Leaked Video of Meet Kevin in Court Fighting the Governor of CA.

hello your honor can you hear me okay

yes

This is highly unusual Mr Hosley I will

allow but Mr paffra for him to be

substituted in what you're about to see

is me firing my attorney and then

representing myself in a California

court of law it's very important that as

you go into this you remember that this

is a sacramental court now why does the

sacramental court matter well it matters

because the Sacramento court is the

court that generally deals with all of

the governor's matters

the governor of California is usually a

stepping stone for what going to the

White House becoming the president it's

a big stepping stone guess what

presidents can do once they are

President they can take judges they like

and appoint them out of districts and

then into federal court which is

ultimately where judges want to go

because you go from those district

courts to the federal courts then what

you ultimately try to get picked off for

the Supreme Court and so that is the

path for judges in other words

if you do good for the governor all the

time there might be a little bit of an

incentive to make sure you rule in the

guff's favor some of that may be at play

and I'm curious to hear what you think

as much as I don't want to allege that

that is what I was told is likely at

play in the ruling of this case where I

ended up firing my attorney and

representing myself ready for it goes

back to my campaign for governor where I

came in second of recall candidates

let's go court is calling the case of

meet Kevin pafrath for California

Governor 2021 versus Shirley n Weber PhD

in our official capacity as Secretary of

State state of California Mr Hosley I I

wanted to raise an issue that was not

raised by the respondent and that is

whether or not the petitioner who is a

committee and not a natural person is an

elector who has standing to seek a writ

of mandate under elections code 1331 one

four an elector is defined in elections

code section 321 as

an elector means a person who is a

United States citizen 18 years of age or

older and accept as specified in

subdivision b as a resident of an

election Precinct in this state on or

before the day of an election from the

Court's review of the petition itself it

does not appear that the petitioner is

in fact a person and so we cannot bring

this petition for rid of mandate

sure

um thank your honor I've had a chance to

I'm taking a look at it but I believe

you know Mr pathrath Kevin uh meet Kevin

pathrath he you know he technically I

guess he would be the real party and

interest here on behalf of of the

committee so regarding the filing

mistake here's how this works and this

is going to show you how politics is

rigged you ready for this

so you all know that I'm known as the 51

49 guy okay so I say this that I am 51

Dam and 49 rep I feel like I'm

relatively in the middle and I really

expect that my policies when I ran for

governor aligned with this I called

myself a JFK Democrat not to at all be

aligned with RFK it was uh it was really

a conservative approach uh to to I think

the best solutions for our problems in

America you could look up the meet Kevin

20 point plan it was stuff like

investing in financial education and the

the foundation of America improving that

and dealing with homelessness things we

can all agree on more housing better

transportation right

anyway the problem is because this was a

recall election in the recall election

of an existing Democratic governor Mr

Newsom basically everybody running

against him was a republican so the

Republican ticket probably had somewhere

around 30 names the Democratic ticket I

was basically one of the only dogs on

the Dem ticket because I'm running

against the establishment that's very

difficult because guess what happens I

pick up the phone and I'm like yo I need

an attorney oh cool what party are you

oh well I'm Dem oh I can't represent you

that's running against the establishment

sorry you'll have to call another

attorney so the only attorneys who could

get are Republican attorneys well there

are four lawsuits filed at the time the

Republican attorney that I had on

retainer is like hey we need to

represent our own case at the same time

so we can't represent you so here's

basically

someone else and I'm like bro you're

dropping this bag on me like last minute

and they're like sorry so I prepped the

case myself but anyway that person ends

up making a filing mistake and I'm like

this is how the game is rigged if you're

running against the establishment you're

screwed if the court allows it we can we

can simply you know amend that or or

state that and I'm stating that on the

record that you know he is the real

party in interest here on behalf of the

campaign obviously as a sole candidate

there there's no confusion and you know

there isn't anyone else that the

committee represents it's it's his it's

his committee

right but I think this is a

jurisdictional issue and that is whether

or not the court even has jurisdiction

to entertain the merits of the petition

in this case the petition petitioner

is not an elector is defined in the

elections code

um

so now what you've seen here and are

about to see more of is the moment where

I'm texting the attorney saying leave

get off the case you're done you're

fired let me in let me represent the

case just tell the judge and I'm sending

like text text text text text I'm like

one of those persons when you have your

phone open I just go

like stop talking so I I text him

whatever I could like please get off and

I was even calling the person who

referred this person I'm like tell him

to get off let me do it

uh one second sorry

um going back to the the the standing

issue your honor I I wanted it I wanted

to know if the court would allow an oral

Amendment uh to the Writ so that

Kevin pathrath can be added as the

petitioner and he would be willing to

represent uh himself in that capacity

um and if he can specifically you know

join join this proceeding as well would

that be allowed

well

are you saying you're not representing

he personally

individually then it in your his

accounts then it would not be

permissible for a court to hear from him

individually you are his attorney you

represent him the court would hear from

your from you as to the arguments on

behalf of Kevin pathrath half breath

and second with respect to an oral

Amendment to the petition is Haddad what

is your position with respect to any

kind of oral amendment to a man and as I

understand let me just make sure Mr

hosley's request is to substitute

substitute Mr pafrath individually as

the petitioner instead of the committee

your honor we would object

thank you

Mr Hosley and just to be clear I I don't

represent him individually I represent

the committee I just wanted to be clear

about that aspect I don't represent him

personally I would ask that you know

he'd be permitted to come in and

represent himself in his in his capacity

as as as as such your honor we object to

any oral Amendment

This is highly unusual Mr Hosley here's

what I will do I mean given that this is

an election with given the fact that the

voters rights were implicated here as

well as a candidates right to run for

public office and the First Amendment

issues involved I will allow Mr Ho Mr

um paffra to uh well first of all him to

be substituted in as the petitioner

instead of the committee but I will tell

you this Mr Hosley then you will not be

permitted to be heard

you do not represent them anybody of any

any party in this case any longer right

that's fine that that's that solves the

overarching jurisdictional issue and so

you know it's not ideal but

um well it's not ideal from the Court's

perspective either right I understand

the respondent's objections thank you

your honor uh if I may your honor can I

just confirm that we'll

will Mr pathrath be raising this well

the court

um wish to hear me address the arguments

that Mr Hosley has just raised or will

be Mr Patrick be raising new arguments

well

Miss paffrath is limited to the

arguments raised in the papers okay

thank you right there's not going to be

no surprises sure yeah and there's going

to be no Prejudice to respond whatever

has been set forth in in the opening

memo points and authorities is what Mr

paffarath is limited to and so with

respect to whatever arguments Mr

hosley's made I'm not going to ask you

to respond to them at this point

thank you your honor

I'm gonna wait for Mr pavroth to be in

the waiting room good afternoon Mr

pafrath

hello your honor can you hear me okay

yes I understand you've been observing

the hearing by uh YouTube

that is correct your honor with the

exception of the past few minutes here

as I was transitioning over I have okay

all right so at this point Mr Hosley is

not the attorney of record for the

petitioner the court has allowed you to

substitute in for the committee and so

um as you may not have heard uh the

clarifying question from response

Council and that is whether or not

you're going to be permitted to make any

new arguments

um and the court has indicated to

counsel that you are not whatever

arguments you make this afternoon are

limited to what has been presented in

the moving papers and nothing more do

you understand I understand your honor

I'm ready all right you may proceed okay

your honor I would like to start first

with actually what you began your case

with you began that you were inclined to

deny our petition because you mentioned

that section 20

716 indicates that a trademark cannot be

used in a ballot designation and so

while I understand this to be true and

to be the law I do believe it to be an

inaccurate application mostly because

actually very specifically because the

law

2716 designates that ballot designations

cannot include trademarks but the law

does not indicate that a ballot name

cannot include a trademark this is a

very important distinction because the

law does not give the Secretary of State

any jurisdiction to argue that just

because something is a brand it cannot

be listed in the name of a ballot this

is beyond of course the argumentation

that we've made that we are publicly

known as meet Kevin whether that's on

YouTube or on social media it's very

clear that we're publicly known as me

Kevin we submitted the evidence to you

the polls have accrued additional

polling data regarding this information

but I think the Crux so the argument and

this is where I just like to start and

forgive me if you're not knowing the

process because I can go through the

full argumentation so I'm going to ask

for your guidance on that but I want to

start by saying that I think the

application of 2716 is completely

inappropriate to this and if I can then

ask you should I continue with my

arguments or do I wait and go back and

forth you can continue

I can see okay then let me do this am I

allowed and again forgive me for this

too am I allowed to share my screen

it'd look like this

is that okay

Council can you see that

I can your honor thank you all right go

ahead okay so so uh we'll go step by

step then if I'm going to present my

whole case then uh I will go ahead and

start a number one so here's Big argue

hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on

this your Council has requested that

before to record this hearing so a court

reporter needs to take down what you're

saying you have to slow down

okay so slow way down so she can take

everything that's being said

you got it your honor

right you may proceed argument number

one it's very important to dissect the

Secretary of State's argument that a

brand shall not be allowed on the ballot

because a brand the way the Secretary of

State defines completely ignores the

fact that brands have been allowed on

the ballots in in the past see ballots

consider Brands consist of three types

of things products services and personal

identities or nicknames we know that the

law allows nicknames to be on ballots we

know this to be true so we have to

differentiate what is meet Kevin is meet

Kevin a product does society look at me

Kevin and think or when they hear me

Kevin do they think of a product or do

they think of a service or do they think

of a person if Society hears me Kevin

and believes that they hear a person or

they see the image of a person just like

when somebody says what do you think of

Larry King what do you think of Magic

Johnson if society and your honor if you

are compelled to see that that when

someone hears me Kevin they picture me

then we must understand that this type

of brand is actually a legal course of

of allowing a name to be on a ballot

this is normal and it's been done before

the legal precedent exists for example

Trump we know is a brand we know Larry

King is a brand this brings up the very

important argument that we have

precedent of nicknames and Brands this

is extremely important because when we

look at the 2003 recall election ballot

we know that Kurt takikaze rightmeyer

was on the ballot this is simple that

anybody somebody could anybody could

Google the 2003 California recall

election ballot and see this particular

name was authorized now what's very

unique about this name is this is not a

product this is not a service this is a

person's identity just like meet Kevin

is in fact the LA Times on August 26th

and 2003 said that takakazi is a Sumo oh

name and I can pull this LA Times

article up and they defined it as wind

from a sword strike so now we know that

not only

are there different kinds of Brands

which really secretary of state has

failed to Define but we also understand

that personal identity Brands such as

stage names like a Sumo wrestler's name

has been allowed on a ballot before so

not only does the Secretary of State try

to confuse you your honor by not

providing what the actual appropriate

definitions of brands are but the

Secretary of State also fails to

recognize that they themselves have

authorized precedent in this they made

the action that allowed takikaze to go

on a recall election ballot which is

exactly what we're looking for here

we're now looking for special treatment

we are looking for equal treatment and

this benefits the voters by making sure

the voters are aware that somebody they

know as meet Kevin is able to be

represented on ballot now this brings up

and I've started with this I'm just

going to do a brief recap on this

argument number three for us is that

applying the law of 2716 is

inappropriate by the secretary by the

Secretary of State this law specifically

refers to ballot designations and it's

very important to know that the

Secretary of State gives you a ballot

designation worksheet anytime you file

to be a candidate this worksheet tells

you that ballot designations are for

professions or what you are currently

doing so for example Kevin Faulkner just

had his case denied because he wanted to

be known as the former San Diego mayor

on his ballot and he was denied this is

actually where the Secretary of State

also has discretion they can decide okay

what kind of ballot designation can you

have for example I probably couldn't put

president on as a ballot designation but

I can put Financial educator and analyst

which I have done this is the limit of

discretion for the Secretary of State

but beyond that it's also where the

limiting factor of trademarks comes in

see I could not say uh as as Kurt

takikaze said I could not say on the

ballot designation that I'm the CEO of

Target trademarks are not allowed in

ballot ballot designations this is

specifically what the law says it's

Crystal Clear that trademarks and brands

are not all allowed in designations

however 2716 does not say anything about

names and this makes sense because

sometimes personal brands are company

names some people create s corporations

in their personal name sometimes we just

have personal brands that go on balance

this is normal Donald Trump is the

perfect example of this so just adding

Clarity here visually

this upper line can be your name or

nickname legally you can put your

nickname in the top line

the only law that exists says that you

are not allowed to in the byline put

your brand so no brands are allowed here

but there's no law that says brands are

not allowed here as long as they are

actually your nickname so Donald Trump

via the byline of the Trump organization

would not work however this could be

real estate entrepreneur former

president whatever it could be things

like this as long as it's not a brand

now if Donald's nickname was Meet Donald

and everybody knew him as meet Donald

you could put your name on the ballot

like this meet Donald Trump and you put

the quotes to indicate that is your

nickname that is legal there is

precedent for that as I talk about in

the case but again the law specifically

says no brands in the sub line there is

no exclusion about brands in the top

upline as long as they are actually your

nickname and people don't come up to me

and go Hey Kevin pavrath they come up

and say hey meet Kevin duck it's like in

every video I introduce myself as meet

Kevin the last argument well actually

two more brief arguments you've seen

these before we've submitted these to

evidence when I've surveyed the people

who know me the folks who support my

campaign and I ask them how do you tell

people about me that is how do you know

me slash my name on YouTube I had 70 000

voters seventy thousand said I watch

meet Kevin on YouTube and that answer

was 93 so the vast majority of the

public of 73 000 votes 93 know me as

meet Kevin when they tell their friends

about me they say I watch me Kevin and I

understand the first impression is odd

why is it that somebody's name is meet

Kevin that sounds like a verb I

understand but so is off the insect

repellent brand that is a that's a verb

as well verbs can be nounified and

there's a special word for it in the

dictionary for for notifying verbs but

we won't go there anyway the public

perception is very clear on YouTube that

I am known as meet Kevin other YouTubers

when they make videos about me they say

I'm making this reaction to me Kevin

meat Kevin just bought this stock meet

Kevin just bought a house whatever it's

always meet Kevin almost done here sorry

for for this but I want to be thorough I

asked two polls on Twitter on the day

that I was denied by the Secretary of

State in fact they initially mentioned

that hey we're not sure if we can use

this they're going to check with their

supervisor as soon as I heard that there

was any kind of uncertainty I ran this

poll that was July 15th that I ran the

poll the poll was up for 24 hours on

Twitter I received

7714 votes and I asked if you saw me on

the street how would you greet me answer

your first reaction what do you know me

as and 86.4 percent of respondents said

hi meet Kevin which is very appropriate

since right now when I go to campaign

rallies or I walk down the street people

people will say okay if they even if

they're not expecting me excuse me in

like a Starbucks or something like that

people see me and they would say oh my

gosh it's me Kevin hi meet Kevin how are

you doing meet Kevin see meet Kevin is

me it is not something else it is me I

understand that in the past I have used

it as part of my real estate image

because I've also defined myself as meet

Kevin in real estate but I've also let

my real estate license expire I am not

actively taking clients I haven't had

clients in 18 months have only

represented myself and I'm not using my

real estate license anymore so that also

puts to bed this argument that I'm

trying to somehow promote this brand

that's not what I'm doing I'm just

trying the public to get to to know what

my identity is I had one more poll and

then one last thing to say and then I'm

done so about one minute follow-up if

someone asked you who were you voting

for would you say Kevin meet Kevin or

Kevin pavrath and the vast majority of

respondents said meet Kevin over

two-thirds well actually exactly

two-thirds said this now the last thing

because I personally belief that the

secretary of state is trying to not only

mislead you on this brand argument by

not properly defining this not properly

explaining their precedent but I also

believe they're trying to apply a

totally inappropriate law to this

particular case this case has absolutely

nothing to do with Section 2716 and I

believe the secretary of state has been

derelict in these three particular

objects already but it gets even worse

in their response they said that fox

Kennedy never mentioned me by the phrase

meet Kevin when in fact she did with

your honor I can play this video for the

court uh within a minute if you wanted

me to but the quote that she says at two

minutes and eight seconds to two minutes

and 12 seconds in the video is she talks

about my plan she Recaps the plan and

then says quote and to that I say yes

meet Kevin and points at me your honor

the case is extremely clear here the

public knows me as meet Kevin news media

organizations know me as meet Kevin the

secretary of state is trying to mislead

you by keeping me off the ballot and

that is going to hurt voters your honor

thank you for the time thank you yes I

did Mr dad uh yes your honor uh first I

just want to make clear that the

secretary of state is in no way trying

to keep Mr paffgraf off off the ballot

uh as as we've made clear he is going to

be on the ballot what is it issue here

is whether or not meet Kevin is a

nickname that can qualify as a candidate

name and the answer is it cannot

um Mr just to address I know that you've

read the briefs so I won't take you

through those again I just would like to

address the arguments that Mr Pastor Mr

pathrath has raised here today

um regarding the the elections code must

be read as a whole

the Secretary of State's regulation

2716 concerning ballot designations is

very instructive because it shows it

addresses one of the few things that can

go on the ballot so the the items that

can go on a ballot are the candidate

name the office that the candidate is

running for the ballot designation and

in certain circumstances uh the party

that the candidate chooses uh that the

party of preference that the candidate

chooses

for the ballot designation the candidate

name though there's no definition by the

legislature

um every instance used by the

legislature in every statute implies

that it is the name that the individual

is known by and historically this has

included nicknames nicknames that you

know of examples that we all know for

example Joe Biden or great objection

your honor if I may continue yes

uh

regarding the

uh uh the the fact that 2716 gets even

more specific is because it has to do it

it uh the fact that uh 2716 gets more

specific

um is because clearly there have been

issues that have been raised there in

the past but that doesn't mean that a

candidate should be permitted to

circumvent 2716 by inserting a trademark

or service Mark into the candidate name

the purpose of this of these statutes

overall is to ensure that there is a

fair election and to ensure that the

ballot is neutral and to ensure that

every candidate

um doesn't have a one-up over the other

uh and one can easily imagine a

situation where if the court were to

permit meet Kevin as a nickname today

one could easily imagine a situation

where

um for example

uh Mike my pillow Lindell my pillow guy

Lindell would seek to put his name on

The Ballot or should Arnold

Schwarzenegger decide to run again

Arnold the Terminator Schwarzenegger

um or even Dennis the All-State guy

hayesburg these are all brands but that

does not make them nicknames

um and well to to Mr past paprat's point

that Donald Trump may be a brand name

we're not saying that no name or no

nickname could ever be a brand name but

here this is not a clear case no this is

not uh even a close case your honor

um

uh in the Secretary of State makes its

determination on a case-by-case basis

and it does research they will reach out

to the candidate as Mr pathrath has

indicated

um and will determine whether or not the

nickname is actually what the candidate

is known by now that doesn't mean that

the candidate has to be known that

doesn't mean that if the candidate have

is known for his public business or his

public Persona that that is his nickname

I think

Common Sense dictates here

and regarding the 2003 recall ballot

candidate that was raised for the first

time here

as I mentioned nicknames are determined

on a case-by-case basis this was an

issue from 18 years ago it's not uh

before the court today and we don't know

the research that the secretary of state

did at that time but also

even if if your honor is to considerate

stage names are not necessarily

prohibited as nicknames again it is a

case-by-case basis and while there may

be close calls out there frankly this

wasn't one

um your honor may I respond hold on I

don't think she's finished

thank you your honor

um I also just I'd like to point out

that there has been

no violation of any law by the Secretary

of State in making this determination

um that you know the elections code

specifically states that the candidate

must have that on the ballot the name of

all the names of all qualified

candidates

the extent that this permits nicknames

this is left to the Secretary of State's

discretion the Secretary of State

exercises discretion here and did not

did not abuse and did not abuse it so we

do urge deference to that to that

determination your honor

thank you Mr paffrath

yes your honor thank you so much I I

think the first thing that I'd like to

respond with and thank you so much for

the opportunity to respond here the

first thing we need to understand and I

think the court is compelled to rule on

is a whether my nickname meet Kevin is

deceptive or hurts Society in any way

the reality that perhaps by permitting

my stage name which has been done before

with the sumo wrestler from 2003 would

somehow open the door to a Floodgate Of

nicknames is not up to me that's not my

problem my belief and this is the

argument that we are making is that the

court should ask is the public being

helped or being deceived by the use of

my nickname we believe that they can

properly identify meet Kevin by the

person who is running for office the

problem I have with my last name is

actually something that all three of you

in the zoom hearing have experienced you

can't say my last name and that is why I

don't use my last name he and and I I

don't blame you I grew up with him my

entire life but you've all butchered it

and it's fine I don't mind that I get it

but that's why I go by meet Kevin when I

introduce my YouTube videos I say hey

everyone meet Kevin here I have

thousands of videos saying this and so

this argument that somehow my nickname

can't be allowed but you just heard uh

my opposing counsel say quote stage

names are not prohibited

and suddenly my stage name is prohibited

is completely ironic and it's not fair

it's not a fair application of the law

and that is why we're in court today to

make sure that we have an equal

opportunity to run as a candidate in the

state of California so that way the

voters can decide who they want to be

their governor this is a question of

enabling the public the opportunity to

choose who they want yes my identity is

meet Kevin that is who I am that is what

I'm running as I'm running as meet Kevin

now I understand on a ballot it has to

include my legal name if I could change

my legal name within within the next

three weeks I would do that

unfortunately it takes three months to

do that but I I'm known by me Kevin and

we seek to be on the ballot as Kevin

quote meet Kevin pafrath we don't

believe that

causes any harm the Secretary of State's

State's argument is that my nickname is

not bona fide but the definition of bona

fide is just legitimate and not

deceptive my nickname is legitimate the

public has verified it as legitimate Fox

News has verified it as legitimate it is

very clear there's no question there's

no question at all that my nickname is

me Kevin that stands above all and we're

looking for that equal opportunity and

we just heard opposing Council say that

stage names are not prohibited and

I understand the opposing Council

mentions oh well you know we haven't

done the research into 2003 the reality

is it doesn't matter it's there a stage

name has been used but whether we use

the precedent that is legally existed or

her own words when she says stage names

are not prohibited the answer is very

simple here meet Kevin deserves to be on

the ballot by right and one last

argument here to make is that we've also

agreed that brands are allowed on the

ballot the opposing Council starts out

their response their response to our

petition saying that brands are not

allowed on the ballot yet here opposing

counsel just said well you know there

are definitely cases where brands are on

the ballot such as Donald Trump so

opposing counsel is dismantling their

own case they're literally telling us

right here that stage names are okay and

that brands are okay we just don't like

me Kevin and my argument is the

California voters should have the

opportunity to vote for Kevin meet Kevin

pafrath I should should be treated

equally to all other Californians

including the actual precedent we have

seen on a ballot in 2003 but beyond that

we have to also we have to Circle back

to this uh to this law the law

2716 opposing Council just mentioned

there has been plenty of legislation

these were her words I wrote them down

there's been plenty of legislation

indicating that nicknames are okay great

wonderful and the legislature has also

created the law 2716 which says that

specifically for ballot designations

trademarks are not okay Donald Trump

trump is a trademark and the law the

legislature likely understood that you

can't say that trademarks can't be in a

ballot name because many people

trademark their identities so this idea

that because meet Kevin is trademarked

because I went out of the way to protect

my identity even more over the last

eight years where my identity has

evolved the fact that I went out of the

way is somehow now an argument against

me is ludicrous because again it's not

what the legislature attended and I

believe that is also upon the court to

decide did the court did the legislature

intent for 2716 also to apply to ballot

names in which case any candidate

whoever runs who also holds a trademark

such as Trump will not be allowed on the

California ballot so I think the case

here is extremely clear we are looking

for a nickname to be included on a

ballot as has been done before there is

no law that opposing Council has

presented or no code that opposing

Council has presented that speaks to

anything otherwise the only argument

opposing counsel has is well if we let

meet Kevin andron then the next time

we're going to get the Terminator that's

not my problem that's not my case

uh your honor if I may briefly respond

yes uh first off the issue here is not

whether a name is a trademark the issue

is not whether someone whose name such

as Donald Trump

is also a trademark the issue here is

whether meet Kevin

a name belonging to Mr Kevin paffrath is

a nickname for the ballot and the

secretary of state determined that it is

not a nickname as is commonly understood

or what what a nickname means it is

instead a brand

respectfully Mr pathrath Miss

misinterprets what I've said

um to mean that stage names are okay but

not brand names that is incorrect it is

perfectly conceivable that sometimes a

name can also be a brand name or that a

name can also be a stage name but but

here meet Kevin is not a name and it is

not a nickname

regarding the stage name from from 2003

again

this this was not before the Secretary

of State we have not looked into the

circumstances for approval of that name

but even on its face clearly this one

word could be taken to be a name

regarding that Mr uh regarding that Mr

pafrat's last name may be difficult to

may be difficult to pronounce

that's not the test as to whether a

nickname the nickname that he has

suggested is appropriate for the ballot

similarly it is not the issue is not

whether the test before the standard

before the court is not whether uh a

brand name is deceptive

the issue is whether it commercializes

the process and whether in fact it is a

nickname and again your honor it the

Secretary of State looked into it

they they understand it's understood

that while many people may recognize Mr

pathrath as meet Kevin he is referred to

um in person as I took the court through

in our brief in section uh 1B of our

brief I took us through the materials

that Mr pathrath had submitted uh to

show that even in those materials he's

referred to as Kevin Passat

so I mean we we understand that

um that he the source of his power

popularity may be this brand that he has

built but it's not appropriate for the

ballot

I'd like to respond briefly and then the

court will go ahead and Rule

your honor may I play the uh Fox Kennedy

clip where I was referred to as meet

Kevin

I

I don't think that's appropriate or

necessary I accept a representation that

she referred to you as such all right

then I'd like to just respond to these

uh these last statements here the

opposing Council just made it very clear

that the issue here is whether or not

meet Kevin is a nickname I have provided

evidence based on my hard work over life

not only the last eight years of

building meet Kevin as my identity but I

have provided statistical evidence

through YouTube polling through Twitter

polling through references in the media

that meet Kevin is my nickname Newsweek

the LA Times the New York Times They all

reference me as meet Kevin now they may

also reference me as Kevin pafrath

because obviously Kevin paffrath will

also in part appear on the ballot but my

more common name because when people

hear Kevin pathra they don't know who

that is my common name my common

identity my nickname is me Kevin I have

provided evidence to prove that that

meet Kevin is my nickname now opposing

Council has said has said that well

Kevin doesn't meet the criteria to or

meet Kevin hasn't met the criteria for

being a nickname well then a what is

that criteria because it certainly

wasn't presented in oral arguments here

in the court and uh B so far all I've

heard is that the issue is not that it's

deceptive we've dropped the opposing

Council has dropped the argument that

law the law stands in the way the

opposing counsel is simply arguing that

well we don't think it's a nickname we

think that meet Kevin commercializes the

process well in order for me Kevin to

commercialize the process meet Kevin

would have to represent a product or a

service it doesn't and I've provided

evidence whereas opposing opposing

counsel has provided zero evidence I'm

providing evidence to meet Kevin is a

nickname opposing counsel has not

provided any and it is very clear that

if their concern is commercializing the

ballot process then I'd like them to

please let me know what product or

service is meet Kevin when this when the

public hears me Kevin what is that

product or service and your honor if you

rule in favor of the Secretary of State

I believe you're ruling against a

society of influencers and new

up-and-coming potential people who could

serve their country and serve America I

am simply seeking that my nickname be on

the ballot so I could have a fair chance

in this election I appreciate that

anything further Miss had that before

the court rules

um no you're on or not at this time all

right Mr pathrath is the matter

submitted for the Court's ruling

do I say yes to this

if you want me to rule I I would like

you to rule things okay all right the

court is going to uh deny the petition

for rid of mandate the court finds that

meet Kevin is not a nickname it's not

his obviously his formal name and the

court finds it based upon the evidence

in front of it that it is in fact a

brand

um all of the evidence presented

um supports the response position that

the words or the phrase meet Kevin is a

brand that is how he is known in social

media

well Donald Trump is a person I'm not

sure I even understand the argument that

Donald Trump is a brand but putting all

that aside

um the court is going to deny the

petition for written mandate

um I said hey Dad did you provide a

proposed order for the court

um your honor I apologize I think that

was an oversight on our part uh I can

provide one shortly all right you'll

need to provide it to Mr pafrath quickly

because it's now four o'clock to prove

as to form and get it to the court

um so that you can obviously have the

requisite notice and have the Secretary

of State get the order before the

deadline of 5 PM could I ask just one

more question and Mr pafrath um what I

would ask you to do is to cooperate with

Ms Haddad to approve the uh order as to

form and perhaps Mr Hosley can assist

you on that sure all right thank you

thank you could I ask one question

yes

uh for for brand I just want to know in

the future what if I changed my name to

meet Kevin and like literally my legal

name was that because that that is what

people know me as the fact that it's

seen as a brand is obviously very

disheartening to me uh you know I'm not

gonna obviously debate it with you but I

obviously I'm devastated I mean

basically my my opportunity in this

campaign is over my campaign is is

essentially destroyed with this ruling

I'm out is essentially what what this

ruling is

well Mr Hosley will probably tell you as

an attorney that the court cannot render

an advisory opinion that issue is not

performing and I can't make and give you

any indication of that if and when that

comes before me I will obviously make a

ruling because at that time he'll be

properly before the court so I thank you

for your arguments Mr pathrath for being

I don't know if you have any legal

training but for being at least a

non-attorney you did an excellent job

and I appreciate your