Bill Cunningham, the great American rights baseball off today? Have he scored a total? I think of a total? Are four runs in Fittsburgh. They were awful off today. Back out of this weekend. Boston Red Sox in town Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All the games I think are sold out of the Red Sox are in town. They just beat up on the Yankees and see, we'll see where it goes from here. So until then, Todd McMurtry is a great attorney in northern Kentucky taking on many cases,
and he's got a book out. He has time to write a book called Dismissed, The Impact of canceled culture and bias Narratives on Justice. And Todd McMurtry welcome, I think for the first or second time, to the Bill Cunningham Show. And first of all, Todd, this is an overview as a practitioner. Have you noticed the efforts of the mainstream media to make delegitimate
the activities of the US Supreme Court. They have decisions coming out today, in fact almost every day between now and and the next week, they're going to be more decisions. But as long as the court rules in ways the mainstream media doesn't like, then they're not legitimate. Have you noticed that?
Absolutely, Bill, It's NonStop. I mean, everything that you see coming out of the media with regard to the Supreme Court is he either an attack on a justice or having some conflict of interest which the justice clearly does not have, or complaining about the conservative makeup of the court and trying to use that as a basis to say it's decisions or are illegitimate. I'm with you
on that and the other thing. For thirty years or so, the left wing liberals controlled the Court from like the late nineteen fifties until the nineteen nineties, and the media at that point were cheerleaders. They put on their skirts and their pom poms. What a great job they're doing. But when the court rules unlike what the media desires, and all of a sudden, they're bought and paid for. In some of the language used by the left,
and that's the left that concerns itself with the tax on democracy. You can't attack the institutions. Somehow, the institutions of this country are being an attacked by Donald Trump, But in reality, the media are the ones attacking the institutions of the US Supreme Court, but tell the American people the book is out dismissed. It talks about an eye opening analysis of how the court system has been co opted by special interest, ultimately failing to uphold a study to
the people. Explain the reason for the book, Well, I wrote the book because after working on the Nick Sammon case and many other cases that I've had all across the country, I realized that people really need to understand the root cause of cancel culture. And the root cause of cancel culture is the existing laws regarding defamation, some laws that protect social media platforms, and a
politicized judiciary. And I talk about all that in the book and give people real life examples of how to identify these problems and respond to them if they were to ever arise in their lives. Two years ago, Nick Samon was simply a college kid. I took the trip. I've been there a couple of times as a tourist, walking around the ellipse and looking at at the statues and looking at the monuments, and looking in front of Abraham Lincoln,
the Gettysburg addresses up there. One of the greatest things ever ever penned was his second inaugural address just before he was murdered, And nonetheless, Nick Salmon was simply a sixteen or seventeen year old kid that wore a Donald Trump hat make America Great Again, along with other CUV cathkids, And all he did was stare at endto the eyes of a protester, who, of course was a Vietnam War hero, who shall we say, was a left wing social
activist, and the media quickly immediately attacked Catholicism, Trump Nick Salmon and became the tennis ball back and forth in that case. How does that case kind of represent what you're saying, Well, it's exactly on point, because you know, in the book, I talk a lot about other circumstances where people have suffered a similar fate. You know, you heard about Nick Sammon because it was national news, But this happens to people all across the country every
day. And once I started getting involved in this area, I saw how pervasive this problem was, and I thought that people needed to understand exactly how the law allowed this to happen, how the media perpetuated it, how politicized courts allowed it to happen. And you know, because it's a bad situation and it plays out every day all across the country. How's Nick Sanmond doing today? Has he survived this? He has survived. He is doing well.
He's out of college. He went to Translania University and he's graduated just recently, and I think he's headed to Washington, d C. To get involved in politics. Certainly. Yeah, he knows what to do. I mean, he's been through the whole thing and he's a tough guy now, so he can handle Washington, d C. What are some of the special interests that have infected the judiciary? Some of the special interests that have given the judiciary such a bad name. And they're friends in the media played right
into it constantly, they're like fellow travelers. What are some named some of this special interest Well, the main thing that I talk about in the book is the idea that because especially with federal judges, they're appointed, right, so when they're appointed, they're appointed by Republicans or they're appointed by Democrats,
and each side has its own special interest. You know, the American Constitution Society talks about our defective constitution that needs to be fixed, and that's on the progressive left and then on the conservative side, you've got the federalist society that wants to uphold the constitution. So and then at the state level,
you have a lot of money going into elections. And when people put a lot of money in a campaign for judge on the Supreme Court of some state, they're generally hopeful that that judge is going to be, you know, to the left or to the right. So those are the special interests that
I identify in the book. One of the things happening today in America, whether it's Northern Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, is that those rampant increases in the cost for insurance, complex allegations against banks managing multi million dollar failures of insurance funds and winning a medical practice jury case. Does the little guys? Does Tony Bender the little guy have a chance when it goes up against insurance companies, multinational companies and large banks. Do the Tony Benders of Boone County
Standard Shot Bill? You know? I litigate against big giant law firms all across the country, and it's a big fight. You know, a little farm like mine and have to be a scrapper and innovative, and these big firms come at you with all the resources. So yes, they're definitely outgunned, but people do have a chance that they can get in the right court, get a sympathetic judge, get in an area where the jury understands their plight. Because you still can David can still fight alive in this world.
But often you have to have huge resources to do it, and many people, of course, the little guy gets hammered by the great companies to tech and you have to kind of fight. But on the other hand, you have to have somebody willing to do it, and most of us can't afford a multi million dollar fund in order to go after institutions in this country that
have failed, and that's another problem. And so you talk about an eye opening analysis of how the system has been co opted ultimately failing to uphold us duty. One of the things I noticed is that a CNN reporter with an Irish accent I went to a mega rally I might have been in New Jersey in Nevada and talked about a republic that somehow that they talked about the republic for which it stands, which is in the Pledge of Allegiance and not a
democracy. And this reporter working for CNN with the Irish rogue was mocking MEGA members and Trump supporters because they talked about us being a republic. Can you tell the American people the difference between a republic and a democracy. Sure, republic has representatives that are elected to serve in Congress or to serve in the Senate, and they elect as representatives to run the country. I think that democracy implies more of a direct election of people to all forms of government.
So it's you know, that's the way I would see. It's representative government versus purely direct elections in every circumstance. So America is not a democracy because if the people, through initiative a referendum wanted to say, okay, the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, that doesn't make any sense because the speech being used, we don't
like, the assembly is not really worthwhile. We want to put on the ballot whether or not you have the practice of your religion, whether that's legitimate or not. Other countries can simply say, because rights come from government, you know what we need to put on the ballot, or have the Prime minister say people don't have the right freedom of speech. It doesn't work in America that way, because we're not a democracy. We don't directly vote on
the rules and regulations that governors. We elect individuals who go in and they vote on our behalf in each individual can bring down the system. Explain one or two cases where a small schlep so so work and stuff brought down the whole system or change things. Because we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Way of individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as persons. What's an example of that, an example of an individual who could take on the
entire government. Well, I think you look at these big cases. I mean, look at the I talk about these landmark decisions in my book that you know, really changed the fate of society. And you know, you've had all different types of circumstances. Whether it's people supporting same sex marriage, those individuals may changes in the law. Whether you have people that oppose you
know, federalized abortion, those people may changes in the law. And so periodically you're able to get a landmark decision where one person can make a major change in the law. But as you said, in most circumstances, you know, these things, these laws are decided by are elected representatives, not saying California where they have ballot initiatives and stuff like that, which would be a little more of the democracy side. So I think true courts, and
that's what I talk about in the book. I say I wish that the courts had allowed Nick Sammon his day in court, because that would have been a circumstance where he could have changed the law, made a big difference and had a profound effect on society by sending a really strong message you cannot get away with trashing innocent people's reputations of the way they did to him, And of course we've seen that in other circumstances too, and the institutions that did
it to him, or CNN, the mainstream media, NBCCBS, PBS, big city newspapers, they went after a high school kid for having the coyones to simply stand in front of a Washington monument with a red hat on, looking into the eyes of a protester Native American protester yelling and screaming at him. That's all he did. And he said, wait a minute, even though I'm only seven, I got the right to do this. And he did not do something that the media wanted him to do which would have fit
their purpose. And secondly, Todd McMurtry, I would say, there was a guy in Cincinnati who said, you know what, I ought to have the right to marry my significant other who was another male, and that other male was in extreme condition in the hospital. He wanted to visit his significant other, and the system said, you can't do that until you're married. So this one person, it wasn't the state of Ohio, state of Kentucky, it wasn't the Federal Society, it wasn't the ACLU, It was one
person. I said, wait a minute, I want to change the law. And it took five to seven years, but that one person changed the law by the time I got up to the Supremes. Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion that same sex marriage should be the law of the land, and that one person stood up and he won. Isn't that a good example? Well,
it's an example that I talk about in my book. I do say that we need people to stand up and we need to push to change some of these laws that governed defamation that make it so easy for the courts to dismiss cases like Nick Salmon's. Nick deserved a trial he didn't get it. Other people in similar circumstances have their cases dismissed by the judge's opinion instead of
by the jury's opinion. So, yes, what you said is a good example, and there's an opportunity for people to stand up and make good examples in the area of defamation, cancel culture and things like that. And that's what I talk about. Lastly, Todd McMurtry. I wrote my JD. My doctoral dissertation in New York Times versus Sullivan. How is that lawge sayings, I think it was an act that in nineteen sixty four the US Supreme Court said that who is a private person, who's a public person? Whether
you have actual malice? Explain how that defamation law has changed from nineteen sixty four to twenty twenty four. What sixty years later. Well, again, a lot of this is in the book, so people who get it will be able to read about about that. The way it's changed is New York Times versus Sullivan basically took defamation law away from the states and made it a federal standard, made it the constitutional standard that had never occurred before. It
was a total break with the laws that existed before. I think that's a bad break because it's created these circumstances where judges can take the cases away from the jury. I don't think they could have done that pre New York Times versus Sullivan. You've seen that New York Times Versus Sullivan's standard expand. First it just related to government officials, and then it relates to public figures, and then it relates to limited purpose public figures. And now you have involuntary
public figures. So anybody from the top to the bottom can almost be thrown under the bus of the actual malice standard created by New York Times versus Sullivan. And so it has evolved and it has taken on more weight as time has gone by. And that's one of the things I say in the book. We need to have some changes to put more power back in the hands of the juries and to protect innocent people like Nick Sanmon and others who have
also been subjected to this from the law and from politicized courts. So that's the gist of the book right there. Well, Todd McMurtry, it's a great book. It's only called dismissed. Do you have any questions for me about sports politics? World capitals. Maybe the rule in Shelley's case, they really Agan's perpetuities, something that's confused you over the years. No, No, I'm just prepared to talk about my book and hope that I hope that
the listeners will go out there. You can find it on Amazon, you can find it on Google Play. You'll be able to find it in Barnes and Noble, you know, audiobook, kindle, book, hardcover. All you got to do is search Todd McMurtry dismissed, and you'll be able to find it. In an area dominated by cancer culture bias, narratives, mainstream media bias, and corporate interest. The common citizen, the schleps of our society find themselves silenced and penalized. And that's the way it is. But
Todd, you're out there tilbing again those windmills. The book is dismissed and it's everywhere. Todd McMurtry. Once again, thank you for coming on the Bill Cunningham Show. And Todd, because you fight so hard for average Americans, I'm going to make you the Bill Cunningham Citizen of the Day. And you're a great American, outstanding. Thank you, Bill. I love it. God bless America. Let's continue with more if the line becomes available. Five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand red s
Baseball off Tonight. It takes one person standing up against the weight of the federal government and say I object. And if you get a lawyer like Todd to take your case and pursue it for years, that one person can overturn the entire system if done correctly. Bill Cunningham, News Radio seven hundred WLW. Your Summer of savings starts now with tips and solutions from Duke Energies.