Speaker 1: Seven thirty one. That was an.
Speaker 2: I just gave it full.
Speaker 3: Don't found him guilty even sixteen in him. Well played
Speaker 3: Joe Strucker and I seen song bomb for our conversation.
Speaker 1: A sound effect.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the fIF five Careocy Morning Show from
Speaker 3: the outstanding law firm Porter Right, Steve Good in our
Speaker 3: litigation expert Steve. It's always great having you on the
Speaker 3: show and it's good to be here Brian. Thanks love
Speaker 3: the music. Yeah, that was awesome, well played Joe Strucker,
Speaker 3: And on a personal level, thank you for the referral
Speaker 3: for the will's trust and a state attorney. Steve, we
Speaker 3: had a really great meeting and uh, it's gonna it's
Speaker 3: gonna help us out great. So that was that was great.
Speaker 3: So count on the lawyers glad to hear. Thank you
Speaker 3: for Porter right dot com. All right you saw it,
Speaker 3: pgs it and fell two to one. Opinion six Circuit
Speaker 3: Us Court of Appeals said, well, they called it a
Speaker 3: difficult case, but they allowed the jury to decide the
Speaker 3: credibility of the witnesses and his intent in soliciting a
Speaker 3: political action contribution in connection with this chideedam nonduque guy,
Speaker 3: this real estate development but the dissent highlighted some of
Speaker 3: the problems with this because political contributions are a form
Speaker 3: of political participation and they're protected to a large degree,
Speaker 3: and the condescent said, this may INCENTIVI I have more
Speaker 3: more prosecutions. It would be hard to decide. And so
Speaker 3: I guess, overall, what's your take on this? And do
Speaker 3: you see it to be problematic that they didn't overturn
Speaker 3: the conviction.
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 5: No, I don't see it as problematic at all that
Speaker 5: they didn't overturn the conviction. I mean, look, I was
Speaker 5: in the unfortunate spot of somebody who lived through a
Speaker 5: lot of astrama at city Hall. You know, I was
Speaker 5: appointed to one of the seats, not to the pastor
Speaker 5: seat after he went to was indicted and ultimately went
Speaker 5: to jail. So there really was a culture of corruption
Speaker 5: problem at city Hall, and I think that was what,
Speaker 5: in their way, the federal prosecutors were trying to address
Speaker 5: and trying to get at. And we know it was
Speaker 5: a very widespread investigation that looked at a lot of
Speaker 5: different people and ultimately charged three. So I don't have
Speaker 5: a problem, you know, with that at all. I sat
Speaker 5: through the trial. I saw about ninety percent of the
Speaker 5: trial and almost all of the testimony, And in my mind,
Speaker 5: it was very clear from like the second or third
Speaker 5: day that the jury was going to convict him of something,
Speaker 5: and there was just a visceral reaction in the room
Speaker 5: by the jurors.
Speaker 1: And this was during COVID time. They were wearing.
Speaker 5: Masks and you could still see that they were aghast
Speaker 5: at some of the testimony.
Speaker 1: The only thing.
Speaker 5: That this court struggled with, and I think the jury
Speaker 5: didn't struggle with it, but this court did, was this
Speaker 5: idea that he solicited the funds for the quid pro
Speaker 5: quote transaction into his political action and didn't keep them
Speaker 5: personally like the other two did. Denard and Pastor took
Speaker 5: money personally, they spent the money personally. I think Jess
Speaker 5: was in cash. No question there that if they changed
Speaker 5: their votes or positions based on a cash payment personally,
Speaker 5: that's you know, that's.
Speaker 1: Not a problem. I mean, that's that's a crime. The
Speaker 1: quid pro quo period in this.
Speaker 5: Case, the idea, the idea that the money went into
Speaker 5: a political action committee I think gave them some pause.
Speaker 5: He shares out. Badian says, He's like, look, the line
Speaker 5: is blurry, but there is a line under current Supreme
Speaker 5: Court precedent. This is something that is still a quid
Speaker 5: pro quo. It's still illegal, and we're going to have
Speaker 5: to defer to what the jury heard during this almost
Speaker 5: three week trial and all the witnesses they heard from,
Speaker 5: and their conclusion that it was a quid pro quo,
Speaker 5: which I think that was loose in the room for
Speaker 5: the first couple of days, particularly some of the audio
Speaker 5: and video recordings of PG and in Duke Way and
Speaker 5: these FBI agents who are working undercover pretending to be
Speaker 5: developers from Nashville. I mean, they got him promising litigation
Speaker 5: and promising to pressure the poort authority to help them, uh,
Speaker 5: you know, with the deal, all kinds of things. And
Speaker 5: and I think the worst part of it is when
Speaker 5: they offered him a contribution for his help, he actually
Speaker 5: didded them up and said, no, actually I'd like more.
Speaker 5: Uh that's that's problematic. And of course every look he's
Speaker 5: just soliciting CAMPAI contributions. What I do think is interesting
Speaker 5: is it is a split decision of these were three
Speaker 5: Trump appointed judges. It was two to one, and even
Speaker 5: Eric Murphy. Judge Murphy who was the former Hire Solicitor
Speaker 5: Brilliant Guy Trump appointee.
Speaker 1: Even though he agreed with h letting.
Speaker 5: The convictionion stand, he all that calls for the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court to take this up and kind of review this
Speaker 5: and try to help draw the line a little more clearly.
Speaker 5: But even he ultimately agreed and said this was a
Speaker 5: something that needs to be needs to be done.
Speaker 1: So my guess is that.
Speaker 5: They will seek an en Bock hearing of the full
Speaker 5: Sixth Circuit, and if that is unsuccessful, which it rarely is,
Speaker 5: I'll probably try to go to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you answered my question I had written down in back,
Speaker 3: and because I had a listener even asked me that
Speaker 3: and I said, well, of course he can try. But
Speaker 3: I'll get the real expert to answer that question, Steve Gooden.
Speaker 3: I'll hold you over. Got quite a few more questions
Speaker 3: in connection with this matter, So hang around and we'll
Speaker 3: get more info from Steve on this. And I want
Speaker 3: to give you for info about Peter Schbier, Keller Williams
Speaker 3: and his team at the Shabri Group of Keller Williams
Speaker 3: Seven Hills outstanding real estate team, the best in the
Speaker 3: business since he's number one real estate team and they've
Speaker 3: got multiple different programs, but they certainly understand, at least
Speaker 3: along one line that your life can change really quickly
Speaker 3: and you might need to just move very quickly, or
Speaker 3: having been through the hassle of selling a home, it
Speaker 3: is a hassle, and you might want to not even
Speaker 3: go through the hassle of a traditional sales process, which
Speaker 3: is painting a room or you know, changing out the carpet,
Speaker 3: making the place look a little more presentable, cleaning it,
Speaker 3: getting out of the house while the real estate agent
Speaker 3: shows it, and all that. How about not doing that?
Speaker 3: Sabriu can make a cash offer on your home within
Speaker 3: forty eight hours of seeing your home, which means you
Speaker 3: can close as quickly as fourteen days after that. That's
Speaker 3: just boom boom boom in the real estate world. That
Speaker 3: is as fast as it's going to get. So if
Speaker 3: you have a property you need to unload in a
Speaker 3: hurry or just don't want to go through the hassle,
Speaker 3: call the SBRI group today to do that. Learn more,
Speaker 3: go to seven zero eight three thousand dot com seven
Speaker 3: zero eight three thousand dot com. Of course that's the
Speaker 3: phone over. Just stick a five to one three in
Speaker 3: front of it five one three seven zero eight three
Speaker 3: thousand and if you can't remember that, just remember SBRI
Speaker 3: c Cha b riis group and use your search engine
Speaker 3: to find them and you will tell them. Brian said,
Speaker 3: high when you call fifty five car the talk station
Speaker 3: Steve Perrins Coordinated Fund.
Speaker 4: Channel nine Weather. We got a winter weather advisor until
Speaker 4: eleven am. Slick roads, possible snow flurries. Careful out there.
Speaker 4: Forty for the high today, overnight some rain low of
Speaker 4: twenty nine. Rainal taper off really early tomorrow morning. We'll
Speaker 4: have mostly cloudy skies in a high of thirty two,
Speaker 4: clear overnight for a drop to fourteen and thirty seven
Speaker 4: on Valentine's Day with clear skies thirty two.
Speaker 1: Right now, Time for track.
Speaker 6: From the UCL Transings Center. For more than two hundred years,
Speaker 6: the experts of u see health have been giving heart
Speaker 6: patience and chance for better outcomes. That's boundless care. You
Speaker 6: can trust. Expect more at ucehealth dot com. Westbound two
Speaker 6: seventy five continues to crawl through Anderson Township due to
Speaker 6: a wreck after five mile the rain from the Double
Speaker 6: A to west two seventy five remains.
Speaker 1: Flocked due to a wreck.
Speaker 6: There's a wreck on westbound one nine near the bypass
Speaker 6: chuck Ingram on fifty five KR.
Speaker 1: And see the talk station.
Speaker 3: I'm pretty what.
Speaker 2: I hear the train of coming, it's rolling around it,
Speaker 2: and I seen the sunshine since I don't know when
Speaker 2: I'm stuck and full of prison and time keeps drag
Speaker 2: you know what, that train keeps roll own.
Speaker 3: There is talk to p Sentfeld whether legal actions from
Speaker 3: the law firm or Porter right Steve Good and you
Speaker 3: find him on line at porter right dot com. Need
Speaker 3: a great litigation attorney or other legal services great place
Speaker 3: to stop Steve Good. And a couple more questions, you know,
Speaker 3: in terms of you're agreeing with the upholding his conviction
Speaker 3: on appeal rather than inviting additional litigation, which is what
Speaker 3: what the dissent was kind of in part based on,
Speaker 3: you know, this is just this is so close to
Speaker 3: call that we shouldn't uphold it because it's just going
Speaker 3: to encourage more more politicians to be called under the carpet.
Speaker 3: I think it'll have the polar opposite effect. I think
Speaker 3: it'll force politicians to keep the bar really really high
Speaker 3: and make sure they avoid anything that might be construed
Speaker 3: ever as a quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: I think that's the idea behind the prosecution. Brian.
Speaker 5: It's like if you you know, and I've worked in
Speaker 5: a US attorney's office, and what they typically try to
Speaker 5: do is focus on deterrence. Now, like, one of the
Speaker 5: worst kept secrets in the legal community is that the
Speaker 5: federal prosecutors have actually pretty limited resources, and when they
Speaker 5: go after an area of crime, you know, they have
Speaker 5: to you know, make examples and try to pick a
Speaker 5: high series of high profile cases and an effort to
Speaker 5: sort of hopefully have a long term deterrence effect. We
Speaker 5: saw them do that locally with some of the doctor
Speaker 5: cases they did during the opioid crisis and pharmacies they
Speaker 5: went after.
Speaker 1: They couldn't go after them.
Speaker 5: All, so their only hope was to do a handful
Speaker 5: of really high profile prosecutions that would be in the
Speaker 5: media and that that would actually deter some of the crime.
Speaker 5: That's why, you know, we always often joke that the
Speaker 5: federal prosecutors prosecute by press release as much as anything else,
Speaker 5: because they really want people to know what they're doing.
Speaker 5: So that's absolutely right. I mean, there's a deterrence factor here.
Speaker 5: We know that this investigation went all over the state.
Speaker 5: They looked at small city council's, township trustees all the
Speaker 5: way up than the northern part of Ohio that came
Speaker 5: during the trial. I think the idea was to try
Speaker 5: to get around the state geographically focus on local elected officials.
Speaker 5: Under this quick pro quote theory, it's not clear that
Speaker 5: the task force in the undercover agents are even still
Speaker 5: operating in the area. In fact, the way they testified,
Speaker 5: I think it's very very unlikely. So I think the
Speaker 5: idea here was to have some sort of deterrence, and
Speaker 5: they probably knew that the law, you know, was at
Speaker 5: least it's very clear as written in the United States Code,
Speaker 5: but some of the Supreme Court cases around it make
Speaker 5: it more difficult to enforce. It was an aggressive move,
Speaker 5: but you do, at the end of the day, have
Speaker 5: these three elected officials who are all three either call
Speaker 5: it on tape, text email, or some electronic means saying
Speaker 5: if you give me money to my campaign or me
Speaker 5: money personally, I will change my vote. And that's a problem.
Speaker 5: And I do think if nothing else that that has
Speaker 5: been cleaned up. Now the flip side is I think
Speaker 5: it also has made the folks at city Hall almost
Speaker 5: terrified to engage in basic constituent services for fear that
Speaker 5: they're being recorded. I think it's actually having to effect
Speaker 5: the other way. As someone who has just trying to
Speaker 5: drive the city streets this morning in the snow that
Speaker 5: really wasn't meaningfully cleaned off, you know, I can tell
Speaker 5: you it's just, you know, I think it's a chilling
Speaker 5: effect almost the other way. We haven't seen a lot
Speaker 5: of big new development deals since all this happened. It
Speaker 5: was a big, credible period there, so it's worse from
Speaker 5: that standpoint, and that's not uncommon. But you know, I think,
Speaker 5: you know, I'm less concerned about the frankly, the nitty
Speaker 5: gritty legal part of it, which I think is going
Speaker 5: to play out however it plays out. I think there
Speaker 5: is a splim chance the Supreme Court will take a
Speaker 5: look at this. But that said, it has to turn
Speaker 5: some of the behavior, at least in my experience.
Speaker 3: As to your other point, I may just be a
Speaker 3: reflection of the poor quality of the elected official or
Speaker 3: the lack of funds to get any projects done, because
Speaker 3: we do have a financial situation gone in the city
Speaker 3: of Cincinnati. But beyond that now is going back to
Speaker 3: the point in the Supreme Court you said slim chance,
Speaker 3: and that's kind of what I thought. And you also
Speaker 3: mentioned earlier least in so far as having the entire
Speaker 3: sixth Circuit judge all the six Circuit judge panels hit
Speaker 3: here in unbunked rehearing of this, you suggest that that
Speaker 3: was a slim slim possibility as well. But behind the scenes,
Speaker 3: the law that governs this is it something that needs
Speaker 3: to be clarified much such as the Supreme Court might
Speaker 3: very well consider it because a, we can't have this
Speaker 3: gray area floating around out there anymore.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, I don't think the area is that
Speaker 5: gray personally. I mean, really, what it boils down to
Speaker 5: is the is the bribery statute, which has been in
Speaker 5: the General Criminal Code for you know, forty fifty years
Speaker 5: in its current forum, and the Hobzact, this idea that
Speaker 5: bribery a by a public official is uniquely bad and
Speaker 5: a kind of unique and separate crime because you're depriving
Speaker 5: people of the quote, honest goods and services they could
Speaker 5: expect from an elected off So I don't think that's.
Speaker 1: Likely to be touched.
Speaker 5: What's at issue is this case called McDonald, which is
Speaker 5: a US Supreme Court case from about four or five
Speaker 5: years ago that deals with.
Speaker 1: The governor of Virginia.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of where he was accused of doing
Speaker 5: quid pro quot type things for his donors, but really,
Speaker 5: when you got to the bottom of that case, he
Speaker 5: wasn't engaged in what they call official acts. He was
Speaker 5: helping the donors, you know, with little things around the side.
Speaker 5: He was introducing them to people who might help them
Speaker 5: with government contracts, but not actually steering the contract their way,
Speaker 5: giving them meetings and calling them out on in speeches
Speaker 5: and things of that nature. And they could never really
Speaker 5: prove that he moved any legislation directly for them or
Speaker 5: moved money directly to and he helped them, but they
Speaker 5: didn't do much. And that's really what that case hung on.
Speaker 5: And that's what Sittenfeldt's team has been arguing from the
Speaker 5: beginning is that, look, this wasn't a true official act.
Speaker 5: PG was always out there pushing development deals. He was
Speaker 5: pro development. This was something he would have been doing anyway.
Speaker 5: It was more tend to that. But in the reality,
Speaker 5: you know, he actually factually crossed the line here to
Speaker 5: callingport authority officials and trying to introduce legislation and you know,
Speaker 5: and things of that nature for a project we now
Speaker 5: know didn't even exist. Really, it was just something that
Speaker 5: that Defense undercover agents had totally cooked up a real location,
Speaker 5: but a fake project.
Speaker 1: So it is different here.
Speaker 5: For Actually, I think the McDonald's case is something that
Speaker 5: they might one day want to revisit because it does
Speaker 5: seem to open a door for arguments that could be
Speaker 5: made about whether or not a government official does something
Speaker 5: that's a true quid pro quo. But I don't think
Speaker 5: those are these are good facts for him to take up.
Speaker 5: I mean they might, I mean, I do note that
Speaker 5: the new Trump Justice administration really does seem to be
Speaker 5: casting a a tough I I guess on public corruption investigations.
Speaker 5: I mean, they've seen press reports that they're kind of
Speaker 5: folding up their Adams investigation in New York at Trump's direction.
Speaker 5: And I do know that they've been looking at the
Speaker 5: kind of Foreign Corruption Act prosecutions which have been very
Speaker 5: popular that have kind of caught up people like Paul
Speaker 5: Manafort kind of from the Trump circle. And I've read
Speaker 5: that they're telling those folks to stand down in the
Speaker 5: Justice Department on any new cases until the.
Speaker 1: Law can be reviewed and revisited.
Speaker 5: So maybe this ironically pg sudentsvald who is a very
Speaker 5: very progressive, traditional democratic politician. I mean, the Trump election
Speaker 5: in the new Trump Justice Department might be one of
Speaker 5: his few avenues to get this looked at again in
Speaker 5: some way. But in terms of just really revamping the law,
Speaker 5: I think it's pretty clear. If you actually find yourself
Speaker 5: in a conversation as an elected official where someone is
Speaker 5: linking directly linking a campaign contribution to an actual vote,
Speaker 5: that's a quid pro quo and that's something you can't do.
Speaker 3: Stop it right then and there. In debt in terms
Speaker 3: of him staying and will he remain out of jail,
Speaker 3: I know he's released from jail pending appeal now the
Speaker 3: appeals over will they let him out and tending the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court's review of the request for register cherrari or
Speaker 3: his request for an end bank hearing, and how long
Speaker 3: does that process take?
Speaker 1: Usually Steve.
Speaker 5: Well, I'll tell you it's it's this is the stuff
Speaker 5: that drives people nuts about the federal criminal system. The
Speaker 5: answer to that question isn't exactly clear, you know, at
Speaker 5: this point, you know, while the en banc process is
Speaker 5: going forward, which could take you know, a couple of months,
Speaker 5: he is likely to remain out. Even though the Bureau
Speaker 5: of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, actually has some
Speaker 5: administrative ability where they could actually now that the appeal
Speaker 5: has been resolved in the in the government's favor, they
Speaker 5: actually could set a date require him to report. In
Speaker 5: all likelihood, they're going to let this on banc piece
Speaker 5: play out, and then it would really be up to
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court if they take the case to grant
Speaker 5: another stay, because then the Sixth Circuit would lose jurisdiction
Speaker 5: and because they didn't send the case back down for
Speaker 5: any kind of error, you know, Judge Cole and the
Speaker 5: District Court has no jurisdiction to inter a state too.
Speaker 5: So if the en bog piece doesn't work, you know,
Speaker 5: then he will you know, he will likely be and
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court piece doesn't work, then the Bureau of
Speaker 5: Prisons will just finally set a report date for him.
Speaker 5: Because it's a non violent offense. In my experience, they're
Speaker 5: not going to send Marshalls out to go pick him up.
Speaker 5: You know, they'll do something a little more civilized, as
Speaker 5: they like to say. They'll probably just say, he look,
Speaker 5: you need to be here, you know, three weeks from
Speaker 5: Saturday and the Yeah, they give people time to wrap
Speaker 5: up their personal affairs and so forth.
Speaker 1: So amazingly that is not very clear. Yeah, exactly exactly,
Speaker 1: Steve Gooden about another ten months to go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, by the time the Supreme Court hearing,
Speaker 3: if they had granted certain heard the case, he'd already
Speaker 3: have served his time. So I don't know if moot
Speaker 3: comes in or if they just give them up a
Speaker 3: post conviction, I don't know. You can't unring the bell
Speaker 3: having time serve. That's all I know is Steve Goodin.
Speaker 3: God bless you, sir. Thanks for you sharing your time
Speaker 3: with my listeners and me and giving us your thoughtful
Speaker 3: at Sage Wisdom. And I'll look forward to having you
Speaker 3: on the program once we get another legal case to
Speaker 3: talk about.
Speaker 1: Hey, thank you so much, birch.
Speaker 3: Hey, I have a good day, you too, seven fifty
Speaker 3: two right now if you five KC DETALX station imaging
Speaker 3: can be affordable, new calendar year, new set of out
Speaker 3: of pocket responsibility and a five thousand dollars CT scam
Speaker 3: bill from your hospital. That's a bad combo, So don't
Speaker 3: do that. Don't go to the hospital for your imaging.
Speaker 3: Go to affordable imaging services where that CT scam won't
Speaker 3: cost you five grand. It'll cost you six hundred. That's
Speaker 3: with a contrast, and it includes a board certified radiologists
Speaker 3: report with you and your doctoral both get within forty
Speaker 3: eight hours. Take out the contrast, take away one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty bucks. It's four to fifty for a CT
Speaker 3: without a contrast. I got one schedule for April with
Speaker 3: Affordable Imaging Services MRI six forty five with a contrast
Speaker 3: four ninety five without echo cartograms only four hundred and
Speaker 3: ninety five ultrasound two fifty cardiac scoring in long screams
Speaker 3: only ninety nine bucks. Again, the report comes with it.
Speaker 3: Don't pay the outrageous hospital prices. Why would you when
Speaker 3: you can have a choice when it comes to your
Speaker 3: medical care. The number to call five one three seven, five, three,
Speaker 3: eight thousand. It's low overhead, folks. I'm not gonna I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna say it's not. But it's the same kind
Speaker 3: of equipment the hospitals use the images turn out great.
Speaker 3: I've gotten few done there five one three seven, five
Speaker 3: three eight thousand. Learn more online. Go to Affordable Medimaging
Speaker 3: dot com fifty five KRC dot com if it emerge