Imagine the stress of finding out an attorney is attacking you, he wants you in prison and has indicted you. They’re not accusing you of hurting anyone, they want you in prison for not complying with the dictates of men and women calling themselves a “legislature.” How much more stress will there be when the attorney casually admits that proving their laws apply to you “is not a matter of evidence”? The guy doesn’t think he has to prove his argument is true.
Larry Cleveland (pictured left) and his accomplices in Franklin county, Kentucky are doing this everyday, same as all prosecutors. Larry refused to allow me to record him, and with good reason. He even said he didn’t want to look bad if he could not answer a question. Turns out he was right about that. It’s too bad his victims can’t just walk away from him or hang up the phone.
His fellow prosecutor, Rick Sparks (pictured right) refused to speak to me about the application of Kentucky law on 1 July 2015. When Rick heard the question be bailed immediately despite the fact he applies the law to peaceful people everyday.
I spoke with Larry today, 2 July 2015. His office is attacking a friend of mine, though I didn’t mention that as I didn’t want Larry to just default to the “we don’t discuss open cases” line to avoid answering a question.
He did confirm that he operates under the common argument that if one is physically in Kentucky, then the constitution and laws apply. I asked him what facts, if any, he relies on to support his argument. Larry stated it, “is not a matter of evidence.” He insisted it was “logical” though.
I stated, “Yeah, if by logical you mean circular logic.” I asked how is it logical, it looks like a non-sequitur, there is a huge gap in your logic. What facts connect the argument, “why does the constitution apply because I’m physically in Kentucky?”
Larry made the usual dodges, “we’re going in circles…no answer I give you will satisfy you…” and then he hung up on me. I’m guessing that in court his police friends would have valiantly leaped to their feet ready to attack me and he would have asked the judge to hold me in contempt.
The argument: if you’re physically in Kentucky, then the laws apply to you, is a non-sequitur. The two parts are not connected, it’s an assumption. Yes, there are many opinions claiming this is true, but that doesn’t make it true. There has to be facts, some logic connecting the two and there isn’t. This is why Larry, a doctorate of law, could not do it. Nor can anyone else, even Scott Bales, the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Larry is in fine company that way.
I did follow up with Larry and ask that he submit the question to his staff of prosecutors. I don’t think they’ll answer and when asked in court, they can avoid it when their partners in crime, their fellow attorneys, give them a pass.
And yes, the constitution and laws applying are essential to proving jurisdiction and an element of violations they claim happened. You cannot violate a law unless it applies in the first place. I know prosecutors have argued that they prove the laws apply by proving it was violated, but any rational person can see that it’s still a two step process: 1. prove the law applies, then 2. prove it was violated. Can I prove you violated my Frank Rizzo Code if I can’t first prove it applies to you?
Below is my follow-up to Larry. I encourage everyone to edit it appropriately and send you own fax asking Larry to prove his argument is true. Larry is destroying people’s lives, let’s shed some light on his crimes. If you know the stress of being attacked by a prosecutor, then you’ll understand how truly despicable such actions are when they admittedly have no evidence. And they don’t care.