Latest / Dumb Defenses / 11. Crafty, Weird, or Myth?
Transcript
- Frankie: Hello and welcome back to the Dumb Defenses podcast, where we go around the world and through time to bring you the weirdest legal theories. I'm Frankie. Judah: I'm Judah. Frankie: And I think Judah wanted to debut his new segment up f up top. Judah: Yep, this is our new segment. We're doing this. It's called What in the Fresh Hell, where we talk about things that are happening right now. And this week we're talking about birthright citizenship. Frankie: my god. You couldn't have Judah: You're welcome. Frankie: you couldn't have told me that in the pre show. Judah: No. This week we're talking about birthright citizenship. All right. Frankie: There's so much going on. Judah: I know there is so much going on. And let's educate our listeners about this fresh hell. Could I have picked something easier to talk about? Yes. But I'm also very angry. So I picked this one. If you have not heard, because you are living under a rock. Trump tried to completely outlaw birthright citizenship, which is Frankie: In the constitution. Judah: in the constitution so he sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to people who are undocumented or people who are here on a temporary status. Frankie: So let's just go back and reread that's not the one I wanted. Reread the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judah: my gosh. Fourteenth Amendment, US Constitution Frankie: Hold on, it's making me promise that I'm human. Give me a sec. Judah: Are you? Are we? Frankie: I'm pretty sure. Judah: Are we human or are we dancers? Frankie: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. That is the birthright citizenship clause of the Constitution. Judah: Of the fourteenth amend a very one of the more important of the amendments. Frankie: Yeah, it i the Fourteenth Amendment does a whole bunch of other really cool stuff, but that is the clause that we are interested in right now. Judah: Yes. So we say if you are born here to people who are not already citizens, like you're here basically undocumented or temporary status Frankie: Well So what the rule has been for a century under I forget the the name, but it was a Chinese national who had a child here. what the law has been since that case back in the late eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds, something like that, for a very, very long time, is you're born here, you're a citizen, unless you are like the child of a diplomat and that's where the subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. Judah: Yes. Frankie: like diplomats and high level assistants to the diplomats aren't actually subject to US jurisdiction when they're here because they just stay on the embassy, which is technically not US soil. Judah: Not US soil. The embassy is it is whatever country it is Swiss soil, it is Canadian soil, you are Canadian, you're you and therefore you've been born in Canada. That's also why if you're born in an embassy abroad, you Frankie: You're still an American citizen. Judah: you are still an American citizen, because that is US soil. Frankie: Right. Also, I mean, if two American citizens have a child abroad, they can actually pass their citizenship down, that's a whole other thing. But for the for the purpose Judah: Yes, that's not what we're talking about. Frankie: of what we're talking about, you're born here and your parents are not diplomats, you are a citizen. Judah: You are a citizen. Very, very well settled. Well settled law. Frankie: Kim Wong Ark, I think, is the name of the case that I was thinking of. Judah: and Trump tried to overturn by executive Frankie: By executive order. Judah: order part of the US Constitution, which would also PS impact one of its proponents, Marco Rubio, and fuck that guy. Frankie: Yeah. So this went all the way up the court system. Judah: Okay. And Frankie: And it only passed by five to four. Why did it not pass by nine zero? Well, I mean Judah: It's s six to three. It passed so in Trump v. Barbara, which was decided on just June thirtieth of this year, Frankie: Yeah. Judah: the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's twenty twenty five executive order is a non starter. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And they just used the Fourteenth Amendment that already existed. It's it Frankie: So in this case, Judah says it's six three, I say it's five four. here's where the glitch in that is. There were five people solid in the majority. And then Kavanaugh wrote separately, concurring. So Judah: The concurrent. Frankie: technically six three, but he came up with this weird ass like Well Congress can fix it. So that's why I'm like it's not fully six three, it's five four in my opinion. Judah: Okay. Well, alright. I mean now you've explained that. And then on August sixth, Trump signs two new executive orders trying to circumnavigate the Barbara ruling. So he is firmly I I'm still gonna say firmly smacked down by a really, really right leaning pro Trump Supreme Court. Frankie: Well, three of the justices were handpicked by him. Judah: Yes. And Amy Barrett Frankie: Comey Barrett. Judah: is is not turning out to be the ally he hoped. Frankie: No, I'm actually pleasantly surprised. Like she still has her leanings, but I've actually been pleasantly surprised with her ability to like analyze stuff and and be independent, which is not what I was expecting. Judah: Yeah, I was just doing some reading about disability justice and this court is being referred to as the post Ginsburg Court. like we already have a title. Frankie: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Judah: so two new executive orders both come on August sixth. First executive order aims to halt birth tourism. Frankie: Which is already like kind of illegal anyways, and not Judah: Yeah. It's Frankie: really a thing that happens. Judah: so this is a I think this one is a for show. So it Frankie: Mm-hmm. This is for the base. Judah: this doesn't eliminate the ability to be born here and be a citizen here. It is directing the State Department and Homeland Security to halt people from being able to come into the United States Frankie: If they're pregnant. Judah: for the purpose of giving birth. so i this is Frankie: Which, you know, if we extrapolate that out could turn into all sorts of really invasive examinations. I'm less Yeah, Judah: Questions about your fertility status? Frankie: and potentially examinations, 'cause who knows, with the forty seven days that ICE is trained on. Judah: so let's talk about these both and we're gonna see if we think they're gonna stick or flop. So ending birth tourism. The second is called the executive order my god, this is like a Frankie: I hate the titles of the executive orders. Judah: continuing to protect the meaning and value of American citizenships. blah blah. so this denies birthright citizenship to children of quote alien enemies, that is members of foreign terrorist organizations or individuals lobbying for foreign governments or those using fraud so th the children would not have birthright citizenship. Frankie: So he's already tried to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and nobody's buying it. Judah: Okay, so the ACLU was ready. Ready. Frankie: Yep. absolutely. Judah: they were one of the two original petitioners on the Barbara case, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: and they were like, let's go, boom. they are in there swinging. Here's my take. I think the ending birth tourism executive order will stick. And the continuing to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship will flop. Frankie: I don't know if either of them are gonna stick. Because they made their intentions clear there's a whole lot of enforcement that's gonna be a problem with the birth tourism one. with the other one, i what I'm hearing is that it kind of is already there with the subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? I mean, diplomats already doesn't apply. are we just declaring everybody who's foreign alien enemy? 'Cause that's what they were trying to do before with all the Tren de Aragua stuff. Judah: I'm gonna defend my proposition. So so here we are procedurally. The BARBA decision has come out, and when a higher court makes a decision, it most of the time shoots it back down to the lower court for the implementation. Frankie: Right. Judah: So ACLU files this in the Federal District Court in New Hampshire. And The judge there is District Judge Joseph Laplant. so the former ruling's just come out and it hasn't made its way correct. Frankie: gone it hasn't been actually fully remanded yet. Like the order has been put out, but it hasn't nothing's happened yet. Judah: Correct. So we are in a sticky spot of Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: a little bit of a waiting game. the US district judge Joseph Laplant was pretty clear about no no no no no no no no no no no no no. And that now the A C L U has refiled into New Hampshire district court So we there's a lot of things about like exactly where this is gonna go right now is unclear. Here's why Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: I think that the birth tourism is gonna stick, because that is not directed at ending birthright citizenship. So it's not d directly on point to the birthright citizenship Frankie: If you were saying Judah: issue. It's a directive to d directly to a federal agency. responsible for issuing visas. And so I think that one is gonna fly. I think the number two, because this is like gonna be right on point. we'll be able to cite the Barbara case Frankie: Right. Judah: in this new case about this next one of like that it's gonna be over broad, there's a lot of issues in addition to the barber case that come up in the continuing to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: action. And it's still that second one directly involves the Fourteenth Amendment, as we've already mentioned. So the justifications used in the Barbara case is are gonna be cited in argument for Frankie: Right, but I think I think in terms of the birth tourism one I think largely it's gonna be an enforcement issue because people coming in, they may not be pregnant right now, but if you're talking about, hey, you know, you're gonna be here on a ten year visa, are you ever going to have kids? Right? Like that becomes an issue once they come in here. that if they didn't think they were gonna have kids and then they met somebody and then they had either had an oopsie or had a plan, like got married or whatever, then are they gonna be held liable for fraud when like eight years ago they said they weren't planning on having children when they come it's gonna be an enforcement nightmare. And then you have that child Judah: The okay. Frankie: who it wasn't technically birth tourism, but they're gonna try and get that kid to not be a US citizen. Because of Judah: I think it Frankie: birth tourism. Judah: I think this is gonna generate successful suits based on what you're saying, but Frankie: Yeah. Judah: it's specifically this references the intention upon entering the United States. When you are entering the United States, not remaining. So it's like a reverse burglary that you could develop an intent. It specifically says people entering the United States for the purpose of giving birth on American soil. So that is the that would be the intention at the time of entering and what if those people are already here, that child's an American citizen, it's about denying them visas. It's not so my argument is this does not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment because this is about preventing entrance to the United States, not about a question of citizenship with a birth that happened on US soil. Frankie: Interesting. I'm concerned that and maybe it's a just a matter of different angles of looking at this. I'm concerned that there are going to be people who happen to get pregnant here, not like crossing the border pregnant, but like something like even God forbid somebody gets raped, right? Once they're here. And they wind up giving birth and then they're gonna be whatever visa that they had is gonna get taken from them for fraud. Even though there was no actual fraud when they came across. Judah: Entered. Frankie: It's just something happened, either you know, like they could have been a victim of a crime and still gotten pregnant. Judah: And it's basically in Frankie: And nobody can get abortions anymore down south, so Judah: so there is something called the U visa, which is for victims of crime, on US soil. every part of immigration and visas I know someone that couldn't stay in the United States, who had been here since high school, had gone to college here, gone to graduate school here, was a very productive member of society, because of a particular visa quirk between the student visa and and the working visa that, couldn't stay, like there's already a visa nightmare. Do I think that it's gonna create a new reality of terror for people us well, for people with vaginas specifically, entering the country? A hundred percent. One hundred percent. however, do I think the Supreme Court is going to smack it down? I don't. Frankie: We'll see what happens. that is Judah: Okay, and that is the that's why we call it fresh hell. I didn't call it what in the fresh good news are we talking about? Frankie: That yeah, that's fair. So Judah: This is what in the fresh hell, Frank. Frankie: Well, that was our first segment of What in the Fresh Hell. we will have Judah: And we'll likely be discussing this again in the future. 'Cause I'm gonna keep we I think we should keep doing this. What in the fresh hell is up? Let's talk Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: about it. Frankie: Yep. So moving on to our regularly scheduled program, it's my turn to go first. I will be discussing State v. McGee. Like I said, this is a recent Oregon Court of Appeals case. It is on the non presidential docket, which means that it is not a case that other people can use as a basis to make arguments for. But you kind of can because like they cite other cases and you can copy fact patterns and stuff, but technically you're not supposed to cite them. Anyways I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna go for an Judah: If we want to go full nerd Well, no, about precedential opinions. Frankie: okay. Judah: We would call this a persuasive authority. So it's something you can use to persuade and to argue. Hey, if we Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: have a very similar fact pattern, even though it's not a precedent, Frankie: It's Judah: it is something that could be used convincingly in an argument. So you can still sort of use it. Frankie: Whi which I've totally done. I've been like judge, I recognize that this is not a precedential opinion. However, the fact pattern is incredibly similar, and here's all the cases that it cited that say that I'm right. Judah: I think it's mostly Oregon lawyers listening to this, specifically Oregon lawyers. Frankie: So I checked the stats the other day and we actually have a couple international listeners. So hi! Judah: Unless you're using I mean hello, welcome. tell us about your country. unless you're just using what is it, a way to listen to the internet, you can set it to international. anyway, not listen to the internet. my gosh, I'm getting so old. let's listen to the internet like the radio. Okay, so yeah, Frankie: Ha ha ha Judah: so these non-precedential opinions where they're like sort of an opinion. the Oregon legal community, at least everybody I've talked to, hates Frankie: Except the civil commitment community, which loves them, because it saves time when you have five days to investigate and draft and research and whatever, 'cause you're like, Hey, this case looks just like mine. I know exactly what I'm gonna argue now. Judah: Yeah, but that is like why didn't you just issue a precedential opinion on that? Why are Frankie: Yeah, I Judah: we doing non precedential op okay, okay, okay, go ahead. Frankie: Anyways, so this is State v. McGee. sometime prior to this event happening, because I didn't feel like paying Clark County, Washington to find out exactly when it happened, an individual took out a restraining order against Mr. McGee. Then on May twenty-fourth of twenty twenty-four, that individual gets pulled over. With Mr. McGee in the passenger seat. I did dig into the pleadings a little bit, looked at a motion to suppress. the cop couldn't read the trip permit sticker thing the thing that you get put on your car before you get an actual license plate. and so the officer pulled them over, they parked legally, requested license and registration from the driver, and while she was fumbling around looking for that. The officer asked Mr. McGee to identify himself. And then went back while she was looking for her stuff, went back and ran him and found this active restraining order. So once that happened, he came back. The driver was able to produce her documents. He realized that the restraining order was being violated. And he arrested Mr. McGee for violating that restraining order. So in August of twenty four, so a few months later, the case went to hearing. So a slight difference what's called a contempt. a violation of restraining order is not a crime. It's a quasi criminal. It's called a punitive contempt case. You don't get a jury for that, so it's just called a hearing. It's not called a trial. During that hearing, the officer testified that he had heard the complainant state her name, read her name off of her license, and compared the photograph on the license to the individual who's in front of him, and that's how he identified her. He also testified that he subsequently learned Mr. McGee's identity, which, you know, according to the pleadings, wasn't exactly the order of operations, but that's not a huge deal. and he Discovered that there was a valid restraining order. so after explaining that, then the prosecutor asked what the complainant's name was. Mr. McGee objected on hearsay grounds, which the court overruled, and Mr. McGee was found in contempt. He then appealed. So what hearsay is, is essentially when you're testifying, you're not allowed to talk about what somebody else told you. That's the base rule. There are about a million and a half exceptions to the rule. Judah: And then there's exceptions to the exceptions and then there's exceptions Frankie: An exception. Judah: to the exceptions exceptions. There's three layers. Frankie: Right. So I'm trying to do I'm trying to do super base level, like you are not allowed to say what somebody else said to you. If you talk about what somebody else said to you, it cannot come in to prove that fact, what's called for the truth of the matter asserted. So if I say Judah told me that Libby has a doctor's appointment, that cannot come in to prove that Libby had a doctor's appointment. Okay? It could Judah: Weirdly, she does have a doctor's appointment tomorrow she's a dog, so it's a vet. Tomorrow. Frankie: So I just pulled that out of my ass. So cool that it lined up. so sometimes what it can come in for, sometimes it just straight up like you can't say it. If somebody is, for example, a doctor testifying about a diagnosis, they can talk about the things that they learned through their staff, through notes, things like that to support their diagnosis, so for example, doctors talking about a schizophrenia diagnosis, right? They can talk about how in the notes the individual was like talking to people who aren't actually there, you know, responding to internal stimuli, talking to unseen others, however it's documented. So that can come in to support the doctor's diagnosis saying like this is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia. This is why I think this person has schizophrenia. It cannot come in to prove that on thus and such a day this person was talking to an unseen other. So it's a little bit of a weird fuzzy line, but that's sort of the basic this is what hearsay Judah: Yeah. Frankie: is. Judah: Let's get let's get nerdy about like this Libby going to the vet thing. So if you said, Judah told me that Libby was going to the vet tomorrow you could use that as an explanation about why you decided to go to the vet 'cause you thought you could meet me there. Frankie: Right. Yep. Judah: That's not about that you're not saying it's true that Libby has a vet appointment, you're saying this is why I went to the vet 'cause this was my belief. 'Cause I could meet my friend and his dog there. Frankie: Yep. And that's how a lot of hearsay gets in through police officers because they're like, This is why I was sent to investigate this thing. You know? It's not because like they know for a fact that this other thing happened. It's this is what I was told so that I could go do my investigation. Right? Okay, Judah: Yes. Frankie: so that's kind of like taking about three weeks of a law school course and putting it in two and a half minutes. So, on appeal. Mr. McGee argued that the court committed error when admitting the hearsay evidence of the complainant stating her name and the name being on the license. So When things are on appeal, even if there is an error, like even if the judge made a mistake, there's a possibility that the court of appeals could deem that to be harmless error. Okay. What that means is that, even though the decision that the court made in this case to overrule the hearsay objection was technically incorrect, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the case. So in order to make a decision as to whether or not an error is harmless, the Court of Appeals looks at the entirety of the evidence in front of them. So Mr. McGee's theory of the hearsay was that the writing on the driver's license, the name, date of birth, what have you on the driver's license constitutes an out of court statement. And is therefore inadmissible hearsay. So remember, an out-of-court statement is something that is said by someone in one way or another. It could also be an assertion made by movement, like pointing, hey, where did he go? He went like and you just point instead of saying he went that way. stuff like that. Statement is very, very broad. Okay. And I must say, I've not made this specific argument, but I have made esoteric arguments like this in regards to hearsay. Judah: so I call this, Frankie, I call this spaghetti time. Frankie: Yeah. Yep. Judah: Where you have a bunch of noodles and you're gonna throw all the noodles at the wall and you're gonna hope one of the noodles sticks to the wall and that noodle's gonna get you all the way through the Court of Appeals. Frankie: So I have absolutely made arguments like this for hearsay. For example, in a statutory rape case, right, it's a crime because the person was underage, okay? Prosecutor asks the complaining witness how old she is. That is hearsay. Why is it hearsay, Judah? Judah: If they're asking the complaining witness directly. Frankie: Mm-hmm. How does the complaining witness know how old she is? Judah: my gosh, because of other facts, what she's been told. Frankie: Because other people have told her that you were born on this day. Right? Judah: I bet that didn't fly. Frankie: So it actually did. But of course, then you can introduce like a certified copy of the birth certificate. You can have complainants mom testify, stuff like that, provided that it's like birth mom and not like adoptive mom or whatever. Like there are ways around it, but like yes. If you say how old you are, that is hearsay because you were not cognizant of a damn thing when you were born. Judah: Okay. Okay. I mean Frankie: Right? So like I've absolutely made this kind of esoteric argument before, and it's at least put the prosecutor on their back foot. Right? So you you look like you have opinions. Judah: I d I I mean I don't have opinions. I'm going back and thinking in my mind of all the times I've been like, I have precious few arguments and I've spent hours like scraping yeah, have you ever made spaghetti squash? You're trying to get all the spaghetti squash Frankie: Mm-hmm. All the spaghettis out of yeah. Judah: out of the rind and you're just eventually scraping rind hoping that one more piece is gonna dislodge. Where Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Yep. Judah: I've been doing that in my brain because I'm so preciously screwed at trial and then afterwards be like that wasn't a very good argument. I was like, that is the argument that I had. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Well, and I mean sometimes it that's what sticks. Like the we got we got decent case law out of the Court of Appeals in terms of inventory searches of vehicles Judah: love that. Frankie: where the Court of Appeals said that the rule became in the event of an inventory search, the suspect should be allowed to, if there's a purse or a backpack in the car, exempt that from the search and give it to somebody else, right? That, I I used to work with the guy who made that argument, that was a throwaway argument when he felt like he was losing his argument. He was like, well then then they should have just let her take the purse. And that's that Judah: All all of the Frankie: that throwaway argument has become the rule. Judah: So also the rule about administrative searches Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: was all because the defense attorney had no other there there was no rule the rule did not exist about administrative searches. And the Court of Appeals, or maybe it was the Oregon Supreme Court, I forget which one, manufactured guidelines for how administrative searches must occur to be valid. And they are a so good for the defense. And that was just Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: a throw away one. I had a permanency hearing overturned at the Court of Appeals because of a extremely weird notice argument that I made. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: So you try it, you try it. Frankie: Yeah. So what ultimately happens in this particular case with the hearsay argument that the name on the license is an out of court statement, is the court sidesteps the issue, of course. Judah: Course they do, 'cause it's too cute for them to fully resolve. Frankie: Well, and it's a non presidential opinion, so they don't actually have to resolve the big issue, right? So they declined to determine whether the writing on the driver's license constitutes a statement, and rather decided that if it did, the error was harmless. Why was the error harmless? Why do you think? Judah: Why the error is it because of her statements? Frankie: no, it's essentially because it was waived. So Judah: Okay. Frankie: what happens is in Mr. McGee's opening statement and theory of the case He laid out that the two people were in the car together, but that any violation of the restraining order was not willful because Mr. McGee believed that the restraining order had been dropped. So Judah: Okay. Frankie: he essentially admits in his opening statement that he was in violation of the order. the court also said that. It was harmless because the information on the driver's license would be cumulative. This was because or unless you want to take a guess as to why. Okay. Judah: No, because I didn't read the facts of the case. I didn't even try to look this up. Frankie: So the officer testified that he performed the traffic stop and determined that the complaining witness was the driver and Mr. McGee did not object to that statement. And so there was unchallenged evidence that she was the driver. So he didn't object early enough, right? So he only objected Judah: 'Cause they allow the fact that it was this individual who was the driver. I'm Frankie: Right. Judah: surprised I mean, in this it had it been done a little bit differently, there is a pretty good unreasonable search argument for the passenger. Frankie: There is. they did file a motion to suppress on that. I didn't dive into it because it didn't fly and the Court of Appeals didn't take it up. but they did file a motion to suppress for an extension of the stop right? Under a case called Judah: Yes. Frankie: Areolla-Botello. which essentially says that you, cop, are only allowed to talk to individuals in a vehicle about the reason for the stop. The reason for the stop in this case was the expired or not visal Judah: Travel pass. Frankie: visible travel pass. The court at the trial level. Ruled that it wasn't an unlawful extension of the stop because the complaining witness took so long to find her documents that it was Judah: Okay. Frankie: all part of the same stop. And that the officer testified that he was running the defendant's name because when people are fumbling around for the documents so much, sometimes it means that they don't have a license. And he was trying to figure out if this guy was a licensed driver and could take the car. Judah: Okay, so Frankie: So yeah, so that that's why that didn't go up. Judah: Here's a fun thing that I learned recently about Oregon's traffic code. did you know that citizens can write each other tickets? Frankie: I vaguely remember that. Judah: Yeah, so it's very hard. it's almost impossible to do but you as a citizen can attempt to write another citizen a traffic ticket, but it has to be very formally co-signed by a law officer. And also Frankie: Interesting. Judah: another thing, so I don't know if I told you about this, but Megan's back license plate was stolen Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: and We had to just the back one. Just the back license plate. Yes. And we knew it was stolen because the screws were missing. It didn't just fall off. Like the whole thing, somebody took the Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Judah: screws off, took the license plate off. so obviously we went to the DMV to get the temps because they have to mail you the new license plate. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And we had to take her front license plate off in order Frankie: Yeah. Judah: to put the travel pass on, because you can't have two two license plates Frankie: You can't have two license plates or two conflicting license plates. Judah: Yeah. So we had a perfectly functional license plate we had to remove and then when we got this other l then we had to put all back on, it was a whole thing. Frankie: Was she able to keep the same license plate number? Judah: Yeah. Frankie: okay. Judah: Yeah, they just replaced the back plate, but it was also really annoying 'cause somebody stole our license plate. We had to pay a bunch of money to get a new license plate. Frankie: Yeah. Well, that might come back, 'cause then if whoever's using that license plate gets pulled over, that could be a problem, but so anyways, for those two reasons, essentially that the defense attorney waived their argument, they decided that the error was harmless. Judah: Well they really just danced around. You see them just sidestepping it, but whenever you see them sidestepping, like diving into an opinion, we even talk about this at conferences. That means try it again, try it again, try it again, try it again. Frankie: Try it again, try it again. It like this was not the right set of facts, but try it again. Yeah, and it's frustrating, like as trial counsel when you feel like you made a really good record and then they either sidestep the main issue that you brought up, or they like went for the low-hanging fruit and you're like, no, we needed clarity on this thing. Judah: I once had a motion to dismiss that I lost where I felt like I made this really excellent record because the motion was made prior to the permanency plan changing, which in Oregon means that the the burden is still on the state to prove so I made this really great extensive argument about how the state hadn't met their burden. And Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: I lost the motion to dismiss and I wound up getting it overturned because of a minor argument that I made about improper judicial notice that just totally sidestepped the whole issue and they're like, Well, where there's improper judicial notice, the error wasn't harmless. And I like, you just completely did not address the main thrust Frankie: Yeah. You they went for the low-hanging fruit because they didn't want to have to deal with it. It happens. Judah: Yeah. Frankie: I had a case where like there was this kind of open question of law and I made a really clear record on it. it was a civil commitment case, right? And so I made this really really s strong record on this piece of law that I've been trying to get clarity on. And then The court's like, Well, the hearing was held on day six, so that's why we're reversing it. I was like, No Judah: Well, yeah, i it I mean, we there was an attorney that did our civil commitments when we were back at Umpqua Valley Public Defender that was absolutely notorious for winning on a technicality on civil commitments Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: like legend status. Yeah. Frankie: I mean I learned all of that stuff from him. Judah: Okay, so that's full that's interesting 'cause we we went partial nerd, I think more rage rage nerd, Frankie: Mm. Judah: at the Birthright Citizen by the way, we support immigrants. r regardless Frankie: Absolutely. Hundred percent. Judah: of documentation status. Frankie: Yep, and also the original birthright citizenship order was like if your mom was not it was weird. Like it was like very weirdly specific about which parent and this, that, and the other thing, and I'm like, I don't think Trump's kids are citizens under this. Judah: Well, if it goes well this is just Frankie: Anyways. Judah: we support immigrants regardless of documentation status on this channel. Frankie: We absolutely support immigrants. Absolutely. Immigrants make our country stronger. Judah: Yeah. so now we're gonna jump back into light and fluffy because I just did Weird Laws and Frankie: And I pulled a whole bunch too. so I don't know if we wanna like go back and forth or how we wanna do this. Judah: Well, I I'll just talk what got me distracted on this last Frankie: Okay. Judah: week was when I was researching the pinball case, there was just an article in like one of the sidebars of one of the other articles I was reading about Clint Eastwood restoring the right to have a to-go ice cream cone in Carmel by the Sea California. And Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: I said, You know what, ADHD, I'm gonna let you win today. I'm gonna click on this. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And then I more interestingly got like I have some information on what is a myth and what people believe are weird laws and what are actually weird laws. Yeah. Frankie: Yeah, I came up with I came across a bunch of those too. Judah: Like there's all these lists of like all these weird laws in the United States. It is like they're complete myths. Myth, myth, myth, myth, myth, myth, myth. Frankie: Yep. And there was I found a good list of those on historycollection.com had Judah: Yeah. Frankie: a really good list of like everybody believes that this is a myth. Here's where it comes from. There was also a list on good housekeeping. Most of those ones are myths, yeah. Judah: Most of those are myths. Yeah, and it is still, you know, it's a really actively I came across that article too. So people liked, you know, these weird laws. So I'm gonna start with what got me into this 'cause like that's weird. that if you're in Carmel by the Sea that you could have ice cream cones outside because of Clint Eastwood. Frankie: Mm. Judah: Let's bring it all together. So Carmel by the Sea is like a Bougie. I'm gonna call Frankie: Yeah. Judah: it bougie. destination in central California in the United States. Frankie: Mm. Judah: it's had other f famous people living there, like Jack London lived there and Robert Louis Stevenson lived there. did I s did I mention this? my article's called How Ice Cream Pushed Clint Eastwood into Politics by Rachel Chang. Frankie: Ha ha nice. Judah: that was my little distraction. It's a very good article. So in nineteen eighty-four, the city drafts a general plan to address concerns of residents that basically an influx of businesses that were directed towards tourists were eroding the quality of residential life. And the big priority that they focused on was take out food. 'Cause Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: they consider this takeout food to be for tourists rather than locals and They had had issues and they ostensibly say that part of this is like about litter. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And they functionally banned sidewalk restaurants, eating take push Frankie: So like push carts and stuff. Judah: carts so you can't really have a restaurant where the primary purpose is this take out food or to eat this food in public. It was super weird. After that, the city, which goes by the single moniker Carmel, was nicknamed Scrooge City. this was according to a Los Angeles Times article in nineteen eighty five. And what they had also inadvertently done through this is Banned ice cream cones. Like going to an ice cream shop, purchasing an ice cream cone and taking a walk and eating your ice cream cone. there was Frankie: That's such a lovely thing to do on a summer day. Judah: Yeah, and it's a beachside town and I myself have been known to enjoy a hopefully dairy free so I don't explode or like non lactose ice Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: cream by the beach. what I love about this is that The city was horrified. they organized lick in events. And it became colloquially known as the ice cream flap. But they're still Scrooge City. Well then Clint Eastwood, who Clint Eastwood has been famous forever. And in the mid eighties. He's I mean I think he's really fully retired now. he's really old. he's had a huge career. But Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Judah: he was already very famous and he's living in Carmel. And he's got like an inn slash restaurant and he's getting really frustrated with all the red tape that Carmel puts up just like everywhere. he's just seeing all this bureaucratic red tape for any kind of development and he runs on this platform about this red tape and really highlights this ice cream issue is like this is the foundation so he's going in for the ice cream cones, but on this big platform of being able to cut down bureaucratic Red tape. So he runs for mayor. He runs for mayor of Carmel and he wins. so for a time Clint Eastwood was mayor of Carmel by the Sea, California, Frankie: That's amazing. Judah: and comes forward and he and he fulfills his campaign promises. and does away with a lot of this bureaucratic red tape and restrictions. And the article says And I laughed. Today, ice cream cones are a nonpartisan issue in Carmel. Frankie: Ha ha ha Judah: So that was the thing that got me into these weird laws. I'm gonna tell ya the whimsy the whimsy of this whole thing and the fact that Clint Eastwood Clint Eastwood came Frankie: Yes. Judah: in and was like, Let's cut back the red tape, let's open up ice cream cones for all. Frankie: Nice. Judah: I love it. Do you and if we wanna trade back and forth, I have I have a Frankie: Yeah, we can trade back and forth. I've got a bunch. mine happen to be like in alphabetical order by state. But anyways, so in Arizona Judah: I've got this one on mine too. I'll delete the donkey in the bathtub. Frankie: It is illegal for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub. Judah: Yeah, that is this is not true. Frankie: I thought Judah: Nope. Myth Myth Nope, it is Frankie: I that did not come off as a myth on mine. Okay. Judah: a myth that it is illegal to keep a donkey in a bathtub in Arizona. Frankie: So the story behind it is that it was 1924. A rancher had an abandoned tub on his property that his donkey had taken to taking naps in. Apparently it was comfy. a dam broke causing a flood that whisked away the snoozing animal by miles. And it took quite a bit of time, money, and effort to rescue said donkey. And then the resource I had said that the Arizona legislator passed a law, but apparently that's not Judah: Nope. Frankie: true. Judah: It is a myth. There has never been a law. I have in my notes here from a jurist website, and then I just put on my notes, sadly this law is untrue. Because I Frankie: God. Judah: I loved the donkey in a bathtub. But I've got some treats for you from the state of Arizona that Frankie: Okay. Judah: are real laws because the donkey in the bathtub is a myth. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: So here's a treat. First is Arizona does have state neckwear. The bolo tie. So Arizona revised Frankie: that tracks. Judah: statute 41 857. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: In Arizona, if you drive on a road that you know is flooded and is barricaded, you could be liable for the cost of your own rescue. This is better known as the stupid motorist law. Arizona revised statute 28 91. And in Arizona, you can't feed garbage to a pig unless. It is your personal household garbage, and the pig is intended only for your personal household consumption. Arizona revived statute three dash two six six four. So I Frankie: Hmm. Interesting. Judah: too felt sad about the donkey in a bathtub myth but I got those as a consolation prize for you. Frankie: Okay. I have another one that is also a myth, but is also very funny. the myth is that in Connecticut there's a law that a pickle must bounce. Not true. Judah: Pickles must bounce. Yes. Frankie: so apparently in 1948, two men were arrested for selling pickles unfit for human consumption. The State Food and Drug Commissioner was demonstrating to the public ways to test if their pickles were safe. by dropping them on the floor from about a foot in the air. And if they bounced they were edible. If they didn't, they weren't. but when determining whether pickles were safe to put back on the shelves, the state did actually use lab testing and not just bouncing them. Judah: Well, in there they actually did try to bounce these pickles. Spearer Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: and Dexler were the alleged pickle malfeasants. And they did use the pickle drop test and Mr. Spearer was arrested, paid a five hundred dollar fine, and the pair's pickles were destroyed. Frankie: Yes. Judah: I wanna add in there. Connecticut, from nineteen forty nine to two thousand and two, had a very charming law that town and probate records Could not be kept where liquor was sold. Frankie: Ha ha ha. Judah: And if they were, the penalty was to the judge. Frankie: Like giving the liquor to the judge? Judah: No, the penalty for keeping the records where liquor was sold, the penalty was on the judge. Alright, well I'm gonna throw in here 'cause I know you've got margarine stuff, but I've got what I think is an excellent margarine story for you. so in Wisconsin today, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: today, you cannot pretend margarine is butter at a restaurant or prison and you mostly Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: can't serve it. The law is ninety seven point one eight oleo margarine regulations. Frankie: Yes. Judah: If you are a customer at a restaurant, you must specifically request margarine as a substitute for table butter to even get margarine. And they have some very charming specifics about today how margarine or oleo margarine must be retailed. so the net weight of the contents of any package of margarine sold in a retail establishment is one pound. there has to be on the label the word oleomargarine or margarine, and I'm quoting, in a type or lettering at least as large as any other type or lettering on the label, in a color of print which clearly contrasts with its background, and a full and accurate statement of the ingredients contained in the oleomargarine or margarine, and and Each part of the contents of the package is contained in a wrapper or separate container which bears the word oleomargarine or margarine in a type lettering not smaller than twenty point type. Frankie: They hate margarine in Wisconsin. Up until nineteen sixty-seven Judah: it goes further. Frankie: it was illegal to sell it at all. Judah: Okay, and this is where we jump in with the do you know how the total ban on margarine was lifted in the state of Wisconsin? Fantastic. I went whole hog on this. So margarine, if you're one of our international listeners, is a famous dairy state. Famous for its dairy, i in the US. and my lovely wife was recently there for a swimming competition, but unfortunately it was in the middle of winter. And I said, Did you go to a cheese factory? No, no. And I was very disappointed. Okay. So there's a total ban. There's actually several states had total bans on margarine. And Wisconsin, since the late 1900s, had a set of laws Designed to protect the dairy industry in Wisconsin. but they were the last of the states to overturn a total ban on specifically yellow margarine. Total ban. Frankie: Mm mm. Judah: Yellow margarine could not be sold in the state of Wisconsin. But in 1965 five, a young state senator was frustrated with having his efforts at overturning the margarine ban. Be foiled. So he challenged the most ardent pro butter state senator named Gordon Roslipe to a blind taste test, a public blind taste test. Frankie: My god. Judah: This blind taste test occurred and Senator Roselip confidently chose the margarine as being good quality Wisconsin butter. Frankie: my god. Judah: A flub that made national news, Frankie: Mm. Judah: and two years later the total ban was overturned. Here's the twist in the story. After his death in 1989, Roslipe's family members reported that he had been secretly being fed margarine smuggled from Iowa. for years at home prior to the blind taste test out of concern for his Frankie: So ha ha ha Judah: health. So I retrieved this from the Capitol Press by an article by Scott Bauer titled Wisconsin Frankie: That's amazing. Judah: Ban on Margarine Targeted for Repeal. Frankie: Mm. Judah: and I also want to cite so I used for the Arizona story, Andreas.com the Pickle Must Bounce story, two articles, both with charming names. Bouncing Pickles, Banned Silly String, Random Connecticut Laws Over the Years by Olivia Perolt, and from the Connecticut State Library titled The Pickle Law by Librarian Deborah Pond. so that's where I got that charming story. And I retrieved the ninety-eight point one eight law about the current oleo margarine from the Wisconsin state code archive. and now I would like to talk to you about profanity. Do you have any profanity bans? Frankie: I'm looking. I mean, aside from the one we talked about a few I guess that's not profanity, that's obscenity, but Judah: Nope, this is profanity, just profanity. Frankie: I don't know that I got that one. Judah: Until 2020, it was illegal to use profanity in public in the Commonwealth of Virginia, punishable as a fourth degree misdemeanor. Only overturned in 2020. I retrieved this from a local Virginia news website, 10TV.com, which links you to like a WBH something, local Virginia. However, there are still, although the even the states and municipalities acknowledge That these are unenforceable because of free speech. In Mississippi, state law contains a statute that criminalizes using profane, vulgar, or indecent language in a public place or over the phone. In Alabama, the state code contains provisions where using abusive or obscene language in public to intentionally cause annoyance can be cited as disorderly conduct. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: South Carolina still has statutes that maintain historical references that penalize public profanity and obscenity. Go back to last week's episode if you want to hear more about boobs. and in Oklahoma, an old state law explicitly bans the use of profane language in public places, specifically noting restrictions around women and children. In Middleborough, Massachusetts. Have you ever been to Middleboro, Massachusetts? Frankie: Probably driven through it. Judah: Yep. they intentionally kept very recently a local bylaw starting in nineteen sixty eight that allows police to issue a twenty dollar fine for swearing in public. Even the state attorney general's office and the courts have noted it likely violates free speech. Calais or Callus, Maine. maintains a municipal ordinance that bans the use of abusive and profane language just within city parks. So go to the sidewalk, please, to swear. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Several local Nebraska towns, smaller, have drafted their own city ordinances banning public cursing so there's small towns, just noted. I couldn't actually find any more information other than the small towns in Nebraska, but that seems legit. there's been a wave of repeals to avoid civil rights lawsuits like the one that recently happened in Utica, Michigan. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: Utica, Utica? Frankie: Udic Utica. I mean there's one in New York also when they pronounce it Utica. Judah: Okay, well we're gonna go with the New York pronunciation. Sorry, Michiganders, if I've mispronounced a town you may or may not have been to. So, swearing. A lot of swearing. Frankie: I have a bunch of weird ones from all over the place. in Gainesville, Georgia, it is illegal to eat fried chicken in any other way but with your hands. Like fork and knife? Judah: H did you find the actual law? Frankie: I think I closed the tab that I was using. Judah: Okay. Frankie: But I believe that was one that linked to the actual law that went into effect in nineteen sixty one. in Kentucky, a woman cannot marry the same man more than three times. Judah: I yes, it fourth time is no. can I tell a little sidebar Kentucky story? Frankie: Sure. Judah: so my mom was born and raised in Kentucky. And it is a beautiful state. We're sorry that Mitch McConnell has survived. But it is a beautiful state. Many many lovely people. Good food, good food. So when my mom married my first stepdad, they decided to get married in Kentucky and they were sitting down at the registry office to get their marriage license and the woman across the way just goes, Y'all aren't kin, are ya? And had Frankie: Isn't Judah: to clarify to to them that it was i illegal in Kentucky to marry your first cousin and they would have to go to a neighboring state if they were first cousins. Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: And my mother and then stepfather did assure and have to sign a form indicating that they were not first blood cousins or closer. Frankie: Right. Yep. Yep. But there are states in that general vicinity where that is legal. Judah: That is legal. And my great great grandparents were second cousins. Frankie: Yep, that is a thing that happens. Another one I found was that in New Jersey you cannot wear a bulletproof vest while committing enumerated crimes. Judah: Yes, so if you are wearing body armor, I read that one. Frankie: it's unlawful use of body vests. it's two C thirty-nine-thirteen. A person is guilty of the crime when he uses or wears a body vest while engaged in the commission of or attempt to commit or flight after committing or attempting to commit, murder, manslaughter, robbery, sexual assault, burglary, kidnapping, criminal escape, or assault under these other statutes. So You could in theory like steal something and wear body armor and it's legal. I mean, not the theft obviously, but the wearing of the body armor. it's only Judah: This is being charged with a separate crime. Frankie: it's only those enumerated crimes that you get the extra crime on top of it. Judah: So I have I have an Oregon Frankie: yeah. Judah: local. Frankie: I have an Oregon local one as well. Let's compare. Judah: It is illegal to hunt in a graveyard in Oregon. Frankie: I saw that one. I also saw even more local. Not like local to us, but like small. in Hood River, it's illegal to juggle. Judah: illegal to juggle in Hood River. If they would they should outlaw mimes. but Frankie: It's a city ordinance apparently. Judah: I tried to dig more 'cause it became illegal in Oregon to hunt in a graveyard in nineteen seventy three. Yes, Frankie: Yeah, it was really recent. Like Judah: the law was amended in nineteen eighty four. It is still Frankie: Mm. Judah: illegal to hunt in hunting in cemeteries. The word is cemeteries. it is a misdemeanor, so it's not a hunting violation. It is a crime. Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: I really wanted to find the story of why it became so necessary to outlaw hunting in a cemetery in the 70s. And when I tried to dig that far back into the legislative Frankie: Couldn't find it. Judah: history, I started just getting huge like blocks of things that I couldn't search through and then I immediately gave up. But I Frankie: Yep. Judah: tried. Frankie: Yep. so I've got another one that that sounds funny, but the true law is much broader than the myth. So there's a myth that in Indiana monkeys cannot smoke. The reason for this is because there's a nineteen twenty four law prohibiting smoking in public. A lot of places have this type of law, right? In nineteen twenty seven, three years after its passage, a chimpanzee, which not a monkey, it's an ape, but regardless, was part of a street entertainment show in South Bend, Indiana, where Pete Buttigeig mayor, not at the time that he was mayor, obviously he's much younger than that. During which that chimpanzee smoked a cigarette. The chimp got arrested, tried, and fined $5, which is almost a hundred dollars today. Judah: Sure. I mean we've we've done already a a set on animals being prosecuted. Frankie: Yep. Judah: please go back and listen to that episode to hear me go full nerd on that. I read a book over a hundred years old. I have one for you. For a period of time starting in nineteen seventeen in Massachusetts, I was picking on your home state. Frankie: Mm. Yeah. Judah: It was illegal to dance to the Star Spangled Banner. Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. That was that was a thing. Yep. close to that neck of the woods in Vermont, it is illegal for women to wear dentures without their husband's approval. It is there was a ca Judah: That's a myth. Yeah, it's a myth. Frankie: what I was reading, and granted it was from Inside Edition, so take that with a grain of salt. is there was an 1856 case that never got overturned. Judah: Okay, so maybe it's not a law, maybe they had a case 'cause there's quite a few of these. Frankie: Yeah. So that that was that was case law that apparently never got overturned, so it's still technically the law. Which Judah: there's that thing that I was trying to get to the bottom of so hard and I couldn't fundamentally get to the bottom of it, is it illegal to put a coin in your ear in Hawaii? Frankie: Yeah, I saw that on my list too. I didn't wind up writing that one down. Judah: so I was like, I'm a dig on this, 'cause this doesn't seem legit, but I couldn't find either legit or non-legit, and one source Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: that I read said, Well it's still on the books, but there's no penalty for it. So Frankie: Yeah. Judah: you're not supposed to put a coin in your ear, but there's no penalty if you do put a coin in your ear Frankie: Yeah. Well at least when I was in law school, like adultery was still on the books as a B misdemeanor in New York, like never enforced, right? Judah: I remember in two thousand and four when laws prohibiting consensual sodomy Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: were deemed unlawful and I was in eastern Washington and just over the border in neighboring Idaho up until that moment consensual what is defined as sodomy, which is like not penis in vagina sex basically, Frankie: Right. Judah: which includes like a lot of other types of sex contacts that even heterosexual couples got up to all the time, illegal. Frankie: Yep. Yep. some other fun ones that I found. In South Dakota it's illegal to sleep in a cheese factory. The Judah: Yep. Up, yep, illegal to sleep in a cheese factory. But that's but more of a heavy equipment safety thing. Frankie: It's that's a safety thing. It's to prevent people from dozing off while they're utilizing heavy machinery. But just to flat out ban sleeping when you're not on the machinery. anyways. another fun one I found, Judah: But wait, you can sleep in a cheese factory after the cheese has been packaged. Frankie: Right, 'cause then you're not dealing with the heavy machinery. so in Chesapeake, Virginia, it is a misdemeanor to trick or treat over the age of twelve, punishable by up to six months in jail or a hundred dollar fine, or to trick or treat after eight PM, punishable for up to thirty days or a hundred dollars, unless you're like accompanying a younger sibling. Judah: I read that as fourteen, not twelve, when I looked that one up and I didn't write that one down. Frankie: I had it as twelve. I may have misread it, Judah: Okay. Frankie: but yeah, so unless you are walking around with your younger sibling to make sure they're safe, you can be charged with a misdemeanor for trick treating in Chesapeake, Virginia. Judah: Intentional horse tripping? Frankie: Yeah, I saw that one too. Judah: Is banned in thirteen states, Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Oregon among them, California, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, and Nevada. Frankie: Yep. Yeah. Judah: So they have anti horse tripping laws for Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: in the in this zone of animal cruelty. Cannot trip a horse. Frankie: Yep. Yeah. my last one I actually really like because fuck the rich. in Wyoming, a building and I assume that this is like a pup a public service a public service building, not Judah: One percent. Yeah, that was on my list. Yeah. Frankie: like a home. but a building that costs over a hundred thousand dollars must allot one percent of those funds for art for the building. Which I think is awesome because it's exposure for the artists. It's making sure that people aren't just making things big and fancy and expensive because they can. I like that law. Judah: Yeah, it was to promote local art and purchasing of local art and supporting artists and Wyoming does have a very thriving art scene. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: so I also looked that one up. so of the myths, which myth do you wish was true? Frankie: I really like the donkey in the bathtub. I was really disappointed that that wasn't actually true. the monkeys cannot smoke is like a myth in law but not a myth in application, so that one's kinda borderline. Right? 'Cause there was actually a chimpanzee that was arrested. Judah: I mean the bouncing pickles I just really Frankie: The bouncy pickles is just fun. Judah: The bouncing pickles is just funny. I have a jar of pickles in my fridge right now. Do Frankie: Do you want to bounce them? Judah: you wanna see if the pickle bounces? Frankie: I think that would be fun if we, you know, Judah: Okay. Frankie: because at some point this will become a video episode. If we have enough streams in a single episode, we're shooting for a thousand. The highest one I saw when I was checking the other day, I think was around 45 or 50 for a single episode. Although our shorts on Facebook have been getting 200, 300 views. Yeah. but Judah: We're over four hundred on a couple of And that's not just my mom watching over and over. Hi mom. Frankie: But if you want to get videos, make sure you're sharing so that we can hit Judah's ridiculously high standard of a thousand streams for a single episode, so that we can open our Patreon and get you guys video episodes. Judah: Yeah, my law partner also argued with me on that. but I feel like it's fair. Frankie: I agree with Melissa. It has to be whole pickles. I feel like Judah: They small pickles, but I'm getting a shallow dish. Frankie: Okay. 'Cause I feel like sliced pickles will just splat Judah: I'm gonna use this so I don't spill pickles everywhere. Frankie: Instead of the floor. Judah: Alright, I wanna say at the outset that we are not sponsored by the Vlasic Pickle Company. But my favorite snackin' pickle is the Vlasic Snackems kosher dill. Frankie: We're not sponsored by anybody. This is the cost of this is all coming out of our own pockets, all like thirty bucks a month that the podcasting platform charges us. Judah: Okay. So I'm supposed to drop it from approximately one foot, right? Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: So I'm gonna lift my arm up and just have this in here. Does the pickle bounce? It bounces. That's it. Frankie: It did! It bounced Bounce about an inch. That's really cool. Judah: And now I'm gonna eat this celebratory 'cause I've touched it. Listen, it's got crunch. It's got dill Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: vinegary. I love this pickle. We're open. Frankie: Mm-hmm. I love pickles too. Judah: Listen, Vlasic, I will pimp your products every episode if you send me free pickles. Frankie: Will work for food. Judah: Ha ha ha. Frankie: did you have any other ones or were we at the end? Judah: There is a bunch. some of them like there's there's a town Here in nineteen eighty three city commissioners in Chico, California proposed a symbolic ordinance that included a five hundred dollar fine for anyone dropping or detonating an atomic bomb within city limits. Frankie: it's never gonna happen. Judah: it didn't yeah, so sorry you've decimated the city of Chico, California. you owe us five hundred dollars. It was Frankie: Right. Judah: that proposal was dropped due to widespread ridicule. And I wonder why. Proposed a symbolic ordinance that included a five hundred dollar fine for detonating or dropping an atomic bomb on Chico, California. Yeah. Yeah. Frankie: That would just flatten the city and everything around it. people are weird. Judah: I read that one I like That is good. Yeah. Frankie: All right, so Next week I will look into whether or not sleepwalking is a valid defense to murder. Judah: And I haven't picked what I'm doing next week. But Frankie: So you'll surprise us. Judah: it'll be fun. Wait, let's let's let's brainstorm. Let's brainstorm on the episode. What should Frankie: Alright, alright. Judah: I do next week? Frankie: Well, I'm doing murder sleepwalking, so you get to do something fun and fluffy. Judah: Even though this week I was the the headliner, but the less fun and fluffy was Trump v. Barbara and Birthright Citizenship. Frankie: Yeah. And we'll see what Fresh Hell comes up over the weekend to discuss Judah: Yeah. Frankie: next week. for that particular segment. But for you going first and having the shorter bit Judah: I've got a good one. since you did Prohibition and I have family that used to run Moonshine. Frankie: Nice. Judah: Let's do The laws around the invention of NASCAR. Frankie: Okay. So next week NASCAR and sleepwalking. so as always, like, subscribe, share, help us keep growing so that you guys can eventually, at some point in the next eight years, get video episodes. Judah: we'll drop that pickle dropping as a teaser. That'll be a good one. Frankie: Yeah, that'll be something that we'll pull out for Facebook. like, subscribe, share, leave a rating, leave a review, reach out to us, dumb defensespodcast at gmail.com or on Facebook, Instagram, and Blue Sky. And we'll see you next week. Bye. Judah: See you next week.