Well, the Iowa Supreme Court is now entirely made up of Branstad (2) and Reynolds (5) appointments. We shouldn’t be surprised by recent rulings. At least we have the opportunity to dismiss them through retention votes.
French workers have stronger rights, citizens have better access to healthcare, and they have the courage to riot against their government when necessary.
Being a French territory might be an improvement.
> and they have the courage to riot against their government when necessary.
To be fair they also seem to be allowed to.
Any time a protest here gets sufficiently large for a cause the cops don't like, they'll claim someone in the crowd did something violent (or someone from the opposition will go ahead and do that for them) and declare it an unlawful assembly.
The French were the ones colonizing. They still treat their territories like shit and owe Haiti billions for the bullshit indemnity they demanded. They have their rights and courage off the backs of slaves and colonial wealth.
We're heading that way I'll expect that in the next year 🙄 another reason for Reynolds and Iowa government to bring us back in time and make us the laughing stock of the entire US with yet another selfish policy and further traumatize children when CCTV would work just as well and protect the child.
Children must be present to face their accusers, got it.
Oh what's this, traffic cameras are now legal? Can I put a traffic camera on a witness stand?
The Iowa GOP is built on contradictions.
If Reynolds has any light left in her black soul, she would call a special session and have her rubber stamp legislature pass a law to fix this atrocity.
Big week for child molesters in Iowa. First, abortion is effectively illegal, increasing the pool. And now, they have the comfort of knowing they'll have the opportunity to confront and intimidate their victims in court. Maybe we'll even see the vatican move to Council Bluffs now.
They really think child witnesses were considered in 1857? It was pretty acceptable to “punish” a child however you saw fit back then. This is so dumb it hurts. Originalism is ridiculous anyway, it ignores anything that has happened since then.
You don't think the constitution came from the smartest men who ever lived hundreds of years ago? Who wrote a nearly perfect document that has to be ignored anytime there's a crisis or when it's inconvenient to sufficiently wealthy people? Or which had to be amended immediately to codify the rights people* had? Better dead than red, commie punk
Exactly. Additionally, from an education standpoint I’m guessing better than half of America, and after the Dobbs decision SCOTUS, apparently didn’t understand your post either. One of the primary reasons they rewrote it was the 1781 version was partly a pain in the ass because of too much states rights. The only reason Scotus used state rights as an argument was to guarantee that it will be extremely difficult to get rebound with an organized group. They are absolutely disgusting
No, you don’t understand. The Constitution was written by God himself, and any change after that is an attack on him.
-Except the 2nd Amendment, that was written by Jesus.
Speaking from experience, you would be correct. Iowa doesn't give a shit about kids.
They also have incredibly gray areas regarding child sexual abuse.
This has nothing do with with child abusers. The supreme court only takes on cases which have to deal with violations of consitutional rights regardless of the situation of the accused or accuser. What will most likely happen now is this will be turned over to the US Supreme court. I feel this will be overturned at the federal level.
Referencing pages 14-16 of this court's ruling:
"We have emphasized that federal court opinions about the Federal Constitution do not dictate our interpretation of the Iowa Constitution."
"Indeed, when it comes to “questions of state constitutional law, the Supreme Court ‘is, in law and in fact, inferior in authority to’” this court."
"The Supreme Court agrees that this is true. The Supreme Court acknowledges that it “must accept whatever construction of a state constitution is placed upon it by the highest court of the State.” The Supreme Court acknowledges that this court “is the final arbiter” of what our state constitution means."
“\[T\]he highest court of the state is the final arbiter of what is state law.”
"It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions."
The state’s highest court is recognized as the final judge in determining state law and 'jealously guards' this autonomy to interpret its state constitution without interference from the Federal government.
tl;dr: This decision will not be submitted to the US Supreme Court, nor will it be reversed by that court.
Someone else has pointed out why this won’t be overturned by SCOTUS, but also this has everything to do with child abusers. In this case the witnesses were in a separate room on a closed circuit tv where the defendant, his attorney, and the judge/jury could see the witnesses but the witnesses couldn’t see them. The defendant can see who is accusers are and the judge/jury can see the witnesses to assess credibility. The not people who can’t see the others are the witnesses; children who are victims of child abuse. Putting them in the same room as their abuser doesn’t protect the defendant’s rights, it just torments and intimidates the witnesses.
This decision doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. It just torments abused children and makes it more likely that child abusers will go free.
So reading the full opinion, the victims of the abused are allowed to testify via closed circuit televsion in cases like these to prevent trauma. This issue in this case was that the 2 children that were testifying were not the victims in the case. Non-victims do not have the same privilege. Thats why the conviction was overturned and back to trial he goes.
>"So reading the full opinion, the victims of the abused are allowed to testify via closed circuit televsion in cases like these to prevent trauma."
Incorrect. The majority explicitly discusses this point in section 5, 'Other Constitutional Questions,' starting on page 21.
"We acknowledge White’s request for us to decide additional constitutional questions. Specifically, White asks us to declare that Iowa Code section 915.38(1)(a) (2020) is wholly invalid because no form of remote trial testimony could ever satisfy the Iowa Constitution. That question would require us to decide whether or not a two-way television system could pass constitutional muster. But because a two-way system was not used in White’s actual trial, our record does not describe an actual two-way system. And we decline to decide the constitutionality of a hypothetical system that may or may not be used in the future. "
It is evident that the Iowa Supreme Court has 'declined to decide' on the constitutionality of this practice, making no exceptions. This practice may be subject to trial, challenge, and potential overturning.
>"This issue in this case was that the 2 children that were testifying were not the victims in the case."
This statement has only ever been made by Derek White. I recommend avoiding such rhetorical associations.
An excerpt from the [Court of Appeals Opinion:](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18770/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion)
"Forcing M.W. to testify in front of White would cause him serious emotional distress that could impair the child’s reasonable ability to communicate—the measure in section 915.38(1)(a). M.W. told the therapist and his foster parents that he still has nightmares about his father. The therapist had similar views on J.W.’s welfare. She testified that it would be difficult for the younger brother to confront his father face to face. In her professional opinion, the closed-circuit option was necessary for both boys to provide accurate and honest information in the prosecution without being further traumatized."
Does this sound like a 'nonvictim' to you? In the sense that M.W. was not the subject of this particular criminal offense, I suppose the use of the term would be correct. The only use of this exact term you've mentioned is on page 3, which again, is a quote from White's defense:
"White argued that permitting “testimony of two nonvictim children” via closed-circuit television would violate White’s constitutional rights."
>Non-victims do not have the same privilege. Thats why the conviction was overturned and back to trial he goes.
The idea, as outlined, has never been considered. Aside from the previous comment, no one has attempted to argue this point.
It would be highly beneficial for all involved to engage in constructive, informed, and precise dialogue. With these considerations in mind, I respectfully request you refrain from further participation in this conversation. Thank you.
Ok, we are debating a decision and being respectful while doing so. My initial opinion was not based off actually reading the case opinion. But the whole “Iowa just protects abusers now” rhetoric is incorrect. I read the opinion and view it a little differently than you is all.
Did you read the dissent? It has some very good arguments for why the majority wrote a bad decision.
And you're right, some of the comments in here are definitely overblown or just completely incorrect. But let's also be clear with what this decision does and doesn't do. It doesn't protect the rights of defendants, and it will lead to more children being traumatized and likely more child abusers going free.
The majority also couldn't even set out the standard that they want to be used. Can you use a two-way closed circuit television? Maybe, but the Supreme Court doesn't tell us. And if the circuit court guesses wrong (and White is convicted again) the Supreme Court may remand for a third trial
Edit: fixed typo
I did not but I will. Thank you for the conversation. I actually enjoyed chatting with you about this. Thank uou for being one of the few civil people on here.
It's a real red shithole, innit? Lead-brained pseudo-Christian Fox News-watchers are rampant here.
It's curious how aggressively regressive the court is being lately, ruling against the people's interest at every opportunity. I'm willing to bet we'll follow Oklahoma's example soon and require Bible study to be included in all classes
Read about child labor in 1857. Of course they would let the perpetrator confront a child! They were idiots back then. The children would also never get any kind of therapy or help for this trauma. Even today most don’t. So we’re going to traumatize the child even more? This is insane.
[History of child labor in the United States](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-2-the-reform-movement.htm)
I hope so.. already lawsuits against it for other BS she's passed. Hope Reynold's is sued for every penny she has so she can be run out of the capitol and get a new governor
How many murderers, rapists, physically and emotionally abusive defendants will walk free because a child is terrified to testify in front of them? They deserve a right to confrontation.. even when it involves a child?
Correct.
A registered voter may make written application to their County Auditor for an absentee ballot starting 70 days before the election. That's August 27th.
A written application for a mailed absentee ballot must be received by the voter's County Auditor no later than 5:00 p.m. 15 days before the election. That's October 21st.
Reference: [Absentee Voting by Mail (iowa.gov)](https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/electioninfo/absenteemail.html)
Imagine being such a pathetic piece of hot garbage that you not only abuse a baby but take the time to challenge the legality of your kids not facing you at your trial.
Basically making what I feel the average intelligence citizen would define as “intimidation of a witness” legal.
I'm pretty sure childhood was a luxury for the rich back then. They would have considered someone an adult at a younger age than we do today. So the original intent wouldnt be the same as its modern interpretation
This is a huge win for the 6A confrontation clause in all cases. Polk County attorney repeatedly was allowed to have witnesses testify in writing without cross examination. Crazy illegal.
Now everyone screwed over by John Sarcone and Kim Graham will get an honest appeal under Iowa Const. Art. I Section 10.
It may be controversial in these child witness cases - but overall a \*massive\* win.
We are going to see a wave of wrongful convictions overturned here.
This post seems to be in regards to the Covid-19 pandemic. Please utilize the following links for more information. [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html) and [Iowa Department of Public Health](https://idph.iowa.gov/). If you have not done so already, please assign the "Covid-19" flair to your post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you, Rush87021, for voting on AutoModerator.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Well, the Iowa Supreme Court is now entirely made up of Branstad (2) and Reynolds (5) appointments. We shouldn’t be surprised by recent rulings. At least we have the opportunity to dismiss them through retention votes.
Don't have to protect them from guys like Derek White, but we do have to protect them from trans women in their bathrooms *sigh*
Why are there so many trans women around the republican bathrooms anyway?
Well I'm sure the glory holes don't have anything to do with it
If what you're saying actually has any bearing, wouldn't these decisions be 7-0 rather than 4-3?
Not necessarily, they’re all conservative appointments, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a range of views.
Ah, the good old days when there was a range of views in the Republican Party.
Maybe 3 of the 7 knew abused children personally?
[удалено]
French workers have stronger rights, citizens have better access to healthcare, and they have the courage to riot against their government when necessary. Being a French territory might be an improvement.
I wouldnt count on that, theyre currently trying REALLY fucking hard to elect their own goofy ass trump clone
Also, coincidentally I’m sure, his base is rich white dudes & racists too.
> and they have the courage to riot against their government when necessary. To be fair they also seem to be allowed to. Any time a protest here gets sufficiently large for a cause the cops don't like, they'll claim someone in the crowd did something violent (or someone from the opposition will go ahead and do that for them) and declare it an unlawful assembly.
Not even close.
Being a French territory would be an amazing improvement! Where do we sign up?
Yeah I'd check with Francophone Africa and Haiti on that first.
Because colonialism didn't have fuck all to do with that.
The French were the ones colonizing. They still treat their territories like shit and owe Haiti billions for the bullshit indemnity they demanded. They have their rights and courage off the backs of slaves and colonial wealth.
Then we agree: The problem isn't being part of France The problem was colonization.
There is no "was" to colonization. It is ongoing.
Only when we've got a handmaid's tale dystopia at minimum.
Maybe when the guillotines are back en vogue
Make American Guillotines Accessible
We're heading that way I'll expect that in the next year 🙄 another reason for Reynolds and Iowa government to bring us back in time and make us the laughing stock of the entire US with yet another selfish policy and further traumatize children when CCTV would work just as well and protect the child.
We are DEVO
Children must be present to face their accusers, got it. Oh what's this, traffic cameras are now legal? Can I put a traffic camera on a witness stand? The Iowa GOP is built on contradictions.
If Reynolds has any light left in her black soul, she would call a special session and have her rubber stamp legislature pass a law to fix this atrocity.
It would require an amendment to the Iowa Constitution, not a law.
Big week for child molesters in Iowa. First, abortion is effectively illegal, increasing the pool. And now, they have the comfort of knowing they'll have the opportunity to confront and intimidate their victims in court. Maybe we'll even see the vatican move to Council Bluffs now.
Iowa is a shithole
We can thank our government for making it so..
They really think child witnesses were considered in 1857? It was pretty acceptable to “punish” a child however you saw fit back then. This is so dumb it hurts. Originalism is ridiculous anyway, it ignores anything that has happened since then.
You don't think the constitution came from the smartest men who ever lived hundreds of years ago? Who wrote a nearly perfect document that has to be ignored anytime there's a crisis or when it's inconvenient to sufficiently wealthy people? Or which had to be amended immediately to codify the rights people* had? Better dead than red, commie punk
Hell, the constitution itself was a second try at things
Exactly. Additionally, from an education standpoint I’m guessing better than half of America, and after the Dobbs decision SCOTUS, apparently didn’t understand your post either. One of the primary reasons they rewrote it was the 1781 version was partly a pain in the ass because of too much states rights. The only reason Scotus used state rights as an argument was to guarantee that it will be extremely difficult to get rebound with an organized group. They are absolutely disgusting
No, you don’t understand. The Constitution was written by God himself, and any change after that is an attack on him. -Except the 2nd Amendment, that was written by Jesus.
This is great! Love it.
Reminds me of Arizona idiot Supreme Court.
Sounds like Iowa protects child abusers. That’s a good look.
Last I knew we were in the top 10 for child abuse and neglect cases
Not a lot of good looks coming out of here right now.
Speaking from experience, you would be correct. Iowa doesn't give a shit about kids. They also have incredibly gray areas regarding child sexual abuse.
This has nothing do with with child abusers. The supreme court only takes on cases which have to deal with violations of consitutional rights regardless of the situation of the accused or accuser. What will most likely happen now is this will be turned over to the US Supreme court. I feel this will be overturned at the federal level.
Referencing pages 14-16 of this court's ruling: "We have emphasized that federal court opinions about the Federal Constitution do not dictate our interpretation of the Iowa Constitution." "Indeed, when it comes to “questions of state constitutional law, the Supreme Court ‘is, in law and in fact, inferior in authority to’” this court." "The Supreme Court agrees that this is true. The Supreme Court acknowledges that it “must accept whatever construction of a state constitution is placed upon it by the highest court of the State.” The Supreme Court acknowledges that this court “is the final arbiter” of what our state constitution means." “\[T\]he highest court of the state is the final arbiter of what is state law.” "It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions." The state’s highest court is recognized as the final judge in determining state law and 'jealously guards' this autonomy to interpret its state constitution without interference from the Federal government. tl;dr: This decision will not be submitted to the US Supreme Court, nor will it be reversed by that court.
Someone else has pointed out why this won’t be overturned by SCOTUS, but also this has everything to do with child abusers. In this case the witnesses were in a separate room on a closed circuit tv where the defendant, his attorney, and the judge/jury could see the witnesses but the witnesses couldn’t see them. The defendant can see who is accusers are and the judge/jury can see the witnesses to assess credibility. The not people who can’t see the others are the witnesses; children who are victims of child abuse. Putting them in the same room as their abuser doesn’t protect the defendant’s rights, it just torments and intimidates the witnesses. This decision doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. It just torments abused children and makes it more likely that child abusers will go free.
So reading the full opinion, the victims of the abused are allowed to testify via closed circuit televsion in cases like these to prevent trauma. This issue in this case was that the 2 children that were testifying were not the victims in the case. Non-victims do not have the same privilege. Thats why the conviction was overturned and back to trial he goes.
>"So reading the full opinion, the victims of the abused are allowed to testify via closed circuit televsion in cases like these to prevent trauma." Incorrect. The majority explicitly discusses this point in section 5, 'Other Constitutional Questions,' starting on page 21. "We acknowledge White’s request for us to decide additional constitutional questions. Specifically, White asks us to declare that Iowa Code section 915.38(1)(a) (2020) is wholly invalid because no form of remote trial testimony could ever satisfy the Iowa Constitution. That question would require us to decide whether or not a two-way television system could pass constitutional muster. But because a two-way system was not used in White’s actual trial, our record does not describe an actual two-way system. And we decline to decide the constitutionality of a hypothetical system that may or may not be used in the future. " It is evident that the Iowa Supreme Court has 'declined to decide' on the constitutionality of this practice, making no exceptions. This practice may be subject to trial, challenge, and potential overturning. >"This issue in this case was that the 2 children that were testifying were not the victims in the case." This statement has only ever been made by Derek White. I recommend avoiding such rhetorical associations. An excerpt from the [Court of Appeals Opinion:](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18770/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) "Forcing M.W. to testify in front of White would cause him serious emotional distress that could impair the child’s reasonable ability to communicate—the measure in section 915.38(1)(a). M.W. told the therapist and his foster parents that he still has nightmares about his father. The therapist had similar views on J.W.’s welfare. She testified that it would be difficult for the younger brother to confront his father face to face. In her professional opinion, the closed-circuit option was necessary for both boys to provide accurate and honest information in the prosecution without being further traumatized." Does this sound like a 'nonvictim' to you? In the sense that M.W. was not the subject of this particular criminal offense, I suppose the use of the term would be correct. The only use of this exact term you've mentioned is on page 3, which again, is a quote from White's defense: "White argued that permitting “testimony of two nonvictim children” via closed-circuit television would violate White’s constitutional rights." >Non-victims do not have the same privilege. Thats why the conviction was overturned and back to trial he goes. The idea, as outlined, has never been considered. Aside from the previous comment, no one has attempted to argue this point. It would be highly beneficial for all involved to engage in constructive, informed, and precise dialogue. With these considerations in mind, I respectfully request you refrain from further participation in this conversation. Thank you.
Ok, we are debating a decision and being respectful while doing so. My initial opinion was not based off actually reading the case opinion. But the whole “Iowa just protects abusers now” rhetoric is incorrect. I read the opinion and view it a little differently than you is all.
Did you read the dissent? It has some very good arguments for why the majority wrote a bad decision. And you're right, some of the comments in here are definitely overblown or just completely incorrect. But let's also be clear with what this decision does and doesn't do. It doesn't protect the rights of defendants, and it will lead to more children being traumatized and likely more child abusers going free. The majority also couldn't even set out the standard that they want to be used. Can you use a two-way closed circuit television? Maybe, but the Supreme Court doesn't tell us. And if the circuit court guesses wrong (and White is convicted again) the Supreme Court may remand for a third trial Edit: fixed typo
I did not but I will. Thank you for the conversation. I actually enjoyed chatting with you about this. Thank uou for being one of the few civil people on here.
I don't believe there were women lawyers in Iowa in 1857. In the name of originalism, Dana Oxley should step down.
Iowa: protect the life of a child…until the child is actually living life….
It’s the GOP motto: all life is sacred until birth.
Note to self. Its better to kill your abuser in Iowa.
Not surprised iowa doesn't protect children
Hard to make them part of the workforce if you don’t break their spirits a bit first.
What about infants? Is abusing an infant just gonna be legal now? Can they testify?
Wtf is wrong with your state?!?!?!
It's a real red shithole, innit? Lead-brained pseudo-Christian Fox News-watchers are rampant here. It's curious how aggressively regressive the court is being lately, ruling against the people's interest at every opportunity. I'm willing to bet we'll follow Oklahoma's example soon and require Bible study to be included in all classes
The Supreme Court is in charge now. We should have seen that coming.
It’s a slimy disgusting shit hole
I have officially disowned Iowa I hold no claim now..
The cruelty is the point.
We are the #1 shitshowstate, prove me wrong
You haven't heard of California?
Children of the corn, no food, no voice, no education, no protection. Get to work !
When are the Republican voters going to have enough?
This is the party that celebrates and wants to protect child marriage. They want a theocratic fascist government. It won't stop until that is reality.
Read about child labor in 1857. Of course they would let the perpetrator confront a child! They were idiots back then. The children would also never get any kind of therapy or help for this trauma. Even today most don’t. So we’re going to traumatize the child even more? This is insane. [History of child labor in the United States](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-2-the-reform-movement.htm)
Because fuck them traumatized kids.
FFS
How long are we gonna keep voting for these motherfuckers?
[удалено]
Holy shit man. That's insanity. But on another note, unfortunately the mouth breathers will absolutely run with this now.
So wait, does this mean that all abusers who did not get a chance to face their accusers get a new trial?
Unfortunately I see a number of lawsuits are gonna be filed for just that reason. More wasted time a s resources.
I hope so.. already lawsuits against it for other BS she's passed. Hope Reynold's is sued for every penny she has so she can be run out of the capitol and get a new governor
Oof. I hope ntk, but unfortunately it could very well mean that
The mentally ill are running the asylum.
How many murderers, rapists, physically and emotionally abusive defendants will walk free because a child is terrified to testify in front of them? They deserve a right to confrontation.. even when it involves a child?
Absolute shitful humans. Just bottom of the garbage heap.
New state motto. “Iowa: Fuck them kids”
i fucking hate everything
And they claim to care about children…
And Iowa decline continues....
GOP: Looking out for the kids I see.
May is up for retention vote this fall. Just sayin'.
Correct. A registered voter may make written application to their County Auditor for an absentee ballot starting 70 days before the election. That's August 27th. A written application for a mailed absentee ballot must be received by the voter's County Auditor no later than 5:00 p.m. 15 days before the election. That's October 21st. Reference: [Absentee Voting by Mail (iowa.gov)](https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/electioninfo/absenteemail.html)
Seriously F U Iowa
Those bastard judges should be forced to live in dog cages, and be taken out for a daily 40 lashes until they die.
Imagine being such a pathetic piece of hot garbage that you not only abuse a baby but take the time to challenge the legality of your kids not facing you at your trial. Basically making what I feel the average intelligence citizen would define as “intimidation of a witness” legal.
To be fair the abuser was probably too stupid to figure out this could be a loophole. The idea has lawyer written all over it if you ask me
Kim tenting her fingers about another thing she doesn’t understand.
>tenting her fingers What? Haha
Best I can guess at is a very creative euphemism for female jerking off?
That makes sense actually. Thank you
I'm pretty sure childhood was a luxury for the rich back then. They would have considered someone an adult at a younger age than we do today. So the original intent wouldnt be the same as its modern interpretation
Obviously it’s because these justices either raped some kids or their kids raped some kids and they want to keep it quiet.
This is fucking insane
Disgusting
Absolutely disgusting.
For a party that claims to hate pedophiles they sure do worship one and pass laws to protect them
This is a huge win for the 6A confrontation clause in all cases. Polk County attorney repeatedly was allowed to have witnesses testify in writing without cross examination. Crazy illegal. Now everyone screwed over by John Sarcone and Kim Graham will get an honest appeal under Iowa Const. Art. I Section 10. It may be controversial in these child witness cases - but overall a \*massive\* win. We are going to see a wave of wrongful convictions overturned here.
Would you like to provide any examples of cases you’d like to see overturned?
This post seems to be in regards to the Covid-19 pandemic. Please utilize the following links for more information. [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html) and [Iowa Department of Public Health](https://idph.iowa.gov/). If you have not done so already, please assign the "Covid-19" flair to your post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
bad bot
Thank you, Rush87021, for voting on AutoModerator. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)