October 27, 2025 • 17 mins
On the Jim Colbert Show Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the growing problem of spam texts and the ongoing conflicts between federal vs state regulations concerning medical marijuana and firearms permits.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
All right, welcome back to the Jim Culver Show again
right real Radio one of four point one on a gym.
There's death Jack is here as well. Yeah, speaking of
that guest, every single money around six twenty years. Oh,
he drops by the station and talk to some stuff
that's happening up in the world of law. He runs
a firm TK Law. It's one firm for life dot Com.
Good loud for our friend, mister Ray Trinley.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Look at this guy? Will you look at this guy?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
I'm casual today. I was in depositions all day. I decided,
in between breaks for the deposition, I was gonna walk
up and down flights of stairs wearing a full suit.
And after my first flight of stairs, I decided to
take my tie off. And after there's a second flight
of stairs, I take my jacket off. And I've been
like this ever since.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
How much weight have you lost?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Uh, twenty three pounds?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Get you look great, by the way, but without the
jacket we can see it.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
More and you definitely have trimmed down. You.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Look at that. I can find all my skinny clothes again.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
I mean I was just about to ask that very Thingly,
we eat your when you get your suits hand made,
you know, and you hand make them for old Ray.
I mean, can you can old Ray still wear the
new stuff or so new Ray? Where the old stuff?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So new? Ray had the tailor come in and say
take some of those inches out because I'm not going
back to fat race.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Say that a boy, man? That's great? Yeah you do.
Can you tell the difference?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Absolutely? I feel great. I had. I haven't had a
headache in almost three months.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Really wow, and you got divorced. I'm joking.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
That's a careful that's a careful rumor. Depending on who
you talk to in my neighborhood, that may or may
not be a rumor that happened.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
The headache thing.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
The headache thing that's more of a pain in the
rear end.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Off, Hey Ray drugs fight to talk about some mine?
Speaker 3 (01:40):
By the way, he actually brings.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
In the topics, I don't know what we're talking about today.
What do you get for us? Uh?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Well, I got two topics, one of which I'm kind
of heated about. This really bothers me. So do you
guys ever get these like spam text messages where they
just blow you up and they're saying, Hey, you wanna
respond to this thing or participate in this thing, and
you going do not call lists and they keep commtacting you.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Ye yah yea. I just wea a delete report. Jump
to everyone up.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Yeah, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. No, I've been
doing it. I get maybe two weeks ago. I think
I got two hundred phone calls.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Two dude, are you kidding?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
In like one hundred and twenty five text messages in
one weekend because I don't delete them contemporaneously, just builds
up until my inbox gets full. So this is a
Middle District to Florida case. This is where we're at
right now. That held that the telephone call provisions under
the TCPA, which is the act that says that if
people are calling you, you can go on these you know,
no call lists do not apply to text messages. And
(02:39):
this is following this this test that's been going around
across the nation. It's called the Brightly McLaughlin test. And basically,
under the FCC rules, the courts are not finding that
the people who are sending you text mes to just
fall into the same phone call rules because of how
the laws writ And so this is a couple of things.
(03:00):
Either one just needs to go up to the Supreme
Court or to the Circuit Court for a jurisdiction to
review this, or we need to get Congress who can
one pass a budget bill and two change this law
because it is the most infuriating thing that happens to
me is I'm in a meeting with a client. I
get twenty two text messages and I think, maybe it's
(03:21):
my wife, maybe my children, maybe somebody got hurt. Yeah,
maybe it's with an emergency. Right. Nope, they want me
to know if I want to renew my magazine subscription,
or do I want to vote for this, or do
I want to donate money for that? And it's all
politicians on both sides of the aisle. It's nobody I
care about.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
I was gonna say, And I think the problem is
it's not the texting service themselves that You're right. I mean, yes,
you could probably try to employ a congress center or representative.
But the problem is is I'm guessing probably these companies,
you know, pour money into their packs. Absolutely, so you're
gonna have a hard time getting any congress person to
legislate or create any legislation. It's gonna stop somebody from
(03:57):
doing something when that person or that group was giving
that congressman money.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Well, here's what I think will be interesting, right, is
we we did you guys see the article I think
came out maybe Thursday or Friday last week that they're
able to do real time deep fakes. Now have you
seen that? You know, Like before, it's like, you know,
I want you to, you know, say this sentence like
Jim Colbert and you know record or some I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So what you're saying is now the filter can be
in between you and while you're talking live, it will
translate the voice from what I'm saying right now, it's
exactly into your voice as I'm talking to Jack.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
That's right in real time, in real time, so.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
I don't have to worry about them recording and then
having some glitches on the other end. So my scam
can go through perfectly because I'm now speaking as that person.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
You can actually and you can direct a bot to respond, right. So,
you know before it was like, you know, here's your script,
and it's like, you know, thanks for asking. I just
got arrested today. When it's like I didn't ask how
you were doing. You know, before you could spot these
little glitches in the recordings. That's not happening. And with this,
with this, this case, let's coming out. You know, there's
(05:05):
nothing to stop these companies from you know, impersonating maybe
dead celebrities or celebrities and their likenesses because you know,
at this point it's a wild wild west. They're not
holding anybody accountable for any of this stuff. And it
wouldn't surprise me if you don't take this to the
next level.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
That's a copyright thing for their estate, is it not.
I mean no different.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It would be no different than recording a piece of
music that person did and trying to sell it.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Who are you gonna sell? Who you're gonna see? You know,
there's a bot on the other side of this.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It's not a real person, I mean, but somebody created
that bought. That bought has a that bot has a
home somewhere, right, what if.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
It's in Russia or what if it's in China? If
it's you know, these dPNs, You know, the technology is
changing so fast and that's really the point that I'm
trying to make. And when I hate these text messages,
they they always pretend like they know who you are
and like, hey, Ray, just want to check it on you. Yeah,
that was you're not. You can check it on me
anytime you want. But these bots they jot me crazy,
(05:58):
and I think it's it's the next scin that's going
to happen, and if the courts don't take action, now,
you're gonna see millions of elderly people being taken advantage of.
I just had to call my wife's grandparents about coming
up with safe words.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Because we have one, do you.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Yeah, it's a great idea because.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
It's ouch that's your which is very confusing.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
I don't believe that more ouch with actually more, but
he doesn't know. But seriously, we do have a code
word good.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
I think it's important.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Because that way, if the scams happen, we can just say,
all right, well what's our code word?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
That's right? And and so anyway, this makes me mad.
I think the courts are doing everybody disservice here, and
the legislature is moving painfully slow. Second lawsuit that we're
going to talk about this is one. Can I stop
you real sure?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
If I knew that this is coming from Russia and
North Korea roon, I mean, any of the states that
we know do a lot of this stuff. I mean,
we know that porn companies can block your visit from
a state. I mean, you're telling me that in the
United States we could not block all everything that came
from that particular area. Or is it just that they
VPN through so many different things that would basically be
(07:15):
impossible to.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Do to track it all down.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
I mean, not that I've ever tried this, but I
understand if you use a VPN you can get around
those porn blockers. Yeah, and so I don't see why
you couldn't do.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
It the other way around the same thing. Yeah, Okay,
But then.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
The next lawsuit is one I actually look back, the
first time I talked about this case was in twenty fourteen.
This is the it's now gone up to the Supreme
Court finally, almost eleven years later. Is it'll be It'll
be eleven years in December that I first spoke about this.
Medical marijuana users being able to purchase firearms. So if
(07:47):
you're not familiar with the form that you fill out
when you hire a firearm, it asks you all kinds
of questions about your immigration status. Have you ever been
convicted of a felony? Have you ever been has ever
been into mystic violence in junction against you, where you
just I only discharged from military. And one of those
questions is are you an awful used or excu Are
you the user of any unlawful drugs, including marijuana and
(08:08):
all kinds of other.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Things, which because again federally it's still against the law.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
On federal law says that it's against the law to
have marijuana, use marijuana, and so there's always been this
this separation between federal law says marijuana is a Schedule
one drug, you can't use it, and state law, which
is well some states is recreational, but medical marijuana being legal,
and this question being asked again. The first time I
remember speaking about it was December of twenty fourteen. If
(08:34):
I have a medical marijuana card, can I still purchase
a firearm? Or am I vidal lading the statue? If
you say no, you don't get your gun. If you
say yes, you're subjecting yourself to a ten thousand dollars penalty.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Right, I was gonna say, because you're breaking the law,
you're telling a lie. If you are a user of
marijuana and you lie on that form, you're lying on
a federal form.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
That's right, it's a ten thousand dollars penalty and so
plus all the other criminal sanctions, you know, but ten
thousand dollar penalty and you lose your gun and all
these other things. Supreme Court says, We're finally gonna take
this up. And it's again, it's one of these things
that it's been a long time coming.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is this gonna lead to the is this a reclassification
of marijuana thing?
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I mean, this is that?
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Where is that the base root of what the problem
would be? Like if the Supreme Court said, well, federally
you know, or you know, I mean it has to
have legislation to do that.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Anyway, though, right, I mean, so it wouldn't be that. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
So so here's what I'll say, is is the the
underlying case that kind of led to this is there's
one in Texas and one in Florida. Both cases have stayed.
The long running precedent in the state of Florida, which is,
if you use medical marijuana, you can purchase a fire on.
Both of those cases have been stayed because the Supreme
(09:43):
Court has accepted sociority over this. And so what would
be interesting is if the courts say something like what
you're suggesting Jim is that, well, the statute is the statute,
and if we read the statue plainly, it prohibits this.
And then they make some type of vague, ambiguous response
(10:04):
about you know, we're supposed to interpret the Constitution the
way it was historically viewed, you know, when the Constitution
was written in seventeen seventy six. If they give us
some type of vague response like that, that would be
really interesting to see what happens, because that is kind
of a signal to Congress, like, hey, you guys need
it right right right, change this. I expect it kind
(10:26):
of in line with what we've seen with the most
recent gun cases. The New York pistol case, that's the
one about whether or not a handgun within the state
of New York, whether that was a constitutional or not.
And then we saw this one out of Texas about
the domestic violence if somebody is a perpetraary of domestic violence,
whether they could still possess a firearm. They've been a
(10:49):
little bit more clear on some of these cases recently
than they have been historically last than fifteen years, So
I imagine they're going to set it up to where
if the states because this is a state's rights issue.
For a lot of times. If the states say that
it's legal, medical marijuana is legal, it's recreational or whatever,
that's up to them, it's unconstitutional, say otherwise. That's my
(11:09):
anticipated response.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yeah, because I mean one of the things we talked
about last week was when the Sants pretty much wiped
out the whole thing and made the open carry thing
and said you don't have to have a permit or
anything like that. That's not constitutional because the Second Amendment
guarantees you, as an American citizen that you can have
a firearm and it doesn't say you can carry around
or whatever the case may be. But I mean, if
and then he wiped out everything. Actually, they're even trying
to drop the age to eighteen, so they're going beyond
(11:32):
you see that case. I haven't seen it yet, but
I know they're trying to do that. So I mean,
on top of you know, the whole you know we're
gonna let you carry it wherever you want, we're also
going to drop that to eighteen years old. That kind
of flew in the face of this entire thing. To me,
it's like, well, you're telling people they need to have
a permit to conceal carry. But in the other one
you're saying you don't really need that at all. So
we thought those things kind of butted heads a little bit.
(11:53):
Why even have an age of eighteen, right, Well, so.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
The idea of eighteen, well, it's been twenty one. A
pistol in the state of Florida, it's been twenty one
years old or older. And the argument has always been
what better service members. You know, these men and women
are serving our country. They should be able to buy
a handgun for protection. And it's always been like this,
really this drawn out lawsuit in battle. There was one
(12:17):
in Jacksonville and then just within the last two weeks
one in Miami about purchasers of handguns that were under
twenty one because there's there's a loophole, not that I
really want to talk about loopholes and laws, but there's
a loophole that these people have been utilizing and then
getting in trouble for. And so there have been two cases,
(12:40):
and this one just happened last week of a purchas
server or handgun less than twenty one years of age,
and both cases won. Jacksonville from about two years ago
that went up to the Florida Supreme Court and then
kind of died there. In this one from Broward County, Miami,
Dave Broward County, am MI, exectly sure somewhere in South
Florida about the last ten days that says it's constitutional.
(13:00):
And so, just to answer your question, if the state
of Florida says, Okay, there's this constitutional right to firearms,
they can't restrict that anymore than what the federal government restricts.
It's right, but they can make it more broad. Right.
So that's what we saw in Texas for twenty five
(13:21):
years is that you know, throughout the United States, it's
been you could, you know, as long as you're over
twenty one, you could purchase a pistol or a rifle.
And then Texas like, well, leave open carry. You could
do open carry because that's less restrictive right. And so
the Second Amendment doesn't stop or any of the constitutional
memics doesn't stop you from being less restrictive. It's just
a restriction on the government's ability to be more restrictive.
(13:44):
And so so with everything that happened with Florida with
open carry, it's kind of created a little bit of
chaos with the sheriffs. I think there's sixty sixty two
sixty or sheriffs in the state of Florida. They don't
all see eye to eye on what that means with
open carry, and.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
So it doesn't matter what they think.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
They're the ones arresting you exactly. I mean, to determine
what it is, they have to be the people that
put you in handcuffs.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And yeah, but then when the state law says that,
that mean none of that's going to hold water, right,
and you have to go through the process.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Of gating the process.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Yeah, yeah, whatever are you kidding? Well?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And I think what ends up happening.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Hold on, I mean this is the same.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
I mean, just real quick now, I mean the governors,
you know, when you're just talking about the colleges and
the idea of them falling, you know, colleges falling in
line to the the idea of what they want to teach.
I mean this, I mean, this state has no problem
telling government facilities or anybody that gets the money from
the state what they can and cannot do. I mean,
you're I mean they come down on counties, they were moved,
(14:44):
a they were moved and a state attorney they actually
did it twice. They did it once in Tampa, once
in Orlando. So you're telling me that on top of
all of that, they couldn't tell a sheriff. I'm sorry, dude.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
This is just the way it is. This is the
state of Florida. We passed the laws for all you guys.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Well, and I think that's what we're going to see
more ordinances their counties, But they can't.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
They can't buck the state law, though, can they.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Well, I think that's what we're gonna see more of.
I think from what I've heard from it's usually like
South Florida's kind of like the outliers for this stuff.
But some of these South Florida state attorneys and sheriff's
offices are not interpreting the law the same way we're
doing it up here in Central Florida. And so you know,
if if cops are arresting people and the state is
(15:24):
prosecuting people, it's going to be up to a judge
to uphold the law and uh, and then that might
go up on appeal, and that might end up in
front of the Florida Supreme Court, and then we'll have
another iteration of this. But yeah, it's it's causing some
chaos right now.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
And I think you're right though, when the Supreme Court
kind of throws it back to Congress. I think even
Donald Trump has said to him so because you know,
thought about a matter of fact, wasn't like two or
three weeks ago and I talked about the classification of marijuana,
and they were looking at reclassifying it, getting out of
that Schedule one and getting into.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Another Schedule one.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
You should have never been there, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Yeah, But you know, he's he's actually supported the marijuana
movement and actually, much to the chagrin of a lot
of the Republican Party, he's not been that you know,
he's not been that big anti the way a lot
of Republicans have. So, I mean he's actually shown some
ability to maybe even reconsider that. So who knows, maybe
(16:17):
the Supreme Court decision will help him you kind of
move forward to do that.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
Yeah, I'm I'm not in favor of a judiciary that
makes laws, but I am in favor of a judiciary
that is consistent, and I think I think this will
be consistent with the most recent maybe three or four
rulings we've seen him from the gun cases, Yeah, for sure,
which I think is a good thing because you know
(16:43):
the same I've got the same problem with marijuan being
a schedule and drug that I do with people not
being able to have medical marijuana card and possess a firearm.
Is they should be on opiates and possessing a firearms.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
How about this?
Speaker 1 (16:56):
If you're a chronic alcohol user, you tell me what's
more dangerous a guy stone blinking drunk with a gun
in his hand or a dude who's stoned right hand
with his gun.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
And get it, it's not even close.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I agree, all right?
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Four oh seven nine one texts seven seven zero three
one again that's TK Law one firm for life dot
Com officers right there now, tom On Springs.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
The name is Ray Trenley.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Trust me.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Want to tell you use this cat. He's a monster.
He'll take great care of whatever problem you have.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
My I got a blown up his phone like six
weeks in a row taking care of small stuff for me.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
So I appreciate it as all way appreciate you. Deb
What do you got for news?
Speaker 4 (17:27):
We've got a US destroyer is now docked in Trinidad
and Tobago.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
What are they doing closer to home.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Homes are evacuated after ground washes out during torrential rain
in Lake County, and officials call for an investigation after
AI mistakes this for a gun.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
We'll talk about that next daring. You heard it here first,
you got it.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Don't forget your six o'clock keyword is bills, bills b
i lls. Go to real radio dot FM and send
that away for your chance at one thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Back with Deb's News and more than gym. Colbert Show
All right, welcome back to the Jim Culver Show again
right real Radio one of four point one on a gym.
There's death Jack is here as well. Yeah, speaking of
that guest, every single money around six twenty years. Oh,
he drops by the station and talk to some stuff
that's happening up in the world of law. He runs
a firm TK Law. It's one firm for life dot Com.
Good loud for our friend, mister Ray Trinley.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Look at this guy? Will you look at this guy?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
I'm casual today. I was in depositions all day. I decided,
in between breaks for the deposition, I was gonna walk
up and down flights of stairs wearing a full suit.
And after my first flight of stairs, I decided to
take my tie off. And after there's a second flight
of stairs, I take my jacket off. And I've been
like this ever since.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
How much weight have you lost?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Uh, twenty three pounds?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Get you look great, by the way, but without the
jacket we can see it.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
More and you definitely have trimmed down. You.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Look at that. I can find all my skinny clothes again.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
I mean I was just about to ask that very Thingly,
we eat your when you get your suits hand made,
you know, and you hand make them for old Ray.
I mean, can you can old Ray still wear the
new stuff or so new Ray? Where the old stuff?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So new? Ray had the tailor come in and say
take some of those inches out because I'm not going
back to fat race.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Say that a boy, man? That's great? Yeah you do.
Can you tell the difference?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Absolutely? I feel great. I had. I haven't had a
headache in almost three months.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Really wow, and you got divorced. I'm joking.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
That's a careful that's a careful rumor. Depending on who
you talk to in my neighborhood, that may or may
not be a rumor that happened.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
The headache thing.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
The headache thing that's more of a pain in the
rear end.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Off, Hey Ray drugs fight to talk about some mine?
Speaker 3 (01:40):
By the way, he actually brings.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
In the topics, I don't know what we're talking about today.
What do you get for us? Uh?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Well, I got two topics, one of which I'm kind
of heated about. This really bothers me. So do you
guys ever get these like spam text messages where they
just blow you up and they're saying, Hey, you wanna
respond to this thing or participate in this thing, and
you going do not call lists and they keep commtacting you.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Ye yah yea. I just wea a delete report. Jump
to everyone up.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Yeah, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. No, I've been
doing it. I get maybe two weeks ago. I think
I got two hundred phone calls.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Two dude, are you kidding?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
In like one hundred and twenty five text messages in
one weekend because I don't delete them contemporaneously, just builds
up until my inbox gets full. So this is a
Middle District to Florida case. This is where we're at
right now. That held that the telephone call provisions under
the TCPA, which is the act that says that if
people are calling you, you can go on these you know,
no call lists do not apply to text messages. And
(02:39):
this is following this this test that's been going around
across the nation. It's called the Brightly McLaughlin test. And basically,
under the FCC rules, the courts are not finding that
the people who are sending you text mes to just
fall into the same phone call rules because of how
the laws writ And so this is a couple of things.
(03:00):
Either one just needs to go up to the Supreme
Court or to the Circuit Court for a jurisdiction to
review this, or we need to get Congress who can
one pass a budget bill and two change this law
because it is the most infuriating thing that happens to
me is I'm in a meeting with a client. I
get twenty two text messages and I think, maybe it's
(03:21):
my wife, maybe my children, maybe somebody got hurt. Yeah,
maybe it's with an emergency. Right. Nope, they want me
to know if I want to renew my magazine subscription,
or do I want to vote for this, or do
I want to donate money for that? And it's all
politicians on both sides of the aisle. It's nobody I
care about.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
I was gonna say, And I think the problem is
it's not the texting service themselves that You're right. I mean, yes,
you could probably try to employ a congress center or representative.
But the problem is is I'm guessing probably these companies,
you know, pour money into their packs. Absolutely, so you're
gonna have a hard time getting any congress person to
legislate or create any legislation. It's gonna stop somebody from
(03:57):
doing something when that person or that group was giving
that congressman money.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Well, here's what I think will be interesting, right, is
we we did you guys see the article I think
came out maybe Thursday or Friday last week that they're
able to do real time deep fakes. Now have you
seen that? You know, Like before, it's like, you know,
I want you to, you know, say this sentence like
Jim Colbert and you know record or some I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So what you're saying is now the filter can be
in between you and while you're talking live, it will
translate the voice from what I'm saying right now, it's
exactly into your voice as I'm talking to Jack.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
That's right in real time, in real time, so.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
I don't have to worry about them recording and then
having some glitches on the other end. So my scam
can go through perfectly because I'm now speaking as that person.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
You can actually and you can direct a bot to respond, right. So,
you know before it was like, you know, here's your script,
and it's like, you know, thanks for asking. I just
got arrested today. When it's like I didn't ask how
you were doing. You know, before you could spot these
little glitches in the recordings. That's not happening. And with this,
with this, this case, let's coming out. You know, there's
(05:05):
nothing to stop these companies from you know, impersonating maybe
dead celebrities or celebrities and their likenesses because you know,
at this point it's a wild wild west. They're not
holding anybody accountable for any of this stuff. And it
wouldn't surprise me if you don't take this to the
next level.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
That's a copyright thing for their estate, is it not.
I mean no different.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It would be no different than recording a piece of
music that person did and trying to sell it.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Who are you gonna sell? Who you're gonna see? You know,
there's a bot on the other side of this.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It's not a real person, I mean, but somebody created
that bought. That bought has a that bot has a
home somewhere, right, what if.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
It's in Russia or what if it's in China? If
it's you know, these dPNs, You know, the technology is
changing so fast and that's really the point that I'm
trying to make. And when I hate these text messages,
they they always pretend like they know who you are
and like, hey, Ray, just want to check it on you. Yeah,
that was you're not. You can check it on me
anytime you want. But these bots they jot me crazy,
(05:58):
and I think it's it's the next scin that's going
to happen, and if the courts don't take action, now,
you're gonna see millions of elderly people being taken advantage of.
I just had to call my wife's grandparents about coming
up with safe words.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Because we have one, do you.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Yeah, it's a great idea because.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
It's ouch that's your which is very confusing.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
I don't believe that more ouch with actually more, but
he doesn't know. But seriously, we do have a code
word good.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
I think it's important.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Because that way, if the scams happen, we can just say,
all right, well what's our code word?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
That's right? And and so anyway, this makes me mad.
I think the courts are doing everybody disservice here, and
the legislature is moving painfully slow. Second lawsuit that we're
going to talk about this is one. Can I stop
you real sure?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
If I knew that this is coming from Russia and
North Korea roon, I mean, any of the states that
we know do a lot of this stuff. I mean,
we know that porn companies can block your visit from
a state. I mean, you're telling me that in the
United States we could not block all everything that came
from that particular area. Or is it just that they
VPN through so many different things that would basically be
(07:15):
impossible to.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Do to track it all down.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
I mean, not that I've ever tried this, but I
understand if you use a VPN you can get around
those porn blockers. Yeah, and so I don't see why
you couldn't do.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
It the other way around the same thing. Yeah, Okay,
But then.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
The next lawsuit is one I actually look back, the
first time I talked about this case was in twenty fourteen.
This is the it's now gone up to the Supreme
Court finally, almost eleven years later. Is it'll be It'll
be eleven years in December that I first spoke about this.
Medical marijuana users being able to purchase firearms. So if
(07:47):
you're not familiar with the form that you fill out
when you hire a firearm, it asks you all kinds
of questions about your immigration status. Have you ever been
convicted of a felony? Have you ever been has ever
been into mystic violence in junction against you, where you
just I only discharged from military. And one of those
questions is are you an awful used or excu Are
you the user of any unlawful drugs, including marijuana and
(08:08):
all kinds of other.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Things, which because again federally it's still against the law.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
On federal law says that it's against the law to
have marijuana, use marijuana, and so there's always been this
this separation between federal law says marijuana is a Schedule
one drug, you can't use it, and state law, which
is well some states is recreational, but medical marijuana being legal,
and this question being asked again. The first time I
remember speaking about it was December of twenty fourteen. If
(08:34):
I have a medical marijuana card, can I still purchase
a firearm? Or am I vidal lading the statue? If
you say no, you don't get your gun. If you
say yes, you're subjecting yourself to a ten thousand dollars penalty.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Right, I was gonna say, because you're breaking the law,
you're telling a lie. If you are a user of
marijuana and you lie on that form, you're lying on
a federal form.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
That's right, it's a ten thousand dollars penalty and so
plus all the other criminal sanctions, you know, but ten
thousand dollar penalty and you lose your gun and all
these other things. Supreme Court says, We're finally gonna take
this up. And it's again, it's one of these things
that it's been a long time coming.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is this gonna lead to the is this a reclassification
of marijuana thing?
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I mean, this is that?
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Where is that the base root of what the problem
would be? Like if the Supreme Court said, well, federally
you know, or you know, I mean it has to
have legislation to do that.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Anyway, though, right, I mean, so it wouldn't be that. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
So so here's what I'll say, is is the the
underlying case that kind of led to this is there's
one in Texas and one in Florida. Both cases have stayed.
The long running precedent in the state of Florida, which is,
if you use medical marijuana, you can purchase a fire on.
Both of those cases have been stayed because the Supreme
(09:43):
Court has accepted sociority over this. And so what would
be interesting is if the courts say something like what
you're suggesting Jim is that, well, the statute is the statute,
and if we read the statue plainly, it prohibits this.
And then they make some type of vague, ambiguous response
(10:04):
about you know, we're supposed to interpret the Constitution the
way it was historically viewed, you know, when the Constitution
was written in seventeen seventy six. If they give us
some type of vague response like that, that would be
really interesting to see what happens, because that is kind
of a signal to Congress, like, hey, you guys need
it right right right, change this. I expect it kind
(10:26):
of in line with what we've seen with the most
recent gun cases. The New York pistol case, that's the
one about whether or not a handgun within the state
of New York, whether that was a constitutional or not.
And then we saw this one out of Texas about
the domestic violence if somebody is a perpetraary of domestic violence,
whether they could still possess a firearm. They've been a
(10:49):
little bit more clear on some of these cases recently
than they have been historically last than fifteen years, So
I imagine they're going to set it up to where
if the states because this is a state's rights issue.
For a lot of times. If the states say that
it's legal, medical marijuana is legal, it's recreational or whatever,
that's up to them, it's unconstitutional, say otherwise. That's my
(11:09):
anticipated response.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yeah, because I mean one of the things we talked
about last week was when the Sants pretty much wiped
out the whole thing and made the open carry thing
and said you don't have to have a permit or
anything like that. That's not constitutional because the Second Amendment
guarantees you, as an American citizen that you can have
a firearm and it doesn't say you can carry around
or whatever the case may be. But I mean, if
and then he wiped out everything. Actually, they're even trying
to drop the age to eighteen, so they're going beyond
(11:32):
you see that case. I haven't seen it yet, but
I know they're trying to do that. So I mean,
on top of you know, the whole you know we're
gonna let you carry it wherever you want, we're also
going to drop that to eighteen years old. That kind
of flew in the face of this entire thing. To me,
it's like, well, you're telling people they need to have
a permit to conceal carry. But in the other one
you're saying you don't really need that at all. So
we thought those things kind of butted heads a little bit.
(11:53):
Why even have an age of eighteen, right, Well, so.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
The idea of eighteen, well, it's been twenty one. A
pistol in the state of Florida, it's been twenty one
years old or older. And the argument has always been
what better service members. You know, these men and women
are serving our country. They should be able to buy
a handgun for protection. And it's always been like this,
really this drawn out lawsuit in battle. There was one
(12:17):
in Jacksonville and then just within the last two weeks
one in Miami about purchasers of handguns that were under
twenty one because there's there's a loophole, not that I
really want to talk about loopholes and laws, but there's
a loophole that these people have been utilizing and then
getting in trouble for. And so there have been two cases,
(12:40):
and this one just happened last week of a purchas
server or handgun less than twenty one years of age,
and both cases won. Jacksonville from about two years ago
that went up to the Florida Supreme Court and then
kind of died there. In this one from Broward County, Miami,
Dave Broward County, am MI, exectly sure somewhere in South
Florida about the last ten days that says it's constitutional.
(13:00):
And so, just to answer your question, if the state
of Florida says, Okay, there's this constitutional right to firearms,
they can't restrict that anymore than what the federal government restricts.
It's right, but they can make it more broad. Right.
So that's what we saw in Texas for twenty five
(13:21):
years is that you know, throughout the United States, it's
been you could, you know, as long as you're over
twenty one, you could purchase a pistol or a rifle.
And then Texas like, well, leave open carry. You could
do open carry because that's less restrictive right. And so
the Second Amendment doesn't stop or any of the constitutional
memics doesn't stop you from being less restrictive. It's just
a restriction on the government's ability to be more restrictive.
(13:44):
And so so with everything that happened with Florida with
open carry, it's kind of created a little bit of
chaos with the sheriffs. I think there's sixty sixty two
sixty or sheriffs in the state of Florida. They don't
all see eye to eye on what that means with
open carry, and.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
So it doesn't matter what they think.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
They're the ones arresting you exactly. I mean, to determine
what it is, they have to be the people that
put you in handcuffs.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And yeah, but then when the state law says that,
that mean none of that's going to hold water, right,
and you have to go through the process.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Of gating the process.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Yeah, yeah, whatever are you kidding? Well?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And I think what ends up happening.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Hold on, I mean this is the same.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
I mean, just real quick now, I mean the governors,
you know, when you're just talking about the colleges and
the idea of them falling, you know, colleges falling in
line to the the idea of what they want to teach.
I mean this, I mean, this state has no problem
telling government facilities or anybody that gets the money from
the state what they can and cannot do. I mean,
you're I mean they come down on counties, they were moved,
(14:44):
a they were moved and a state attorney they actually
did it twice. They did it once in Tampa, once
in Orlando. So you're telling me that on top of
all of that, they couldn't tell a sheriff. I'm sorry, dude.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
This is just the way it is. This is the
state of Florida. We passed the laws for all you guys.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Well, and I think that's what we're going to see
more ordinances their counties, But they can't.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
They can't buck the state law, though, can they.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Well, I think that's what we're gonna see more of.
I think from what I've heard from it's usually like
South Florida's kind of like the outliers for this stuff.
But some of these South Florida state attorneys and sheriff's
offices are not interpreting the law the same way we're
doing it up here in Central Florida. And so you know,
if if cops are arresting people and the state is
(15:24):
prosecuting people, it's going to be up to a judge
to uphold the law and uh, and then that might
go up on appeal, and that might end up in
front of the Florida Supreme Court, and then we'll have
another iteration of this. But yeah, it's it's causing some
chaos right now.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
And I think you're right though, when the Supreme Court
kind of throws it back to Congress. I think even
Donald Trump has said to him so because you know,
thought about a matter of fact, wasn't like two or
three weeks ago and I talked about the classification of marijuana,
and they were looking at reclassifying it, getting out of
that Schedule one and getting into.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Another Schedule one.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
You should have never been there, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Yeah, But you know, he's he's actually supported the marijuana
movement and actually, much to the chagrin of a lot
of the Republican Party, he's not been that you know,
he's not been that big anti the way a lot
of Republicans have. So, I mean he's actually shown some
ability to maybe even reconsider that. So who knows, maybe
(16:17):
the Supreme Court decision will help him you kind of
move forward to do that.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
Yeah, I'm I'm not in favor of a judiciary that
makes laws, but I am in favor of a judiciary
that is consistent, and I think I think this will
be consistent with the most recent maybe three or four
rulings we've seen him from the gun cases, Yeah, for sure,
which I think is a good thing because you know
(16:43):
the same I've got the same problem with marijuan being
a schedule and drug that I do with people not
being able to have medical marijuana card and possess a firearm.
Is they should be on opiates and possessing a firearms.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
How about this?
Speaker 1 (16:56):
If you're a chronic alcohol user, you tell me what's
more dangerous a guy stone blinking drunk with a gun
in his hand or a dude who's stoned right hand
with his gun.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
And get it, it's not even close.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I agree, all right?
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Four oh seven nine one texts seven seven zero three
one again that's TK Law one firm for life dot
Com officers right there now, tom On Springs.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
The name is Ray Trenley.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Trust me.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Want to tell you use this cat. He's a monster.
He'll take great care of whatever problem you have.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
My I got a blown up his phone like six
weeks in a row taking care of small stuff for me.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
So I appreciate it as all way appreciate you. Deb
What do you got for news?
Speaker 4 (17:27):
We've got a US destroyer is now docked in Trinidad
and Tobago.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
What are they doing closer to home.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Homes are evacuated after ground washes out during torrential rain
in Lake County, and officials call for an investigation after
AI mistakes this for a gun.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
We'll talk about that next daring. You heard it here first,
you got it.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Don't forget your six o'clock keyword is bills, bills b
i lls. Go to real radio dot FM and send
that away for your chance at one thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Back with Deb's News and more than gym. Colbert Show
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.