of lives. But well, gosh, there's so many things. When Qaddafi was defeated, he had many arms and he had mercenaries, many of them from sub-Saharan Africa. So much of his arms went south. That's why we had this problem in Nigeria. They got so much arms out of Libya. But then there was a failure to understand and appreciate the tribal nature of Libyan society. You have a tribal, multiple tribe, but you have the area of Benghazi. And then you have Tripoli. And then you have sub-Saharan. And very different agendas, different approaches. And laid over the top of that was that you have the Islamic fundamentalists who come in and want to take over various aspects of it for their own particular purposes. And it just was kind of beyond the understanding of the people who are trying to get a control of it. And then, by the way, then you have Russia. As Russia told the United States, you get involved in these things. Don't do any regime change. Well, Qaddafi was cornered in a pole in some place and there was regime change. And so Russia didn't like it. And so they started missing in there. It's a complicated world. And that's hard to connect the dots. But one thing that seems clear right now is despite the beacon of, or maybe the previous beacon, the former beacon of open charity, of immigration openness and the like that the United States has represented, and still does represent in many places the varying degrees, we have a bunch of countries that are sliding back into a state of nature to become failed states. I think the most recent example of that is Haiti. There was an article in The New York Times by some Haitian person who was describing life in Haiti right now. And it's a failed state right now. There are many in Africa. We know that. Syria. Yes, you saw 60 minutes last night. It was horrible, horrible in Syria. And so the question I put to you is, how can you remain optimistic? How can you remain a purveyor of American idealism? Because that's what it is. When so many places in the world are degenerating and being fragmented and and becoming failed states. Simple answer. I have no choice but to be optimistic and hopeful. John Reid talked about uncertainty and the uncertainty of the future. But that uncertainty breeds hopefulness because that means that we have control over the future. I mean, the headlights of our car only see so far down the road. But there's a lot of road in front of that. It's uncertain, but I'm hopeful. And so that's why I do what I do. Try to spread the word of democracy, rule of law, and hope that it will gather force in various places. And it has in some. I mean, it's a bad time now. And I mean, and it's hard. Oh, it's so hard to stay optimistic and hopeful. But as I said earlier, I have no choice. That's the way I have to be.  A man who was not only accomplished, but honest and visionary. I'm so happy to spend a few moments together with you guys. Russell, can you close and give us your reactions and your thoughts going forward on this discussion? A summary, if you will. I think what I've got from our conversation today really is a couple of two things. One is evolving. We have to understand things are evolving. The American democratic institution is evolving. Lots of things are going to be happening. And there's a lot of things that may make through the monkey's wrench. And we get very depressed. But as Justice Anderson, it says, Judge Anderson said, there's hope. We have to have hope. There's no choice. And if we focus on that beam of light, that hope will make it through the darkness and we'll find a way to this road. And it's just a matter of time. So can I add one final thought? Sure. Please. Democracies are fragile. It's a fragile form of government. And to sustain themselves to endure, it takes hard work. So my urging is for the people listening to it, get out and do that hard work that preserves this form of government based on the rule of law and common humanity. Judge Justice Paul Anderson, I wish we were related. At some level, I feel we are. And I really appreciate you coming on this show. I appreciate everything you've said. Russell, again, thank you so much for bringing the judge to us. Hey, thank you for having me on. Aloha.


Item Number – SCP-444 Object Class – Euclid Special Containment Procedures – Instances of SCP-444 identified outside Foundation custody are to be isolated or destroyed with extreme prejudice. The Foundation's instances of SCP-444 are to be kept under Type A Hazardous Documentation Protocols. Translators are to have no more than 12 hours weekly access to SCP-444 and must undergo weekly linguistics and psychological examinations. Individuals compromised by SCP-444 are to be isolated and prevented from making vocalizations and are to be terminated unless they are required for testing protocols. Lead Response Task Force Omicron-11, a.k.a. Berks Boys, is to be used wherever possible due to the deaf nature of its members. Description – SCP-444 is a linguistically conveyed memetic virus. SCP-444 takes the form of a valid and coherent, if limited, language. Examples exposed to SCP-444 assimilate it and lose their ability to use or learn other languages. Although, they typically retain their ability to understand previously understood languages. Written examples of SCP-444 require extended contact, but verbal exposure has effect after only a few sentences. The mechanism for this change is still unknown. SCP-444 written form has a unique alphabet of geometric shapes, read in a radiating pattern from the center. Systematic examination of SCP-444, primarily in experiments 444-7, 444-13, and 444-17, reveals that it lacks the ability to express several concepts, including rebellion, hatred, anger. In addition, over an extended period, the lack of the ability to express these concepts appears to alter human behavior. Subjects infected with SCP-444 become more docile and compliant, as well as more concerned with procreation and childcare. Re-examination of the data from experiment 444-17, gathered from MRIs, live electrode examination and dissections of infected brains, confirms that SCP-444 causes significant alterations to human brain structure, chemically severing part of the brain. This, not the reduced vocabulary, is believed to cause the altered mentality of the infected. The primary area of foundation research into SCP-444 currently is to isolate the source. SCP-444 is to be considered a hostile invasive weapon. Since 19- Instances of SCP-444 exposure have been recorded, typically among migratory workers or the underclass in depressed urban areas. Experiment 444-7, log. Chief researchers Mr. J. Melos Linguistics Expert Dr. R. Sociology Expert Military Assessor Experimental Parameters It has been suggested that psychological deviations may occur as a result of long-term infection with SCP-444 due to limitation of vocabulary. 50-class D personnel with violent backgrounds were exposed to SCP-444 and placed in a sealed environment with limited but sufficient resources. They were informed that they were not to be released at any point and their environment would not be interfered with by the foundation. A control group of 50-class D personnel was also maintained. Monthly terminations were suspended for both groups. Date Expunged Control Group Group introduced to environment. By the end of week two, population stands at 42. Test Group Group introduced to environment. By the end of week two, population stands at 47. Date Expunged Control Group Widescale violence and gang culture has developed. By end of month one, population stands at 26 with several subjects suffering from malnutrition. Test Group Group has entered stable group dynamic behind four dominant personalities. By end of month one, population stands at 42. Date Expunged Control Group Violence escalated significantly. By end of month six, population stands at 7. Group terminated as non-viable. Test Group Group authority has dissolved. Organization is functioning as an ideal anarchic commune. By end of month one, population stands at 42 with several pregnancies. Date Expunged Control Group Extinct Test Group One year after experiment commenced, population stands at 52. One additional unexposed category D personnel introduced. Group rapidly accepts introduced personnel as leader, showing no resistance to subjugation. Group terminated and youths placed in custody to establish development in infants. Date Expunged Infant Group Progressive development confirmed. Group terminated. Notes Potential cure is still being examined. Behavior of SCP-444 infectees would be valuable in D-class personnel, if its spread could be contained. Value of SCP-444 as a potential invasion tool confirmed. Lesson Complete If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-443, Thought Streaming Kranz, right now. Or for the complete course, watch this playlist.