Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:22] Speaker B: Welcome, everybody, to another edition of unbolted. I am M.J. bolt, your host. And. And today we have with us Marshall and Brandon Casey, who are local lawyers, good friends, and guys that I highly, you know, just appreciate being in my life. So welcome, you guys.
[00:00:41] Speaker C: Thank you.
[00:00:42] Speaker A: Thank you.
[00:00:43] Speaker B: All right. Well, yeah, and I've known Marshall the longest, but I just found out he's actually not the oldest, so I put him first in. In the line. So I'd like everybody to get a chance to know you. I actually first met Marshall when I was on the state Board of Education, and he was helping me go through some when we were looking at adjusting some private schools. And I got to know him then. And then, of course, I got to know Brandon in recent years when he ran for judge, and so well. And actually, I think I met you, Marshall, when you were running for judge. So it's been a great honor of mine to get to know you and learn from you both. And I just think this is going to be a very important topic for people to listen to. I had reached out to them on Wednesday after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And, you know, Charlie was amazing at going out and having these open dialogues and these debates, and he was just a symbolic, courageous, bold voice out there for freedom of speech. And I reached out to both Marshall and Brandon on Wednesday and just said, would you guys be willing to come on? It's such an important topic, and we need to really kind of, you know, lean into this time.
And they were gracious enough to come on and say, sure, let's do this. So, again, thank you to both of you for taking the time on a Saturday away from your families to discuss this important topic. So let's dive in. First of all, people may not know your story, so let's start out with how did you get to where you are? You both have ran for judge locally. You're both lawyers, obviously. I also know you as patriots, people that, you know, feel strongly about our freedoms, our constitution, you know, and the founding principles that our nation was founded on. So, Brandon, let's start with you.
Tell us, tell everybody. How did you get to where you are now?
[00:02:50] Speaker A: Oh, wow.
Well, I guess probably look at my dad and how I grew up.
I think Marshall probably is in the same circumstance where we have a father who is very much about the dignity of the law and the legal process and how it's meant really to serve others and protect others, and. And so watching that growing up and we got to be around other warriors who felt the same way.
It's a little bit different than what you might see on suits or whatever it was. We got to see people that were standing up for other people's rights. I remember back in the day when there were protests against abortion downtown Spokane, and the federal government was trying to prosecute under the RICO laws. My dad went down there and actually was defending them because it was illegal action. You know, the federal government was trying to shut down these protests, the freedom of speech, and they were throwing people in jail under rico.
And my dad was one of those lawyers that donated his time to actually help people get out of jail.
He actually was part of the founding of the Western center for Law and Religious Freedom, which Marshall and I participated in somewhat as younger kids and helped put on events and stuff. And Marshall, you probably remember setting up tables and pulling down tables and all that stuff we did. And so we got a chance to see the legal process as serving others. And then, you know, obviously we come from also a place of a.
A belief in God, a belief that our freedoms come from God, and that, you know, we're created to be free and to be able to utilize that freedom to be able to make this world better. And so just all of that was part of the sense of who we were growing up. And I think my dad was a big part of that, you know, especially the people we got to be around when we were younger.
So that moving forward, I end up going to school and getting a degree in economics and degree in philosophy and then. Which don't seem similar, but they're actually very useful. One talks about how we value things in society, that would be economics. And the other is about how we think about things, you know, And.
And then I, you know, I basically had three things I wanted to do when I was younger. One, One was be a veterinarian, because I love animals.
But that one didn't seem very practical to me.
And then the other one was. I don't know why, but law enforcement was part of it. But then I just realized I really wanted to be a lawyer. I think it was middle school. I had to do a project interview some people that I wanted to.
Maybe what I wanted to go into as a career.
Interviewed Ed Dawson. Actually, interestingly enough, he was very liberal attorney. He's his 90s now. But he.
He was one of those guys that was all about protecting people's rights, you know, and.
And so. But that's. That's ultimately, you know, what I grew up around was protecting people's rights kind of almost at all cost. And.
And These, these.
These attorneys I grew up around were like, they would sacrifice a lot of their income and whatever else just to protect other people.
And they were heroes in my mind, you know, and so that's what I wanted to become. And went to school then I was. I bought five acres, and I had two kids, and I got into the University of Idaho's law school.
And I was talking to my dad and I said, hey, should I sell my property? Should I lease my property? And I didn't really want to lease it because, you know, it's a lot of work doing that. And he said, well, why don't we do the law clerk program, which in Washington you can get your credits through the bar association and become a lawyer that way. And so we did that.
The nice part about that was it's practical experience while you're doing it. So within three months of becoming a lawyer, I tried a couple of arbitrations, tried my first jury trial.
One kind of got hooked on civil litigation, and that's kind of where it all began.
Since then, I've done really pretty much anything you can imagine in civil litigation. And when I say civil litigation, it's basically protecting people's rights. Their property or their person is what it is. And.
And so any of those things handled cases protecting property rights, protecting civil rights, or just recovering for injuries that have occurred to you, there's somebody's property or their person, similarly rights, you know, a lot of times people don't understand their rights are very. Something very tangible. You know, in fact, Marshall, I'm going to be pointing at you on this one. When I was sitting there listening to the city's attorneys basically saying there's no harm, no foul on violating somebody's rights, I'm like, you got to be kidding me. That's just craziness, right? But how much that permeates our society right now, it's just, you know, for me, that's so fundamental is, you know, the reason we have the Second Amendment is to protect all that stuff in the First Amendment, you know, and we talked about First Amendment that's packed full, you know, freedom of religion, assembly, freedom of speech, you know, freedom of press, and, you know, outlines all this stuff that's about thought and being able to be ourselves, you know, and then, of course, the Fourth Amendment, you have right to protect that from the government, but, you know, the government doesn't get to intrude into that. But before the Fourth Amendment, you get to say Second Amendment, you know, and so, sorry, I get kind of excited about this Stuff.
[00:09:06] Speaker C: And don't forget the third brand of soldiers. Come on. Don't leave that one alone.
[00:09:13] Speaker A: So. Well, I just, you know, but, you know, there's. There's all this. You know, it. And we.
So as lawyers, you know, I think there are many younger lawyers now who don't appreciate that. I'm talking to a lot of younger lawyers that come in law school. They're all about social policy. When going to social stuff, I'll say, well, what about civil litigation? And they're like, yeah, you know, And I'm like, but that's where you protect people on a regular, daily basis, you know, and in part of it is what most people don't realize. Civil litigation attorneys, we actually put a lot of our lives, our fortune on the line. A lot like our founding fathers when they. When they, you know, John Hancock, when he put his big signature on there, people don't realize, you know, he had a. He sacrificed a lot in that process. And. And you don't hear a lot about that, because most of the civil litigation lawyers I know are kind of gunslingers, you know, and they're not willing to really talk about that stuff.
Kind of independent people. But it is true. There's a lot put on the line in this arena.
And.
And so we. I would say a lot of us who do this kind of work have a sense of pride and a deep sense of, like, appreciation for somebody like Charlie Kirk, because we know how valuable it is, and.
And so.
And want to see that continue, you know, and we see the eroding of that in our public. So. And I guess the one thing I skipped over was, yes, I did make a run for judge.
That was kind of interesting experience.
I initially wasn't planning on running for judge. I was actually trying to convince other lawyers to run for judge. And after about four or five years of that, one of the culprits here is on the screen with me, was kind of like, hey, look, you know, you got to take some responsibility here. And so I said, you know, I'm going to pray about it and. And see. And.
And then I was talking with Rabbi Hahn and. And he was.
He said, you know, why don't you do a pros and cons list? And the first thing I wrote down on the pros side is, I feel like God's calling me to this. And then I was like, why am I filling out any cons after that? You know?
And so, you know, it was just something I decided I needed to do.
And part of it was a lot of the problems we have going on, people don't even have a clue. That's one thing I really learned a lot of.
One of the reasons I really stayed involved in stuff in Spokane community is because I was really saturated with how much there is an ignorance. And I don't think anybody's intending to be ignorant, but there is a lot of ignorance out there.
One of the things that strikes me most people don't know is 2440 people that were taken by police officers for a 72 hour hold for mental health evaluation. Right. So they go through that 72 hour hold. The courts only heard 318 of those cases. That means 2100 people are released out on the streets without getting the help they need. Those are people that don't have agency over their own lives. Now they're out on the streets. And the only reason they were put out on the streets is because the courts just kept on bumping their cases forward. And you can't unconstitutionally hold people, you know. So again, even though that doesn't seem like a rights issue, it's very much a rights issue. In fact, Billy Baldwin, I kind of got into a little debate after he got off the stage last year. He was sitting there talking about EMS and police officers should be the ones to make the determination. Marshall, were you at the Washington Policy center when he was talking about that? He was saying you were there. And I just, my mind was just like, no way, because my son's a police officer. Why should we put that burden on them to determine people's rights, you know, and whether or not these people should be held for a certain period of time, it's just too much for them. It's what our court systems are for.
And you know, Billy Baldwin was very firm. He's like, well, these are the guys that are dealing with. And I'm like, no, they're not the ones who are, who are, who are set up to do the due process. But it is. Those are the fundamental things that we deal with is civil litigation attorneys. And one of the reasons I ran for judges, just because our system is so broken down, people don't even understand how broken it is.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: You touched on so many important things. And I know we're going to get into them, you know, about the state of, of awareness, you know, maybe ignorance.
Right. What was the name of the foundation that your dad started? The foundation of Western Center, The Western.
[00:14:16] Speaker A: Center for Law and Religious Freedom.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: Of Law and Religious Freedom. Is that still going on?
[00:14:22] Speaker A: It got folded into the alj. Right. Is that.
[00:14:27] Speaker C: I Think so. It was.
Mike Ferris was part of it, and Mike Ferris ended up running the alj.
[00:14:34] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:14:35] Speaker B: Okay. Oh, that's pretty. That's quite a legacy. Marshall, your turn. Tell us about, you know, your. How did you get to here and. And what you've been involved with.
[00:14:46] Speaker C: I have to start off by harassing my big brother real quickly. I. My oldest daughter will talk for the youngest for the longest time, so don't be surprised if I'm a little bit shorter.
[00:14:57] Speaker B: I probably should have started with you.
[00:15:00] Speaker C: No, you're fine.
I'm going to take a little bit different track, talking about how I got into law, because I kind of took a longer route.
And my route was originally, I didn't want to get into law. My wife will tell you that I promised her I would never become a lawyer, and that's because my dad and brother were lawyers. And so my sense of rebellion in life, if you can call it rebellion, was to go into banking.
And what inspired me to get into law was right around when I was.
I was about 30, and I was thinking, okay, I'm moving up very well in the bank I'm working with. I was in upper management, heading into executive roles, vice president, all this stuff. And I thought, is that really where I want to be in life? Is that the impact I want to do? And so I searched around for what impact I wanted to do and came back and was on a camping trip with my dad and brother, and I listened to them talk about law and how they could help people.
And I went back and, like, that actually sounds like so much fun. And the law does really sound like a passion that I could get into. And I told my wife, and she's like, you have two and a half years or were divorced because we were putting off children.
And in all fairness, she had to put me through law school. So I went through law school, came back, I joined my dad and brother's practice. Then about two and a half years, I went out on my own.
Mostly because I wanted everyone to say, Matt Shea worked for me at one point, but, no, that's just a joke.
But I went out and had my own practice for about seven years.
And in that practice, I did everything from, you know, I did like, one criminal case that was interesting, which was a gentleman who got arrested for walking down the road.
I called it my walking while black case.
And literally that's why they arrested him was because of the color of his skin.
And I went in, and that was the only criminal case I ever did. It was weird. I did a lot of defending people who were going through evictions merely because I thought, you know, they need help.
Did a lot of things.
Some free speech cases, did some banking cases, fraud. I did everything in those seven years, and it was so much fun.
But then I decided, oh, running for judge sounds fun. And in 2020, I ran for the Court of Appeals.
Don't run for anything in 2020. Don't do it. When there's a Covid shutdown, it's just not good.
[00:17:36] Speaker A: To be fair, he started before the shutdown.
[00:17:39] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:17:41] Speaker C: To be fair, I scheduled my kickoff party for, like, the week. Right. But after the shutdown, I didn't know that.
[00:17:49] Speaker B: And so 19th March, like, seven.
[00:17:52] Speaker C: It was like. It was crazy. I kept bumping it back, thinking, okay, I'll. I've already paid for this. Why not? Never. Never even did a kickoff party. But after that, I've kind of gone into a. I joined another practice suites or law offices, where I've joined them for a while, and we've done some interesting cases. We've got a fun First Amendment case that we're doing over there.
And then I have on the side some other cases that I've worked with on the Silent Majority Foundation.
The one that's right. Yeah. With Pete Serrano, and the one they love to talk about is the Sean Point case. But honestly, the reason I got into law is it really is my passion. And I found. I just love this.
I love. Not only.
I mean, everyone sees the law as black and white, but it's not that.
The law is the promises we have made as society on how we will handle you when you end up in the cycle of violence.
Because the cycle of violence, our government should have a monopoly on violence.
And the reason for that is they're the police officers. They're the ones who take all our money through taxes, whatever it is. When you look at the end of the day, the monopoly around violence belongs to our government. And the law is the promise on how it will use it and the promise of how it will use it in a way that protects us as individuals, because ultimately, it should be our servant day in and day out. When I work with the law, I work with the promises made to every person out there.
I think that is just so much fun.
I mean, it's just. It's. It's a blast to sit there and go, these are the promises made.
And when you're standing in front of people with power, because ultimately, as a lawyer, the only power we have are our words, our speech are the arguments we craft and the stories we tell and the promises we remind that system of. And that's the fun part, is I get to walk in armed with nothing but the promises made and look at that person in power and say, are you going to be a promise keeper or a promise breaker?
Are you going to uphold what that oath you took to follow our Constitution, which rolls down to every single law, or are you going to do this based on your whim and how you feel today?
And that's a huge. That's so much fun.
But to jump off. I want to talk real quickly why I have the floor before it goes back to Brandon.
I want to talk about. I know I want to talk about the freedom of speech because to me, it's. It's not just a statement in our Constitution. It's not everyone. This is the funny thing. People say our rights come from the Constitution. There's some who say that. And that's a very French idea. It's definitely not an idea that comes through our system, which we believe that individuals have inherent, inherent importance.
And how they speak is how they develop their importance and how they develop who they are. But they don't only develop who they are, they develop who you are.
And every piece of speech, whether it's something you hate or something you like, it causes you to think.
And if it's something that you hate, it causes you to react. And that reaction is good because it causes you to be better and develop your thought process.
If it's something you like, it causes you to develop better. And so the freedom of speech is how we as a society develop who we are better.
And one of the things that really hit me when Charlie Kirk was shot was he did nothing but speak.
And he never. I mean, as far as I know, and he never did any kind of shutting down, protests, any of that kind of stuff. There was no violence, and yet the reaction to that speech was one of violence. And I have to ask, how did we get into a place of society where that's acceptable? I mean, I had people online who put out there things like this was when he was still a little.
When he still may survive. Someone, one of my friends put out there, I hope he survives so he can understand the violence his speech causes.
And I'm just like, what, what is that about? Or I've got other people who are putting out his video saying, if this is what you believe, don't talk to me anymore.
You know, I wonder how we got here in society where our response to speech is I must be violent.
And I had this discussion about a few years ago, my daughter's basketball team. We were over in this hotel, and everyone was kind of playing in the pool and sitting in the hot tub. And these other kids from another school were sitting in there talking. They were in their debate team. And so I just asked him, I said, what do you guys think about freedom of speech? And they're like, I don't think it should be there. Like, what do you mean?
And they're like, well, speech hurts people, and we should stop people from hurting people.
Like, really? And they go, oh, yeah. There's studies out there that it's real physical violence and people have visceral and physical reactions.
I'm just like, wow. What I grew up with was, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
It's a shocking shift to me.
And so, honestly, I think as a society, the law is one thing. The law is absolutely enshrined. We are fortunate to have our rights, guaranteed protection in both our federal and state constitutions. And they're broadly done, but that's the state. But the question is, we as a people, are we going to believe in freedom of speech? And it's a great experiment. I mean, and it's a grand experiment. When you look through our founding fathers, they understood the experiment. We were going down freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that these were things that, like, for generations were not protected.
But they are a wonderful experiment today. And I. I get concerned that we as a society have stopped, like, thinking why these are important.
Not just important in our government, but important in who we are as a people and who we want to be. And so, okay, I've gone off on.
[00:24:51] Speaker B: My speech, so many good things. And Brandon, I want you to speak about this, but I want to just kind of itemize a couple of things here. And is culture, you know, there's a statement out there, culture is upstream of politics. And so what. What I kind of hear you saying in a way is, you know, it's. It's more important. Like, yes, there's the law, but, like, we need to be addressing this in our culture and, you know, our understanding and that here, here are, you know, the. The right now in today examples that we're seeing in our culture that, that are very concerning. I mean, Charlie Kirk basically handed his opponents the microphone.
He handed them the microphone and said, come on, let's. Let's have a discourse. And yet he, you know, we've. We've heard and you have, you know, Friends and, and sounds like on your own social media. I think I've seen a ton of it as well.
People that just do not agree that, that, that you, you know, that he should have been doing that. And it's just mind boggling. Brandon, what does free speech mean to you?
[00:25:59] Speaker A: Well, that's pretty broad.
No, I mean, really, it's freedom of thought. It's freedom to be able to discourse and be able to amend thought, you know.
You know, I, I'm gonna go to Justice Brandeis.
I'm not gonna quote it properly, but basically one of the things I love what he said was, you know, the, the cure for harmful speech is more speech not silencing people, you know, and some of these quotes I don't have memorized. Exactly. And I'm trying to remember which one of our founding fathers, but I always remember it is let, let everyone speak or else you actually think they have something to say. You know, and that might have been Benjamin Franklin, who also said, you know, if we don't have the liberty to speak, we don't have public freedom. You know, you know, these, the speed of freedom of speech was so fundamental to the discourse and being able to bring our thoughts together and create unity.
I think it's actually this attempt to shut things down. And I honestly think one of the reasons that Charlie Kirk became a target was he was getting people to think, especially in the place where they should be thinking. I mean, universities are where this should be happening. Right. You know, and, and I watched, you know, my, it was interesting because I think it was my sons who turned me on because we'll tend to watch YouTube videos, we'll, we'll exchange that stuff and we'll sit down and watch those together or clips from Instagram or whatever, and we'll talk about this stuff.
And, and I think that's where I ended up starting to watch Charlie Kirk. And, and it was interesting to me because, yeah, somebody come up and they would just start blasting him. They would just be all negative and calling him names, you know, and really not even trying to attempt to debate him. And he'd be like, okay, well that's interesting. Let me ask you some questions. You know, and he'd start trying to reason with them. And even if that person started reasoning to him and they didn't come to the same conclusion, he would at least acknowledge, you know, the debate that they had together. And I think that kind of discourse started to cause people to go, walk away. And you could watch the crowd, you know, you'd have people that might be in there kind of antagonistic. And they're all of a sudden like, okay, well, maybe there's something to say about this. You know, And I think that that is a threat, is a big problem in our society. I think this is what Marshall is talking about. Is it?
Well, I mean, let's just talk about what was it the Department of disinformation that came out in 2022.
I mean, the fact that that was even conceived. Right. I mean, that's a George Orwell type thing. Right.
That was actually something we. We intended to do. I know it got shut down, but it was like, really, that. That could actually happen in our society. These are weird things, you know, that. That.
And so we talk about culture.
I go to something Steve Corker was saying a little while ago.
He was saying, you know, businesses sort of, at least in Spokane, stepped out of being community members because they didn't want people to think about their political. You know, they didn't want to basically get canceled for putting up a.
A political statement.
[00:29:40] Speaker B: You know, probably ran into that. I ran into that. I. You know, I had a business right down the road from me that was a restaurant, and they said they'd put their signs up for me because I ran for office in 2322.
And. And then the. The landowner.
All of a sudden one day, my. Who happened to be the owner of the grocery store, you know, I showed up one day and all my signs were gone. And I'm like, what happened? And they're like, oh, you need to go talk to him. He. Even though the restaurant owner said, okay, the landowner that the restaurant was on said, no, we. We. We can't do that. We can't have any political signs. So you're right. There was a big sh. Shift. Right. And then you're also. What you're talking about, too reminds me so much of COVID Yeah. Oh, my gosh. I think that's what really made me go, what is. Where. What is happening? Because people got canceled on social media for. For saying, you know, if it didn't fit within a certain narrative, you got canceled and you got canceled on social. You got taken off or your content got taken off. So we started to see that. We saw know businesses and certain people. We know people. You already mentioned one of them, Marshall, who's gotten canceled basically, in our state, you know, for.
[00:30:59] Speaker C: For canceled by our government, which is worse. I mean, when you've got the government weighing in and then you had.
[00:31:06] Speaker B: And then to find out, like, you're saying, Brandon, that It was. It was from our government, and it still is. I mean, our state still has. I can't remember what it's called. I know they have the.
[00:31:18] Speaker C: Oh, yeah, the call in line.
[00:31:21] Speaker B: Yeah. But there's also this, you know, thing, and many of us, some of my colleagues here on X and stuff, we're on it. We know we're on it. We're already itemized as being, you know, the bad people because of what we talk about on. On social media. It's crazy. So it's a different level.
[00:31:38] Speaker C: You know, though, here's one of the things that occurs to me is, is the problem we have not fully understood the dissenting voice really adds so much to our.
To our entire society. I mean, the voice of the might of the minority, the person you don't want to hear.
I was talking about this. I was dumb enough to do that prosecutor interview thing where I threw my name in on that. But they're asking me.
Well, they asked me inside the interview. They said, what do you do with the person who, you know, speaks out against you? I'm like, I may not like that person, but I tell you time and time again, I have seen where that person has saved me from being overly confident and thinking I'm absolutely right. And one of the things I think we have not done enough of in society is appreciate the fact that I may not agree with that person in the least, but they may bring something to the table that I don't. I have yet to think of.
[00:32:44] Speaker B: Right.
[00:32:44] Speaker C: Or maybe they are bringing a counter to someone else that I don't think of. And we so absolutely want to shut everything down because we're scared that maybe. And I think it's actually. I think that the hate for freedom of speech is actually cowardice.
It's cowardice that I could be wrong.
It's arrogance and cowardice. It's that I could be wrong. And I'm not willing to even contemplate I could be wrong. Or like, I mean, Charlie Kirk was out arguing with people.
And the fact of the matter is, why can't you walk away from there and say, I think he's wrong, and be absolutely not coward.
Not cowardly about it and say, well, if he doesn't agree with me, I'm not gonna. And. And not be able to handle and deal with those.
Those counterpoints that he put in your head. If you can't deal with them, maybe there's a chance you should be rethinking that.
But that's actually one of the things that I Regret on the progressive and liberal side that they've gone this route of shutting down speech is the fact that we are not seeing good thought process and arguments come from that side that could counterbalance maybe something that we don't know that's going on. And so I'm actually more concerned about the fact that we aren't hearing anything that is like a level of logic. Instead, it's a level of rhetoric that if you don't accept my rhetoric, your evil shut you off.
No, tell me more. I mean, tell me why this rhetoric? Okay, no, that doesn't make sense to me.
And bam. I mean, that's what scares me. Also on the other side of the shutdown of freedom of speech is we're not getting good arguments from the other side.
And I don't know if we're wrong at certain points, because they're not. They're. They'd rather kill us than then listen to us and talk with us. And so that's concerning to me as well.
I don't know. That's just one of the thoughts I've got going on is, yeah.
[00:35:00] Speaker A: Yeah, I. Something Marshall says that I think, especially as lawyers, and this is one of the things that first, it bothers me and. And I think it bothers Marshall because I've heard Marshall talk about this, and I know I've talked about it. We want to just demystify law. You know, a lot of times there's like this magical sense of what lawyers are and who they are and all this stuff. And really there's a lot brought to the table by lawyers and legal professionals, which, you know, it's about reasoning. That's honestly all we have is a tool set. Marshall was talking about going in and talking, telling your story and bringing the promise. But it's the legal reasoning. And when I say legal reasoning, it's not anything magical. It's just reasoning, you know, and it's a lot like what Charlie Kirk was bringing to the table with people. And you. And you see these people coming up and they don't have anything good to discuss back. It's. There's no iron sharpening iron. There's no bettering that's occurring. And, you know, so sometimes I'd hear people like, oh, yeah, he crushed it. He crushed it. Well, I don't think that was what Charlie Kirk was going for. I think he was actually going for, can we sharpen each other? You know, and so there's almost this, you know, as lawyers, we do want.
If I go in and crush the other side and I get injustice, I'm not going to feel good about that. You know, I do want the other side to actually present something that's reasonable unless they should give up. I mean, you know, that's one thing, but it's like, we want justice to occur. And as lawyers, we get a chance to be in front of 12 people of our community and have to actually reason and present the facts in front of that jury and submit that to the jury and say, hey, tell us if we're right or wrong. So there's a sense of that cowardliness that Marshall's talking about is something we have to stand in front of 12 other people with a sense of boldness and heart and say, okay, we may be wrong with this. Tell us, you know, and have to use reasoning skills to bring it to the table.
And honestly here, are we right or wrong? And we don't get to go shoot somebody afterwards, you know, so this sense of, like, violence that comes from reasoning is just insane. And like Marshall's saying, it's diminishing our community in ways that it's hard to describe, but it's. It's. It's just diminishing our community.
[00:37:35] Speaker B: Well, and it. It actually reminded. When you talked about the cowardice of men, it actually made me think of too, if I can't, I. This is just me. And I would think a lot of people are like me, but I can't imagine thinking I'm going to be right all the time. I know better. In fact, I know I'm wrong a whole bunch.
And maybe that's why I get along with a lot of people, because I'm like, well, I could be wrong. You know, now I'm passionate usually about my truth. And I. And I think that's why I've been able to do well, you know, in the things I've done, because I speak with a lot of conviction and heart, but I also, I scrutinize myself like crazy. And when I want to hear other sides, like you're saying, I want to hear that because I'm. I'm not 100% I'm right at all. In fact, I'm learning all sorts of information every day. And that's again, like to think that there's only one way and you can't have any arguments again, it. And during COVID that was, you know, I mean, trust the science. Science. I'm. I'm sorry. Science is always questioning. You know, you have a hypothesis and you're constantly testing it, right? And then you go back Is it, is it working or isn't it? And then to, oh no, you can't question it. And yet there's evidence right and left and right and left. And of course we're finding out now that many of us that were, you know, questioning were right to question. Oh yeah, right. And so, but I'm wondering if it's also the pride of men, you know, and I was gonna look that, look, look up a. See about a scripture I had at Brian Noble on yesterday. And we were kind of talking about some of this. And so again, it might go back to a spiritual battle, you know, of this pride of men thinking that you know everything or you can't be questioned or, you know, you're in the right and they're in the wrong.
What? There's, there's, you know, I feel like media is playing into this. You guys, you guys kind of talked about this a little bit.
Marshall, you talked about the school age kids that didn't think freedom of speech was important and how, how big is, is it like the foundation of everything.
[00:39:50] Speaker C: Else, freedom of speech?
Honestly, it's a very significant foundation. I mean, speech originally comes from our thought and we were talking about scripture. I want to roll one out that I constantly love is out of Proverbs, through a multitude of counselors, a city saved.
And that is ultimately the talk on freedom of speech is you've got to have a multitude of voices to save our community.
[00:40:18] Speaker B: Wow.
[00:40:19] Speaker C: I mean it's, that's the reality. If you don't, if you don't listen to all your counselors and some you got to say, what's the wisdom behind this? And that kind of stuff. But to get to your point on the speech, I honestly think it's come from a fact of we've.
Speech starts out as thought, then we share it and someone else comes back and speaks back to us. If we're willing to listen, if you're a good listener.
And then we shift our thoughts and the ones that shouldn't be around die and they move to something better. That should be how we work. But what's happened is so many people have gone down the road. At least this is what I see affirming feelings.
And rather than saying maybe your feelings aren't legitimate, have you thought of that? And so I now need to shut down my ability to listen because all my feelings are legitimate.
That's kind of, I guess where I could best come with it is we've embraced in society that feelings are your definition rather than your definition should be that of a truth seeker, and as a truth seeker who owns, at the end of the day, the thoughts that you're going to live and die by, why wouldn't you want to hear other voices?
Why wouldn't you want a multitude of counselors, even the ones who you absolutely disagree with? I mean, you gotta hear them. And I. I remember going through one of the most tough times in my life. I had a lot of people who were.
I won't share the entire experience, but I had a lot of people who were saying I was wrong. And I made the. I made the commitment that I was gonna listen to everyone, regardless of who. Who it was and what they said. And I heard some pretty dang hard, bad things. And when I tell people some of this stuff, they're like, oh, my gosh, why would they say that to you? I'm like, you know, they thought they were doing the right thing.
And to this day, I'm glad I heard it, because it allowed me to sit there and think, is it true?
And here's truth, here's not what comes out of it. And I would challenge that. I'm not sure. Our generations that we've raised have been taught to hear the things they disagree with and judge for themselves. Truth versus fiction.
And. And not only that, but where did they begin to shift a little bit more based on what they heard and what they haven't?
And so that's kind of my view of where we've gone with freedom of speech is we don't like hearing the dissenting voice because it hurts our feelings, and that's just hard.
[00:43:04] Speaker B: It's dangerous. It's dangerous.
[00:43:06] Speaker C: Very dangerous.
[00:43:07] Speaker B: Yeah. And then, you know, I was talking with somebody else actually, last night, somebody from the police force, and how, you know, compa. This is not compassion.
This is not compassion. You know, to enable people to stay in a place that is harmful to them, themselves and to their community is not compassion. And it's like we are. We are lying to ourselves. Let me. Let me read a couple of these scriptures. I looked up the pride of men.
The wicked, in the haughtiness of his face, will not seek nor inquire for him or God.
[00:43:42] Speaker A: All.
[00:43:43] Speaker B: All his thoughts are, there is no God, so there's no accountability or punishment. I think that kind of lays.
Lays it out. Well, that was from Psalms, and then in Proverbs, pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before fall. Brandon, thoughts that you have about all this?
[00:44:03] Speaker A: Yeah. Interestingly enough, what came to mind when Marshall was Talking was James 4, which talks about what causes fights and quarrels among you, do they not come from your desires that battle within you? You know, and this thing about the freedom of speech and being able to listen to others is really, I think what Marshall was talking about is I need to be able to hear if I cannot listen to others about my faults. And then, you know, you go to Corinthians 4 where Paul's talking about, you know, how do you take in that information and let God be your judge instead of other people being your judge and submit that stuff to God. Well, that's the basis of humility, right? Fear God, not man.
And really what we have right now is this upside down, a tremendous amount haughtiness and pride. And so people can't take any kind of criticism without it just destroying them. And when we talk about it being violence, you know, it's not really violence, you know, it's not really violence. But that level of that war inside, and now we create it. And it's interesting because it says, so you kill, you know, is the next portion of, you know, and, and that, and I didn't just remember that when Marshall was talking is, you know, this leading to kill is really about these wars that are happening with side inside. And people don't have the ability to have some humility and fear God instead of man, you know, and when I talk about fearing God and you know, sometimes people think about trembling, fear. No, we're talking about respect. You know, we talk about peer pressure, right? Is that peer pressure coming from people or is that we're looking at God and saying, okay, we care about what God thinks about us, you know, so Justice Jackson, who's one of my heroes, who was great on, on due process, he was one of the great fighters for due process. And, and one of the reasons I loved him is he went, he was supposed to become the Supreme Court Chief justice.
And there was this back behind the scenes agreement that if you went and did the Nuremberg trials as a prosecutor, and that was a big thing, right? I mean, being able to stand up for justice. Because essentially the defense that the Nazis were having was, hey, we were following our laws, you know, and, and he went and fought, you know, and, and you know, know, so he went in as a prosecutor representing the United States and that. And, and he gave up his seat as Supreme Court Chief Justice. When he came back, he wasn't allowed to have that seat. He was promised it back, but he wasn't giving it back.
So it was a big sacrifice for him. He went in there and he was considered one of the best orators during the opening and closings, you know, and cross examinations as well. And, and he said, just because I'm unconsciously wrong yesterday does not mean I need to be consciously wrong today, you know, and that was the recognition that sometimes we're wrong. We need to be able to know how we change our opinions. And so I have that above my door, my office, you know, is. Because all the time we don't know when we're wrong until we have that voice of dissent that comes out, the person that sharpens our iron. You know, you have to listen to that criticism. It's about humility, you know, and in this belief that we can't be challenged, it's mind boggling to me. And I think hopefully good lawyers, it's mind boggling to them. And it's a little bit sad for me to see a lot of lawyers who are, who are kind of withdrawing and not seeing how we have a role in helping our society, society, you know, in that reasoning skill.
[00:47:50] Speaker B: So, so how, how do we get from where we are? You know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of challenges. I mean, we're faced with in our society. And I think that, that this week it, it showed us, you know, at the very least, right. It showed us where we are as a country, as a nation, as a culture.
And it's scary, it is scary that, you know, somebody that was out there basically standing on their freedom of speech rights and basically handing, you know, dissenting voice, the microphone was shot in cold blood in front of, in front of everybody. And how, you know, how do we get from where we're at to where we, where we should be? How do we get to honoring freedom of speech? Everybody's freedom of speech, as long as you're not harm, you know, violating somebody else's rights.
Right. And maybe, maybe that needs to be better understood as well. Like, you know, wait a second. Okay, there are parameters, but, but we're, you know, you just talking about how you disagree is not, is not breaking those parameters. And we're seeing that in UK right now. I mean, people are getting, you know, jailed and arrested because they posted something they didn't like on, on Facebook and we're not there yet. Although, you know, we've kind of come pretty darn close. So. Yeah, how do we get from where we are to where we're, where we need to be?
[00:49:17] Speaker C: I think, I think there's, I would say it's two things, but I'm going to tell you we don't get there in a year, we don't get there in five. We get there in generations, and we got here in generations.
But honestly, I think it's two things. I think, number one of a boldness. This is one of the things that Charlie Kirk had was boldness. I mean, there was no doubt he was receiving death threats and everything. He put himself out there and his life was cut short, but his mission was correct and his mission was done.
He did his mission.
And so, number one, I think boldness.
But number two, I also think at the same time, it's amazing to me how much people stand up for the their own rights and start screaming for their own rights and watch as the person next to them loses theirs.
And that's the reality of what happens is when my neighbors is lost, mine get diminished. And to this day, that's not. I mean, people ask.
It's really funny how often that FOIP case gets mentioned in the newspaper. I.
I took the spotlight in range media by the FOIP case rather than two very qualified prosecutors. And I'm the third option. And they're like running this whole article on me. It was just ridiculous.
But the whole reason I took it and the whole reason I went down there and watched was they were sitting there attacking the rights of someone else.
And, you know, honestly, if they were attacking the rights of someone who wasn't a Christian, I would equally be doing the same.
Because the reality is, at the end of the day, we need to not just be like, oh, it's my rights, but stand there and look and say, what are theirs and who are. Who's my neighbors? Because if we're going to live in a pattern that shifts this for a generation, we got to do two things, and that is model to our children boldness and model to them that we will be out there, live or die, to do the right thing and what we believe is right, but we will also protect our neighbor and protect their rights and not just scream about our own. And so those are the two things that I think how we get there is that's what we do. And we only get so many years on this earth to do our shift, and then we exit it.
And so are we going to do it in those two arenas?
[00:51:54] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Brandon, what's your thoughts about that?
[00:51:57] Speaker A: Well, it's interesting. What Marshall said is because he and I both know we've taken cases where we've represented people that are not conservative, you know, in any particular way. And actually, it's interesting, I had A liberal attorney that was working for me. He kept on asking me, why the heck did I, was I protecting some, some people who were gay? You know, and, and, and, and I'm like, because everyone deserves those protections, you know, and if I'm not protecting these people, how am I protecting the rest of us? You know, and just blind, right? Justice, right.
[00:52:35] Speaker B: Supposed to be blind, right?
[00:52:37] Speaker A: You know, and as a Christian, I believe in protecting the sojourner.
[00:52:41] Speaker C: Right?
[00:52:41] Speaker A: I mean, if we're not protecting the person who's vulnerable, everyone's gone. You know, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable people. And if we're not doing that, if we're not protecting those rights, we were really eroding everything, you know, and so Marshall and I both know we've had cases where we have protected the people that we don't agree with, with their, their lifestyle or their position, but it's about protecting their rights like anyone else, you know, and that's the amazing part to me is because I know so many more, quote, liberal people. And it's also interesting to me because I'm pretty sure if we look at it, most of the assassination attempts have been by, you know, against conservatives and by liberal people. You know, I'm just looking at of like, what, what's, what's up with that? You know, it's kind of, and, you know, it's just kind of the, the attempt to shut down the, the freedom really should not come from any conservatives, which I don't believe does happen that way. You know, it's one of the reasons I'm more that. Leaning that direction. But how do we get other people to actually understand this importance? Because if I talk to a lot of lawyers, they're going to sit there and think that the liberals, you know, a lot of lawyers are liberal and they think the liberals are protection of rights. And that's not what I see, and that's not where I come from, you know.
But something Marshall's pointing out is that comes from a generational stance. If we're not looking at how this has been around for generations right now, moving inch by inch over generations, what are we doing with younger people today? How are we showing the younger people? How are we mentoring them? And if we're not, I mean, I was just one of my, my young lawyers was talking about, we were working on a case, and she's like, this is a fight against capitalism. I'm like, really? Tell me more. You know, and we're walking through it and I'm like, okay, so let Me ask you something. Are you. Do you feel like, you know, you just spent a bunch of money on getting a law degree, and so I'm assuming you don't want to get paid when you become lawyer. She's like, no, I do. And I'm like, okay, so you want to be able to pay off that debt and you want to make money? Yes, I do. Do you feel like the investment in your reasoning skills should, you know, and all this creativity that you have inside everything you think that's valuable should? She's like, well, yeah, of course I do. I'm like, do you feel like you should be exchanged that on the marketplace? Well, yeah, I do. That's called the free marketplace, you know.
Okay.
You know, I'm like, you know, why? Why? And I said, you know, with the free marketplace comes accountability, you know, because. Oh, I forget which one of the founding fathers was talking about the fact, you know, some of these quotes stick my head, but I forget who says them. But the freedom of speech doesn't come without accountability. You know, the accountability happens in the social arena. It's just like our Washington state constitution actually says, everyone has the freedom to speak. Speak. And take the accountability for. It was just kind of interesting because I think it's only our amendment that actually says that is basically, you know, people get to be prejudice against you for the speech you have, you know, so not only do you have the right to speak freely, but everybody gets to hold the prejudice against you if they want to. And yet, what do we have right now? No, we're going to try to shut down that speech rather than actually have this freedom of discourse that's really embodied in who we are as a people, you know, that's really interesting.
[00:56:29] Speaker C: Well, here's.
[00:56:31] Speaker B: Hold on.
[00:56:31] Speaker C: Here's where you get into the lawyering stuff. I honestly believe it's much more narrow than that brand.
[00:56:38] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:56:38] Speaker C: And they put that in there for the fact that they needed to keep libel and slander laws.
[00:56:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:56:48] Speaker C: That'S where. That's where you get lawyers fighting on.
[00:56:50] Speaker B: And that might be episode two, where we can dive into that, because that sounds a little bit more in the weeds, but I wanted to bring up what you were saying. Brandon. Actually reminds me of some things I've been watching, and I've kind of wondered about it. So we've seen, seen, you know, the last few days, there have been those accounts, especially on social media, that have said negative things against Charlie or his death or he deserved it, kind of like. And then there have been a lot of Other people that have raised the flag, if you will, on. On those posts. And we have seen quite a few people get canned recently from hired institutions or elementary schools. And, you know, I'm like, but if it's kind of felt like a little bit of a slippery slope to me, because it's like, well, they. They have every right to post that right. Like, they have the right to the freedom.
You know, I believe in their freedom as just like I would want it, the freedom for myself. However, like you said, there is the accountability for it.
And just look at what's happening. And I think it's so. It's, you know, and there's a lot of people that are like, oh, send them to me. I'll help blast it, you know. And so a lot of people are, like, acting like a watchdog right now, helping to really amplify those, you know, accounts that are doing that maybe bad act, you know, kind of bad behavior, if you will, because it shouldn't be. You know, that's. That's not a. That's not morally. Anybody that dies like that, I mean, I don't care what side of the aisle. Right.
That. That's. I wouldn't do that. Let's just go there. But if you do, you have the right to do that, but you also have the right to have the accountability of what might happen if you do. Right. I mean, talk to me a little bit about that. Like I said, it's slippery slope.
[00:58:43] Speaker C: Yeah. Here's my view on it.
I keep on jumping in before. Brandon, Sorry.
I want to. I was actually going to bring that up because I personally have a problem with that, with the blasting them out there. I think we didn't like it when it was happening to people, when they were talking about the COVID narrative and the firings, those ones. And so I think it's a dangerous precedent that we don't listen to that voice and just shut it off like we should and relegate it inside our own lives instead. We feel like we have to bring it outside our own lives and bring some power to bear.
However, on the other side, if you're a private employer, and I want to make this very clear distinguishment, if you're a private employer, you have a right to the freedom of speech as well, and to declare what your employees, what kind of employees you want to have out there in the public. And so that's there, too.
Now, where I have a problem is recently we've been really blasting people on the government side, asking the government to fire people And I think anytime we get into the realm and I. There's a Pickering balancing test and all this weird stuff, I've got those cases. But anytime we run into the realm of using government power at all, whether it's through employment or anything, yeah, we become very dangerous because the government is meant to be our servant, not our master.
And so.
[01:00:15] Speaker B: Interesting.
[01:00:16] Speaker C: But I. On the realm of do we believe in free speech? I think it's actually disingenuous to the free speech statement to go out there and ask for people to be fired for their speech. I. I just think I personally, it rubs me totally wrong and I've been actually kind of a little frustrated by it.
[01:00:38] Speaker B: Interesting. Brandon, you have thoughts on that?
[01:00:40] Speaker A: Yeah, actually something Marshall said I think is really important, and it's a misunderstood concept.
Government is violence. It's the monopoly on violence. So all government action is force, and that is something that we must think about. So when we try to do anything good with the government, it is force. It is by force, anytime we try to do anything.
And so if we're keeping that in mind, let's just say we're going to try to help homeless people through the government, we're doing that by force.
So that has to always be in the context of everybody's brain, because we all want to do something through the government, and we forget it is only by force that we do anything through the government.
So then we talk about the private nature of things, Right. Well, hopefully that's by persuasion and marketing and the selling of ideas. And so I think Marshall's right when we talk about we've got to be real careful on trying to cancel that, because if we create a monopoly of ideas, we have the same problem that we've had years ago. Any monopoly is a bad thing. You know, so, you know, definitely competition of ideas. And. And I do think there's a point of accountability when it comes to evil. Right.
Ostracizing evil. But we have to be careful there, too, because are we ostracizing something too quickly? You know, are we silencing something too quickly just because it makes us feel uncomfortable, just because it makes us feel bad or we don't want to look at it that way, that is gonna diminish our ability to make choices. We. Because maybe even 5% of that's good, and we want to take that and use that. We'll. We lose it if we throw everything out. You know, we've got so much of.
[01:02:29] Speaker B: That from the left. I think that, you know, white Christian nationalist, you know, domestic Terrorist. You know, we, we, we, we. A lot of us has been. Just because we were conservative or just because we look, voted for Trump or just because we were our Republican or, you know, whatever, right? Or didn't. Didn't believe in taking the vaccine or. I mean, now I was in a public space when that happened, and I. And I didn't do it. And I feel like I kind of got, you know, taken out because, you know, I didn't choose to do that medical treatment.
And.
And so it, you know, I get it, right? Like, we don't like to be labeled. And so then those, you know, and then you see people kind of calling, you know, Charlie a Nazi and you, you know, or. Or using that same rhetoric to label and to defame or, you know, I think, like what the. The case with Sean Floyd. Right.
And so, So I get there's a sensitivity, but, yeah, it definitely is a very slippery slope, isn't it?
[01:03:41] Speaker A: Yep, it is.
And it's really something, I think if. If we don't appreciate. And this is where I think Marshall was going earlier. I mean, I thought you were pretty clear about it. Just make it as clear as I can make it, is that slippery slope is governed by people's appreciation for the reasoning for those ideas.
And the fact that the appreciation of us. Other ideas, competing ideas, is not out there in our current culture. The fact, this idea that somehow words are more destructive than anything else, it's.
It's gonna hurt our society. And so to change that, we're gonna have to start with really the selling of the idea to young people.
The other competing ideas are good things. You know, these actually prove us and that they. They build us. They don't hurt us. They help us. You know, I think about that book, Can't Hurt Me by David Goggins, right? And that guy, it's amazing you read that book. And he comes from the background, a pretty abusive background, right? And he talks about mental hardness and how that mental hardness that he developed actually created the ability to. To be, you know, more vulnerable in his heart, you know, so.
[01:05:04] Speaker B: Wow. I gotta read that book. I want to honor your guys's time. I've definitely got other things I'd love to ask about, but I know we were going to check in in an hour. How we doing? You guys want to. Do you need to head out to your families? I know you're taking time away from your families or you got a little bit, maybe 20 more minutes of time, you think?
[01:05:23] Speaker A: I just got a text asking if I'm on My way back.
[01:05:26] Speaker B: Okay. All right. Okay.
[01:05:28] Speaker A: Well, that's literally just got the text.
[01:05:31] Speaker B: Well, there we go. I, I, I think, you know, because I want to get into also I think there's cases that you guys have tried and are, you know, battling for these freedom, these rights, and I, I want people to be aware of them. I also think that the media is not doing, it's its due diligence and it's, you know, balanced journalism and helping to share what's happening or what has happened. And so a lot of people aren't aware of those. So I'd really love to bring you guys back on and maybe we can do this again because I think this is so helpful. Any final thoughts that you guys want to share before we finish off for at least today?
[01:06:15] Speaker A: Go ahead, Marshall.
[01:06:16] Speaker C: No, I don't have any final thoughts. I was gonna piggyback on you this time.
[01:06:21] Speaker A: Okay.
I think probably the key thought that I have is we have an obligation to young people that we are failing on, on a regular basis.
And I have five sons, 28 to 17.
And the beautiful part about that is how many young men I've had that come over to my place, hang out, and I get a chance to talk to.
And it's interesting to me how much, how hungry they are for just simple things like reasoning, simple things like how do I even take care of myself, you know, and even in those areas of just how do I take care of myself, myself, I'm just, I'll give a, a quick example. You know, when I take a young person out and we're learning how to shoot a rifle, right? That's a perfect opportunity for me to talk about, you know, the same way when this bullet exits this gun, you lose control of it. It's how it's aimed, how it's purposed. And by the way, your words are the same way. Are they intentional? Are they thoughtful?
Are they set to do what you want them to do? You know, how many different places in our life can we be mentoring these young people? And it's not happening today. We've turned that over to essentially an institution that doesn't truly care about our kids. It cares about an ideology or ideologies.
And a lot of those ideologies are developed by people who don't really, really want to have kids. They want to control our kids.
And I just think we were, we, we can do better. And if you can get out, mentor, you know, help young people, just in small things. There's every, every area of our life we can teach about, well, freedom of assembly, just getting together and talking. How many young people don't even take the time to get together anymore? You know, that social, those social skills, those social skills that we grew up with, taught each other how to be. I mean, so many kids that maybe I didn't really like them all together, but they were the people I hung out with. Right. You know, you have to get along. You have to figure out what do I like about this person, what's good about them. You know, that freedom of the same.
[01:08:42] Speaker B: If I say something stupid, I'm going to get probably, you know.
[01:08:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
And there's just all this stuff that's right there in the midst of us and we've sort of taken it for granted, but we understand. So we have an obligation, I think, to the younger generations to help them bring them into a great appreciation because what you don't appreciate, you'll lose.
[01:09:08] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a great call to action. I think, especially in light of this week, I think there's a lot of people feeling called to step up and do more, you know, and be bold and courageous. And I think, you know, mentoring is, is so needed right now. Marshall, thoughts?
[01:09:23] Speaker C: Yeah, I, I want to end with this one. I, I like what Brand's talking about with mentoring, but I want to take it just a different direction is to me, when we talk about, we're talking today about freedom of speech, it's absolutely important to remember that all our freedoms and liberties pre existed our constitution. They are who we are.
And anytime you exercise that and be bold, you're doing not your constitutional duty, you're doing your duty as a human being.
And so I'd encourage everyone to be bold and exercise their rights, but I would tell them be bolder and make sure they protect and love everyone else as a human being by making sure their rights are respected. Even if, especially if you think they're saying something you don't like, it is the best time to defend them. So, yes, that's where I would go.
[01:10:18] Speaker B: That's awesome. That's well said. Appreciate that. We've got, I know we've got people listening. We've got Dave. That said, thank you all for the informative live chat. I think this has been awesome.
Brandon and Marshall, thank you so much for taking time out of your, you know, your weekend, your family time, your busy lives and coming and sharing your hearts with people, you know, possibly all across the nation. Who knows how far this will go? But I hope we can continue this because I think this is so important for people to keep thinking and leaning into this and for us to almost deconstruct this. I mean Marshall, you kind of started it out from the get go talking about, you know, super students not thinking that our freedom of speech is important and that is so alarming. And just like Brandon, you are saying we've got to get involved with our young, our youth and really mentor and change that and it is on us to do that. So if we can use this platform to maybe challenge our thinking or learn more and about how we can change that and better understand what those freedoms are, what those rights as a human being are and as a, you know, citizen of the greatest nation ever. Right.
That's under God then I think I, I would love to do that. So thank you both for your time today. Thank you MJ Yeah blessings to you. Thanks to everybody and we'll all see you later. Have a great weekend.
[01:11:49] Speaker C: Thank you M.J. you too.
[01:11:50] Speaker A: Thanks.
