Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

And that's just ridiculous and delaying.

And ADF is kind of arguing that the Williamson County case doesn't apply to Grant's case here because that case was decided in the context of a government's taking argument, which is a Fifth Amendment claim that the government is taking land from private citizens without just compensation.

That's the proper context of that case, not here involving religious liberty and a permit for praying in your own house.

And John Birch made a good point of this in the last podcast that the Supreme Court's been backing away from this novel application of the Williamson County case outside of the context of takings clause cases.

And the worst part of this is that my religious minorities are the ones who really bear the weight of this, since they most often face uneven discrimination and facially neutral processes, and they rely on home worship the most heavily.

And then the most interesting part, I think, of this analysis was the kind of universe card that Beckett plays.

And they try to apply the logic of the Williamson County finality rule to some very well-known Supreme Court religious liberty cases to show how untenable is outside of Fifth Amendment taking context.

So the first example is the Church of Lukumi Babalu versus City of Hialeah case.

Everybody knows she's full of it.

And I hope she gets subpoenaed because I want to see her take the Fifth Amendment.

And they're being asked for a lot of documents? Of course they are.

Bass has wasted billions of dollars for four full years.

So Natsumi and Fuyuki wind up tying it up.

The frog, which eventually decides to try and plead the Fifth Amendment in the English version for some odd reason, can't mess with Fuyuki Natsumi, which Fuyuki tries to say he's an alien, and he just bluffs it by saying he's a frog that was mutated.

And Fuyuki winds up inadvertently getting the frog's magic ball after he and Itsumi go to school.

The frog eventually winds up freeing himself.

They have my greatest sympathy.

And frankly, because the Fifth Amendment is so broad, uh, he might even take the Fifth.

And, and I'm gonna anticipate, when that juror, if he takes the Fifth, I say big deal.

And just my last thing, kind of a separate topic here, but there's been so many questions about it.

And there are a couple of grounds that can be exceptions, like Kevin Reddington is arguing, in which case, if the judge buys his arguments, one is a lack of manifest necessity in calling the mistrial because there was alternatives available, and the other is a sufficiency of the evidence argument that the state simply failed to make its case adequately.

Both of those are exceptions to the erasure of jeopardy so jeopardy would remain attached and if jeopardy remains attached under the fifth amendment you cannot be tried twice twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense so she would not be subject to retrial she would be free to go without requiring an actual acquittal by a jury we'll talk about that in more detail in just a moment That's part of today's show.

Okay.

And some Super Chats here.

So first of all, there's a there's a hearing happening September 29th, which is what? Let me pull up my calendar, which is about is two weeks from tomorrow.

where they'll talk about scheduling a new trial.

And at that hearing, they'll also have oral arguments on this Rule 25B motion that's been made by Defense Counsel Kevin Reddington to try to qualify Lindsey Clancy as having been subject to jeopardy by the first trial and therefore not being subject to a retrial because the Fifth Amendment prohibits putting a defendant twice in jeopardy for the same criminal charge.

We'll talk about that more in just a minute.

So the right to notice of the charges against you.

So the privilege against self-incrimination, the Fifth Amendment privilege.

So Gerald was compelled during that hearing to answer Judge McGee's questions.

He did not have a recognized right to remain silent.

It-- And the suit's filed in, in, in New York, so, I mean, go figure, right? Um, and there's, it's, uh, Freedom of the Press Foundation, a group called The Intercept, I think are the plaintiffs in this.

They said the f- the, the, this deal they're doing, this faster than normal milliseconds, but milliseconds faster than normal information coming from the president is a violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment.

And they said it's, uh, gives unequal access, is their argument, to official government announcements.

I-I-It's-- I don't-- I mean, this is on the edge of legal.

No matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless, no matter how toxic the ingredients, no matter how grievous your injury, you could not sue them.

Democrats violated the Fifth Amendment by shutting down three million businesses with no due process and no just compensation.

Democrats shut down the Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful searches and seizures by forcing Americans to disclose their medical information before they can exercise their constitutional rights.

In a single year.