And so for people that want to figure out financial stability and the path to get there- How do you start people that have no knowledge, no upbringing, nobody really taught them how to do any of this, and now here we are with adult money in a very expensive world trying to navigate how to start?

Yeah, that's such a tough thing, right? Because, you know, to your point about social media, there's so much out there, and I think one of the biggest problems, especially in my field, is one, you know, we're a highly regulated business if you are actually good at what you do.

So a lot of the content that's being put out there and that's very prolific out there is not by people who are financial professionals.

So I always want people to be really, really careful about the thing that they hear on social media because, you know, I've come across trained professionals who all don't necessarily know how to synthesize things in a profe- in a correct way.

So, you know, if you're just looking at a little bit of information on social media, there's no way it really encompasses the full story of what's happening.

You know, and, and one of the more popular things is to put out strategies that, you know...

There, there's this belief, I believe, that people who have money are having access to certain things that they don't have access to or they're doing it in a special way that's, you know, very unique and exotic, and they just have to find that right secret, and that is 100% incorrect.

Maybe you should write a book one day.

He said, it's not really a referral.

So he's probably correct that it is not technically a referral.

It's not technically sanctions against him.

And that is because, I think, as the court noted, neither he nor any other government attorney ever actually entered an appearance in the case.

The only filings on the docket are from the plaintiff's attorneys, who are also Trump's attorneys, right? But Todd Blanch used to be his attorney, and Stan Woodward is not his attorney, but is effectively acting as one in this case by all appearances.

So because there are active investigations of their contact in their respective bar associations, She sent along her orders and FYI to those investigators, even though they were not technically subject to her jurisdiction because they were not in court in front of her and never made an appearance.

I think that's a fairly strong indicator of what this particular judge thinks on the matter and sort of stays within the lines, I think, of what she thinks she is permitted to do.

And the Justice Department may be losing that presumption of regularity.

Did the judge find that the plaintiffs or some of the plaintiffs had standing?

No.

As far as I know, the court has not ruled on that.

decided to turn first to this question of mootness.

She hasn't ruled on the merits of the underlying claim, but she has strongly suggested that if the government could produce this declaration that says more or less what she suggested it needs to say, that the case would be moot.

Candidly, I think that is a bit of a stretch, even if the government does produce a declaration that says the weaponization fund is not going forward in any way, shape, or form, unless the government gives a reason as to why.

The reason for that is that if these plaintiffs have standing, which she seemed to assume in her order, proving mootness is an uphill battle for the government.

And yet another federal judge in Miami is taking another look at the fund after nearly three dozen retired federal judges called it a fraud on the court.

of mootness.

She hasn't ruled on the merits of the underlying claim, but she has strongly suggested that if the government could produce this declaration that says more or less what she suggested it needs to say, that the case would be moot.

Candidly, I think that is a bit of a stretch, even if the government does produce a declaration that says the weaponization fund is not going forward in any way, shape, or form, unless the government gives a reason as to why.

The reason for that is that if these plaintiffs have standing, which she seemed to assume in her order.

Proving mootness is an uphill battle for the government.

They have to do more than just change their conduct.

It's a settled matter of law, what we call the voluntary cessation doctrine, that when one party voluntarily changes its conduct, that's not enough to get rid of a lawsuit as moot because they could simply change their conduct back.

And also Miami judges responding to, I don't know whether it was a letter or what, from a group of federal judges saying that this was a fraud on the court.