Weekly Criminal Law Podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised.
Episode 13 continues a series - A Walk Through the Criminal Justice System in Indiana. In this episode, Indianapolis criminal defense attorneys Jacob Rigney and Kassi Rigney will walk us laypeople through the discovery phase. We also talk about Florida Man and Woman being arrested and charged with DUIs for cycling under the influence and Florida Man along with his 3 sons who are involved in litigation to stop them from marketing and selling a bleach-like substance as a Covid-19 cure.
Jacob Rigney - It's Friday afternoon. We've locked the door to make it harder for the police to bust in and write us tickets for not wearing a mask, and also because it's time for another edition of our weekly podcast Tales from the Brown Desk. I'm Jake Rigney of Rigney law LLC. With me as usual as my partner wife and enthusiastic Dungeons & Dragons player, Kassi Rigney. Our host is Teri Ulm. Friendly reminder, Tales from the Brown Desk is a free-flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and nude Floridians humping change machines. It may not be suitable for children, sensitive women, sensitive men, insensitive assholes, and basically everyone else. Bob Dylan is still old and listener discretion is still advised. Here's Teri.
Teri Ulm - Hello everyone! Hi Jake. How are you today?
Jacob Rigney - Oh, I'm okay, Teri. How are you?
Teri Ulm - I'm pretty good. That's okay. That's better than not good.
Jacob Rigney - Okay is like in the 95th percentile for my mood. So enjoy it while it lasts.
Teri Ulm - Noted.
Jacob Rigney - ... Cuz tomorrow... Well Monday, I'll be back to the same old grumpy douche.
Teri Ulm - Hi Kassi. How are you?
Kassi Rigney - Hi, Teri. I'm fine.
Teri Ulm - Good. So, today we're going to continue our series: A Walk Through the Criminal Justice System in Indiana. Last week we talked about arrest, screening, and the initial hearing phases. This week we're going to continue our walk and take the next step. What happens after the initial hearing?
What happens after the initial hearing in a criminal case?
Kassi Rigney - The next step is the exchange of evidence in the state of Indiana. We don't have trial by surprise, so you have to turn over the evidence you intend to use at trial. If it's the state, they have to also disclose exculpatory information. The defendant has no burden, so the state starts. That state's burden, they're gonna start off by turning over their evidence. Initially it's basic reports, names of witnesses, things like that.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah. I think we're assuming at this point that the imaginary Chad that we're talking about as we walk through this system has already got an attorney. Right. So they have gone through that process. Either by having a public defender appointed for them or by hiring a private attorney, consulting with somebody and then hiring them. Yeah. So then you start finding out what the evidence is against you.
What does discovery mean in legal terms?
Teri Ulm - Is this phase, could it be referred to as the discovery phase? Like the word discovery, what does discovery mean in legal terms?
Jacob Rigney - Well discovery is, the word itself is a reference to the trial rules which sort of sets out the different methods by which you discover the other side's evidence that they intend to use. Or you discover what evidence they have that you can use against them. That happens a lot more in civil cases than it does in criminal cases. But that's essentially the process of gathering the information that you will use, and providing that information to the other side, so that everybody knows what's going to be presented at the trial when it happens.
Is discovery in a criminal case limited?
Teri Ulm - Is discovery in a criminal case limited?
Kassi Rigney - To some extent. It's pretty broad. You can't go on what we call fishing expeditions. It has to be relevant or potentially lead to relevant information. It's certainly broader than what would be admitted at trial. So you can go dig around, talk to people, things that may never get to trial, but it could lead to admissible evidence and you can follow that.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah my wife and I are now gonna have a fistfight, because I hate the phrase fishing expedition. Discovery is a process by which you go and you find out you know whatever evidence there is out there that will help you. You can't just go looking for things that are going to embarrass somebody that aren't relevant at all to your case, and won't lead to relevant information in your case. But you can "go fishing" for information and sometimes you find some when you do it. It's just a really bad metaphor that people use sometimes. And it doesn't tell you anything about what's allowed and what isn't allowed. When I say you can't go on a fishing expedition, that it doesn't tell you what you can and can't do. What you can do is, you can find out who all their witnesses are. You can make them come to your office and give statements. Or answer questions in other ways. Either through writing out written questions and sending them or requesting them to simply admit things that you think are true. So you find out, especially in civil cases, you find out sort of what everybody agrees on and what they don't agree on. In criminal cases though, discovery is in fact limited in ways that it isn't even limited in civil court. For example, interrogatories where you write written questions and send them to a witness or an opposing party and make them answer them, are not typically allowed in criminal cases, and it's extremely rare that I've never seen someone even try to do them. And it's never been actually allowed on a criminal case that I've seen. So mainly in criminal cases, and what you're talking about is either making people produce things, or interviewing people to find out what information they have about a situation. And ask them questions that in a criminal case, for example, questions that the detective didn't ask them for one reason or another. Or that you don't already know the answer to and you want to know the answer to. What you don't want is to go to trial and not know what they're going to say or how they're gonna answer a particular question. So that's why you do a deposition ahead of time in order to find out how they'll answer those questions.
In a criminal case, is there such a thing as request for production, or request for admissions?
Teri Ulm - Now I know in a civil case there's requests for production and also request for admissions are those things and criminal cases?
Kassi Rigney - No. In criminal case, if your request for a production, you ask the court to subpoena something. But then requests for admissions, you don't exchange information in a written form. Basically they just send you a written questionnaire, and you write an answer, and then that would be binding on you. And that's just not how they do it in criminal court.
What types of things are subject to discovery in a criminal case?
Teri Ulm - What types of things are subject to discovery in a criminal case?
Jacob Rigney - Like Kassi said, it is anything that would tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue on your case. For example, if you think there might be video on a video camera that the city owns, you can send the city letter or a subpoena and request that they produce the video. As long as you limit it. You can't say well I want all the footage for seven years, but you can say well I want the footage you know from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. at this intersection and they'll have to produce that to you within a reasonable period of time. What you can't do is you can't sort of go back into witnesses past and start digging up everything that you've ever heard about them that's bad so that you can try to present that.
How long does the discovery phase in a criminal case last?
Teri Ulm - So how long does the discovery phase last?
Kassi Rigney - Weeks. Months. Discovery it's the same whether it's a traffic ticket or a murder. They're gonna turn something over. Could be a couple days. A traffic ticket... There's not much to do there. There might be a police report. Usually it's just the ticket. If it's murder or child molest, it could take months. And if it's a federal case, it could take years.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah. The discovery process does not have sort of this hard cutoff line. Judges try to create hard cutoff lines for it sometimes, but it's difficult sometimes to enforce those. Because the state is sometimes under pressure to do a lot of things quickly. If they can't get all of the tests done quickly, some of them they put on the back burner. But until you get the information from the state, sometimes you don't know what all your discovery is. So for example, look sometimes it takes the lab months to produce a DNA report. Especially if it's a complicated case with a lot of samples. But, until I get the DNA report and the DNA analysts notes, I don't know if I need to subpoena the DNA analyst into a deposition to talk to them or not. So we have to wait months to get the report. Then we got to decide whether we need to do anything about that report or not. And who knows. What happens during the deposition, but sometimes additional discovery comes up during that. And then you discover you need to talk to more people or subpoena more documents. And it can just go on and on. Even with lawyers that are trying to be diligent.
Kassi Rigney - What I would say here... This is where the theory comes in: it's not trial by surprise. The purpose of the discovery rules is to foster just resolution of this issue. They want the truth to come out. So while, oh the State missed their discovery deadline, people think that their case is gonna go away. No. It's about the truth, credible evidence coming out, and being able to challenge and look at that, and have to have that opportunity. So it can take as long as those principles and those priorities demand.
Are there different types of evidence in a criminal case?
Teri Ulm - Now are there different types of the evidence?
Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Absolutely. Especially in a police investigation as we've talked about before. They will try to find every different kind of evidence they have that tends to prove someone's guilty, unless they're satisfied they just have a lot of evidence. If guns are involved, they're gonna test the guns. If there was any kind of exchange of bodily fluids or even a question of whether there could be, they'll start doing DNA and serology testing to try to figure that out. If we're talking about a fraud case and they want to check signatures, they'll submit documents to a handwriting examiner to see if they'll say that it's the same person who wrote both signatures. There's all sorts of different ways. The fingerprints. They pull fingerprints. They're comparing everyone's fingerprints to the fingerprints they find on a scene in order to see if they can figure out who what and if it matches with what the witnesses are saying happened. There's just a bunch of different kinds of evidence, and we're not even thinking of the things that they get into when they're being creative. Because over the years, sometimes police have used things as evidence that didn't turn out to be so scientifically sound. I think previously we may have talked about gunshot residue. We've all heard this. We've probably seen it on TV. It's complete nonsense. It's a test that they haven't used since the 70s. Nobody knows anything about it and... I shouldn't say nobody knows anything about it. Everyone knows that it doesn't work, and that you can get those same chemicals on your hands doing lots of other things like gardening. It's a test that's useless, but people still go looking for it sometimes because they've seen it on TV.
Kassi Rigney - I think another example is the bite impression. Bite mark impression is another one that has fallen by the wayside, but was a thing for a while.
Teri Ulm - Because people were biting people?
Kassi Rigney - Well if you have... You clearly aren't in this enough, but during a rape or a murder you might get bit. And if someone bites you, they may leave an impression on your skin.
Jacob Rigney - Not that we're rooting for that.
Kassi Rigney - Of course my mind immediately goes to this horrible thing. But you can leave bruising with your mouth and they would try to use teeth impressions to match a bite impression from a person to the bruising that was left on someone.
Jacob Rigney - Right. It's an interesting theory, right? And as a theory, it might sound okay. Everyone's teeth are a little bit different, and you can identify people based on their dental records. So if you can match what their teeth look like to the bite bruise, then you can say this is the person who definitely bit him. Right. It's an idea. Except it doesn't account for all sorts of problems that come into effect when you bite somebody. Like the bruise doesn't always match the bite, and things like that. So, it's more about pressure as opposed to spacing. It's just not a test that makes a lot of sense. But I think for a while they were trying to use it.
Kassi Rigney - They did. Yeah. And I don't believe it's considered reliable anymore. Which to me makes sense. I know how I get... bruises come up and it would have been impression that....
Jacob Rigney - Kassi knows that she gets bruises a lot of times, and she doesn't know how, and it wasn't me. I promise.
Can a police report be used as evidence in a criminal case?
Teri Ulm - Now can a police report be used as evidence?
Jacob Rigney - The police report itself cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case. The rules of evidence are pretty specific about that. It is considered hearsay. There are a lot of exceptions to the hearsay rule, and one of them is police reports. But it says the state cannot offer a police report in a criminal case. The things in it would typically be hearsay, and offering the police report instead of having people testify as to what they saw would tend to violate the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution. Which essentially says that the accused has the right to see and hear the testimony not just have it read back to them out of a police report.
Can you be convicted of a crime on hearsay evidence?
Teri Ulm - Can someone be convicted on hearsay?
Jacob Rigney - No. But what you may think hearsay means and what it actually means are very different things.
Teri Ulm - That was my next question, was defining hearsay.
What does hearsay mean?
Jacob Rigney - Right. So hearsay is defined, and it's a word that gets thrown around a lot and especially by non-lawyers. But hearsay is defined in Indiana law has an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the declarant which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Now did you understand that? Because that seemed... That's a lot.
Teri Ulm - I understood each word individually.
Kassi Rigney - Add to that there are 18 to 21 (depending on who you ask) exceptions to that rule you just had. We lawyers love it when people it's hearsay. It's hearsay.
Jacob Rigney - So it's a statement made out of court. So that's the first thing. If you say it in court, it's not hearsay. Made by someone other than the declarant. In other words, I am allowed to recount the things I said out of court. What I'm not allowed to do is recount things other people said out of court. Make sense?
Teri Ulm - Yes.
Jacob Rigney - Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So in other words, when I say what someone else said, I'm saying it to prove what they said is true. So, if I say: "Jim Bob told me Chad said he killed someone". That's hearsay because Jim Bob told me. If they want to hear Chad's confession to Jim Bob, they need to bring Jim Bob in to testify about it. Not me. But that's weird because there's also hearsay between Chad and Jim Bob, Right?
Teri Ulm - Right.
Jacob Rigney - Except there's not, because that's one of the exceptions.
Teri Ulm - It's complex.
Jacob Rigney - Right. The statement of a party to a lawsuit, whether it's criminal or not, so in other words the defendant is admissible even though it's hearsay.
Teri Ulm - Interesting.
Jacob Rigney - Right. So even though Chad admitted to Jim Bob that it's murder, technically meets the definition of hearsay, Jim Bob will still be allowed to come in and testify that Chad told him he murdered someone. Even though that's hearsay. And a lot of people also sort of don't understand that if a person comes in and testifies about something that they saw and heard themselves previously, that's not hearsay. That's just someone testifying about what they saw. I think people just like to say: "Well that's hearsay," because it sounds fun or it sounds like it's a legal term and they know what it means. But that's not. It usually doesn't mean what people think it means when they say it.
Can evidence be added or submitted after the discovery phase?
Teri Ulm - Can evidence be added or submitted after the discovery phase? What's the eleventh hour that you can bring forth a new discovery, since there's no surprise at trial?
Kassi Rigney - Well honestly, if it was that important of a piece of evidence, it could mis-try the case and start it back over. You go back to the whole goal of these rules is to promote just, truthful, resolution of these matters. So I could foresee if some major piece of evidence, because you hear these people overturning convictions decades later with new evidence, and that's because if the piece of evidence is so powerful it justifies going back and undoing it to reach this goal of just and truthful resolution. It is so important to do that.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah it is really rare that a piece of evidence gets excluded based on timing. Typically, if a party has a legitimate gripe because the thing was not discovered until the last minute, there needs to be a reason why. Typically when a person is or when a party is showing up the last minute with new evidence that they haven't discovered there is a good reason. So typically they would have a good reason for coming forward with something at the last second. And a lot of times what the defendant gets, if the state shows up with new evidence at the last second, they don't get a dismissal, and they don't usually get an exclusion of that evidence either, usually what they get is a continuance. So they have time to examine the evidence, prepare for it at the trial, and evaluate their position. It's really rare that the judge would say: "Well, no. You can't use that evidence now." But they would, especially if the party that didn't produce it to the last second held back for some reason or tried to gain an advantage.
Kassi Rigney - The reason to exclude evidence would be for the same theory here would be the same as a motion to suppress. They would really only do that if they found there was ill will on the part of the party that withheld it or did something that was unethical. Otherwise you would expect the continuance.
Can the defendant or a witness be made to testify?
Teri Ulm - Can someone be made to testify whether it be the defendant or a witness to a crime?
Jacob Rigney - The defendant cannot be made to testify. The defendant has a right to remain silent. That's enshrined in the Constitution. The state cannot call the defendant as a witness and will not try to. At least not anywhere that I've ever seen, in a criminal case. Now a traffic ticket is civil, on the other hand, and if they wanted to they could. And probation violation hearings are civil as well, so technically they could do it in that type of case too. But in an actual criminal trial, they cannot call the defendant as a witness. They can make other people testify as long as they are not about to incriminate themselves. Okay.
Can a spouse be made to testify in a criminal case?
Teri Ulm - Can they make a spouse testify?
Jacob Rigney - No. That's a good point. I forgot about that. No. There is a privilege for a spouse testifying against her husband or his wife. They can't make you do that, but the privilege against testifying is held by the testifier/the witness. Not the defendant. So the defendant can't say: "She's my wife. You can't make her testify against me." Only she can say it. She can say: "Well, I'm Chad's husband, and I don't want to testify. You can't make me."
Can children be made to testify?
Teri Ulm - Can children be made to testify.
Kassi Rigney - They would be the same as an adult. The questions with a child witness comes down to competency. But once you meet that, then yeah. The court would have the same ability over a child witness.
Teri Ulm - So is there anything in this discovery phase that our listeners should know about that I haven't touched on?
What is a motion for discovery?
Kassi Rigney - Motion for discovery is not a thing.
All - Laughter....
Jacob Rigney - Oh yeah. I forgot about that. Yeah. And I haven't seen this phenomenon coming up nearly as much lately, but for a long time defendants (and I think it was circulating through jails but I'm not sure), but defendants got it in their head that the thing to do was file their motion for discovery. I guess they thought that if they did that, and the state didn't respond and a certain amount of time, they could get the case thrown out or something else good would happen for them. In most places, it is not necessary to file a motion for discovery. Although, and this may be why this sort of perpetuates itself, is that in some in some counties in Indiana you do still have to file one. But in Marion County and other counties that do even a medium level of criminal cases, discovery is automatic. It's all in the local rules. Everyone is just ordered to comply with these rules. They don't have to file specific motions. And in fact, it makes the judge kind of unhappy when you do it. And it also makes the person doing it look like they don't know what they're doing, because they didn't read the local rules.
Florida Man & Woman Arrested for Cycling While Drunk Get Frisky in the Back of a Cop Car.
Teri Ulm - So now we're gonna interrupt this episode to bring you the latest Florida Man news. Metro UK reports that a drunk Florida couple got frisky in the back of a cop car after being arrested for cycling under the influence.
Jacob Rigney - Cycling? Come on police officers. You don't have anything better to do than bust a drunk couple on a ... Where they on a tandem bike? I hope they were.
Teri Ulm - It didn't specify what type of bike, if it was tandem or individual. But the Florida couple was pulled over after a car almost hit them, and the pair was arrested after the deputy noticed the smell of alcohol in their blood shot eyes. He put them back in... Well he put them in the back of his cruiser only for them to begin stripping off their clothes to have sex. Now the Miami Herald reported that the deputies stepped in to pull the couple apart, and that's when Florida Man and escaped.
Jacob Rigney - So then he goes on the run.
Kassi Rigney - Naked, of course. Naked.
Teri Ulm - Yep. He began running off through a nearby parking lot. Later he was apprehended.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah.
Kassi Rigney - He still got his hard-on in my head. He's just running into the swamp with his hard-on.
Teri Ulm - Now the pair was charged with DUI and having sex in the back of a cruiser. I'm not sure what that...
Jacob Rigney - Is that illegal? It's not okay, but is it illegal? I don't know.
Charged with theft after fleeing with cuffs on.
Teri Ulm - Florida Man also faces charges of theft because when he escaped he was in possession of the handcuffs.
Jacob Rigney - He stole the handcuffs.
Kassi Rigney - Yep, yep, yep.
Teri Ulm - That's a thing? Even in Indiana?
Jacob Rigney - It is. And I would have to admit that back when I was a prosecutor, I definitely prosecuted somebody for stealing handcuffs by running away after they were cuffed. That definitely happened to me once. But yeah. It is a thing. They can charge you with stealing the handcuffs.
Kassi Rigney - Which I guess I look at it like I can feel for the officer, cuz you know in the office world it's like who took my stapler? That's the good stapler. Each officer has their own set of cuffs. That jerk runs off with them. What's he gonna do?
Jacob Rigney - He can't arrest anyone the rest of the night because he doesn't have any handcuffs. I think that it is... Losing your handcuffs.... I'm not sure, but I spent a lot of time around police officers and I think losing your handcuffs is like the thing the worst cop does. Right? Like the Rod Farva in Super Troopers. The one everyone hates. That's the guy who loses his handcuffs. And so, it makes the police mad when you run off with their handcuffs, because it makes him look really bad.
Kassi Rigney - So that's an interesting point. I pictured them as like, okay. They're bikers. They're drunk. He didn't cuff them. Hence them getting their clothes off. So this changes my picture and kudos to them for getting undressed while they were cuffed.
Jacob Rigney - That's not easy. Yeah.
Florida Man and his Three Sons Charged with Conspiracy and Criminal Contempt for Marketing and Selling a Covid-19 Cure.
Teri Ulm - So there's another story where Florida Man and his three sons are being charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, and criminal contempt for marketing and selling a Covid-19 cure. The substance, marked as Miracle Mineral Solution, was sold nationwide through an entity called Genesis II Church of Health and Healing.
Jacob Rigney - I heard about these guys.
Teri Ulm - Oh these guys are something. The Department of Justice described the Miracle Mineral Solution as bleach-like. It's a chemical solution that contains sodium chloride and water. A solution that is most of the time used for industrial water treatment or bleaching textiles.
Jacob Rigney - I read about these guys.
Teri Ulm - Oh they get it they get interesting. It was also discovered that Florida Man and his sons marketed the solution to cure other diseases like Alzheimer's, autism, HIV and AIDS. A Miami federal judge, in April, ordered the church to stop selling the substance. But it was ignored. It's reported that Florida Man and his sons initially agreed to abide by the order to stop selling the solution then they changed their tone in a podcast and emails to the judge herself. I found their podcast.
Jacob Rigney - This is why we don't talk about our current pending cases in our podcast.
Teri Ulm - I found their podcast and their comments about this case would you like to hear?
Kassi Rigney - Yes!
Jacob Rigney - Yeah.
Kassi Rigney - Yes!
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Oh really. So this is what I wrote them back anyways. Okay. Order to dismiss case immediately, June 29th, 2020. Judge Williams and to all involve in this unlawful case.
Jacob Rigney - That always works.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Your paperless order is powerless order.
Jacob Rigney - No it's not.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - I wasn't trying to be cute there either.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah you were.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Due to the First Amendment and in regard to free exercise of our religious beliefs period.
Jacob Rigney - You don't know what those mean.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - We have told you numerous times that you have no jurisdiction over our church and its practices.
Jacob Rigney - You're wrong. They do.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - That's why it's powerless.
Jacob Rigney - No. They definitely have jurisdiction.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - They are ordering us that they can't even order. You know.
Jacob Rigney - Incorrect.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - It's like placing an order in a drive-through and there's no drive-through.
Jacob Rigney - It's nothing like.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Or there's a drive-through there, but there's no one inside.
Jacob Rigney - It's also nothing like that.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - I mean they've got no basis for this.
Jacob Rigney - You're incorrect. They do.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - According to the First Amendment.
Jacob Rigney - No. You're wrong. They can't even.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Even if they had a basis, they said they can't even do anything about.
Jacob Rigney - Yes they can.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Because it's our free exercise and our religious beliefs.
Jacob Rigney - No. No.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Which they have no power over. I don't know what else to tell people.
Kassi Rigney - Can't wait till he goes to prison.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - In fact you don't order us to do anything unconstitutionally, but we as a church with the First Amendment as our authority order you to cease and desist from this unlawful case against our church and the free exercise of its beliefs.
Jacob Rigney - That's not how any of this works.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - Dismiss this case before we as a church sue you, the US Attorney's, the FDA, the FTC, and the United States of America for 10 million dollars U.S.
Jacob Rigney - Oooooh.
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - ... for each offense because of the damages caused to our... our...
Jacob Rigney - Uh Huh. Your what?
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - ... to us and our church by this unlawful unconstitutional case, and I name the case, which being supported by this now no longer judge.
Jacob Rigney - What?
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing (Podcast) - What? You could say that? Yeah. When a judge acts intentionally knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional right, he exercises no discretion or individual judgments he acts no longer as a judge but as a minister of his own prejudices.
Jacob Rigney - Ooh. Yeah. No. That's also not true.
Kassi Rigney - So.... do we think??? Does he believe it's a cure? Is he just a scammer who wants to scam?
Jacob Rigney - Yes.That second part.
Kassi Rigney - Yeah, because it's like okay. So I'm making the inevitable mistake of planning a crime like someone who thinks about it and applies logic. If I was going to make a fake elixir, I wouldn't use toxic chemicals. And put a little coke in...
All - Laughter....
Kassi Rigney - Coca cola classic. Maybe some juice. You know. You don't go put toilet bowl cleaner in it.
Jacob Rigney - And cocaine, by the way.
Teri Ulm - So I checked out their case they didn't have anyone defending them. They're representing themselves.
Jacob Rigney - Why not? Right. Sounds like he's got it all sorted out so.
Kassi Rigney - They clearly going to go very well for him.
Jacob Rigney - There's sort of a couple of different things kind of intertwined in this, and I've read about this Miracle Mineral Solution. I think it was just earlier this week I read about it. It's intertwined somehow with QAnon. Which is a conservative alt-right movement based on conspiracy theories, that among other things like most of the world leaders are involved in a large worldwide pedophile ring. This is how that whole pizza joint/Hillary Clinton thing in New York happened. And they all think Donald Trump is fighting a holy war against the pedophile ring run by globalists. And they also sell this stuff. So, I think these guys are all connected to QAnon. It's a very hard alt-right, perhaps maybe a little bit of a terrorist organization, and they also espouse some of these other ideas that are ....
Kassi Rigney - Sovereign citizen.
Jacob Rigney - Right. That are sovereign citizen. So we've talked about this before. Although probably not on the podcast, but there is a small but somewhat vocal group of people that think they can contest the jurisdiction of the United States of America, and of the state courts, and a lot of times a lot of other people. Because they claim to be their own country. Right. They're not. I'm not in the United States. I'm not a citizen of the United States. You can't prosecute me. I am the president of Jakeatonia. And Jakeatonia doesn't have traffic laws, so you can take that speeding ticket, roll it up into a little ball, and smoke it, bro. They do stuff like this, right. Or they'll refuse service. Or they'll refused to let people search even with warrants because they'll be like yeah that's issued by a judge that doesn't have any jurisdiction over me and shit like that.
Kassi Rigney - One thing that I like, if you have American flag with fringe on it, somehow that's changes the authority of the court. Like if they go in a court room and it has a certain kind of flag. Is it a military flag?
Jacob Rigney - I don't even... I try to not pay attention to it. I wish I hadn't read about QAnon earlier.
Kassi Rigney - The problem I always had with them as a prosecutor is that they go into the court and they're asking the court to find itself not to have any authority. It would be like, if you won your argument, in theory, the judge would get up and be like: "You're right", and take his robe off and walk away. I don't understand where they're going with it. It doesn't make any sense.
Teri Ulm - And it's not like that has ever happened before... They probably have had no success at doing that. I doubt any judge got up and took their robe off and...
Jacob Rigney - It doesn't work in terms of getting their cases dismissed, but there have been instances where a courtroom with poor security preparation or poor security design was kind of overwhelmed by a group of them. So if you ever go into a courtroom, you may see one deputy with a gun. You may not see any. A lot of times, everyone that's there is just there because we accept that we live in an ordered society where the judge has power and we ought to abide by it. But there are these people who don't accept that argument. If you get a bunch of them together, they will start acting up in the courtroom. And if there is not appropriate security there to deal with them, it can become a very dangerous situation. And some of them have training. Some of them possess a fair number of firearms. I think that, to a certain extent, the Bundys, out west, subscribe to some of these theories. And they'll go to courtrooms and intimidate judges and intimidate prosecutors to try to get out of these cases. So you have to be... The courts have to be ready for them and ready for those types of demonstrations when they happen. Because when people get angry, they start making stupid decisions. Especially if they don't have any respect for the courtroom that they're in because they think or they want to think that it's not legitimate.
Teri Ulm - I just want to wrap the Florida Man up. Yesterday the court there, in this case against the church for selling the Covid cure...
Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Let me guess. Let me guess. Okay. Don't say anything. A bunch of dudes wearing uniforms and guns went and got him. And took him into custody.
Teri Ulm - No. No. No. Well the United States of America filed for default judgment and this church, representing themselves, and not filing anything except sending the judge emails saying to dismiss this case now...
Jacob Rigney - Right.
Teri Ulm - Granted the United States government's requests or motion for default judgment.
Jacob Rigney - Great and so if they don't pay the judgment or they don't respond further, eventually they're looking at contempt maybe. I'm surprised they didn't get charged with any crimes.
Kassi Rigney - Yeah. That's... Yeah. I kept getting confused because this... This criminal act sounds very obviously like criminal activity to me.
Teri Ulm - Well there's also an order for permanent injunction. Would that include crimes there?
Jacob Rigney - No. But the judge probably ordered him to stop selling the Miracle Mineral Solution, and if he doesn't then he'll be in contempt of court, and he can be jailed for that.
Teri Ulm - Well I anticipate a jail segment on this in the future.
Jacob Rigney - Yeah if there's one thing we've learned about Florida Man is that he usually doesn't learn his lesson. Right.
Teri Ulm - And that's all the time we have for today.
Jacob Rigney - Alright. Thanks, Teri. Let me see.... Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Thanks for listening to Tales from the Brown Desk. Please remember while we may discuss legal issues and provide information regarding the law to our listeners, we do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener. Our advice may not be applicable to some legal issues. Please consult with an attorney you have hired to review your legal situation before you attempt to apply the things we have said to your case. Also we take requests on this podcast. Okay. Not requests. But we do take listener questions. Just email firstname.lastname@example.org and in title your email "Podcast Question", and we'll read it on our next podcast. Unless we start getting too many questions and then we'll just read the good questions. But Buzzsprout right now says we have 34 listeners including someone in France. So we're probably not gonna get that many questions. And by the way, France? That doesn't seem right. I don't understand, but...
Kassi Rigney - I'm happy about it. Welcome.
Jacob Rigney - Bonjour is what you were looking for. Also, the attorneys at Rigney Law do not comment on their current pending cases. Nothing we've said today in this podcast is a comment on a case we are currently working on even if your name is Chad or if you're a man from Florida. Take care everyone. Bye.