Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: Let me turn my attention to Attorney at Law Fareed Ali. As we get straight into our discussions this morning, for the next 30 minutes or so, as we deal with the SOE that is coming to an end, the release of detainees, what it means for Trinidad and Tobago. And of course, I can probably slip in his thoughts on the Zoso Bill.
So to my learned legal luminary, good morning to you, Mr. Ali. Good morning.
[00:00:31] Speaker C: Good morning, Mr. Moritz. A pleasure to be here. I hope I could be of some assistance.
[00:00:34] Speaker B: Well, you know, I thank you very much for getting up early this morning. I know the challenge.
I mean, I scream at my alarm every morning. This morning was no different.
And still after it went off at 4, I still sneak in at 28 minutes in there. But anyway, as we get straight into it, I think 9-8-17th is the date set for the SOE to end.
We are seeing persons being released. PDO is being revoked.
First and foremost, as an attorney, explain to me what happens or what is the legal outreach that persons can use if they are arrested and detained by officers, but no charge. We're not Talking about the PDOs, we're talking about the average citizen. How long can police officers hold somebody while they're investigating?
Is it really 48 hours? 72, 7 days? Can they hold you indefinitely? And when you come out without charges, what recourse is there for the average citizen? Not the pdo, just a regular citizen that may call you and say, if Aliboye de arrest me,
[00:01:49] Speaker C: anyone arrested by the ttps, and they are the subject of an investigation, they can be held by the police for what the court term a reasonable period of 48 hours.
That doesn't mean to say that you can't be held for a period beyond 48 hours.
48 hours is what the court recognizes as reasonable. In other words, they can't detain you and keep you at station, not inform you the reasons for your arrest
[00:02:27] Speaker A: and
[00:02:27] Speaker C: keep you beyond 48 hours if they have no facts or no case, no story, no evidence to support the original reason for rest. Let me put it differently.
You have been detained by police officers. They tell you that we believe you're involved in some criminal activity. They must be able to define what the criminal activity is, whether it be murder, whether it be robbery, whether it be an offense against the person, meaning you're suspected to being involved in serious bodily harm to another person from as much as an assault causing them to apprehend fear or to feel vehicle to actually causing grievous bodily harm, serious harm or wounding. In other words, the reasoning for the detention must be defined very early, from the time they put their hands on you. If it is they haven't explained to you the reason for detaining you, then the arrest is what we call an unlawful arrest and your detention is unlawful.
Now, if within 48 hours a charge is not laid, they must explain what is the reason for not leading the charge. In other words, they can't just detain you and keep you there at their pleasure and not lay a charge and bring you before court bail hearing because in law you're entitled to your liberty.
The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, which governs how the police interact with the citizens.
That constitution says that anybody charged before the court is entitled by right to reasonable bail. And if it is, you are to be denied bail. There must be a substantial basis for that denial that the court must explain to you the individual being detained.
So there have been instances where the police keep you in custody two weeks, a homicide investigation is going on, you've been detained two days passed, four days past, seven days pass.
You are entitled when detained and you see that two days have passed or even less than that if it is your name is, you have a Syrian orientation, a Lebanese orientation, or you have plenty money, you are rich, black, and black includes Indian, Chinese too.
So you don't have any privileges because of your class, because of your ethnicity and because of who you are in terms of the standing you hold in society. From the Prime Minister to the vagrant on the street has the same right in law.
But let us not fool ourselves, right? A man like you get locker a well known, reputable individual like yourself, the police will treat you with a level of discretion that they may not treat me a vagrant because in their mind you are somebody who have the resources to challenge them if it comes to that. So human nature and ttps are humans too, they tend to exercise the discretion based on who's in front of them. It doesn't mean to say they exercise a bias based on that discretion. But anyway, having said that, the position is simply this. You have been detained.
You can file what we call make an application for writ of habeas corpus to be served upon the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General's office.
So your lawyer makes an application, files, writes a letter explaining that Davey Murray was arrested on Sunday morning. He was on his way to Bay Doubles and Mobile Junction. The police stopped him and said that, oh, they just have information on African male, did something wrong, robbed a supermarket in Port of Spain and fled in this direction. You fit the description, just that. And they arrest you to take you to Besson street police station. Your attorney Monday morning could file, could write a letter to the criminal Registry explaining the circumstances which you were arrested and indicate that he's seeking to have a writ served upon the Attorney General's office and the ttps, which is the commissioner of Police office. And have the police bring you before the court and before a judge who is going to deliberate on the matter. And the judge will ask of them, what is the reason behind detailing and arresting this man? What is the evidence you have against them, against him? And if they are unable to provide evidence or unable to satisfy the judge that there is sufficient basis in which to have this man here and detain him. And they just could say, I'm exercising my discretion, I'm ordering that he be released.
But not everybody has the resources to hire an attorney that will cost $7,500 their minimum in order to get that redress for an attorney to even wink his eye in that direction.
So justice is a costly thing and seeking redress is always going to cost you.
It will cause you to dig deep into your pocket and if you don't have anything in that pocket, well, lean back in the station, lie down on the ground and enjoy this thing.
[00:07:41] Speaker B: Wow. And I'm very, very happy with you this morning for stating that cost because a lot of persons don't know those costs because attorneys sometimes are reluctant to say what it costs. But I must commend you and give a bookie this morning for saying that, because I want that stark reality to hit the citizens properly.
So with that detention of the average citizen because you fit a description, the police hold you. You don't have that 7,005 for a lawyer, as you mentioned, to wink in your direction. You're in the station.
Your constitutional rights are now would now could be possibly be infringed upon because you hold Ms. Sunday Morning buying my doubles.
You didn't charge me.
If at that moment the police officers does not tell me why they are putting handcuffs on me while I was paying for my doubles to just say, hey, come. And they hold me and say, you're under arrest. And. And while I'm asking questions, hush your mouth and take me to the station, as you mentioned Bessel street and put me in a cell. I don't know why they're not saying what recourse then have they broken the law? Because I know Some police officers can do that, not speak to you.
Are they mandated upon arrest to read you? Because I understand from another attorney that we do not have Miranda rights on the legislation in Trinidad and Tobago. That doesn't exist. So what exactly is a police officer to say to you when they are arresting or putting their hands on you to say that you are under arrest?
[00:09:27] Speaker C: You must. The officer, when he stops you, he must explain to you the reason for stopping you. He must explain to you the reason for detaining you and arresting you. If there is no reason, when it is to explain to you, if he doesn't explain to you the reason and you pull away or you run away, then the. The he can't arrest you, or he can't seek to remind you in custody, in his care, or he can't hold you against your will. If it is, he can't explain to you why it is he wants to keep you, and it must be a justifiable reason. In other words, the arrest is unlawful.
If it is, he doesn't explain to you why. And he must. The explanation must come at a reasonable time, right? So let us say you're in a pan and powder in Port of Spain and the police come and they put their hands on you. Obviously the circumstances, given the volume of noise around you, given the circumstances, you're on Charlotte street and people shopping at the police, people cussing and saying, you're putting your hand on the boy, it's the wrong man. All they have. Or they don't like black people or they don't like Raskaman.
The police at that point there, in order to maintain the peace and not cause a scene and not compromise their security and cause any mayhem in the street there, because the situation is becoming volatile, they can take you to the station and then explain. So there must be a reasonable. They must explain to you the reason for the arrest in a reasonable time. But the reasonable time must be as soon as possible, right? And as soon as possible, as soon as they get the opportunity to do it. Because the circumstances I'm describing are very specific, meaning that they may not be able to explain to you, given these special and unique circumstances in which they come to arrest you.
Mova Junction, in my example, might be an area where they figure, well, it hot, the community hot, and that area has space that they want to stand up and proceed to explain anything, especially if you are back ends. If you're there with your brethren and it's three and four of them and they get it on, I want to know what they're doing now, the situation is this. Bear in mind, and the public must understand, you are entitled by law, your right is to find out the reason for your arrest. So in my example, when it is your attorney rights to the criminal registry in border Spain, indicating what his position is that you've been unlawfully detained and writes and files, sends a similar correspondence to the Attorney General's office at the Commissioner Police Office, he must explain, he must attach an affidavit to the document, to the application where he's explaining that so and so, meaning a relative was there, a witness was present, and the witnesses saying, this is what happened, that I was there with him in his presence and this man was a. This man was detained, no explanation was given. I am his relative. I went to the station, I made an inquiry. What is the reason for arresting him?
I'm now seeking to have an attorney visit him. The police are saying to me, no, he's not taking any visitors. He can't come here. We're not seeing no civilian. They cannot do that. They have to explain that. Listen, we arrest this individual, yes, he's an adult or he's a minor, worse yet if he's a minor, because they ought to inform his fiance to his next of kin. But a relative is entitled to come to the station and make an inquiry. And they should tell you, well, we have him at best, Wall street, we'll be taking him to St. Vincent Street. CID.
A lot of people go and they say, listen, listen, this is a police matter. Don't come back yet. All that is unlawful.
So the police is not entitled to do as they want when they arrest you. The law recognizes minimally 48 hours for your detention as being a reasonable period. But let me elaborate on that a little bit. If it is in that 48 hours, let us say you have knowledge of the crime they're investigating. And you say, officer, listen, I want you to understand this. I know what you're talking about. What he explained to me about this assault that took place in Coconut Drive in Mova. I'm aware of it. I was coming out riding my bicycle when it is this incident take place. And I recognize so many persons involved and I try to make peace.
It's my brethren. And I come and I tell him, hey, not, don't be on that. You know, look up now do that. Money or no money or this sort of does want to get up in people's face and you don't understand the consequences.
And people who see figure when I was involved in the altercation What I didn't realize is I was a peacemaker. In other words, by what, by uttering what you did, you've placed yourself on the locust, you've placed yourself on the scene of the crime, but you have an explanation to offer that you was not one of these assailants, you wasn't involved in the altercation. You turn up there as a peacemaker and you was riding your bicycle peacefully passing by and you forget to do you want to. Do you want to be a good citizen and get involved, to just defuse a situation rather than reach the murder.
So you owe the police an explanation. And your explanation may be. May result in you being released. They might say, oh God. We now recognize that the report we get, we had you fed the description, but. But our investigation now revealed that you were not actually a participant. You actually were able to corroborate your story.
So. But what about the reverse? What if I say officer, I was ready there and baby Murray come up in my face and when he went primary school together, we have a whole beef. He tell me, look how you're looking, you're smelling that kind of way dress that kind of way.
And he choked me and getting kicks and I threw my slap.
So in other words, you gave an explanation for your involvement that first date. He assault you, he chuck you, he be little you, he demeania. And I felt like I needed to chuck him that, you know, they come off me dopey on me, but I never break your hand, I never hit him on coffee mouth and he break your teeth, nothing like that. In other words, you have an explanation to offer the police number to go back and interview devi and say boy, the explanation you gave the whole story.
And we have a witness who supported the man case that you really confront him first. So in other words, sometimes you, you cause yourself to remain more than two days, the four days they spend in custody, you decide to exercise your right to explain yourself and in doing so they realize they're more involved because let us say you have a heart condition and you critical in the intensive care unit hibiscus. We did mount up after that.
That is, that'll wait until you recover to get a second statement from you. In the meantime, you, Davy Murray line down in the, in the cell in. In Besson street, waiting for somebody to recover so they could finish the investigation. And five, six days pass. So you may, when you go before the judge now having filed a writ, the police may explain, well, these are the facts and just all that I just said this man is involved in some way. The victim is in intensive care. We need to evolve this investigation. But we have a feeling if we only let this man go right now, he go in Venezuela, he take a boat and disappear. He goes down Moruga and we're looking for him. So it's important that we keep him there. And based on utterances he made, we may need ED warrants keeping him a bit longer.
[00:17:10] Speaker B: So the better thing to do is to remain silent and get an attorney present and go forward. All right, redress now for both persons held beyond their constitutional rights without investig. Without any unearthing of charges being laid against the person. So they, they don't have the money. But the police hold them five days, seven days, two weeks now. And the police decide, listen, based on the investigation, they let it go because they can't charge you, they're gonna lose. They are nothing to charge you on. So they let you go. And as the average citizen who didn't have the money, what recourse does that person have versus those held on PDOs and coming out calls? I see any calls coming in, please allow the attorney to respond to this and then we'll take a call quickly. So versus the average citizen who is held normally beyond their constitutional rights and being released and Those held on PDOs that was not charged and are now going to be released and have been in the past been released. What are the recourse that either one can take and how successful would those recourses be?
[00:18:20] Speaker C: Let me mention the fastest answer is to the PDU at this stage. And then we evolve for the longer part. The no person, and I'm reading from the Emergency Powers Regulation 2026.
[00:18:31] Speaker A: Right.
[00:18:31] Speaker C: Provision six. It's a short, a short dissertation. It says the provision reflects no person shall be liable to any suit or action in respect of any act done under lawful direction and authority pursuant to the provisions of these regulations. So you cannot sue those 400 plus persons that were kept and remanded in police custody for the last six months of this state of emergency that subsists or for the past three months or who have been issued at PDO in the last month, two weeks, six weeks, four months, not one of them have a recourse to sue the state.
What they can do, Mr. Murray, what they can do is if it is, they suffer some wrong.
The regulations does make allowances for the President of Trinidad and Tobago, Christine Gandalou, to exercise the discretion. Discretion and order that compensation be paid out from. Paid out from public funds and if anybody suffer any loss or damage, they must be able to prove what is the loss of damage they suffered.
So let us put it this way. If while you were at ecrc, the Eastern Facilities and Correctional Facility, if you were housed there, you were housed at any of the nine prisons in Trinidad and Tobago or you were kept at police station and while you were there, a prisoner in the, in the cell who you're sharing cell with your butcher in your face and break your nose or you end up in an altercation with a man there and he scrape you or anything of the kind. What you can do is put your case that I was in police custody. I was detained by the TTVs at the St Joseph station or the Bessel street police station or St Margaret's police station in South. And while that station this happened. But then you know what? You had to prove how he suffered his injuries. So you had to bring to the attention of the officer at station that this man now hit me. I put in my face and I break my nose. That I now get an altercation here and the man take advantage of me. Boston Michelle can scrape me.
And then they will take you to the hospital. They ought to take you to the hospital and have you treated.
You could prove injury.
[00:21:04] Speaker B: All right, before we talk about personal injury, you now said something there and I want to know if that is law, is it that government put that clause that released citizens cannot sue.
[00:21:17] Speaker C: I'm reading straight from the regulation, when
[00:21:19] Speaker B: I did straight from the regulation. So. All right, now you talk about Her Excellency and I want to be very clear.
While I was detained for the last six months, I was the breadwinner in my house.
I couldn't pay my mortgage for the last some people held over a year, no mortgage payments, car notes, car payments, loans.
They repossess things in my house. I lose my car, they repossess the car record come pick up Makati bank sell Maka and I no longer have the car.
I lost my job. I lost my job because when you locked me up on a pdo, right, and you didn't charge me. I was working, you know, I was working in a supermarket. I was working somewhere. I lost my job, my children, not to borrow money, my wife or my girlfriend or to get a walk because I was the breadwinner. I lost money and property because you held me on a pdo. Are you telling me I have to depend on Her Excellency the president to see the. You know what? This man lost the house, he got to take back repossess his car, what compensation then I had the discretion of the President.
There is nothing constitutional legal that I can take recourse on because you as a government arrested me on a PDO and I lost. I come in all the house and I don't have a car. My furniture was repossessed by courts. What are you saying to me? Mr. Ali?
[00:22:49] Speaker C: The thing with it is this right.
Bear in mind that you can't sue the state. But whilst you were arrested, you had the opportunity as the subject of a pdu, a Preventive Detention Order to appeal.
To appeal your detention, you could go before a tribunal, right? And lawfully concealed the tribunal by the Chief justice of Trinidad and Tobago and explain your position before the tribunal in the terms of call upon the ttps and the state to explain the particulars of your detention and explain the reason why you must be they must continue to detain you. So if it is you were lawfully arrested and you challenge the particulars of the pdo, you challenge the state states reasoning for detaining you and you went before a tribunal and the tribunal having heard from the ttps and having listened to your case as an individual appealing for your release, determine that your detention is lawful.
Then how could you turn around now and want to study? You had the regulations makes allowances to challenge the legality of your detention. And if it is you challenged it before a tribunal and it was determined that your arrest is lawful, then your car turned wrong and sue. So the consequences arising from your detention are consequences that you brought upon yourself.
Now I gather from the way you're coaching your question, you have the view that a man who has been detained for the past three months or six months and much has happened to him, he lost his wife, he married, he lost his children, he lost his job, the court repossessed the furniture, he fall into multiple arrears that he can seek redress through the state. But embedded in the fabric of the regulation is an opportunity for this man, long before all these fancy grand offenses manifest itself, to challenge these particulars and to challenge the detention. And if it is he was unlawfully detained, then the tribunal order that he be released. And if it is he's no longer somebody the subject of the detention order, then the Minister of Homeland Security order is released by revoking the video.
[00:25:16] Speaker B: Let's not get it twisted, eh?
You mentioned something about money for lawyers in the United States. We see those ads all the time.
And a lawyer takes up your case and they know they can win. You only pay when you. When they win for you. So in other words, you know that, that's, that's self explanatory. We do not have that type of legal luminaries existing in Trinidad and Tobago. Whereas you rightfully said a few moments earlier that if you don't have 7,500, we ain't looking in your dad, we ain't even hearing you.
Yeah, that talk to me. And if you don't, you're not a prominent person. So you hold, you held me on a PDO of some suspicion. We saw that happen with people who are money.
We see that happen. People who are money and they went through some investigations, they say, conspiracy to kill and murder prominent figures in society and they lock them up. Then people have money, you know, they challenge it. And for, and they could have paid the money. They went through it. The man who cannot pay his money to challenge the legality of a PDO signed on him.
But he lost. He's been held for a year. I'm not talking two weeks and three weeks. I talk in one year because there are people sitting in the Eastern Correctional fertility for over a year. I talk about persons like that.
You mentioned two things and I wanted to quickly, I want to take a couple calls, you know, and if I could teeth you beyond the next hour. But let me get to the, to the real meat of it.
I cannot challenge it because I cannot afford an attorney at this time. What happens to me?
I come out, maybe I was wrongfully detained, maybe bitter, you wouldn't know because I couldn't challenge it at the time.
[00:27:00] Speaker C: Bear in mind this, there was a particular individual who challenged his detention and he went before the tribunal unrepresentative, unrepresented. And the tribunal appointed an attorney for him.
[00:27:16] Speaker B: Okay?
[00:27:17] Speaker C: So the, the tribunal has the discretion. If you come before the, the this learning tribunal actually, and they figure you can't explain yourself, you can't talk, you can't explain what you want to say. They said, listen, let's make this thing easy. And they appoint somebody. But they're not, they are not obligated in law to do that. They can exercise that discretion if they, if they wish. Now the tribunal, not heartless, the tribunal understand that they're dealing with a lay person who may not understand that there's an emergency powers regulation that subsists and that there are provisions of this regulation. And he doesn't, he's not aware of how to interpret it.
[00:27:54] Speaker B: Pause right there.
All right, Pause right there again.
Information is key, right? So as you now mentioned, he may not be able to Interpret it but has end does. Is it being said to these individuals who were held on pdos that this is your writer? We have our order because the police just picking you. The police come true with whatever, whoever, meaning they sent out any police service with a paper, it's signed, we had to arrest you. They pick you up. So the arresting officers or the officers detaining you may not be the ones bringing up these charges against you.
They have an order and they reach a pick here. You ask them, where you holding me for? They say, well, boy, based on a PDO order we have. So the case come and they lock you up, the carry up, they deliver you where they need to do and on to the next. Do they have the legal right to tell you that you can go before a tribunal? Is this being said to those detainees? Was it said to them? And if it wasn't said to them, what? Redress?
[00:28:51] Speaker C: All right, when it is, you are detained and a PDU has been served upon you, you get the bare minimal particulars, and the document itself will indicate to you that you have the right to challenge this pdo. And you have an opportunity to be heard, if that is what you want.
So you are informed. The PD document that is served upon your single page document does reflect that. And then you are entitled, when you are arrested under PDU to have a lawyer visit you. You're entitled to seek counsel.
So again, Legal Aid doesn't make allowances under the Legal Aid act to provide free a free representative or a Legal Aid attorney, a legally appointed attorney to visit you, or it doesn't allow for that. All right, maybe that should be made there. But again, it comes back to you having the money and the resources to have an attorney. But. But to answer your question, you are informed, all right? The question is, how capable are you? Do you have the capacity to express yourself? Some of the fellows being arrested, they might be able to talk better than you and me, you know. True.
They grow up on the street. They could communicate. So don't feel as if you're dealing with some, you know, challenged individual.
[00:30:21] Speaker B: So we're running out of time and I want to squeeze in a couple calls. I'm giving you, respectfully, 30 seconds to ask your question or make your statement.
Good morning. 30 seconds.
[00:30:33] Speaker A: Morning, Daisy. Morning, Mr. Ali.
Mr. Ali. There are not enough robust institutions in this country to deal properly with persons detained under a pdo.
There is nowhere in a democracy an Attorney General can stand on his legs in the parliament, of all places, and threaten persons with the removal of their Freedom. The responsibility of the titular head of the bar is to advise the government.
It is not to promote persons detention without seeing a judicial officer.
So the absence of robust institutions like a public defender's office and all of that makes it wrong in a society like this to have these PDOs being erroneously distributed in the 8 o' clock hour. Baby, I will say more.
[00:31:32] Speaker B: All right, thank you very much. Give me a 30 second response if you can please.
[00:31:39] Speaker A: The
[00:31:41] Speaker C: every individual has a right to challenge. And his thing is that there is not enough robust institutions in place or there is no robust institution to represent individuals who are randomly arrested. First, you're not randomly, you're lawfully arrested.
And you can challenge.
Like I said, you can challenge what is being you being the subject of a pdo. And you can do so in your own right. And the tribunal will ought to appoint somebody.
So although there is the mechanism is not in place that you could go and get. You can get an attorney upon arrest.
Once you appeal your detention, the tribunal ought to appoint somebody.
[00:32:22] Speaker B: All right. So one person is saying every attorney's goal in life is to get government briefs. You don't get government briefs by doing class action lawsuit against the said same government. That's not Fareed Aliyah. If he gets it, he gets it. But that's not why he's there. I just want to put that out there. That's a nice disclaimer for you, Fareed.
So as we conclude our interview this morning, let's just get the crux of it again very quickly. In one sentence, persons held on PDOs, the law makes it where they cannot sue government.
[00:32:56] Speaker C: No one who was detained under a state of emergency and a PDO was served upon them.
Not one of them could sue the state.
The regulations subsist section 6 of the Emergency Pause Regulations 2026. The public can check it, it's online, it clear. It clearly states that no person shall be liable to any suit.
[00:33:23] Speaker B: So here they think, right, how practical is it for them to get financial redress because they lost furniture, car, repossess, all these things? If the detention was lawful, the tribunal agreed after they come up and they bring the case and they do the investigation. It was a. It was lawful. They didn't holier arbitrarily. How could.
How could. There's no redress financially. Not even that you could get no redress.
[00:33:57] Speaker C: Not even that you could get nicely because you're the author of your own faith.
[00:34:01] Speaker B: And that's the part I want to get to next with you very Quickly, I want you to help persons to understand that we're not just walking through the street. We have a caller that normally calls and he, I consider him to be a, a pessimist and an alarmist because he talks about the government and this SOE picking up people willy nilly. Is that the case When a person is held on a preventative detention order, they just watch you and just decide hey let me get a PDO on you.
[00:34:28] Speaker C: The state cannot profile you.
I've heard instances where somebody told me they live in one of those HDC buildings in East Port of Spain and they came in there and the police marched through the building and was rousing up people and he said a 58 year old man just, he was outside and he just passed in the millionaire go on a D2.
So my friend explaining to me this man not on nothing but that cannot be so they must have a reasonable basis for detailing you and they have information and intelligence. Remember the Commissioner of Police Mr. Guevara? He indicated that they are 500 persons out there who are wanted by the police for serious criminality. And the former Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams indicated that in his view there are probably about 3,000 persons out there that may be responsible for serious crime. And in other words the police may know of their history and antecedents but you cannot randomly arrest them.
You have to have a basis in law. So a lot of these PDOs that are being issued are factually and legally sound from the police point of view. And they didn't just see Indo Trinidadian walking down the road, an Afro Trinidadian walking down the road or a person of mixed heritage and believe that he looked like a criminal and just detailed him. Lock him up Arbitrary they can't see you any company. You Davy Lyman are taught by the Diego Martin taxi sign and they say well both of them look like criminal and they put divine and carry up the road. They can't. They have to have a basis in law and they must have evidence to support it.
[00:36:16] Speaker B: I want to thank you very much for sharing that. You have opened my eyes to a lot this morning. No doubt many of the listening audience truly appreciated this interview. Thank you very much for accepting the call. Ali. Mr. Ali for read Ali Attorney at law and legal luminary in this country. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Let's see what happens after September 18th. We'll talk. Have a good one sir.
[00:36:37] Speaker A: Same day the best insight Instant feedback accountability the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
