legal exposure because of that and beyond that there was this desire to make this go away, to protect the duke brand to make sure that once it was decided these kids were innocents bad te last thing duke wanted was to try to then have to litigate with them about all of what had happened. the easiest course of action was to pay them this $20 million have them i presume sign nondisparagement agreementagreement s which explains why they haven't talked to me they haven't talked to anybody since they settled but it's not exactly clear why duke felt the need to pay these kids. you know people get unfortunately wrongly convicted all the time and there are places like the innocence project who defends those kinds of people and tries to reverse the judgments that were made.

examples of people he wrongly convicted for murder spending 18 years in prison, 18 years and $20,000 for payment a year as a result. they spend other than their arraignment hour or two no time in jail, no time in prison and they got $20 million. >> several life events to tell you about tomorrow.

>> in 2004 utah voters passed an amendment to the state's constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman effectively banning same-sex marriages. last december the eighth federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. the tenth circuit court of appeals took up the cake -- case last week when many around the country challenging same-sex marriage bans. this is a little more than an hour. >> we are here this morning for one case, her team -- 41. council you may proceed. >> good morning. i'm gene cher and i'm honored to appear on behalf of the state of utah as governor attorney

general here with us today and its people and just for the courts information on going to try to reserve seven minutes for rebuttal. >> you are the master of your own time. >> thank you your honor. the issue before the court is obvious and not how the emotional and difficult issue of same-sex marriage should be decided. the issue is really one of authority. that is whether under the federal constitution the state definitional authority over marriage allows them not only to redefine marriage in genderless terms as the supreme court in winsor held that it does but also to retain the traditional man /-sla/-sla sh woman definition of marriage and to do so through democratic means as new york had done in the opposite direction in winsor. so before i discuss the state interests that are served by utah's man/woman definition and what we see as the serious risk posed by the district court's redefinition of marriage let me

first address why this fundamental question of state authority is governed by the rational basis standard. all of the appellate court decisions that have addressed the federal question presented here including the eighth circuit in rooney the minnesota supreme court in baker versus melton, which we think is still winding on the lower federal courts by virtue of the supreme court's summary affirming that decision, all those decisions have applied rational basis scrutiny rather than heightened scrutiny and they have done that because rational basis is the standard that's it properly deferential to democracy through the district court and the plaintiffs have offered for arguments for some form of heightened scrutiny but none of those as the district court itself recognize the plaintiffs arguments for heightened scrutiny based on sexual orientation is for -- for close by this court's decision in christ cornelis and

in fact most of the plaintiffs of their arguments would imply a right to such thing as polygamist marriages at as the court may know is a significant issue in utah. one example is the argument that the plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. the supreme court has never recognized the chip broad fundamental right to marriage despite being urged by the united states to adopt that very position that they decline to do that in winsor. in fact to the contrary winsor really destroys that the argument as the same-sex marriage by noting that until recently most people considered a man/woman union quote essential to the very definition of the term marriage and that of course means under the supreme court's decision, that means the

alleged right to same-sex marriage is not in fact already so embedded in our laws and our traditions as to be required by order of liberty. >> lets focus on loving for a second. in loving, you had a classification that the state argued, they made an argument in that case as well as it relates to the man and a woman involved but there's a classification. what barred them from getting married was raised and in this instance why is that any different? you have a man who wants to marry another man. the only thing that bars him from getting married is sex, gender so why is that any different than loving when you are at drawing a line based upon a protected classification? why shouldn't this be a situation of evaluating gender for intermediate scrutiny? >> a couple of answers to that

your honor. first of all the supreme court's decision in loving did not intrude into the state of virginia's definitional authority over marriage. the exclusion of mixed-race couples was a regulatory exclusion in effect when you look at the statues that are laid out in the supreme court's opinion they made clear that marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman and then in a separate provision the court made -- the state made it a crime for mixed-race couple to marry. >> which then makes that mixed-race couple of other for purposes of marriage and why is that a different where essentially we are saying this as in other classification and consequently is barred from marriage? >> well your honor for one thing loving was obviously based on the rasul -- racial classification which is subject to higher scrutiny. >> i'm not talking about whether it should get a heightened level

of scrutiny. what i'm talking about is a relates to the question whether it's intermediate scrutiny, not weather gets strict scrutiny. why does it matter for why does it not matter that all turned on this protected classification? in loving it was raisin in this case it's gender. >> i think the answer to that your honor is because in loving the supreme court found that the miscegenation statute was designed to maintain white supremacy. that is it was designed to give whites an advantage over african-americans. by the way even the way the classification works it was racially discriminatory because it treated different races differently. it wasn't just whites versus blacks. there was also discrimination among other races as well. >> the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right whenever the court has spoken

whether cleveland board of education or whether it's in kerry or milliard maynard the hill any of these cases it always speaks of marriage is a fundamental right. we start with that as a first principle and we agree that marriage is a fundamental right. >> marriage as traditionally understood as a fundamental right. >> you argue that the question is not whether marriage here is a right but whether same-sex marriage is a right. have we ever in the court's determination in any of its cases has it ever parsed so finally as to make that kind of a distinction? for example in loving it never spoke in terms in the miscegenation of issues among races for example. >> right. in loving your honor loving is a

good example where the whole presumptipresumpti on in loving was you were talking about a man in marriage because one of the things it supports what it's talking about the importance of the right to marry is that it's fundamental to pro-creating and maintaining the human race. and that's true and the other fundamental right to marry decision. it talked about how people have a fundamental right to marry and raise children in and the traditional family setting. >> why is an example where the court did not parse more finally in terms of defining the fundamental right to marry. it didn't talk about fundamental rights to marry -- so in other words to the argument that was raised by your opposing counsel why does it matter who is claiming the right? it's a fundamental right and why does it matter the participants in that enterprise is marriage

itself which the supreme court is talked about in context other than procreation, why does it matter? >> because your honor this raises the whole question of what marriage is. you really can't answer that, the question of how far the fundamental right to marry extends until you decide what marriages which is the point that justice alito raised in winsor. he said you have on the one hand the traditional child centric vision in which marriage as he put it is essentially and i'm quoting is essentially the solemnization of a comprehensive exclusive union intrinsically ordered to producing new light light -- life even if it doesn't always do so so that's the traditional vision of marriage and that is utah's vision of marriage. on the other hand is he described that you have what has become to be called the consider the relationship vision of marriage which focuses as he

said on mutual commitment. >> here you are quoting justice scalia. >> i'm quoting justice alito. there was and is no disagreement expressed by the members of the supreme court on this point. nobody disputed that there is this fundamental underlying issue about what marriage is. >> there is that issue but the question comes as the supreme court exclusively defined marriage to reflect this conjugal i think that was the term justice alito used it conjugal vision of marriage. >> yes, i think that was justice alito's term as well and the supreme court is not done that and under winsor it wouldn't be appropriate for the supreme court to resolve this fundamental clash of different vision of marriage. that was the whole point of winsor. that's not a proper federal function. that's a proper state function.

the states have as the courts put it virtually complete authority over the definition of marriage. >> and turning to winsor let me tell you what causes me concern. there's no question and i think justice scalia and his descent really highlights it that when the court was speaking in winsor about marriage that it very clearly indicated the direction that it was going to be talking about federalism but in fact when it came time for the dispositive language of winsor is essentially a not even essentially put directly disallowed a decision that would be predicated on federalism and instead turn to equal protection and due process as the deciding element to that case. >> eight i would rest your view and you assert it in your brief but i was not fully persuaded

that your view prevails. that is to say federalism is the only touchstone of that case. >> i agree with you. federalism was not the only touchstone but the federalism premise that the states have virtually complete authority to define marriage was the premise of the court's analysis of the individual rights involved. windsor was very much like the takings case where it's state law that determines the scope of the relevant property right and then you determine under federal law where that's going to take it. that was exactly the style of analysis that windsor undertook. >> didn't windsor include this concept that the states right to define marriage with the qualifications subject to constitutional rights and the one place in particular cited loving for that proposition which would lead us to believe

that yes the state has this authority which everybody's knowledges in marriage but subject to not violating individual rights of the people involved. >> that's absolutely right but also to the loving point your honor this significant the court and went to did not draw an analogy to loving. the district court did below. the court cited loving for the incontestable propositipropositi on that the state's authority is limited by the constitution. again if we are asking is their fundamental right to marry that include same-sex couples you have to first decide what marriage is. and new york and windsor have decided that marriage, they were going to adopt the more modern adult relationship model of marriage such that marriage could be a union of any two people who love each other essentially. >> shelby and his decision is under review, he said that the issue is not the definition of

marriage whether the federal court should impose a the definition of marriage but rather in his exercise of its authority to the state of utah may properly deny a same-sex marriage without violating the federal constitutional principles. that is really the issue before us. >> i agree and i agree that the district court said that your honor but then the court went on at that exact rate what it said it was not going to do. if you look at page 28 of the courts opinion the court gives its own definition of marriage for purposes of a fundamental right. it defines marriage as quote a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. >> it is not particularly

relevant to the ultimate determination, is that? >> does demonstrate the point that you can can answer that question where there's a fundamental right without first deciding what marriage is and that's a decision that is fundamentally left to the courts subject to some constitutional limits as an loving and other cases. but the states have virtually plenary authority to decide what model of marriage are we going to adopt an estate? somewhat amonte and point for a moment. you said you were representing the governor and the attorney general of utah. the sole purpose in salt lake city was -- and he is not a forest. i believe she is technically an accolade but she has not appeared. what is the authority of the governor and the attorney general of utah with respect to enforcement of these particular

provisions, the band and the nonrecognitirecogniti on klaus? what authority beyond law enforcement of utah does the governor and the attorney general have? >> they have the authority to determine the policies for example of state government agencies whether those agencies will recognize marriage or not and that has become a big issue in light of the absence of his day in this case. there were number of couples that were married and is under the governor's and attorney general's authority to decide how the agencies of the state are going to treat those marriages. >> but do they have the authority ,-com,-com ma i mean the two allegations here are one and there may be more but the two principles are one the plaintiffs want to be married and are being denied the right to be married in 21 marriage exists and they want to wreck a nice as a marriage. what direct role does the governor attorney general have been either one of those cases?

recognizing foreign marriages that have been established? >> they set the policy for the agencies of the state government perspective for example with respect to marriages undertaken outside the state that will go to the state agencies. for example the state taxing and revenue authority and that authority will have to determine are we going to recognize this couple is married for tax purposes are not in the governor and attorney general ken -- >> it seems to me the governor and attorney general would have broad plenary authority with respect to the enforcement of amendment 3 but let me ask you this because our time will run short. the children of marriage couples whose marriages have been recognized in another state such as iowa, how will the state treats the children of those

couples given amendment 3 in the statutory scheme and how can that treatment be squared with your argument of the marriage institution being a child centric institution? >> to answer the more technical question first your honor, let me answer the second first. in fact there is no question that the children of same-sex couples would likely be better off if their guardians are parents were allowed to marry just as the children of some 40,000 to a must people in utah would be better off. >> we can talk about polygamy another day but let's talk about gay marriage today. >> but the state has to worry about both of those things at

the same time your honor and that's why i mention it. virtually all legislation classifies in some way with resulting disadvantage is to some group of individuals. >> in this case children. >> the question is are the state's interest, are they legitimate first of all and the policy the state has chosen to stop policy adequately advance those interests and on that point your honor if i could i would like to discuss --. >> can we return to my first question first. how will the state of utah treat and recognize the status of children of couples, of gay couples that have been married in a state in which that marriage was properly recognized but then came to utah? >> i'm sorry your honor.

>> this is important because i would like to get an answer. >> dancers very simple. under amendment 3 the state is not allowed to recognize those marriages in any form. the federal government recognizes them so those couples and their children are able to get federal benefits now but the state is not allowed under amendment 3 to recognize them. >> doesn't that stigmatize those children and wasn't that cicely the concern that justice kennedy expressed in windsor and to some degree motivated his decision in that case? >> i think the stigma he was talking about specifically was the stigma of being in a second-class marriage. the couples in windsor were actually married under state law that section 2 or section 3 of doma told them even though you are legally married under state law the federal governmengovernmen t is not

going to recognize your marriage and that essentially made them participants in second-class marriages and the court held that for that reason. there's no question that there are trade-offs and policies like this. the real question is what question is whether the state question is whether the state's interest in their those interests of vision to justify utah's decision to retain their traditional man woman definition of marriage and again under the rational basis standard because it's deferential to democracy that standard will invalidate declassification only if it doesn't serve any legitimate interest. here there are at least four state interest that i would like to discuss briefly that pertains to parenting and indeed are some of the main reasons the state of utah recognizes and gives benefit to married couples in the first place and those interests also give rise to the risks we have identified in our

brief. >> are there any adjudicative facts that are controverted in this case as it sits before us today? >> i don't think so your honor. i think all of the relevant facts are legislative facts. >> is an adjudicative facts? >> the district court rejected the court paramus but the first case i would like to discuss is the state's interest in gender diverse parenting which reflects justice brennan's commonsense view of discussing the boeing case that the best situation for child is to have both involved mother and an involved father and gender diversity and parenting we think is as legitimate governmental interest as the interest in gender and racial diversity which the supreme court has held is a compelling interest. indeed gender diversity was one

of the reasons that the new york court of appeals plurality in hernandez concluded that new york's man-woman definition had a rational basis or you might ask how does the definition of fans that interest? one answer in the supreme court's decision in johnson versus robinson withholds that a classification that in is one group and not another is rational if the included group is in general differently situated with respect to legitimate governmental interest. >> and i agree with you that the state of utah may indeed have legitimate points to make on that but let me say parenthetparenthet ically. i believe i found my colleagues did as well the amicus briefs to be particularly helpful in a broad range of topics that were very helpful to enlighten us on the point. now to the point, your first

that utah has these policies what i don't understand is how pursuing those policies somehow is contradictory to allowing a stable relationship between nonheterosexual couples? i mean why is a heterosexual couple more likely to get married if gay couples aren't allowed to get married? why is the relationship between a heterosexual couple and their children likely to be stronger if merely because gay couples aren't allowed to have a sexual relationship? >> at and understand the causal connection between the two. >> your honor talking about amicus brief there is an amicus brief that carol addresses. that very point with respect to the children of heterosexual couples, but let's take for a

moment the state's interest in gender diverse parenting to answer that question. we believe that redefining marriage in general is terms and moving from the man-woman definition and the man-woman definition inherently although subtly conveys the message and justice kennedy said the man-woman marriage sends a message that a mom and dad are important. when you redefine marriage and genderless terms message and norm in the law. as professor hawkins and carol say one of the messages of that heterosexual men is we really don't need to have a happy marriage or productive marriage and we really don't need for your children because we have now set up as the alternative arrangement where two women can

get married and they could be impregnated artificially and they could create their own family without a man. that is the message that teaches in justice kennedy's words that gender is not really that important and the deaths are not that important. in that regard i just wanted to share with the court something that i found it in one of the record materials that we submitted and i don't think we highlighted it in our brief but it's on page 983 of the appendix. this is an explanation from a commentator by the name of maggie gallagher about why fathers especially are important in the lives of their kids and why they play a unique and valuable and important role. she says what avoids experiencing the love of a dependable father is a deep personal experience of masculinity that is post-social pro-woman and pro-child.

without this personal experiences maleness abe boy who like all human beings are at least all boys is deeply driven to seek some meaning from masculinity and vulnerable to a variety of peer and market-driven alternative definitions of masculinity and those are often grounded in aggression, physical strength and sexual proclivity. she continues that the importance of a the father in giving a boy a deeply prosocial sense of his own masculinity may be one reason why one large national study found that boys raised outside of intact marriages were two to three times more likely to commit a crime leading to prison. >> were those marriages gay couples or a marriages from divorce and are you pointing to divorce is the problem board game marriage is a problem? >> we are pointing to fatherlessness in general as the problem and one of the norms of

the current man-woman definition of marriage and the current conjugal vision of marriage is that moms and dads are important. they play independent complementary but important roles and if you change the definition of marriage you are as the district court demonstrates you are necessarily changing the vision of marriage that is embodied in the law and the law being a teacher that has real-world effect on individuals or at least your honor there is a significant risk that will happen. same-sex marriage is to knew obviously is justice alito pointed out in winter for there to be conclusive statistical evidence about its impact. >> on that ground it seems to me how do you pronounce the name? professor at merris as recently as yesterday it seemed you were backpedaling in support of his

theory that same-sex marriage relationships we have inferior result is a relates to childrearing. it is that true and what is left of your support for his theory if anything? >> we want to be sure that the court understands that we are not trying to overstate what his studies show. the bottom line from all of that is that, and the judge in detroit recognize the same that. the bottom line is that the science is inconclusive. >> it's inconclusive and we are anything above a rational basis you lose on that point, right? >> i don't think so your honor. the court can also rely on common sense and rely on the fact that this is still new. they can rely on the fact that the state is responding to the risk and governments are

entitled to legislate and regulate on the basis of risk that they perceive to their populations even when those risks have not been proven to be a problem. >> is that under intermediate or strict scrutiny? >> they say at a minimum that a legitimate mode of inquiry under intermediate scrutiny and we cited those in our briefs. >> thank you your honor. thank you. >> good morning your honors. >> you want to pull the

microphone down please. >> so regarding about that. i'm not quite as tall. good morning. i am peggy tomczyk and i'm here on behalf of the plaintiffs and appellees. as this court knows the people of the united states in 1869 amended our constitution to add the 14th amendment. that amendment became part of our federalist system and remain so today. under the 14th amendment, the people of this nation wanted to ensure that no state could treat citizens within its jurisdiction unequally or deprive them of their fundamental rights and liberty interests. every state, including the state

of utah is downed by the guarantees and protections of the 14th amendment for every single citizen in its state. utah's marriage discrimination laws violate plaintiffs and other same-sex couples living in utah, equal protection rights and due process rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. >> what is the outstanding review on this case? >> i'm sorry? >> it is a de novo review because it is a legal issue your honor. >> all right and what level of scrutiny should we apply to this case? >> our position your honor is that with regard to the equal protection claims this court should apply a heightened level of scrutiny either based on the

careful consideration and political framework established in the windsor decision which began in roemer or under a gender or sexual orientation suspect classification. >> what do we do in the price case? >> your honor with all due respect we disagree with the states and judge shelby's interpretation of that decision. in that decision that plaintiff who had asserted below that strict, not intermediate scrutiny, applied in that case did not resent that issue on appeal. therefore the language of the court first was talking about strict scrutiny and it had nothing to do with the issue before the court that was being decided at that time.

>> it's we disagree with you, says price cornelius speak to both due process and equal protection arguments or does it. >> only to due process and not equal protection or vice versa? >> your honor our reading of that case is that the case speaks to equal protection and not due process because in this particular case we have made the claim in the district court found that there is a fundamental right to marriage protected by the due process clause and where you have a fundamental right that is intruded upon this allows the courts traditionally have applied strict scrutiny which is the highest level of scrutiny is your honors know. price cornelius on the price

case would you acknowledge there is a distinction between sexual orientation as a suspect classification and sex and gender? in other words they are two distinct things. there could be a basis for intermediate scrutiny for a gender/sex discrimination that doesn't exist for sexual orientation discrimination. >> that is exactly right your honor and we have asked this court to apply heightened scrutiny based on either one of those classifications and in fact i know you are not bound by judge shelby's claims but he did find amendment 3 and the related marriage discrimination statute violated the claimant's rights because of gender discrimination. >> you was basically in a rational review was it not? >> my understanding of his decision your honor is what he said was that while there was

gender-based discrimination which would be prior heightened scrutiny he did not need to reach that issue because the laws failed under rational basis review. standard rational tases review just because you disagree the states reason doesn't make it irrational, does that? >> no your honor and i don't leave that as their argument. rational basis review is this court in a number of decisions has acknowledged and certainly the supreme court in a number of decisions has acknowledged that while it is a deferential standard to the legislature it is not a toothless standard and it may not need-based on flimsy rationales that have no footing in reality. our point is. >> do we then get to issue a fat

that we need to have a trial on? is the summary judge? one rationale and the other side is presented by another. can the court make that determination based on a bunch of sociological papers that were presented? >> i would like to answer that in three parts if i could your honor. first of all if you look at the state interest that have been asserted here they are fundamentally and in fact word for word in some instances the same rationales asserted by flagg before the supreme court in winter and winter without a trial found that none of those justifications overcame the purpose or effect to disadvantaged and harm the children. >> didn't it focus on the fact that the state had approved and adopted a particular standard?

they agreed that gay marriage or same-sex marriage is a better term i think, would be permitted and under doma the federal government was interfering with that state's decision and the fact that it may have also impacted children and people, it was there certainly. >> your honor our reading of windsor is a little broader than that and that is that while the courts certainly talked about the states power to govern in this area of defining marriage and regulating marriage, the court went on to expressly hold that it was striking -- striking down doma because it violated basic principles of due process and equal protection. the court in fact was looking at the violations of the liberty and equal protection interest

protected by the fifth amendment when it struck down doma and the injury and harm is exactly the same type of injury and harm that occurs with regard to these marriage discrimination laws. in fact the state of utah has conceded the harms that the plaintiffs have alleged and in fact demonstrated in fact exists as a result of those but lemay come back to your question on it on the question of summary judgment. the other thing i think is important your honor is second no party in this case believes there is any material issue or fact. if anything the sociological study presents legislative facts >> you are saying that the legislative facts, you just ignore those. >> no, what i'm saying is first legislative facts would not be subject to a trial. even with regard to social

science and i think you saw it when the state-backed away and gave its reliance on the study is there is no study presented to this court that in fact measures the only issue that existed as one of the state's primary arguments which was that same-sex parenting is not as good as what they called the man-woman marriage. there isn't the simple sociological studies they cited that is on point. every organization in this nation that is responsible for the mental and physical health of children and adolescents with over 40 years of testing testin. >> not marriage are honored that same-sex couples in long-term

relationships and raising children for many many years. >> is that he has been criticized for having small samples of not having the analytical roof -- records that would allow us to come to conclusions that might question it seems to me is this is going to turn out to be the standard of review and let me hear you respond to this. it seems to me we end up in a situation where the best the state can say is that it's and conclusive whether same-sex marriage will result in inferior results and there is a debate about that. the question that i asked to posing counsel on that particular point they lose. do you agree? >> i absolutely agree. >> well this is what you may not agree with. given that same question on a rational basis review i don't see how you win. it's and conclusive than they have a risk and they have a valid tases to address it.

again he gets back to the point judge kelly made. they have a disagreement so why can't the state do what it wants to do? >> with all due respect your honor i disagree with you and i want to look at it from this point of view. under the rational basis there are really two requirements. one is that there needs in independent and legitimate state interest and let's assume they need that because there is arguable disagreement. we don't agree with that but let's say that stated in the record. the second part of the test requires that there be a nexus between that state interest and the classifications that issue. in this case the classification is the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

>> you are taking the position that they are just wrong and if they were correct and there was some type of a nexus i disagree with your nexus. we have the legislative and a democratic situation here. we have people that have voted in the legislature and if they thought there was something there they just say you are wrong and that the group stands up and says loud enough will ignore what the people have decided and what the legislature has done. why should we discriminate against people that want to have two wives or three wives versus three who want to marry same gender? it seems to me it all goes together. >> i think there are a number of questions in there your honor. >> there are a number of questions and i would like to interpose one as well. this pertains to all of you.

i think the overarching question to all of these points is that the very arguments made in baker v. nelson here were made in the supreme court in the decisions that were considered by justice kennedy. the very argument about scrutiny and the level of scrutiny were presented to the supreme court as well and yet the supreme court in deciding windsor did not choose to pick a particular label placed under the scrutiny that it chose to apply but any reading of that has led every single federal court that is looked at the issue after windsor to conclude that even under the most relaxed rational basis that the law does not

allow discriminatory behavior that is at issue in these types of cases. my question is, does windsor trump all of judge kelly and judge holmes and i'll judge lucero's questions on this point? >> our position is that it is that i will get to why it doesn't matter even if you go on a rational basis review and i will get back to you judge kelly if i can assert judge lucero. your questions are very good. windsor in fact trumps any arguments that the only level of review that these types of laws are subject to his rational basis. the reason i say that is while

windsor never put a label on the scrutiny that it was applying, what it did is it looked to the roemer decision where the supreme court struck down the second 2nd amendment to the colorado constitution. where roemer said, where you have a law that categorizes a group of people based on a single trait which in the case was being gay or, that is a rare lot in our jurisprudence and where you have discriminated against and treated similarly for the purpose of making them unequal, the court applies careful consideration to make sure that the purpose and effect of those laws are not to harm

the class. in windsor in looking at the analysis in roemer applied a careful consideration analysis and in reading it does not resemble rational aces. it says the beginning point is to look at the designed purpose and practical effect of the law. if you find and even if you just look at the text of the law as you can certainly do under this court's decision to determine if there is an intent to discriminate and you find that the purpose and effect is to treat this class separately, separatelseparatel y and make them unequal and you have these kinds of harms that the state concedes exists in this case probably to a higher extent than they existed in doma is every

day these utah citizens lives that they must face the stigma, the harm of being treated as second-class citizens. the burden shifts to the state and the state must come forward with legitimate interests that overcome the principle purpose and practical effect that damages these individuals who are the targets. >> let me interject here. legitimate interest language of heightened scrutiny? i think that's rational basis talk, is that? >> the word legitimate interest comes from rational basis your honor but the analysis that the court used in windsor is not a rational basis analysis. the legitimate interest of the supreme court in windsor found did not overcome the purpose and effect are the same interests that are being asserted here by the court. >> that that's a unanimous

argument isn't it and judge shelby didn't find animus and i'm struggling to see how that is applicable here. i think the hernandez case out of the new york court of appeals where the court spoke about the notion that up until 2010 no one even thought of the notion of recognizing its illegal matter so what has utah done is invalidated the historical practice forever. how could that he viewed on the same footing as roemer where they went in to essentially say that same-sex couples are anybody on sexual orientation grounds -- those are two different things, aren't they? >> they are not your honor. in roemer but the court is looking at was what does the target to? in other words how are you differentiating between his classes of individuals and are you differentiating to treat

them unequal he? if that is the situation that is the very rare type of law and you can talk about semantics but there is no question looking at the text of the other marriage discrimination laws this is the only thing those laws did was target same-sex couples and made them unequal. none of those laws establish the right to marry, gave benefits or gave incentives. their only purpose and effect was to exclude same-sex olds from marriage or marriage racket yeshion. speedway couldn't be viewed as saying the only purpose and effect was to validate what has been an historical practice for eons? why could we say that's all they're doing? we want to be clear this practice is the one that utah supports, period. >> because your honor when you

have at least three statutes and the constitutional amendment that is directed in excluding only one class of individuals from marriage is not to reaffirm it is to exclude and if you follow the analysis of windsor and let me start with the text of amendment 3. if you look at what they did, in the first part what they did was they said only men and women can marry but they didn't stop there. that is not validation. >> they stop there would that be okay? >> no, they would not exist they are treating same-sex couples unequally. >> when you draw a line don't did some cases you are overinclusive in other cases you are underinclusive investment may get irrational because

everyone is not in the same class if you will? >> your honor let me try to answer should that question if i could. first of all there's no question that under rational basis review that does not need to be a perfect fit. but the law is clear and i think you can look at roemer where they found that while overinclusive van underinclusive and that's exactly what we have here. it is underinclusive because it doesn't prohibit people from getting married who do not want to procreate or can't procreate. it is overinclusive because it keeps out same-sex couples who already have children or want to procreate. if you look at this sub lucky case the court in that case in striking down the state law that kept single people from getting contraceptives, they said when you have a law that is so

riddled with exceptions the court cannot find a rational relationship or a nexus between whatever state purposes is trying to assert in accomplishing that purpose. i want to go back to the separate part of amendment 3 if i could. the state of utah just doesn't treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens in part a. it goes on to punctuate the point by saying no legal relationship will ever be recognized that gives the same rights and benefits that opposite sex couples get if they get married. if you are talking about animus your honor you are not talking about people being mean spirited or having ill will. animist is used by the supreme court of the united states both in roemer and is expressed in

windsor. it's talking about an improper purpose. >> you have an animus issue in this case do you? >> judge shelby found there was no animus if that is your question. our argument is yes there is animus. >> that's a fact opinion issue. >> no it is not your honor. >> i beg to differ with you. you cannot take a legislator statement on either side of an issue and tag legislation one way or the other. we have never done that in the past. >> look at the text of the document. if you simply look at the text of amendment 3 the intent to exclude same-sex couples to make them equal is inherently on the face -- speeds of violation of their public policy. to permit same gender marriage.

they may be wrong but does that express from a legal standpoint that they will be mean-spirited and bigoted? >> your honor we understand the term animus. it's a constitutional term of art that has nothing to do with how good or bad --. >> sure it does. if the legislative body does something deliberately to hurt somebody that's one thing. if they do something that is for the good of the whole in their opinion not to hurt anybody, we can just ignore what the legislation has done and say we don't like that so you're animus is bad. ..

>> it differently answers the question. before you sit down i need a raise the of the end of article three jurisdiction. i come pair and juxtaposed this case to bits of. in a non panel decision we held

that there was an article three jurisdiction because they only sued the attorney general and the governor and that in that situation those two individuals could not affect causation for purposes of article three jurisdiction. why is that case in a different than this one in which usage. the clerk of court is now on appeal. number two, it would seem to me that that creates a fundamental basis of concern about where the jurisdiction lies in this case. >> your honor, let me answer this a little more broad. it is not just the general power of the gunner and the attorney general with regard to those matters. >> that's all that is in your complaints. >> let me say one other thing. what is also in this record is

because it was in the motion to stay that was before this court, is the state has taken the position that it can have and does direct with the county clerks to, grabbing them from counting marriage licenses and allowing them to grant licenses so it is not simply a question of what the general authority these individuals have. it is the fact that in carrying out those authorities they, in fact, exercise that authority within the very well on the issues which are before your court which is, does it violate the equal protection clause and as a violent due process. if in fact does and the attorney general and governor, as they did in this case, basically

allowed the county clerk's not to issue the license, it is not just simply a general authority. >> that is a reasonable response what i want to understand is, would it be your position -- and i'm going to dig into this later, but would it be your position the utah law would authorize the governor and the attorney general to essentially control the action of the county court. this situation would not be like bishop where they have general authority in that was it. >> it gives this court jurisdiction under article three. i want to adjust and if i could and ask that you affirmed the district court's opinion striking down these discriminatory laws that have no basis under in the rubble of

scrutiny for these laws are not the type of lawns that our constitution will permit because, as the coroner said before, the constitution does not allow class's between its citizens. a thank you for your time. >> you have a little bit of time left. >> two minutes. and we will give you an extra two minutes. >> thanks, your honor. very briefly identified a couple of questions from members of the panel. first of all, i realize i did not finish my answer to you under question about sex discrimination. the problem was that there was an intention on the part of the legislature to disadvantaged one class of people, one race of people.

similarly in the sex discrimination context where there is no racial discrimination which is trier on the basis of sex, you have to establish an intention to advantage one sex at the expense of the other command there is no suggestion that the definition of marriage is designed to a advantage males over females. to your question about windsor, and this could be a much longer conversation. in fact, the planters interpretation which has been picked up by all of the federal district courts to address this issue. i agree with you on that, but they are not -- they're reading of the opinion does not account for the fact that at the end of the opinion it says this opinion as well as the conclusion are limited to those couple that have been legally married under state law secondly, the accord

says in several places -- >> on that point i hate to cut into your time. they're is a case -- there are pointers here for myra who are badly married, but they come to utah. they can never been married. there has been locked. that seems to be more like dread scott, a citizenship even with the obtained citizenship. i dread scott comes back and says, now i am entitled with the cloak of protection of the united states constitution. missouri says no. under azeri policy it will never allow you that. an identical to the situation. >> congress expressly tell with that very problem in section two

which covers the effect of a same-sex marriage in one state. congress exercising its authority and of the full faith and credit costs said that that marriage in oklahoma does not have to be recognized in utah. and that provision was not challenged in this case. if that provision had been challenged this would be a different case as to the people who are married in oklahoma. but to go back to windsor, there are so many other aspects that are simply left on the cutting room floor and the opinions that have been written by these various district courts. the court, as we discussed before, repeatedly said that marriage and especially the definition of marriage and the court drew of distinction between the definition of authority and regulatory authority. the courts of the definition of marriage was virtually the exclusive province of the state. and then at the end of the

windsor opinion the court talks about, again, the importance of the state as mechanisms for developing community consensus about important social issues. well, if that is true then essentially what the other side says is that, yes, the federal government, the accord weren't telling the federal government you need to buy out of interfering with the state's definition of authority over marriage. but they assumed that by the same -- at the same time with a wink and and not the court was telling federal courts that day should interfere with and entered into the state's definition of authority over marriage, and that makes no sense of all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the netting. in recept's -- in recess. >> during the first week of the congressional black the supreme court's oral arguments so far

this session. tomorrow at 4:50 p.m. eastern mccourt considers whether a company can patent a computerized risk analysis of international financial transactions. the case could determine what types of software and business methods are eligible for patents . >> on a special book tv program in containing over the next several hours as we focus on navy s.e.a.l.s. in a few moments, the tale from the training ground to the battlefield with elite navy seals k-9. no less than an hour the authors of codename johnnie walker, the extraordinary story of the iraqi who risked everything to fight with the u.s. navy seals. then author of eyes on target to my inside stories from the brother of the u.s. navy seals. later, a panel discussion featuring howard ruston he wrote

a book about s.e.a.l. team six. >> cryptology is an ancient art that goes back to the beginning of human history. we don't quite go back that far, but we do have some interesting artifacts that help people to understand just how long people have been making and breaking codes and the need for cryptology. when we talk about the united states, it is important to note that the making and breaking of codes as been a part of america even before we gain our independence. one of our most precious artifacts is referred to as the jefferson cypher device. now, truth in advertising, it is important to note that we don't have any definitive, conclusive evidence that this particular device belonged to thomas jefferson. but there are some interesting facts about it.

one, this device was found in an antique store very close to monticello. it appears to have the ability to cypher french and english commander in of the jefferson, of course, was ambassador to france. probably the most compelling point is there is a of drawing very similar to this and jefferson's private papers. even so, we cannot say for sure that jefferson owned it. what we can say is that this is an excellent example of how people used cryptology in the 19th century. >> from the nsa national corporation the logic museum, making and breaking secret codes sunday at six and 10:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend. >> and now his book tried to k-9 warriors, might tale from the training ground to the battlefield.

from the savannah but festival this as a little more than 45 minutes. [applause] >> good morning. first of all, i would like to thank the savannah book festival for having me here. you know, what they're doing is a marvelous thing. it gives a lot of authors access to venues like this to be able to talk about what they do and what they're passionate about. you know, first and foremost of like to thank them for bringing me here. secondly, i would like to thank everyone and is sitting at your for taking interest in what is that i do and the book they wrote : the message that i would like to convey in terms of the importance of military working dogs and the different types of missions that they're doing, the wonderful things that they're capable of without your guys to

support this would not exist. thank you for coming in supporting me in the book. first and foremost, and just start to go over my background in terms of how my gun involved, especially how it relates to military working don't. i grew up in northern ireland. in northern ireland there is not a lot to do other than farm to wrestle, and hunt. it was kind of -- no and say it's necessarily a destiny as opposed to just picking one of the few things that there is to do. i got involved in bird dogs early on in been a lot of my friends had been. it was the kind of my body and the gateway into the doe. but at an early age a recognized and appreciated the different genetic traits that all these

talks possessed in terms of their ability to use denims, you know, their steadfastness in terms of what they're willing to go through from an environmental standpoint, cold water bursting through brush and thorns, just tough talks that were motivated to do the type of work that we or asking. i noticed even as i young child just of the dog's ability to use their nouns. then what is to actually use the wind to their advantage and would find things that for me was very surprising that they were able to do. it was kind of a foreshadowing in terms of what i do now and where it led me ultimately. that fascination, the ability to use and as is something that frankly is why they're so valuable. i did not realize at that age. to me it was just cool to see a

dog that in the dead of winter could snake back and forth and barry is known as 12 inches in to this note and find a ketchup packets that had been open six weeks earlier. to me it was neat to see something like that. obviously the applications that i got involved later on were much more serious. i spent a number of years with friends. the dollar should go out and we would do ducker bird hunting. i just always marvel that the dollar's ability to do what they did. once i graduated as cool and joined the navy. seventeen, right at a high school. as soon as i graduated went to boot camp. six months after boot camp i went into basic underwater demolition seal training. i completed that. after that i went through more

specialized training and so you get to an actual seal team. know is there for a number of years. while i was there an prior to that i got into a hot hunting dogs, pit bulls which i talk about a little bit. again, i found myself just really marveling at the physical characteristics that these dogs possess in a similar way to the bird dogs, but now there was an added element in that there was true forward natural aggression that these dogs possess or other animals. again, i found myself very impressed by their tenacity and the will to succeed, will to win and their ability to take down animals two, three, four times their size. it was at that point where i really got into the animal husbandry aspects where i paid really close attention to nutrition and conditioning from

of veterinary aspect. and learned a lot in terms of patching dogs out after they would get injured. and i learned just about every aspect of racing dollar is from an animal husbandry standpoint. i started to get into the genetic theory of breeding and blood lines and how they affect the different aspects of the breeding program and why it's important to pay attention to inbreeding in line greedy and getting really into the weeds. after that i just got more and more involved in terms of every aspect of managing. i had a number in which i read and raised in trained for hunting or working purposes. and the deployment in 2003 there

was a marine detachment that had a single purpose explosion detection. what he did was essentially alerted on a cave complex. there was a small doorway that was not much bigger than one person could get through a time. a group of marines are getting ready to go inside. the dow was taking back and forth, all this change in behavior. immediately right inside the doorway he sat down and stared which was the indication that there was an explosive of prison upon close inspection of that story there was a clump of grenades that was attached to a booby trap right inside the doorway. for me without question that was my light switch moment in terms of really realizing the potential that these stocks had sandoval that there were a will to play in augmenting mankind

overseas in the battlefield. from that day ford i was star for knowledge in terms of working dogs as it relates to military and police type work. i've found it very fitting and very powerful. from their earliest recorded time a battle there is one constant in terms of will we still use even today. we have billions if not trillions of dollars invested in smart bombs and drones and laser-guided everything and night vision. thermal and weapon systems and ammunition. of their earliest recorded * there is one constant on the use of canines.

they used talks dogma themselves in battle. to me it really speaks to that truism of man's best friend. not only had a great pets and companions that they are also directs that same our lines. we literally depend on them. when i was finished with my time a team terry i moved on to an and structural. the nice thing about that is it give me a little bit of a break in terms of an operational standpoint. i was able to really get into the weeds and a dog craning as it relates to military work. a trend of the number of different clubs and groups in units, organizations that really gave me have very well-rounded perspective of what dogs did, how they did, the right ways to

train, rahway's to train, all the different multitudes of ways that these stars are incorporated into military service. and there is truly -- this guy is the limit mentality in terms of what you can do. i realize that quickly. the only thing that limited as as human beings to what we can do with these dog was ourselves. you know, if we looked at it from a training perspective and really put our minds to it there is almost nothing that we could not do. was very i opening to me, the level of capability and capacity that you can get these talks to. as i transition to get ready to get out of the navy is one the regular teams started implementing their own program. it is frustrating from a military standpoint. as a former special operator and

that dog programs were used before within the special warfare communities, back in vietnam there was a number of years they used most of them. guys got to where they were pretty season chandler's of very experienced, and you had a train the dogs of all orthodox, deployed with them. and like a lot of programs that are very expensive and from a building standpoint manpower and resources are to maintain. when budget cuts come like they usually do programs like that are unfortunately one of the first things to go because they are so labor-intensive. so the program left. there is not a single special operations unit that still used canines from the end of vietnam until post 9/11. with few exceptions are not chair police would augment different units for certain

capacities there was no self-sufficient entities in terms of programs. the programs are no different than a police unit, special operations group, military branch in that it is not a light switch type of application. you cannot turn and often 20 years later since get them back going of flip the light switch on. no different than a special operations unit. you cannot disband the special operations and then ten years later something happens and let's just get the guys going in again. he became very apparent that with all the work we were doing in afghanistan and later on military working dogs or something that were of enormous value. at first they started using military police dogs with their handlers and trying to

incorporate them in that capacity in the but they were limited in terms of the ability of the dogs and the operators because military police guys are not special operations guys. there can be a conflict in terms of the level of dynamic nature. once each unit kind of figured out that they needed their own program pretty much each year it devise their own pro room. because each group of weather rangers, green berets, special warfare, in any of the other counter-terrorism units, there is a different enough mission to where each group really needs its own program. it's not part of the program. they're all self-sufficient and down from the ground of. it is something that from the big picture standpoint it's hard

for a lot of people to understand the level the special operations troops operate and really dictates the beach there was a stumbling process for a number of groups because dogs unlike any of a tool, and they use the word to not in a disrespectful manner. the fact is that they are remarkable an incredibly valuable but a tool that we use to help dogmatists. in and it is the tool is like anything else you have to learn how to use it properly. talks on like any other thing that we use whatever platform you want to apply, pretty cut and dry. usually a piece of mechanical equipment. guys are relatively familiar

from having to use other similar pieces of equipment. when you get to a dog gets a completely different animal. but it is. being able to read a dog, to a truly understand what that dog is communicating, what is with and from his body language is something that takes years to develop, it takes an enormous amount of experience from both of volume standpoint and it is parity between different dogs because they are individuals the same way uni our with different characteristics and personalities of genetic traits and passed life experiences that all forged and dictate how they respond to certain some areas. until you have experienced all of these different training environments it is very difficult to understand what that dog is feeling and thinking and how he is going to respond. the only way you can manage in shape and dictate how that are response is to understand where

he is coming from and then also use trainers and handlers, our body language to communicate back to the dollar was expected. and that honestly transfers to pet dogs, any type of working dog, zoo animal. animals are almost overwhelmingly nonverbal communicator's. so it is our job to be able to communicate back to them through our body language what it is that we expected them. you have to reinforce the behavior to get it to occur again and it is that simple, but to teach someone that is not a weekend course or a three day seminar. it is years of experience. for every unit there were a lot of lessons learned far away, docks not doing what they needed to be doing, going overseas with the men in nonperforming up to par oval we needed them to do. it was a steep learning curve.

a lot of the handlers and trainers and other operators in a manner or drinking from a fire hose, as it were, in terms of what their woman wants the kinks and the bucks began to get worked out there was a very fluid operational capacity that the dog now played. most of the operators have been overseas and operated before, knew what to expect. auction been operating for several years and everything was getting hammered out. things start to transition. dahlia a gun to the point where every unit has multiple stocks. they are doing a fantastic job. the things that they're doing the repairs she would talks are doing any of the number of high-level different types of missions that we do in the environment that we operate within with the guys that operate with them, a truly

remarkable and speaks to the versatility of dollars in general in terms of what you can get them to do. moving forward to my was at a crossroads personally with my life. at the end of 2008i could honor stay in the navy and become one of the handlers are leon and be part of the program or i could separate from the navy and start my own company and try to have a larger impact in terms of talks, training, supplying different scenarios and, you know, training courses for the military, providing traders. it was a tough decision for me personally, one that from a selfish standpoint, if i'm looking at it just selfishly, what i want to do, want to stay in the indiana. it is one thing that was a very

tough decision for me to make. instead of being anti and getting them one-on-one time and doing the dance on going to try to make a bigger impact, get out , a former company and provide a multitude of services. ultimately and obviously that is what i ended up doing. it was very important and dear to my heart to try to make as big a difference as i could command a different that when i joined the navy. the reason i went into the seal teams is because i wanted to make a large impact that i could i have always kind of taken that train of thought. what is going to make the biggest impact. thus far it has worked out pretty well. it was still a very difficult decision for me to say i'm going to forgo or want to do personal and try to make a larger impact and do the greater good for the entire community. i started my own company.

we did a lot of government for a whole host of different clients and a number of different capacity. some were going into a drag on programs. some are going into homeland security for airports tough. some are going to department of defense for military type work. i realized very quickly that, again, this was something that the level of the impact that these talks can enact and the role that the play is much bigger than me or any one person that's why there are a multitude of people just like me it knew the exact same thing. number of vendors and companies that provide more services. a few years and to have in my company we secured the training contract for a special operations unit. myself and one other employee went out and were trainers.

for me it was, i would say, the best of everything for me. you know, i had put several years into the dock company. now i was back to where i own the company that was providing trainers and dogs and training for the same group that i had representative. and it's something that i'll always be proud of and be just tickled to death to have been a part of because it put everything together for me. once i decided to write the book was essentially approached by my publisher. in one of the biggest reasons was the amount of information on misinformation, lack of information that is out there or has been out there as it relates to military god's, especially in special operations groups. there is just a ton of misinformation and also a lot of

just american citizens that have no idea that dogs are used or and a minimum used in the capacity of they are. you know, it cannot be overstated how important these dogs are. there are naturally tends of thousands of american troops who are here today because of dogs like these. it just, you know, for me it's important that -- it was and still is important that everyone realizes that. it was a tough decision to write the book because of the amount of exposure. guys like me typically aren't ones that want to be in the spotlight and want people to know who they are what they do or what they have done. again, i was kind of at a crossroads. you know, do i stay on keeping the low profile and just providing the work or does it make more sense to put on high light on these and make the entire public understand just

how vital they are, important they are and how lifesaving they are. again command would have been easier to just keep doing what i was doing. none of you would be sitting here and no one would know who i am. again, one of the packet post vietnam programs getting turned off or here in the next year or two when things are wind down to the point where from a penny pinchers and pocket dozen makes sense to keep these expensive programs my hope is that there is enough interest and passion behind the general public to keep these programs going because they are so vital. once i decided to write the book i wrote it. it's largely been a great experience for me in terms of the feedback that i've got, the questions that i get asked and the melson messages that i get

from people that say, you know, i have absolutely no idea that dogs were used the way that they are. people are just behind. they are excited about it. they supported. from that time i started my company and providing all of these talks from day one it was always on the front side. you know, i put it on a lot into providing turner services. one of the things that i realized quickly was that on the back end there was not much of a support structure. in fact, there was essentially none as it relates to a special operations. once they're done, whether it be from come and injuries to my combat stress related mental issues were just old age does like guys like me get to a certain date in can do the job of the and they're is doing a

the level we need to, it's time for us to ride out to pasture and go do something else. dogs of the same way. i realize there was not release any support structure. and it honestly happened by accident and that there was a unit that approached me and said we have these two dogs, but wounded, but almost nine years old, time to retire. we don't have the capacity to do what we need to do. a lot of people when they first year and are of a bit anchored. let me clarify that one thing that you have to realize about any operational unit is that there job first and foremost is to be operationally ready. and while no one wants to know that there is not a place for these talks to go, which there is, but a lot of people assume that. why don't the unit's take care of them? welcome other reason why is it good to tracks from being

operational ready in because we're taking care of talks who are retired and he can't get the resources necessary to train and equip the existing guns and that's one of those necessary evils, conflict of interest where you have to make the right decision for the guys that i going down range on the time and put the resources in to the actual operators. where i came in was that they said we need a place for these talks to go. i was not release set up to accommodate that. given the circumstances there is nowhere for them to go, we need somebody to take the. that was almost four years ago. i have been doing in emerson's. in an actual foundation and is organized. it's a non-profit that rehabilitates koreans, or if that's not possible acts as a sanctuary essentially for these dogs to live out their years in

an environment where there are not asked to do anything. they can be a god. places in taxes, it's a great facility in terms of it is on 20 acres and surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of pastures and what areas where we let the dogs just on wind and get to be dogs whether it's chasing cows or running through the woods having a blast. we links to rehabilitate them if necessary and three home them. sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't. one of the questions i guess pretty frequently is due dogs get ptsd. in short yes. it is different in that dogs are simple association animals. so more so than ptsd it is essentially a negative association with different types

of experiences that they have had, be it gunfire or helicopters, tanks, firecrackers there are certain things that they have been exposed to and had enough nader experience is that they associate that with the use the issues and problems. sometimes it can be something as simple as being in a great are loading up into a vehicle. there are a host of different things you can see the dogs will have issues with. the nice thing about a dog is that generally speaking you can unwind that process into simple ways. number one, you don't ask the dog to do anything, put pressure on him to be obedient, send him to do any of the more complicated maneuvers or training scenarios that he has done in the past and just do the things that we know has taught

people what they like which is throwing balls with them, taking them for what, letting them run around without any obedience tasks. that is first and foremost. once you let them be a dog and unwind then we find out what it is that the negative association is and very slowly bridge that gap and say, okay, we use gun fire for an example. you know, gun fire, default to aggression where he's putting anybody it began when he hears gunfire which is not an uncommon thing. now we're going to it just desensitize them. there will begin fire to a dozen yards away warplane got in in 1,510,500. once you get enough repetition a positive association with these things that previously they had negative associations with you in on wind and essentially and torino's-reinforces.

so we have found that while some of them may not be have the temperament and capacity to be rezoned to an average family, they are now no longer a danger to everybody around them. from i'm mental stability is ten. they're much more relaxed and called and confident angst. so for me it's something that i hold dear to my heart because as a special operations guy who is no longer operating and it being a polar opposite and i feel it every bit as important to do that same thing for these talks because there are no less of an operator then anyone of us special operations guys are any military member. they played just as big a role

as anybody does. one of the things that is also very important for everyone to understand is the level of respect and care that is given to these talks if their wounded, when they are retired to make their killed. it mirrors the human counterpart to the tea. dino, when guys are lost or injured, if they are injured they are medevaced out, life lighted, stabilized where they need to be in and they come back here for more advanced rehabilitation type therapy. these dogs are the exact same way. a lot of people unfortunately have the idea that if a dog gets injured or wounded that there are disposable. the dunn will put them down and move on to the next one. i can assure you with 100 percent guarantee that it is nowhere near that.

it is exactly like people of. some of the dogs i am retired and been shot, essentially blow not. there were medevaced out, stabilized, brought back here, rehabilitated for months just to be able to return and. so for me it is important that everybody understands that not only do they play that enormous role but the level of respect and care that is given to them is no different than the human counterpart. on a more grave no, same thing with it they are lost, special operations command generally has memorial set up where they will have, you know, human names on one side and k-9 names on the other. it is like this, not in balanced at all. the our team. considered operators just like the rest of us. so again it is important for me

to relay that to you guys. now would like to finish before i opened up for questions, you know, i again going back to just the importance of these giant -- don't i can't speak from personal experience that i'm standing here because one of these talks save my life. what i can tell you is i have dozens of friends if not in the hundreds, impossible to quantify because if a dog comes on to an explosive device and find that it's there, how do you determine how many lives that say it? it's impossible. but there are a ton of people, fellow american citizens, our service members who are volunteers to go get there hands dirty better standing here today because these stocks are

equipped and managed effectively it's something that i know as a nation we not only never forget but also that we move forward and be steadfast in our allocation of funds and resources the programs across the spectrum. as things wind down overseas to a certain extent things are focused on on little heavier back here. it would be an enormous success marie in my opinion for in the unit that can find the place to use dogs for their safety to implement a program and use them they are phenomenal and what they do. i can't think? is enough for being here. before i get into the queue and a one.

now want to bring up is as far as any questions that you guys want to ask to my historic they speaking i have found that some people are afraid to ask some of the hedge your questions in terms of how you justify. any of those type of questions, there is absolutely nothing of clemens. to me if you have a tough question are you think it's tough, fire away. my job and my goal here is to relay information to you guys. you don't have to ask me the disney questions. you can ask me whether question you want to read it can be as simple as what food you feed to a as deep in terms of the radical discussion as you want to get, but i encourage everybody to take that and run with it because that's what i'm here for. i'm happy to answer to whatever degree i can. from an operational standpoint

there are things that i can't and won't answer, but if it is something that i can answer i'm happy do it. moving forward, are there any questions? [inaudible question] >> that's a question i get -- the question for those that did not hear it is what praetor breeds do you prefer. the answer is i prefer the breed of dog that passes my selection test. now, having said that only three breeds have passed my selection test. i don't have a preference for any one of those three. you'd see in military and police work there are more being used. again, it's a conference. it's the fact that for a number of reasons which i won't belabor or get into, but they're is a higher prevalence for those two breeds of dogs passing unit

selection criteria more often. yes, ma'am. >> are you involved with training service stocks? >> question. >> the question was in my involved in training and service stocks for veterans of ptsd? friend and the answer is no. a number of groups that i have been introduced with an unspoken with here in the last 18 months is so that you do tend. i would love to get to the point where we have an involvement in some capacity. i will say the type of dog that is good personal protection a police dog and military got is usually not in the same category as a dog in his bid for, you know, a fellow soldier with ptsd

or to disperse the different missions in terms of how the doctor performed. obviously it's a very important thing. they are kind of taking in one step at a time, doing the providing and retiring that the ptsd dog is -- not to beat the dead horse, but all different animal. anybody else? >> to our enemies target the docks? out of the view the issue. >> sure. they do. heres the short answer to what our enemies do, they target everything we have. they don't use any discretion in terms of prioritizing. if we have something, whether a truck, a fuel truck, food truck, will construct, or to my group of soldiers patrolling they're going to target. anything that we have is a

target. >> i came in l.a., so i apologize. i have a friend he did three tours in vietnam and is active. now, he feels that the training of the don's has not kept up with the technology in the military. i wonder, do you agree with that and has it changed dramatically? >> the short answer is yes and no. the interesting thing about dog training is it is just like any other aspect of training. it depends on which unit is conducting a training. some units are incredibly progressive in the use of conditioning and employing all four quadrants, primarily in a positive reinforcement hundred and using body language and reinforcement turning to do a

lot of training with their dogs. some units are still very old squaw and much more compulsive in the training methods. to some respects, yes, absolutely there are some units that i doing it the exact same way they were. summer during on how much, much higher level and capacity. >> i would like to thank you for your service and think the dollars they train. >> my pleasure. [applause] one of the implications for as maintaining some programs and the implications that has been accompanied because obviously if the going to switch the switch of, what you do. finally, how many dogs have you

processed? >> sure. to speak to the first part of your question, the implications of conflicts internationally winding down and have it in texas is very simply that ultimately it shouldn't. no different than bringing troops home from anywhere. a cape. let's cut the military in half for the reasons that that depicted there earlier. it is imperative that we keep some level, you know, of man's, you know, at the capacity and we're working now. can be tricky because there is kind of a bare minimum of infrastructure, traders pemmican of facilities, training areas and equipment that has to be maintained to even maintain one daunt whether it's 30 dogs are one dock. they're is some level of the infrastructure that has to be in place. so i am hopeful that given the

success record of these talks that they won't turn the lights went off. one eye for see happening is a problem back to a bare minimum to maintain the capability. instead of having 30 dogs you have for five. one thing that is very, very important that the u.s. government did find out as a result of an enormously expensive study was that they tested every piece of equipment that they could find command every countermeasure to improvised explosive devices which is the number one threat to u.s. troops overseas. after as several yearlong study what they found was that there was one measure that stood above all other measures. they spent an embarrassing

amount of money on the study, but they tested everything. okay. this is our number one threat. we will do whatever we have to figure out what our best means of mitigating that threat is. unequivocally at the end of the steady use of a nose was head and shoulders above any piece of man-made equipment. the use of dogs is not just anions the soluble. their ability to happen and people and be as mobile as they are and the -- just the possession of them and general act as an enormous deterrent or police horses and military units they're getting a lot of bang for a balk. >> thank you. you already mentioned them as part. what are the other main selection criteria used in at

the go about doing that? county you decide which one is better equipped? >> sure. basically we have an end product that is our ideal, and we work backwards from that. to give you the 45 most basic different kind of sections that i look for, number one, look for conference. i want to see it on dad walks around like he owns the place. the interact with me confidently , social, paying attention to me, not defaulting to aggression just because i'm a stranger and then close to him, but it kind to it, don't want him to be aggressive. i certainly don't want him to be shy or leave either. some number one he has to be counted it. number two, he asked have an enormous level of play drive, just natural drive to chase and

capture things when they're wave in front of his face. the asa has to have an enormous level of on drive. throw that ball. what and go. he will spend minutes using his nose, his eyes, but his nose to try to find the ball. it's in deep weeds and you will sit there and you can watch his body. just thinking back and forth. he will do that and the distractions. if it does not and there's water nearby, other dogs that have marred the area, traffic, gun fire going of which are all things that we may stimulate to test the dedication of the hon drive for that dog. want to make sure that under all of those circumstances he is still willing to hunt which mimics a convent varmint. for ticket dug in his trek to buy food or female and season or gunfire while i'm asking him to search when i send that dog over

to an austere environment or you will be used to save people's lives of these out searching, obviously that deng is not of enormous value. the social ability and environmental nine go hand-in-hand. i need a dog that can go anywhere, open stairwells, elevators, escalators, people with wheelchair's, playground equipment, spider monkey his way around all over on playground equipment. it's usually a pretty good indicator that a dog is environmentally sound, taking into darkrooms, slippery floors, except her. and last but not least, i'm looking for a dog and when i get in of bites you and put pressure on him from mostly a mental standpoint and a little bit physical standpoint, i want to see a doctor when i can indicate to end of my body that not only am i here, not scared of you but

i and intent of doing your men going to make sure you understand that. .. the dog that is going to say you want to roll, let's roll. there are very few dogs that act fat way, from experience. most dogs don't have that genetic trait and it stands to reason, it is counterintuitive that a lack of self preservation exists in most animals, cumin beings included. it is an anomaly treat even when breeding for it, it is rand v. elusive but some things that is crucial for the type of work we do. what makes the selection process so difficult is finding a dog that has everyone of those qualities in very high caliber. kind of like the analogy i use a lot is lebron james or michael jordan of dogs, they have to be at their very best level in every aspect of what we are asking them to do. it is difficult. >> what are your options?

>> the question is in terms of inbreeding and line breeding, without getting too into the weeds in genetic theory eential essentially with breeding programs of any animal we are funneling genetics.o acco there is a dliesired outcome tht we are trying to accomplish when the breeding program and you have to double up on these with is when you double up on the goodli qualities you on all the bad ones. even then you still have to be very careful with it. again thank you. that's all the time we have but i appreciate you coming out. [applause]

be it's been suggested that edward snowden said to a high-level people in government that we should set amnesty for snowden and hand back the documents. do you think that would be a good idea or would it be counterproductive? >> on the documents what are we going to do, ask russia to give them back and expect them to do so? get real. the damage has been done. this is a man who has betrayed the trust and confidence placed in him by his own government and

his own people. he has done goodness knows what damage to the security of this country and the allies of his country. he has been willing to be best buddies with some of the most dangerous enemies that the country has. he has made clear through his sympathies and values life and we want to give him an amnesty, please. >> johnny walker's the codename of a translator to help navy s.e.a.l.s in iraq while accompanying seals more than a thousand missions he is credited with saving dozens of them along with many iraqis. now author jim defelice and joh >>hnny walker.nn this is an hour. >> first of all thank you everybody for coming out. we appreciate the support and we are going to keep abc and we

will just take it where it goes. a lot of people have been asking how did this book come about and why did you write this book? i have to say the book actually started in a way i have been working on this book for almost four years now. while i was working on american sniper which i wrote with chris kyle, another great american one night chris and i were hanging around in his den and we were looking at some pictures. the picture came up with some guys that were about to go out on a s.e.a.l. mission and they noted that one of them was a lot taller than the other, the other people in the room and was wearing slightly different uniform. i said who is that the guy? chris was a texted and he looked at me and said well, that's the

only iraqi i ever trusted with the gun. i was like a good that's pretty interesting. tell me about that. he told me that was a translator they called johnny walker and chris started telling me about some of the missions. i have to say that i write fiction and the stories that chris was telling me it sounded so much more remarkable and fictional and more thrilling than stories i have ever come up with that day almost stopped writing novels. we ended up putting johnny in the book in american sniper. he is in an avowed paragraph. we changed his name because we were very wary at that time. we thought that ,-com,-com ma johnny we thought that you were still in iraq. our book came out, american sniper came out and chris was actually doing a book signing in california and johnny went out

just showed up and as chris told the story later on, chris said i called them up. i thought he was dead. he called them up and made him stand up in front of the room and told everyone the truth, the johnny walker -- chris kyle is known as a man who saves a lot of s.e.a.l. lives and a lot of iraqi lives and crystal that crowd and told me and told everybody that he could the johnny walker saved more s.e.a.l.s and more americans and more iraqis than chris at ever did. it's just a remarkable story and i'm not sure if it was the next day but it was soon after chris got ahold of our publisher, our attic -- editor who has been a big help for us and said peter you were doing this book boy. this man is really important. that is kind of where we started

so johnny won't you tell us a little bit. you were born to in iraq. what you tell us about that. >> first i want to think want to think well of you guys frogger support support and i apologize for my broken english. i want to thank matt. i met him in 2003 and this is the first time i have seen him after all of these years. >> mapped, matt is an army veteran and -- [applause] tell us about yourself. >> i was born in 1964 and grew up a normal child and play basketball, high jump.

my dream was i wanted to live in america will one of the days and unfortunately had marriage ends having kids in my dream disappeared. but you know i tried so hard in the beginning and i didn't have any chance. i knew in my heart, this is wrong. i deserved this chance. i'm the best one for this job. anyway by accident i came to the military police. >> weight, weight, wait a minute. the problem with johnny is johnny is just a little bit too humble. here is what actually happens. he had been trying to get jobs for quite a while to support his family. there were no jobs. he worked with the americans and at that time the americans were very honored because they had liberated the country. so johnny tried to get a job and couldn't get a job. we go into more detail in the book with basically couldn't get

a job and he had enough money to buy a pac of cigarettes or his kids lunch. or a taxi to go back. he decided the heck with the taxi. i can walk. the kids can have lunch and i can buy two cigarettes or three cigarettes so he bought the cigarettes. he's walking home and mosul which is not the greatest place and all of a sudden he comes upon some mps and a discussion with some iraqi radios. tell us about that. >> so we are walking -- via accident and saw females. the females walk on the right side. i heard them talking bad things about the american forces. i had not enough money to provide for my kids and right now i could end up fighting with the police without anything.

part of the tradition is i have to protect our women no matter what. so anyway i am sinking fast what i should do so i came up with a plan. i went up to the police and asked them can you fix this issue? if they give me this chance maybe i will try to make an issue with the american police. >> basically you are a marriage counselor. >> anyway when the females start coming at nighttime i start looking at them and i know the background of the females. i was like what the guys doing? they looked at me and it was like we are so sorry.

we didn't mean to do anything. i thought you know what, you have to go right now to your house for you guys are going to have something bad. so the sergeant of when he saw what they did with the female to fix the issue he asked me if i could work with them for the iraqis. i would love it. why not? at that time one of the boyfriends of the girls, he came to me and started talking. >> johnny just asked if we could use a bad word. [laughter] >> so anyway he came to me and started talking a bad word about me and my family. so i said do you know what? i'm done with you. i hate these him and his face

had led whatever. a few ribs broken. they said just leave him. you work for us now. >> just a sidenote on that story sergeant bird have been out of contact with johnny for pretty much several months after that and just recently because they got in touch with johnny and one of the great side notes of this whole process a lot of them men and women who served with johnny in iraq have been getting in touch with him. it's really heartwarming and funny story. johnny went to work with the mps as an interpreter and he made such a great name for himself that when this s.e.a.l.s came to mosul a few months later on, they had already heard of the

toughest interpreter in iraq and they asked for johnny walker. sergeant bird was very reluctant to give him up. so he started working with the s.e.a.l.s and johnny did you know what s.e.a.l.s were at first? >> no. the first time when i learned about s.e.a.l.s, by so what does that mean? i couldn't find it and my anguish at that time -- i had no clue what i'm dealing with or what i'm doing. i remember the first mission the guy that i walked with he just stops, left, right, go.

i didn't know if we could reach the door to make an exit from the house. i had no radio and i had nothing so i was like oh my gosh. i start to run away and the guy who escorted me, he said we just reached the door. [laughter] >> now what you didn't tell them though is that on that first mission johnny showed up -- they told johnny he was not allowed to ring his weapon but ordinarily in iraq pre-much every male has generally in a k. or could have some weapon. johnny what did you bring on that first mission? johnny brought a knife and how big was that knife? was it this big or this big? >> was this big.

>> i heard the story. it was more like this big. johnny started going with this s.e.a.l.s and there was one incident that really cemented your relationship with the seals do you want to talk about that one? >> one of the missions, i am kind of knew new in this environment and i don't know what's involved. we went to one of the targets and he wanted to take that houses the sniper mission. we went inside from their and there are guys in that house who started shooting us. at that time i had no weapon and i said to one of the guys -- so

i didn't know what i should do. i went in i grabbed him and i didn't know if i was going to lose my life or not. i cannot mention his name. from that time. [inaudible] >> the significance there is that there were a lot of people that were interpreters or translators with the american forces. often they were kept back behind the lines when there was any sort of combat. johnny is being a little bit modest with that story. when this s.e.a.l.s with their johnny ran forward and there was gunfire going on. johnny grabbed him and brought him back and they were quite impressed at that point.

from that point on johnny was actually a brother to the seals. now i think it can be difficult for people who are not s.e.a.l.s to understanunderstand what an honor that is. if you can hang out with this s.e.a.l.s e. then though they are special forces, another special operations guy cannot be considered a brother. they trusted him with their back. what does that feel like, johnny? with these americans who you hadn't known. how did he feel towards them? >> i don't know. i felt like they were my family and they did a good job in my country so i would do anything to help them and make them succeed. it was a huge honor for me to get the trust from the officers and everyone and everyone who came to me.

>> johnny started to mosul but they s.e.a.l.s had missions across the country. you travel quite a bit, right? name some of the places where you are at and where you went. >> we went mostly to iraqi cities and in the end i ended up in baghdad. >> baghdad at that time was kind of like going to miami. it's a really nice place. >> at that time there was a huge firefight between the sunni and the shia. the government is not able to do

anything by themselves. they needed this s.e.a.l.s to protect them and we started targeting bad guys. >> just explained, in islam i think a lot of people know and not necessarily everyone you can make a lot of different divisions and one of the major divisions is between sunni and shia. what are you and what is your wife? >> i am sunni and my wife is shia. one of the days we sat and i came up with it crazy idea. i asked my kids who is going to be sunni and who's going to be shia? i asked that my wife and it

dreamed that night. my kids came and i said hey guys where democratic family and we can vote who is going to be sunni and who's going to be shia. they said daddy are you sunni or shia and i said sunni and they said mom? and she said the shia. they raise your hand and they all said shia. >> now before the sydney awakening you lived in mosul and while they were sunni and shia mosul happens to be an area where there is more sunni. there was a religious animosity. there weren't people shooting at each other because they were sunni or shia. unfortunately what is the situation our war was a situation situation with the americans? >> it looked almost like the continental divide by shia

cities and kurdish places. >> basically now there is a lot of violence. johnny's wife was in baghdad. i'm sorry, excuse me. johnny's wife was then mosul and you were in baghdad. can you tell us? he didn't actually know. tell us about that story. >> they started targeting me so we told everyone i was going away to syria or jordan so no one could target my family. anyway they sent my wife a letter saying they were going to kill her. she had no option. the next day she took everything

in move to baghdad. >> wait a second. there's a lot more to that story. first of all johnny's wife is an incredible woman. we go into anymore detail in the book. she has been through quite a lot and thought she was going to die at several points. finally when she got the bullet she decided she just had to go to baghdad. to this point johnny's relatives had been protecting his wife. she decided she had to go so she packed the kids up and they went in a van that was the equivalent of the minibus. but say it was four hours kind of rounding things out a bit. about two hours into the trip they were stopped by some

terrorists. they took them out of the bus and they check them and they were basically threatening to kill them. fortunately the terrorist were not looking for johnny's family thank god. they were looking for some other person that they had decided to kill. they stayed there for several hours and johnny's wife was holding the kids. they had four kids and pretty much thinking they were going to die until the terrorists apparently called whoever had assigned them to kill the person and thank god the person that said let those people go. they are not the target. they'd then drove to baghdad and told johnny. johnny you didn't know that story until you're working on the book. johnny's wife was telling me this story. she and i are sitting in the kitchen and johnny is over there and listening and he starts

going, what's? you see his eyes. his eyes become the size of his face. it was pretty scary. >> yes, yes. for me, my wife and my kids were all my life. trying to do the right thing for them and for my country i ended up with all of these bad things by the bad people. when i hear him talk with my wife about these details i freak out. >> fortunately she is fine and the kids are fine but unfortunately the kind of skipped over a story here where your brother was assassinated. maybe we should tell that story. >> my brother wanted a chance to

work to support his family. i found a job with the iraqi army and my brother found transportation to the iraqi camp. one of day they came to him and they don't face him and they just shot him. three guys are four guys. they shot him in the face without giving them a chance to defend himself. >> that was because they couldn't get you. they have another story about you. tell the opal story. >> i think that's your story. >> why don't you tell that? >> one of the days i went to the base. this s.e.a.l.s's pot may always don't trust anyone that's

not on the team. [inaudible] i drove in my car and i saw two guys. one has a long beard and the passengers about 20 years old. i said what's going on and at that time maybe matt you know in 2004 there was no assassination or killing. so anyway i'm thinking what can i do? i'm planning out of my mind, this is what i'm going to do. we would ambush the guys would wait pushed on the brakes and confuse them if they had any

plan to kill me. one of the guys shot and at that time i kept my head covered by the medal between the two windows. they were going to chase me and kill my family. >> than what happened? you killed them and the crowd started together and then what? >> people asked me what was going on and i said we are americans. all of them said good job, awesome. >> johnny was able to escape from that by claiming that the

people he killed were actually the people that were working with the americans. he went back and made sure that his family was okay. johnny told me that story. that was one of the first story is the johnny told me and when he told me that we had talked before but we really mad when i went to san diego. we had lunch and it's tough when you start to work on a book and i didn't really know. i said you know let's just hang out and chill. what do you like to do and johnny said i'd like to take a walk down by the water, by the ocean. we went out to a boardwalk on vero beach and we walked out there and johnny just started talking. i have to say chris was a really good friend and of chris asked me to do something i would absolutely do it. even if chris hadn't been

involved and hubbard had destined to do it, after walking out on the word walk and talking to johnny and getting a feel for him i knew i had to write this book. i thought what we would do since this is kind of related to books that we would do a little bit of reading. johnny is going to read the entire book. [laughter] i'm going to take my story what i just said so in writing the book i took my story and johnny story about the opal which i think the color of the cards change. i will read from the book. my america is your america and your america is mine.

it's a refuge in a dream place in freedom and respite responsibility. to have arrived here after the journey had to come after the bombs and gunfire and killings the beheadings and killings and the dangers, after everything that has happened in my life the idea that i'm free now with the knowledge of everything fills me with gratitude and i'm thankful for every moment and every breath. i'm grateful to this s.e.a.l.s who risk their lives for my family. i'm grateful for the sacrifices of servicemen and women, grateful to my neighbors and their friends who welcome to paint to this land of large dreams and open skies. everyday i live the dream, my dream but unlike most my dream began amid a nightmare, a murderous war in iraq that destroyed not only the lives of many of my friends and relatives put but have an entire country and culture.

that destruction began long before the war i fought in. long before the conflict again. iraq was a broken country, place rule barred by fear than by law, if place where making a decent living is for many an impossible dream. the american war brought hope to the disenfranchised iraqis but soon that hope evaporated replaced by violence and bloodshed. the americans were an excuse but not the cause of that. the hatred and villainy engendered would have torn my country apart and its effects continue to this day. i am far from that now. today on a cool morning in san diego i walk out on the pier at imperial beach and feel the wind push against my body tearing at my clothing and sampler bring my face. it's a wonderful feeling.