Mangione Wins! Maybe? I'll Explain…

Good day, Crime Talk, efficient out as we have a great show for today. Guess who got a big win in New York State Court? That's right. Luigi Manjone. The, uh, Pelic Quartz here, oral arguments in the Richard Allen case, member of the Delphi murder case. That's right. Alec Murdoch files a federal lawsuit against the former clerk, Becky Hill, over alleged jury tampering and the, uh, Oklahoma death throw inmate Richard Glossop released after nearly 30 years. Now he's going to wait a new trial. A new Jersey man is accused of setting a Walmart on fire. We'll tell you about that. We've got this day in legal history. Our quote of the day and our dumb criminal. Let's talk about it. Hi, lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer. Good day, everyone. My name is Scott Reich and this is Crime Talk. Thanks for joining us. You know the drill. Subscribe if you haven't like if you do. Leave me a comment below and make sure you hit that little bell for notifications of when we go live or put up new content. Now, uh, we did a show last week and so many people have said I don't get you in my feet anymore. So make sure you hit that little bell. All right, ladies and gentlemen. That will, um, ensure that you get your Crime Talk Fix on a daily basis. All right. Just a little, you know, public service announcement there. You need your Crime Talk fix. Everybody does make sure you hit the little bell and then when in doubt, we put a video up literally six days a week, six of the seven. All right. Sometimes seven, multiple videos. You can, you know, Crime Talk, Wisconsin, search it. We're putting up videos all the time. The only time we don't do it is if I'm in trial. All right. So there we go. All right. Let's also remind you to go to Crime Talk search.com. That's where you can sign up for a background subscription service today. When you do, you'll be able to do as many background searches on anyone here in the United States that your heart desires. The most common thing is if somebody's coming into your life. Right? For example, dating somebody, you meet somebody on a dating app. Listen, you don't want to be chopped up and left in the woods. Go to Crime Talk search and find out of this. Guys got a criminal history. Find out if he's done terrible things with the children. Probably a big, you know, big no-no for most people out there, right? Find out if they have a social media presence. Find out email addresses, multiple phone numbers. Why? Burner phones, ladies and gentlemen, find out. Crime Talk search.com. You're going to be happy you did. So whether you want to use it every day to be an armchair detective or you want to use it once to check out that person you're going on a day with, remember, you can cancel it anytime. All right. Let's go ahead and open the record for May 18th, 2026. And that's right. Kind of a big win for Luigi Manjone in state court, but I'll explain what it really means. So a New York judge has issued a mixed ruling in the murder case against Luigi Manjone, allowing prosecutors to present the alleged murder weapon and a notebook containing writings about targeting the health insurance industry while suppressing other items seized during his arrest saying they were seized illegally. So the Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro, remember New York as backwards. They call their lowest court the Supreme Court. Go figure. Anyway, this Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro determined that certain evidence recovered from Manjone's backpack at the McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania must be excluded from the state trial. However, items obtained during a subsequent search at the police station, including the 9 millimeter firearm and a red notebook. They're admissible. They're coming into evidence. So as you may recall, Manjone is facing state charges, including first-degree murder for the December 2024 killing of Brian Thompson, the chief executive officer of United Health Care. Thompson was shot outside a Manhattan hotel room where the company that he ran was holding an investor conference. Now, police have described the shooting as a targeted attack and Manjone is obviously played not guilty. So what does today's victory really mean? Okay. So during today's hearing, Justice Carro ruled that the evidence seized in the initial search of Manjone's backpack at the time of his arrest, including a loaded gun, magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet, and computer chip cannot be introduced to trial. The judge found that this initial search did not comply with legal standards as the backpack was not within Manjone's immediate reach. Now, some observers describe the decision as a partial victory for the defense, which is argued that the police obtained much of the evidence illegally before securing a search warrant. Like I said, so what remains, prosecutors will be permitted to present several significant pieces of evidence to the jury. These include a 3D printed ghost gun with a silencer, which police say matches shell casings recovered at the crime scene. The casing were reportedly marked with the words such as Deny and Delay phrases associated with criticism of health insurance practices, a red notebook containing handwritten entries that prosecutors say express manjone's frustration with the health insurance industry and his basically outlying his intentions, what he was going to do. One entry reportedly stated, quote, "The target is insurance. It checks every box." And quote, "Another indicated I finally feel confident about what I will do." Now, prosecutors have referred to these writings as a manifesto reflecting his motive. Now, the judge deemed the later inventory search of the backpack at the outtune of police station lawful under department procedures. So how did we get here? So manjone was arrested five days after Thompson's killing on December 4th, 2024. This was after, of course, a nationwide manhunt. Police identified him after he was recognized at the Pennsylvania restaurant. He has been held in custody since and is basically his extradition back to New York for both state and federal charges. And obviously, this has a lot of attention in this particular case, in part due to the frustrations with the health insurance companies and the unusual circumstances of the shooting. Because, well, I mean, you know, let's face it, you don't get a license to kill just because you're frustrated with a particular agency. Manjone, however, in this case, was an Ivy League graduate and has become a figure of public interest with some supporters viewing the alleged acts through the lens of a corporate accountability. I'm not sure that's going to be a defense in the jury instructions, but hey, who knows what will happen in New York? Prosecutors maintain that the evidence points to premeditated murder. Manjone also faces federal charges related to the killing and his state trial is scheduled to begin on September 8th of this year. All right. So what does this do? So the ruling helps define the scope of the evidence the jurors will consider. And while the suppressed evidence limits some aspects of the prosecution's case, the admission of the firearm and notebook preserve core elements of the case, linking Manjone to the crime and providing potential insights into his motives. Now, both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and Manjone's defense team didn't say anything after the court, but Neil is to say they're considering their options. Now, this case will continue, obviously in the present course, but a couple of things are going to happen. And then let me explain what really happened. Okay. And I hate to say this because, you know, I mean, I kind of like it, you know, when the defense sometimes gets a victory, right? And nobody hates an illegal search more than I do. I assure you of that. But I didn't see this as an illegal search. Okay. And based upon the court's ruling, the court said, hey, you may contact with Manjone, right? You can pat him down. You can do what you need to for officer safety reasons. The officer had to move over to a table from where he was sitting. So the backpack remained roughly nine feet from where they were questioning Manjone. The officer then goes over and opens Manjone's bag. Okay. The court says, hey, you shouldn't have done that. There was no warrant to do that. It wasn't within his arm reach distance at all at the time that you were questioning him. Now, however, when they first met him, he was at that particular table and the backpack was within arm reach. All right. Just like if you get pulled over in a car, the automobile, you know, rule basically as you get to search within arm's reach, they didn't find the a lot of the items beforehand. But the ones that are that are kept out the casing and the magazines. Those aren't coming in at least as of right now because the court said he wasn't within arm reach. You should have had a warrant. But guess what? They would have taken the bag, taken it anyway, inventory searched it where they found the other items that are admissible, right? They inventory it. Make sure there wasn't anything missing. Oh, look, we found a gun. Oh, look, we found you a little notebook with your Ledge Manifesto. All those types of things, right? Makes sense. So I thought the court would have said, hey, inevitable discovery. But the court says, we know I'm going to throw the defensive bone here a little bit. Mr. Prosecutor, the cops should have done it a little differently. Should have waited. I mean, it's all could have come in, but you open the bag and you shouldn't have looked at it. Okay. Fine. Is it detrimental to the prosecution's case? No, not really. Okay. And you also have to remember is the prosecution, they can do what they call an interlocatory appeal at this particular case. Now, if the defeat is over. fence loses, you got to wait, go to trial, lose appeal. Prosecution, if there's something that gets removed from their case, particularly if it guts their case, this doesn't particularly gut their case. But then they get to go up to the Pelocords and say, review this on kind of an expedited basis. Tell this judge down here that he is wrong and most of the time they do, at least where I practice law. You win a motion to suppress, they take it up on a rule 41. And next thing you know, you're being told the judge was, you know, thanks for playing, but let the prosecutions do what they want. Okay. Now here's the other thing you also have to remember about the Luigi Manjou in a case. This was only for the state court. Remember, the federal judge said, no problem. No problem. This is all coming in. It was completely legal. So this judge, the state court judge, got a totally different than the federal district court judge. Now, I'm not saying usually, you know, federal district court judges are smarter, but you know, they're usually a little more distinguished. Let's just put it that way. So we'll see. It doesn't really affect anything. The only thing that's going to slow this case down at this point is if the prosecution appeals to the higher court on an interlocatory appeal. We'll see what they'll have to do. Usually this is a very strict time limit in which those have to be done, usually within like seven to 14 days. So we'll know rather quickly. And only if the Supreme Court or the appellate court were to decide in New York, because remember, Supreme Court is the trial court level. Then you got the court appeals. Then you've got the highest court in New York, but they don't call it the Supreme Court. Anyway, only then would the case get stayed. So we'll have to wait and see what's going to happen like oftentimes in these particular cases, but it doesn't affect the federal case, which is going right after the state court case. Getting interesting. You know, it's also getting interesting is the appeal of Richard Allen, the man convicted in the Delphi murders. So attorneys for Richard Allen, convicted of the 2017 killings of two teenage girls in Delphi, Indiana, will present oral argument before the Indiana Court of Appeals on September 21st as they seek to overturn his conviction and the 130-year prison sentence imposed. So Allen, who's now 71, was found guilty back in November of 2024, of multiple counts of murder in the deaths of 13-year-old Abigail or Abby Williams, and 14-year-old Liberty Libby, German. These girls were abducted on February 13th of 2017 from the Monin High Bridge Trail, and their bodies were discovered the following day on a nearby private property. Now, in a detailed appellate brief, Allen's attorneys have identified several issues. They argue weren't a new trial, including alleged falsehoods in police testimony, the admissibility of confessions made while Allen was in restrictive custody, and the exclusion of certain defense evidence related to the investigation. So we got the challenges to the police testimony. All right, Allen's legal team contends that the Carroll County Sheriff Tom Ligat provided inaccurate information in a search warrant affidavit and during his testimony during trial. They assert that the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods and material emissions, including a claim that Allen admitted to wearing clothing matching the suspect known as the bridge guy that was captured on video taken by one of the victims. Now defense attorney state that Allen consistently maintained he could not recall his clothing on that day. They further argue that Ligat misrepresented eyewitness Sarah Carbaz's description of the suspect, citing differences in reported jacket color and the addition of additional details such as the man appearing bloody, which Carbaz did not provide back in 2017. Additionally, prosecutors presented multiple confessions allegedly made by Allen while he was in custody. The defense maintains that these statements should have been ruled inadmissible to Allen's mental state. Allen was held in isolation at the maximum security prison for over a year under highly restrictive conditions during which he reportedly lost significant weight and exhibited signs of severe distress. Now although the defense was permitted to show video footage of Allen in his cell to the jury, the audio was excluded. Allen's attorney argued that the sound was essential to demonstrate his incoherent speech, including references to religious themes and delusional statements. Additionally, remember all the Odinism evidence? A central point in the appeal involves the trial court's decision to bar evidence suggesting the murders may have been part of a religious ritual connected with Odinism. The defense describes this as a theory originally developed by law enforcement, early investigation, and supported by multiple sources. They argue that the excluding of this information prevented Allen from presenting a complete defense and properly challenged the prosecution's case. Now, Allen's attorneys characterized the state's case as weak and stated that the restrictions imposed by the trial court limited their ability to fully address the evidence. So for those who don't remember this, the Delphi murder case remained unsolved for years until Allen's arrest back in October of 2022. Prosecutors presented evidence including a handgun recovered from Allen's home that they said matched a bullet found at the scene along with the video and audio recordings from Liberty, German cell phone. Allen was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 130 years in prison back in December of 2024. He to this day maintains his innocence. So what's going to happen now? Well, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on September 21st at 10am in the Supreme Court courtroom at the Indiana State House and Indianapolis. The panel of judges will consider the issues raised on appeal and we'll see whether he gets any relief. Remember ladies and gentlemen, on appeal just because you didn't like the decision saying, "Hey, I don't like the way the jury found me guilty is not a basis for an appeal." You have to show that there was some legal air that the judge screwed up denied a motion to suppress the search warrant to invalidate it based upon misrepresentations, right? As I was saying, there shouldn't have been a case. Not allowing the defendant to present evidence of one's defense. Guess what? That's a six amendment trial right, ladies and gentlemen. It's a defense. Even if the judge doesn't like it, even if the judge doesn't think that it's a missable, the defendant has an absolute right to present a defense. And they weren't just coming up with this out of the air, okay? Because there were lots of things that were brought up by the police originally. The police themselves investigated it and there was a centilla of evidence, which is enough for basically it to go forward for the jury to consider. Now, this judge on this particular case, remember, she fired basically his court appointed counsel early on because, well, she didn't like him. They appealed because he wanted those attorneys. So they fired the new attorneys and it went back. And this judge, she was terrible in this particular case. She was rude to both sides, particularly the defense. She'd shut them down on every defense they had, denied every motion that they ever had, which frankly, it's not uncommon in the defense world to literally lose every motion and lose the trial and then get a conviction reversed on appeal. I've seen it happen. I know, okay? So is Richard Allen guaranteed a new trial? No. But when you deny somebody the Constitution right to present a defense just because the judge thinks it's ridiculous. I think that may be one of his better issues. And if you go back and you look at those, I told you when he got convicted, I think that will be the issue in this particular case. Now, obviously I sold this early on. I thought, you know, Richard, I think he's got a shot, right? But then they released the evidence that the gun just happened to match the one, you know, the casing just happened to match the one that they found at his house. What are the odds, right? That was a problem. The defense never was able to explain it away, at least in my opinion, certainly not to the satisfaction of the jury. Hence the reason why Mr. Allen is sitting in custody for the next hundred years. Next Alec Murdoch, he is on fire. He is looking for revenge. So just days after the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction. Alec Murdoch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Rebecca Hill, the former Carlton County clerk of the court, accusing her of improperly influencing jurors during his 2023 trial. Now the 17 page complained filed on May 17 in the US District Court in the in South Carolina, alleges that Hill violated Murdoch's constitutional right to a fair trial by making unauthorized comments to jurors aimed at securing a guilty verdict. Murdoch seeks compensatory damages of at least $600,000, along with punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs. Now allegations in the lawsuit, according to the filing, and Hill repeatedly interacted with jurors during these six week trial, including private conversations with the jury for a person. And the suit claims that she warned jurors, you know, not to be fooled or confused or convinced by the defense's argument, encouraging them to scrutinize Murdoch's body language while he testifies and urged them to a real quick decision stating that deliberations, well, you know, shouldn't take so long now, should it? Anyway, Murdoch's attorneys further alleged that Hill was motivated by financial gain. They claim that she believed a guilty verdict would boost sales of her book behind the doors of justice. Of course, that was taken off when she got charged herself now, wasn't it? Anyway, the lawsuit also reference Hill's subsequent resignation and guilty plea to charges, including perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct in office related to sharing sealed trial evidence with the media. So not looking good for Miss Hill, I'm going to have to take a closer look at it to see if she sued individually. But guess what? She was acting in her official capacity of the court. So I guess who's going to wind up paying the bill if she gets convicted? That's right. Call it in County. Guess who's going to pay for the retrial? Call it in County. So for those who don't recall on May 13th of just just last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturned Murdoch's conviction for the 2021 murders of his wife Maggie Murdoch and son Paul Murdoch. Now the court described Hill's conduct as breathtaking, disgraceful and unprecedented, a ruling that her actions constituted improper external influence on the jury, which ultimately denied Alec Murdoch a fair trial. Now the justice is ordered a new trial. Others have indicated they intend to retry the case with the options, including seeking the death penalty. Seeing everybody's going into mode, well, maybe we'll seek the death penalty. I don't think they can do that since they didn't seek it on the first time. But everyone's going to be beaten their chest to see if they can't come to some resolution. So anyway, Murdoch currently obviously remains incarcerated because although his murder conviction was vacated, he continues to serve a 40 year federal sentence for financial crimes, which means he will not be eligible until 85% of that sentence is served. That includes a fraud from thefts of clients and his law firm as well. And he's consistently maintained his innocence in the murders. Now Murdoch's legal team, including a dick harp, Tulian and Jim Griffin, L.D. Press conference on May 18th today to discuss the lawsuit. And he'll has not yet publicly responded to the new civil action. And like I said, obviously, Mr. Alec Murdoch is now presumed innocent as it relates to those murder charges as well. Interesting little tactical move. Alec Murdoch needs money. Someone's going to have to pay for those attorneys, pay for those pellet attorneys that have been doing such a good job for him. And what better way to fund that by reaching a settlement with the county, don't you think? Yeah. I wonder if Miss Hild's wondering if this is really worth it. This point probably not. Next how about the Richard Glossip case released after 30 years. So Richard Glossip, who spent nearly three decades on Oklahoma's death row, was released from custody on May 14th after a judge granted him bond while he awaits a new trial for the 1997 murder of a motel owner by the name of Barry Vantrice. Now the Oklahoma County District judge Natalie May sets a gossip bond at $500,000 in ordered several conditions, including electronic monitoring and a curfew that he has to be at home by 10 p.m. and cannot leave until after 7 a.m. Restrictions on travel outside of Oklahoma are prohibited and a prohibition on contacting any witnesses or consuming any drugs or alcohol. Now Glossip posted bond and walked out of the Oklahoma County detention center later that day along with his wife. It's a little overwhelming, but it's amazing at the same time. He says he's just really, really happy. So what happened? So Mr. Glossip is 63 years old. He was originally convicted back in 1997 and again in 2004 for a retrial for the murder for higher of Vantrice, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat at a motel that Glossip managed in Oklahoma City. Now Justin Sneed, the man who admitted carrying out the beatings, implicated Glossip as the mastermind and he received a life sentence without parole. Glossip has long maintained his innocence, his case drew national attention, including support from celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Susan Sarandon and was the subject of a 2017 documentary, Killing Richard Glossip. Well guess what? In 2025, the United States Supreme Court overturned Glossip's conviction ruling that prosecutors allowed a key witness to provide false testimony, violating his right to a fair trial. The state announced it would pursue a third trial, but will not seek the death penalty. In her bond order, Judge Mai noted that the weakening of the state's case over time due to issues of prosecutorial misconduct and witness credibility is the reason why she reduced the bond. She expressed hope that the new trial free of air would bring closure to all parties and the citizens of Oklahoma. Now Glossip's attorney, in Gabba, named Donald Knight, stated Mr. Glossip now has the chance to taste freedom while the defense team continues to pursue justice on behalf and against the system that the United States Supreme Court has found to be guilty of serious misconduct. Now, during his nearly 30 years in custody, Glossip faced nine execution dates and consumed three last meals. And a 2015 botched execution involving a drug mix up in a different Oklahoma case led to a multi-year moratorium on executions in that state. The Oklahoma Attorney General, Genter Drummond's office, has indicated it remains focused on securing a conviction in the upcoming retrial. So once again, Mr. Glossip is presumed innocent until guilty in a court of law. Interesting case there, ladies and gentlemen, once again, prosecutorial misconduct withholding of evidence. You started to notice a trend here. You started to notice a trend when these cases come back. Now I don't think it would be as easy to do today as it was 30 years ago. But guess what? That file? I mean, why? If the DA is going to have that file, why keep it in some file when somebody dies or whatever? Maybe their conscience got to them. You know what I mean? I just never understood that stuff always comes out. So we'll see. Next, a New Jersey man accused of setting fire of a Walmart. Yeah. So over in Maryland, a 36 year old New Jersey man has been arrested and charged with first degree arson and other offenses after police say he deliberately started a fire in a Walmart super center children's clothing section to divert attention while he was trying to steal approximately $10,000 in jewelry. Please meet Anthony J. Rhodes, who now faces multiple charges, including arson in the first degree and manufacturing an explosive device according to the Maryland office of the state fire marshal. Now this all took place on April 29th of this year at the Walmart super center in Polaski Highway in Elkton, Maryland. Eight tales of the alleged incident arose as investigators alleged that Rhodes entered a store wearing a mask, a backpack, and a Jefferson University baseball t-shirt. Survey of his footage reportedly shows him using a can of camping fuel and multiple boxes of fireworks to ignite a shopping cart positioned next to the children's clothing section. The fireworks discharged as the fire grew, creating a little bit of confusion and prompting patrons there in the Walmart to evacuate the store. Now well, emergency responders arrived along with the fire department and the police take fingers to blaves. The incident caused significant damage, initial fire damage estimated to be maybe $5,000. But Walmart later reported they have losses of $10 million because of smoke, soot, and dust contamination and all their remediation efforts need to take place. So what did Mr. Rhodes do? Well, he allegedly took advantage of the distraction to steal jewelry from the store's counter before fleeing the scene on a motorcycle. Now the Jefferson University baseball t-shirt visible in the surveillance video helped investigators identify Rhodes despite his lack of any known connection to the university or its athletic program. Law enforcement from the Maryland, from Maryland, working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and Walmart's global investigations identified him as the person of suspect. Rhodes was arrested on May 14th by the Berlin Township Police in New Jersey on a Maryland arrest warrant. Now, as of the 16th, he remained detained at the Camden County Correctional Facility there in New Jersey. The state fire marshal in Maryland, however, though, commended the collaborative effort stating working side by side with our ATF partners and the Walmart Global Investigation and our team was able to identify the suspect quickly. Well, can you say, ladies and gentlemen, the amount of surveillance these days is amazing. They're going to find you out. Everything is being monitored. Anyway, we'll give them the presumption of innocence, but you know, maybe the mask, but of course, you know, we'll have to wait and see if they happen to find the Thomas Jefferson t-shirt. at the residence where he was found. Along with the jewelry, that'd be interesting to know. Now wouldn't it? I'm assuming they did. Next, this day in legal history, May 18th, 1896. Plusy V. Ferguson. The United States Supreme Court issued the landmark 7-1 decision. The Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the separate but equal doctrine, ruling that a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad accommodations for black and white passengers did not violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. You know, let's say that decision provided a legal justification for Jim Crow segregation laws across the South for decades until it was effectively overturned by a Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. One of the worst decisions ever made, right? Absolutely. Next, this date, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Tennessee Valley Authority, act as part of the new deal. The legislation created the TVA, a federally owned corporation tasked with flood control, navigation improvement, electricity generation, economic development, and reforestation in the Tennessee River Valley. It represented a huge expansion of federal government authority in regional planning and public utilities during the Great Depression. And then on this date, in 1934, Congress passed the amendment strengthening the Federal Kidnapping Act, commonly known as the Lindbergh Law. These changes expanded federal jurisdiction over interstate kidnapping, adding provisions, making certain offenses, capital crimes, and addressed related crimes such as fleeing across state lines to avoid prosecution. The original 1932 law was prompted by the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and in 1934 measures further empowered federal law enforcement in high profile cases. All right, we got a great quote for it today, ladies and gentlemen. It comes from James Madison. He wrote this passage in the Federalist number 45, titled "The alleged danger from the powers of the Union to the state government considered." Published January 26, 1788, the exact quote is, quote, "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are not to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite." So Madison continued by explaining that the federal powers would primarily concern external matters such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, right? While state powers would cover the ordinary internal affairs of the people, including their lives, liberties, properties, and local governance. Now it makes you wonder, huh? What are the specific enumerated acts in the constitution for the federal government? Well, I just haven't have a list here compiled for you. You're welcome. So take a look at this. And as we go through these, as we go through these, note what is not in there, all right? There's actually 18 enumerated powers in the constitution under Article 1, Section 8, the powers of Congress, right? The main list, laying collect taxes, duties, impose, and exercises to pay debts and provide for the common defense in general for borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations among these several states and with the Indian tribes, establish uniform rules of naturalization and bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value of currency, and fix the standard of weights and measures, punish, counterfeiting of US securities and currency, establish a post office and post roads, promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing limited exclusive rights to authors and investors, patents and copyrights basically, and constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, right? The Appellah Court's only district court, define and punish, piracies, felonies on the high seas and defenses against the law of the nations, declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning capture on land and water, raise and support armies, appropriations limited to only two years, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the government and regulations of land and naval forces, provide for calling forth the militia to execute federal laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, organize arm and discipline the militia, reserving to the states, the appointment of officers and training authority, exercise exclusive legislation over the federal district, which is Washington, DC, and other federal properties purchased for governmental purposes, and make all laws which I'll be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, the necessary and proper clause, additional enumerated powers in other articles, specifically article two, the executive branch, serve as commander in chief of the armed forces, grant, reprieve and partens, make treaties with the Senate's advice and consent, appoint ambassadors, judges and other officers within the Senate's consent as well, and faithfully execute the laws. Article three, did judiciary bear anch, right? Exercise judicial power over cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws and treaties, and jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, laws of Admiralty, interstate disputes, people over in different states, and arguments between the states, and controversies between states of citizens of different states. Article four, guaranteed to every state a Republican form of government. And no, it's not a Republican party form of government. A Republican form of government is where you have elected representatives that go off to Washington, DC. That is a Republican form of government. Okay? Remember, we're not a democracy ladies and gentlemen, we're a constitutional republic. Protect states against invasion and domestic violence, and then we have Article five, which is the article that says you can propose amendments to the Constitution, or call a convention for that particular purpose, right? If you don't like the Constitution, you can amend it. We've done it many, many times. Anyway, so these powers are few and defined as James Madison explained in Federalist number 45, and the Federal government may not exercise any power, not granted it by the Constitution. Hmm. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to enact laws necessary to implement the enumerated powers, but it does not grant unlimited authority. So think about the ladies and gentlemen, all those enumerator rights that powers the Federal government was supposed to have. Think of all the things that they do, that they regulate these days, are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It wasn't until FDR, and is new deal, when he threatened to stack the court, that they said, fine, you can have this, and even though it's the Constitution specifically, it says, as reserved the states, we're not looking for a fight. Remember that ladies and gentlemen, when they come up with another government program, or they're gonna give money to some NGO somewhere. Just remember, where is that in the Constitution? Hmm. Yeah. Next on the docket, our dumb criminal of the day. (upbeat music) In what can only be described as a master class in catastrophic decision making, 20-year-old Michael Fanning, has earned the prestigious title of Crime Talks, "Dumb Criminal of the Day." According to court records, the Texas native and US Marine recruit allegedly began his Sunday morning by stealing a fire truck, then proceeding to pilot the massive vehicle down Market Street at speeds well above the limit, because simply driving a stolen fire truck wasn't quite enough, Fanning then allegedly slammed the truck directly into the front of the Wilmington Police Department's car, while an officer was still inside. But wait, there's more. After the crash, police say Fanning punched the officer in the face, then attempted to bribe a second officer with $15,000 in exchange for his immediate release. Now one can only imagine the officer's expression upon receiving such a generous offer. Well, now Fanning faces a lengthy list of charges, including felony larceny of a motor vehicle. Felony assault with a deadly weapon on a government official. Felony bribery and multiple misdemeanor counts. He's been placed in custody with a $50,000 bond, and is scheduled to make a first court appearance sometimes today. Pro tip for future marine recruits if you're going to steal emergency vehicles and assault officers, maybe skip the part where you try to buy your freedom with what sounds like a little pocket change or a bribe. Yes, that's one way of getting out of your contract to get out of the military. Well, I can't make it because I've got courts and it's serious felonies. That's right, they're not going to take you. Little bit of overkill. You could have just gone a little shoplifting, maybe done some drugs admitted to it, and they would have let you out of your contract, young lad. But now you swung for the home run and you got it. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all we have for today. Hope you enjoyed the show. We'll see you next time. And remember, the Constitution matters. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)