Republican Judge Roger Benitez Strikes Down Democrat Mandated Lying And Tax-Fund [5:03-10:12]

Psalm 65, King James version, a moment of reflection. Okay, we are in the United States District Court Southern District of California. Filed 22 December, 2025 years after Jesus, this is what it looks like and these are the cigars I smoked when I was reading it and celebrating and studying it. And somewhere in the middle there, I did another work through and this is where we're at. We're on page 10. I'm going to share my screen, feel free to call me Sharon because I'm sharing my screen. We're in Roman numeral two on line seven page 10, the class, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment now a lot of you guys are not familiar with this. How this looks and so you're getting a nice look here. This is a federal district court in California. Signed by Roger Benitez. Roger Benitez, as I said, was confirmed by the Senate after George W. Bush pointed him and we are very happy with Roger Benitez. He's a man of integrity and knowledge and wisdom. So let's listen to what he has to say on this issue here. We continue. This is Walt. This is part two. For part one, you want to go back to December 30, 2025, where we started this. The class action plaintiffs seek summary judgment and declaratory and injunctive relief from the state defendants and that would be the Democrat California. Class claims numbered one, two, three, six and seven and eight are addressed in reverse order from strongest to weakest beginning with the class claims of parents and ending with the class claims of teachers. Applicable law. Roman numeral three. Federal rule of civil procedure 56. That's fourth, the well known standard for summary judgment is explained by a trio of Supreme court cases. And you can take a look at those. The standards are not disputed here. Under these standards, summary judgment may be entered where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The state defendants do not contend that genuine issues of material fact are present that require trial. They do not contend that. So California, excuse me. California is saying there's no issues of fact here that need to be brought out in trial in an adversarial procedure here. So Benitez is saying, OK, well, let's just take a look at the law and what it was a loss. Very easy. State defense do not contend that genuine issues of material fact are present that require trial. When asked at the hearing about what genuine issues of material fact were present in the case, the deputy attorney general that would be of California. But could not point to a fact issue instead explaining fundamentally and our view plaintiffs constitutional claims are not cognizable. They're not viable. So recognizing that this is a motion for summary judgment, I think that our view of it is that as a matter of law, these claims are not correct. Page 11 at the top. That was a direct quote hearing transcript 12526. As mentioned above, the state defendants, that's Democrat California, defend their parental exclusion policies. That's the that's the policy says you should lie to parents. If they outright ask you certain questions about their kids, like related to transgender stuff, OK, so called transgender stuff.