July 29, 2024 • 24 mins
Metro adopts metal detectors; taller fare gate exits and more tap-to-exit stations. We’re taking the wrong approach to counteracting conspiracy theories. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to bill handle on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
KFI bill handle. Here it is a Monday morning, July
twenty nine. Some of the stories were are.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Looking at it was not bad.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Peace in the Washington was a Wall Street Journal Washington
Post that President Biden wrote calling for big changes to
the Supreme Court constitutional amendment also that would limit immunity
for president's term limits for justices. I mean, just none
of that's going to happen, but I'm glad he. I'm
(00:35):
glad he at least mentioned stuff that was important code
of ethics and forcible against the regarding Supreme Court justices.
That will never happen either. Now, what's going on with
the Metro. I'm going to spend a few minutes talking
about that, because today writing the Metro, you're gonna die,
(00:56):
that's all. You're gonna get stabbed, You're going to get
mug because that's just the way it works.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
So you've got the Metro Authority.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
They're saying, Okay, we've got to do something about that,
the La Metro Board. And so what they did is
they have said we're going to try some pilot programs
to make the Metro safer and not have fair jumpers.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
And here's what they have said.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
They're going to do taller gates to prevent fair jumpers,
you know, going over over the gates. Writers will have
a tap to exit to prove they've paid the fare. Now,
if you go to metros all over the world, here's
what happens. You get your little pass, your little card,
and you put it into the entry gate and the
(01:42):
gate opens, outcomes your little card on the other end,
and then you have to also use it to get
out on the other side. Right, we don't have that,
but they're going to try it. What Metro wants to
do is increase the security and actually follow what's being
done at even Sofi stadiums. Why I'm bringing in here
(02:03):
to here because what you have is these avenumspatality the
municipal municipalities looking at the technology that's being used in
private at private venues. And so let's talk a little
bit about the Sofi safety factors going in that when
I walk in the door.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Well, they now use a system called Evolve and there's
no wanding. Usually they go through your bag, right, they
go through the bag or they wand you This is
something you can have a backpack on, you can just
walk through the Evolve system and it detects any kind
of concealed weapons. So there's quicker entry and it's definitely
(02:43):
more thorough than if you were just to have your
bag checked or you know, being okay.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
So that that's one aspect.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Now there is something similar that they're looking at, and
that's these super hyper metal detectors, but on a very
high end level. Radio wave waves or radar they're using,
and they're going to try that out. And these big
arches that they build with technology in them, people are
going to walk through.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Millimeter wave technology is one of them.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
High frequency radar waves are bounced off the body to
detect concealed weapons. That's one of them. There's also another one,
Advanced sensors and AI is used to detect weapons and
other threats as people walk through. But let me ask
you how sophisticated and how successful is that technology at
(03:33):
so far? Are they catching a lot of people even
trying to come in with concealed weapons?
Speaker 4 (03:37):
No, no, no, no, I mean there are people who
they pull aside and they have you know, pull out,
whether it's a vate pen or something like that.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
But no, all right.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
I think the main thing is because we have somebody
at each entry gate that's you know, viewing the people
walk through. So I'm wondering if Metro would have this.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, it's there's a lot of entry gates. That's a problem.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
There's a lot of people because no, I guess, you know,
so far has the same number of people I would
guess during a concert going through so right, but we have.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Like a certain time of entry, like we know when
a football game is going to start, when the gates
are going to open.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
This would be twenty four to seven at a metro.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, some of the issues that makes so much sense.
For example, requiring people to tap to exit, that's I
think that's virtually every subway system, metro system in the country,
certainly in the world where you got to prove on
both ends. Taller faregates makes a lot of sense because
people jump the gate and weapons scanners.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
You know who's against this.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
The ACLU says, all of this is an invasion of privacy.
Forcing people to show that they've actually paid to go
in and have a ticket, that's invading your privacy. Taller fair,
Taller gates that invades your privacy.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Well of course it does.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I guess paying to go on the metro invades your
privacy and poor people are discriminated against. That's boy, that pesky.
We live in a society where things actually pay money,
where at things actually cost Everything is an invasion of privacy,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I gotta tell you.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Forcing people to wear clothing on the metro is an
invasion of privacy.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Why would you do that to me?
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Don't I have the right to walk around naked? Lawsuits
are going to be filed. The point is they have
to do this. They've got to do this.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
One of the things is working toilets.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
There's one toilet they're looking at that you open up
with your cell phone and there's a whole program that
you have. It opens up, you have ten minutes inside,
then the doors open. They do that in Europe.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I remember in France there is in various.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Public places there is this little kiosky thing, this little
standalone little building. It's made out of aluminum. You put
one euro in to go to the bathroom, about a
buck five. It's not cheap, especially if you don't have
a dollar five, which is why, by the way, there's
a lot of people that go there are searching around
for their euro coins, can't find them, So stay away
(06:17):
from the puddles around there, because it really gets messy
and it's self cleaning. You go in there, you have
fifteen minutes, you do whatever you do in there, and
then the door closes behind you when you walk in,
and then when you leave, the door closes and it
disinfects the entire the entire inside. I mean, it's incredible,
(06:37):
it really is. So you're walking in in a sanitized restroom.
Oh no, yeah, you know what's the problem with that,
because you got to pay a euro to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
That should be free.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Because poor people who really really don't need a very
clean restroom.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Right, it just doesn't stop, does it. Okay, have you.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Ever wondered, I have, how perfectly normal people buy into
the craziest conspiracy stuff in the world.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I mean, really nuts.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
How is it that I can understand people being sort of, yeah,
there's a conspiracy out there, yeah, kind of. But I'm
talking about deep, deep conspiracy, like our elected leaders feasting
on the flesh of children, a pedophile ring under a
pizza parlor in Chicago where Democratic leaders eight kids, I mean, jess,
(07:32):
where Hillary Clinton ran this pedophile ring. I mean, just
crazy stuff. How is it possible? There is an op
ed piece in the La Times written by jess Lyn Cook,
and she went around and actually interviewed a whole bunch
of people, wrote a book called The Quiet Damage, and
talked to people all over the country and said, what
(07:54):
is it about this?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Why do you actually think?
Speaker 2 (07:59):
And keep in mind, we're talking about conspiracy theories on
a level that's almost incomprehensible.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
For example, Marjorie Taylor.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Green saying that the wildfires in California were really started
by the Rothschilds the Jews as part of taking over
our financial system. I mean, it's I mean, and this
is a congresswoman, by the way, it's you.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Know, how is that possible? Man? I thought that because
I know people.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
There was a very dear friend of ours whose daughter
married a guy who is a q and On follower
and drank the kool aid. Guy's got a master's degree
in the education system, writes Curriculum. I mean, he is
a real bright guy and is a straight out QAnon follower.
And so this author, Jesslyn Cook started asking around and
(08:51):
it made a lot of sense. And I haven't seen
this because what these folks who believe in is they're
looking for the truth and they are not finding it.
They want some kind of an answer other than what
we're hearing. They don't trust, they're misplaced, and so they
(09:11):
go to the conspiracy theory world. And why because there
they make a difference. They're there to straighten out society.
It's a group of people and they almost think of
themselves like the Founding Fathers. They are there to take society,
get rid of, in the case of our Founding Fathers,
the monarchy of England, which is horrible and is disruptive
(09:37):
to an ordered society. And we're going to make it
the way we should. And look who's causing all the damage.
It's the Democrats who are eating kids. It's the pedophile
rings and they have to make these people as horrific
as they can. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you're there
(10:00):
to straighten the world out.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
It's not just about complaining.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
About the wildfires and lasers from space.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
It is about your duty to make the place better.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And that was okay, that's kind of interesting because I
always thought it was just complaining.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
About the pedophiles in Congress.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
No, it's to make sure Congress gets rid of those people,
to make Congress fair, to make Congress responsible to the people.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
And you're not responsible to people.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
These are disenfranchised folks who beyond following a demoguy.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Again, I'm not going to mention names Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Or trying to look at society as something horrific.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
What they're there do is to make it a better place.
And that's what she found.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
The logic is there. I want to make the world
a better place. It's where the jump is. And she said,
there's not even a mold of conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
There's no singular mold.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
People of all generations, all classes, all races, all political leanings,
because they have to feel.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Important, wanted.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
And what ends up happening is if you're out of control,
you find like minded people.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Right, if you have no social life.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You join a bowling league, that's your social life, and
you have it becomes family. Same thing goes to the
conspiracy theorists. I'm making it, you know what, It made
a lot of sense. Trying to make me understand a
little bit about why perfectly.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Normal people are that crazy, they are that nuts. Helped
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Thought it was a good piece by the way, over
the weekend La Times, Jaslyn Cook thought thought it worked
that well.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
So now it is time for do they have a case?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
With Wayne Resnik and MOI Wayne, good morning.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Good morning. This crazy Congress people through the years. This
is just one episode.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Uh, I only took highlights. I could only deal with
six or eight. I mean there are probably hundreds over
the years of crazy people that have gone into Congress.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Really interesting stuff. So the theme of the crazy as well.
Oh yeah, so let's do it. Did they have a truss?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
First up, a guy named Kenneth Hunt. He goes to
the courthouse to testify as a witness in a criminal case,
and the judge he calls his cases in alphabetical order
based on the last name of the defendant. So this
guy's in there in the courtroom and the bailiff says,
you got to get out of here because your case
begins with a W and right now they're only calling
(12:54):
a through J So you got to get out of
the courtroom. So he goes outside for a few minutes,
and then this cop sees him and he goes, you
get back in the courthouse, all right. So he goes
in the courthouse and he has to sit on a
staircase for a while, and then he decides, Eh, maybe
I can talk to somebody about this situation doesn't seem right.
(13:14):
So he starts walking down the hall and the same
cop goes, hey, come over here.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
What do you want?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
He said, hold on, you finish when I finish. He
says what he says, you are gonna listen to what
I have to say, and if you don't listen to
what I have to say, I will arrest.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
You for obstruction.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
You can't hang out outside, you can't wander around the courtroom.
And this guy's like, I was just gonna go try
to talk to somebody about where's the best place to
and the cop says, I'm not having any of this.
This guy goes, am, I under arrest. He goes, you are,
now what for obstruction? So, as you might imagine, the
(13:58):
cop is sued for a wrongful arrest based on the
theory that there's no probable cause. Here's the theory of
the cop. He says, well, we were standing in front
of the tax office and this guy was arguing with
me and it was distracting the employees in the tax office.
And therefore, yes, I arrested him and charged him with
(14:20):
interference of a governmental function.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Oh that sounds familiar, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yeah, And this guy says, I didn't go in. I
didn't talk to anybody in the tax office. I didn't nobody.
We weren't in the way of people who needed to
go into the tax office.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Nobody in the.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Tax office was stopped from doing their job. If it
was a distraction. A distraction is not obstruction. You had
no probable cause that arrests I get to sue you.
And the lower court judge said, uh yeah, no qualified
immunity for you. So the police department in the cop
appeals to the aph Circuit Court of Appeals and says, no,
(15:01):
he should have. He should have qualified immunity because he
thought he thought that there was probable cause to arrest
the guy. So you've got to decide, just like they did,
honest mistake on the part of the cop, or no
reasonable person could believe under the circumstances that he was
(15:22):
violating this law.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
He's thinking, yeah, no, no, no, no, I'm trying to
figure out how under any circumstances the police department would
win on this.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
I just don't get it, because obstruction is well, it's
an intentional crime, for example, and we're going to obviously,
the analogy here is with what President Trump is being
charged with, and it's a question of acting affirmatively that
substruction or that is interfering with the governmental process. He
(16:02):
wanted to have Pence not certify, affirmatively, you will not certify.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And the analogy would be to.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Argue that this guy would be telling the tax office,
do not work, do not assess, do not collect him
walking up and down the aisle or walking down the hallway.
I don't get how he can be argued that he
did anything wrong. And of course the comp under these
circumstances stance acted ridiculously. I would argue, it's a straight
(16:32):
out false arrest, not just a defense, a straight out
affirmative false arrest.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Period. Thank you lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yes, you know, the Supreme Court can say no to appeals.
So if somebody has just a complete loser of an
argument but they persist, the Supreme Court can say we're
not going to take it. But the federal appeals courts
cannot say no. They have to entertain a case even
if he has no merit and is laughable like this one.
(17:06):
So yes, this cop loses. And they pointed out that
the law in that state, when they talk about qualified immunity,
it says it will protect all officers except the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Which category
would you put this cop in, Bill?
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Uh yeah, plainly incompetent, out of his mind, taking he's
a hallway monitor in the fifth grade, who's out of control.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
That's exactly right. Uh, let's remember those guys. Yes, so
remember how crazy those guys were. I've got the power.
I've got the power.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
In my elementary school, they could write you a ticket.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yes, yes, I was one of those I owe people up.
I did that and it was I was out of control.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Oh, I guess AKAB stands for all cops are bill?
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Uh yeah. For the most part.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Case arising for California, five gun owners sued Rob Bonta,
the Attorney General in the state of California, over a
law that requires disclosure from two California gun related databases.
The databases are the Automated Firearm System and the other
(18:20):
one is the ammunition Purchase Records file. And this law
was created to allow research into gun violence and the
law says the DOJ must give information from these databases.
Two you see Davis where the Firearm Violence Research Center is,
(18:42):
which was created by the state for this purpose. And
the law also says you can, if you want, give
the same information to any other accredited nonprofit research institution
that's studying firearm violence, which currently the only one in
the state is at Stanford. So these five gun owners
(19:03):
sue and say, you're violating our fourteenth Amendment right, fourteenth
Amendment right to privacy because you're sharing sensitive information. And
the State of California Supreme Court has said you can
have a fourteenth Amendment interest in preventing the disclosure of
personal matters, but it applies to highly sensitive information. The
(19:28):
example they give is medical records. So the state says,
what are you talking about. It's your name, it's maybe
your address, it's the fact that you bought a gun
or that you bought ammunition. That's not highly sensitive information.
And then they say, what about the social Security number?
And the state says, you can't show that your social
(19:51):
Security number was ever disclosed. The law doesn't require them
to disclose your social Security number. Are you sure they
ever sent that over? Uh, well, we don't know. So
the state says you have not even stated a claim.
Never mind, you lose on the merits. You have not
stated a claim because you have not stated that the
(20:13):
state gave highly sensitive information away. And also, by the
way the forms have been changed, the social security numbers
no longer even on the forms. So the state says
you can't even allege that highly sensitive information has been given.
And they say, well, we still want to sue you.
So they lose, and it goes up to the Ninth
(20:35):
Circuit Court of Appeals. Now what do you say about this?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well, okay, first of all, right, when as soon as
you said, they no longer make it mandatory or they
no longer use social security numbers. But done cases moot.
If that was the argument of social security, it's done.
And I think there has to be some claim because
(21:00):
the state has your social Security number anyway, when for example,
you file taxes, they have your number. So to argue
that somehow their due process has been violated because their
names even they're so security numbers which are no longer
being used, as long as it's not being used to
stop you from owning a gun somehow getting the way
(21:23):
that would be a second amendment violation.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
I agree, where's their claim? Where's their damage? You know who?
Speaker 1 (21:29):
You now?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
What suit?
Speaker 3 (21:30):
For the hell of it?
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Why not you went to claratory relief.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
That happened to me, by the way, with the try
when I attacked the Sperm Donor Act in California because
my clients, the prospective fathers would under the law, they
weren't allowed to be fathers because it's some quirk in
the sperm donor law. And the appeals court said to me,
have you ever has anybody ever been denied fatherhood anybody
(21:59):
under this act?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
All?
Speaker 2 (22:00):
No, but I want the court to make a decision. Oh,
get out of here, find me a point, find some damage,
and we'll talk about it.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
So so you're saying the gun owners lose. I think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Now they say you could have a claim if your
social Security number is revealed, if the state has no
legitimate reason to have it. That's why I like taxes
and things like that. It's a legitimate reason. So do
you want to do you want to say anything about
like the minimum? The minimum thing you have to do
(22:35):
when you're suing somebody to state a claim.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
You have to have standing. You have to show some
kind of damage.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
You can't You can't come and say I think maybe
my social Security number was given to this gun.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Reason.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Now you have to established actually would I understand, And
they don't do that anymore.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
And they don't do that, all right.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
They don't do it, so nobody would be able to
even suggest it. So there's a difference between saying I
think maybe something happened to me and actually saying this
happened to me.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
All right, absolutely, pep right, start.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Calling right now to talk to you because those phones
fill up fast.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
All right, thank you, sir. All right, we'll catch you
next Monday. And he's right. If you want marginal legal advice,
I will be more than.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Happy to give it to you off the air eight
seven seven five two zero eleven fifty eight seven seven
five two zero eleven fifty No breaks, no weather, no commercials, nothing.
I get right through the calls very quickly because I
have no patience. Eight seven seven five to two zero
eleven fifty. We start right now tomorrow five am wake
(23:45):
up call and then Neil comes aboard on Wednesday KFI
AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and any time on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to bill handle on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
KFI bill handle. Here it is a Monday morning, July
twenty nine. Some of the stories were are.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Looking at it was not bad.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Peace in the Washington was a Wall Street Journal Washington
Post that President Biden wrote calling for big changes to
the Supreme Court constitutional amendment also that would limit immunity
for president's term limits for justices. I mean, just none
of that's going to happen, but I'm glad he. I'm
(00:35):
glad he at least mentioned stuff that was important code
of ethics and forcible against the regarding Supreme Court justices.
That will never happen either. Now, what's going on with
the Metro. I'm going to spend a few minutes talking
about that, because today writing the Metro, you're gonna die,
(00:56):
that's all. You're gonna get stabbed, You're going to get
mug because that's just the way it works.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
So you've got the Metro Authority.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
They're saying, Okay, we've got to do something about that,
the La Metro Board. And so what they did is
they have said we're going to try some pilot programs
to make the Metro safer and not have fair jumpers.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
And here's what they have said.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
They're going to do taller gates to prevent fair jumpers,
you know, going over over the gates. Writers will have
a tap to exit to prove they've paid the fare. Now,
if you go to metros all over the world, here's
what happens. You get your little pass, your little card,
and you put it into the entry gate and the
(01:42):
gate opens, outcomes your little card on the other end,
and then you have to also use it to get
out on the other side. Right, we don't have that,
but they're going to try it. What Metro wants to
do is increase the security and actually follow what's being
done at even Sofi stadiums. Why I'm bringing in here
(02:03):
to here because what you have is these avenumspatality the
municipal municipalities looking at the technology that's being used in
private at private venues. And so let's talk a little
bit about the Sofi safety factors going in that when
I walk in the door.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Well, they now use a system called Evolve and there's
no wanding. Usually they go through your bag, right, they
go through the bag or they wand you This is
something you can have a backpack on, you can just
walk through the Evolve system and it detects any kind
of concealed weapons. So there's quicker entry and it's definitely
(02:43):
more thorough than if you were just to have your
bag checked or you know, being okay.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
So that that's one aspect.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Now there is something similar that they're looking at, and
that's these super hyper metal detectors, but on a very
high end level. Radio wave waves or radar they're using,
and they're going to try that out. And these big
arches that they build with technology in them, people are
going to walk through.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Millimeter wave technology is one of them.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
High frequency radar waves are bounced off the body to
detect concealed weapons. That's one of them. There's also another one,
Advanced sensors and AI is used to detect weapons and
other threats as people walk through. But let me ask
you how sophisticated and how successful is that technology at
(03:33):
so far? Are they catching a lot of people even
trying to come in with concealed weapons?
Speaker 4 (03:37):
No, no, no, no, I mean there are people who
they pull aside and they have you know, pull out,
whether it's a vate pen or something like that.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
But no, all right.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
I think the main thing is because we have somebody
at each entry gate that's you know, viewing the people
walk through. So I'm wondering if Metro would have this.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, it's there's a lot of entry gates. That's a problem.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
There's a lot of people because no, I guess, you know,
so far has the same number of people I would
guess during a concert going through so right, but we have.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Like a certain time of entry, like we know when
a football game is going to start, when the gates
are going to open.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
This would be twenty four to seven at a metro.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, some of the issues that makes so much sense.
For example, requiring people to tap to exit, that's I
think that's virtually every subway system, metro system in the country,
certainly in the world where you got to prove on
both ends. Taller faregates makes a lot of sense because
people jump the gate and weapons scanners.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
You know who's against this.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
The ACLU says, all of this is an invasion of privacy.
Forcing people to show that they've actually paid to go
in and have a ticket, that's invading your privacy. Taller fair,
Taller gates that invades your privacy.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Well of course it does.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I guess paying to go on the metro invades your
privacy and poor people are discriminated against. That's boy, that pesky.
We live in a society where things actually pay money,
where at things actually cost Everything is an invasion of privacy,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I gotta tell you.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Forcing people to wear clothing on the metro is an
invasion of privacy.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Why would you do that to me?
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Don't I have the right to walk around naked? Lawsuits
are going to be filed. The point is they have
to do this. They've got to do this.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
One of the things is working toilets.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
There's one toilet they're looking at that you open up
with your cell phone and there's a whole program that
you have. It opens up, you have ten minutes inside,
then the doors open. They do that in Europe.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I remember in France there is in various.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Public places there is this little kiosky thing, this little
standalone little building. It's made out of aluminum. You put
one euro in to go to the bathroom, about a
buck five. It's not cheap, especially if you don't have
a dollar five, which is why, by the way, there's
a lot of people that go there are searching around
for their euro coins, can't find them, So stay away
(06:17):
from the puddles around there, because it really gets messy
and it's self cleaning. You go in there, you have
fifteen minutes, you do whatever you do in there, and
then the door closes behind you when you walk in,
and then when you leave, the door closes and it
disinfects the entire the entire inside. I mean, it's incredible,
(06:37):
it really is. So you're walking in in a sanitized restroom.
Oh no, yeah, you know what's the problem with that,
because you got to pay a euro to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
That should be free.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Because poor people who really really don't need a very
clean restroom.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Right, it just doesn't stop, does it. Okay, have you.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Ever wondered, I have, how perfectly normal people buy into
the craziest conspiracy stuff in the world.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I mean, really nuts.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
How is it that I can understand people being sort of, yeah,
there's a conspiracy out there, yeah, kind of. But I'm
talking about deep, deep conspiracy, like our elected leaders feasting
on the flesh of children, a pedophile ring under a
pizza parlor in Chicago where Democratic leaders eight kids, I mean, jess,
(07:32):
where Hillary Clinton ran this pedophile ring. I mean, just
crazy stuff. How is it possible? There is an op
ed piece in the La Times written by jess Lyn Cook,
and she went around and actually interviewed a whole bunch
of people, wrote a book called The Quiet Damage, and
talked to people all over the country and said, what
(07:54):
is it about this?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Why do you actually think?
Speaker 2 (07:59):
And keep in mind, we're talking about conspiracy theories on
a level that's almost incomprehensible.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
For example, Marjorie Taylor.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Green saying that the wildfires in California were really started
by the Rothschilds the Jews as part of taking over
our financial system. I mean, it's I mean, and this
is a congresswoman, by the way, it's you.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Know, how is that possible? Man? I thought that because
I know people.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
There was a very dear friend of ours whose daughter
married a guy who is a q and On follower
and drank the kool aid. Guy's got a master's degree
in the education system, writes Curriculum. I mean, he is
a real bright guy and is a straight out QAnon follower.
And so this author, Jesslyn Cook started asking around and
(08:51):
it made a lot of sense. And I haven't seen
this because what these folks who believe in is they're
looking for the truth and they are not finding it.
They want some kind of an answer other than what
we're hearing. They don't trust, they're misplaced, and so they
(09:11):
go to the conspiracy theory world. And why because there
they make a difference. They're there to straighten out society.
It's a group of people and they almost think of
themselves like the Founding Fathers. They are there to take society,
get rid of, in the case of our Founding Fathers,
the monarchy of England, which is horrible and is disruptive
(09:37):
to an ordered society. And we're going to make it
the way we should. And look who's causing all the damage.
It's the Democrats who are eating kids. It's the pedophile
rings and they have to make these people as horrific
as they can. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you're there
(10:00):
to straighten the world out.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
It's not just about complaining.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
About the wildfires and lasers from space.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
It is about your duty to make the place better.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And that was okay, that's kind of interesting because I
always thought it was just complaining.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
About the pedophiles in Congress.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
No, it's to make sure Congress gets rid of those people,
to make Congress fair, to make Congress responsible to the people.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
And you're not responsible to people.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
These are disenfranchised folks who beyond following a demoguy.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Again, I'm not going to mention names Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Or trying to look at society as something horrific.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
What they're there do is to make it a better place.
And that's what she found.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
The logic is there. I want to make the world
a better place. It's where the jump is. And she said,
there's not even a mold of conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
There's no singular mold.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
People of all generations, all classes, all races, all political leanings,
because they have to feel.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Important, wanted.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
And what ends up happening is if you're out of control,
you find like minded people.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Right, if you have no social life.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You join a bowling league, that's your social life, and
you have it becomes family. Same thing goes to the
conspiracy theorists. I'm making it, you know what, It made
a lot of sense. Trying to make me understand a
little bit about why perfectly.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Normal people are that crazy, they are that nuts. Helped
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Thought it was a good piece by the way, over
the weekend La Times, Jaslyn Cook thought thought it worked
that well.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
So now it is time for do they have a case?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
With Wayne Resnik and MOI Wayne, good morning.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Good morning. This crazy Congress people through the years. This
is just one episode.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Uh, I only took highlights. I could only deal with
six or eight. I mean there are probably hundreds over
the years of crazy people that have gone into Congress.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Really interesting stuff. So the theme of the crazy as well.
Oh yeah, so let's do it. Did they have a truss?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
First up, a guy named Kenneth Hunt. He goes to
the courthouse to testify as a witness in a criminal case,
and the judge he calls his cases in alphabetical order
based on the last name of the defendant. So this
guy's in there in the courtroom and the bailiff says,
you got to get out of here because your case
begins with a W and right now they're only calling
(12:54):
a through J So you got to get out of
the courtroom. So he goes outside for a few minutes,
and then this cop sees him and he goes, you
get back in the courthouse, all right. So he goes
in the courthouse and he has to sit on a
staircase for a while, and then he decides, Eh, maybe
I can talk to somebody about this situation doesn't seem right.
(13:14):
So he starts walking down the hall and the same
cop goes, hey, come over here.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
What do you want?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
He said, hold on, you finish when I finish. He
says what he says, you are gonna listen to what
I have to say, and if you don't listen to
what I have to say, I will arrest.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
You for obstruction.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
You can't hang out outside, you can't wander around the courtroom.
And this guy's like, I was just gonna go try
to talk to somebody about where's the best place to
and the cop says, I'm not having any of this.
This guy goes, am, I under arrest. He goes, you are,
now what for obstruction? So, as you might imagine, the
(13:58):
cop is sued for a wrongful arrest based on the
theory that there's no probable cause. Here's the theory of
the cop. He says, well, we were standing in front
of the tax office and this guy was arguing with
me and it was distracting the employees in the tax office.
And therefore, yes, I arrested him and charged him with
(14:20):
interference of a governmental function.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Oh that sounds familiar, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yeah, And this guy says, I didn't go in. I
didn't talk to anybody in the tax office. I didn't nobody.
We weren't in the way of people who needed to
go into the tax office.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Nobody in the.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Tax office was stopped from doing their job. If it
was a distraction. A distraction is not obstruction. You had
no probable cause that arrests I get to sue you.
And the lower court judge said, uh yeah, no qualified
immunity for you. So the police department in the cop
appeals to the aph Circuit Court of Appeals and says, no,
(15:01):
he should have. He should have qualified immunity because he
thought he thought that there was probable cause to arrest
the guy. So you've got to decide, just like they did,
honest mistake on the part of the cop, or no
reasonable person could believe under the circumstances that he was
(15:22):
violating this law.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
He's thinking, yeah, no, no, no, no, I'm trying to
figure out how under any circumstances the police department would
win on this.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
I just don't get it, because obstruction is well, it's
an intentional crime, for example, and we're going to obviously,
the analogy here is with what President Trump is being
charged with, and it's a question of acting affirmatively that
substruction or that is interfering with the governmental process. He
(16:02):
wanted to have Pence not certify, affirmatively, you will not certify.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And the analogy would be to.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Argue that this guy would be telling the tax office,
do not work, do not assess, do not collect him
walking up and down the aisle or walking down the hallway.
I don't get how he can be argued that he
did anything wrong. And of course the comp under these
circumstances stance acted ridiculously. I would argue, it's a straight
(16:32):
out false arrest, not just a defense, a straight out
affirmative false arrest.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Period. Thank you lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yes, you know, the Supreme Court can say no to appeals.
So if somebody has just a complete loser of an
argument but they persist, the Supreme Court can say we're
not going to take it. But the federal appeals courts
cannot say no. They have to entertain a case even
if he has no merit and is laughable like this one.
(17:06):
So yes, this cop loses. And they pointed out that
the law in that state, when they talk about qualified immunity,
it says it will protect all officers except the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Which category
would you put this cop in, Bill?
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Uh yeah, plainly incompetent, out of his mind, taking he's
a hallway monitor in the fifth grade, who's out of control.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
That's exactly right. Uh, let's remember those guys. Yes, so
remember how crazy those guys were. I've got the power.
I've got the power.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
In my elementary school, they could write you a ticket.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yes, yes, I was one of those I owe people up.
I did that and it was I was out of control.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Oh, I guess AKAB stands for all cops are bill?
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Uh yeah. For the most part.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Case arising for California, five gun owners sued Rob Bonta,
the Attorney General in the state of California, over a
law that requires disclosure from two California gun related databases.
The databases are the Automated Firearm System and the other
(18:20):
one is the ammunition Purchase Records file. And this law
was created to allow research into gun violence and the
law says the DOJ must give information from these databases.
Two you see Davis where the Firearm Violence Research Center is,
(18:42):
which was created by the state for this purpose. And
the law also says you can, if you want, give
the same information to any other accredited nonprofit research institution
that's studying firearm violence, which currently the only one in
the state is at Stanford. So these five gun owners
(19:03):
sue and say, you're violating our fourteenth Amendment right, fourteenth
Amendment right to privacy because you're sharing sensitive information. And
the State of California Supreme Court has said you can
have a fourteenth Amendment interest in preventing the disclosure of
personal matters, but it applies to highly sensitive information. The
(19:28):
example they give is medical records. So the state says,
what are you talking about. It's your name, it's maybe
your address, it's the fact that you bought a gun
or that you bought ammunition. That's not highly sensitive information.
And then they say, what about the social Security number?
And the state says, you can't show that your social
(19:51):
Security number was ever disclosed. The law doesn't require them
to disclose your social Security number. Are you sure they
ever sent that over? Uh, well, we don't know. So
the state says you have not even stated a claim.
Never mind, you lose on the merits. You have not
stated a claim because you have not stated that the
(20:13):
state gave highly sensitive information away. And also, by the
way the forms have been changed, the social security numbers
no longer even on the forms. So the state says
you can't even allege that highly sensitive information has been given.
And they say, well, we still want to sue you.
So they lose, and it goes up to the Ninth
(20:35):
Circuit Court of Appeals. Now what do you say about this?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well, okay, first of all, right, when as soon as
you said, they no longer make it mandatory or they
no longer use social security numbers. But done cases moot.
If that was the argument of social security, it's done.
And I think there has to be some claim because
(21:00):
the state has your social Security number anyway, when for example,
you file taxes, they have your number. So to argue
that somehow their due process has been violated because their
names even they're so security numbers which are no longer
being used, as long as it's not being used to
stop you from owning a gun somehow getting the way
(21:23):
that would be a second amendment violation.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
I agree, where's their claim? Where's their damage? You know who?
Speaker 1 (21:29):
You now?
Speaker 2 (21:30):
What suit?
Speaker 3 (21:30):
For the hell of it?
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Why not you went to claratory relief.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
That happened to me, by the way, with the try
when I attacked the Sperm Donor Act in California because
my clients, the prospective fathers would under the law, they
weren't allowed to be fathers because it's some quirk in
the sperm donor law. And the appeals court said to me,
have you ever has anybody ever been denied fatherhood anybody
(21:59):
under this act?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
All?
Speaker 2 (22:00):
No, but I want the court to make a decision. Oh,
get out of here, find me a point, find some damage,
and we'll talk about it.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
So so you're saying the gun owners lose. I think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Now they say you could have a claim if your
social Security number is revealed, if the state has no
legitimate reason to have it. That's why I like taxes
and things like that. It's a legitimate reason. So do
you want to do you want to say anything about
like the minimum? The minimum thing you have to do
(22:35):
when you're suing somebody to state a claim.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
You have to have standing. You have to show some
kind of damage.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
You can't You can't come and say I think maybe
my social Security number was given to this gun.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Reason.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Now you have to established actually would I understand, And
they don't do that anymore.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
And they don't do that, all right.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
They don't do it, so nobody would be able to
even suggest it. So there's a difference between saying I
think maybe something happened to me and actually saying this
happened to me.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
All right, absolutely, pep right, start.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Calling right now to talk to you because those phones
fill up fast.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
All right, thank you, sir. All right, we'll catch you
next Monday. And he's right. If you want marginal legal advice,
I will be more than.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Happy to give it to you off the air eight
seven seven five two zero eleven fifty eight seven seven
five two zero eleven fifty No breaks, no weather, no commercials, nothing.
I get right through the calls very quickly because I
have no patience. Eight seven seven five to two zero
eleven fifty. We start right now tomorrow five am wake
(23:45):
up call and then Neil comes aboard on Wednesday KFI
AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and any time on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
1. 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.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.