►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary (8-5-21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
to
our
third
interim
joint
committee
on
judiciary
meeting
and
if
everyone
could,
please
find
your
way
to
your
seats,
we
we
do
have
a
quorum.
We
are
awaiting
a
few
people.
We
have
a
lot
on
the
agenda
today,
so
we
will
try
to
move
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
and
please
note
because
this
is
interim
and
no
action
is
taking.
Some
of
these
topics
will
be.
There
will
be
a
continuing
discussion
that
goes
on
post
meeting
today.
We've
worked
really
diligently
this
this
session.
A
I
believe
to
try
to
get
small
groups
together
to
try
to
make
sure
we
have
as
much
information
about
these
topics
as
possible
before
they
come
before
our
session
or
general
assembly
in
january.
So
with
that
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
madam
secretary,
could
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
A
Here
in
the
room,
and
we
are
going
to
take
a
very
small
break,
we
know
there's
an
audio
problem
because
we've
been
told
by
some
of
the
people
that
are
appearing
remotely,
that
they
cannot
hear
anything.
So
we
are
going
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we
get
that
fixed
momentarily.
But
while
we
do
that,
I
am
going
to
bring
something
to
the
attention
of
everybody
here.
If
you've
not
seen
it.
This
morning
there
was
a
very
unfortunate
death
of
a
law
enforcement
officer.
A
He
was
an
assistant
deputy
sheriff.
I
believe
in
shively
that
by
all
accounts
it
appears
he
was
ambushed
and
targeted
and
killed,
and
his
name
is
brandon.
Shirley
is
my
understanding
and
you
know
how
tragic
that
is
just
for
society,
but
I
can't
imagine
the
tragedy
that
the
family
must
feel
and,
of
course,
the
fact
that
that's
going
on
and
what
we
consider
to
be
a
civilized
society
on
our
streets
is
just
tragic.
So
if
you'll
join
me
for
just
a
moment,
we're
gonna
have
a
moment
of
silence
in
honor
of
officer
brandon.
A
A
Thank
you.
I
know
that
was
brought
to
my
attention
by
representative
nemas
and
representative
bratcher
also
brought
it
to
my
attention.
They
may
know
more
than
than
I
know,
but
certainly
we
we
have
to
find
ways
to
to
stop
that
kind
of
conduct
and
behavior,
because
we
just
you
know
we're
losing
too
many
people.
J
Chairman,
while
we're
waiting,
I
wanted
to
mention
that
officer
shirley
was
had
received
the
medal
of
honor
last
year,
medal
of
valor
last
year
from
sheriff
aubry.
So
this
was
a
you
know
in
any
law,
enforcement
would
lose
any
law
enforcement
life
is
very
meaningful.
This
man
is
a
young
man.
He
joined
the
joined
the
force
in
2018
and
he'd
already
shown
how
how
much
is
a
great
service
to
our
community
and
it's
a
it's
a
tremendous
loss.
J
He
was
also
in
the
court,
the
court
security
division
of
our
sheriff's
office
and
he
was
ambushed
while.
A
A
If
you
see
the
agenda
here,
we
have
three
or
four
things
and
I'm
going
to
get
to
those
and
approve
them
as
soon
as
we
have
audio,
but
the
anti-slap
legislation,
anti-swatting
legislation,
virtual
judicial
proceedings
and
enhanced
penalties
for
fentanyl
offenses.
A
I
am
going
to
take
the
last
first
and
that
will
be
the
enhanced
penalties
for
fentanyl
offenses.
So,
while
we're
waiting
for
this
to
get
fixed
representative
fugit,
if
you
and
your
guest
would
like
to
come
forward
and
get
situated,
we
will
call
you
as
soon
as
we
get
confirmation
that
our
audio
is.
L
M
A
A
In
a
second
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed,
there
is
none
with
that
a
good
morning,
representative
fugit,
please
feel
free
to
proceed,
introduce
your
guest
and
we
we
have
told
all
of
the
presenters
today
that
the
time
frame
are
on
they're.
Well
aware
that
so
we'll
let
you
we
understand,
there's
a
delay
so
we'll
let
you
get
your
time
in
so
please
proceed.
K
Yes,
sir,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
the
committee
for
allowing
us
to
come
before
you
today
on.
What
I
feel
like
is
could
be
a
great
or
one
of
the
most
important
little
pieces
of
legislation
that
we'll
probably
look
at
in
in
the
next
upcoming
session.
I
am
representative
chris
fugit.
I
represent
the
84th
district,
which
is
perry
and
part
of
harlan
county,
and
I
have
a
guest
with
me
today,
I'll
let
him
introduce
his
self
and
then
take
off
with
the
presentation.
O
Hello,
I'm
scott
blair,
I'm
the
commonwealth,
scott
blair,
the
commonwealth
attorney
in
perry,
county
33rd
judicial
circuit,
we're
here
today
about
increased
penalties
for
fentanyl.
As
you
know,
back
last
year
hazard
got
perry
county
got
brought
into
the
world
of
fentanyl
reigned.
In
really
fast.
We
had
an
overdose.
Four
people
died
immediately.
O
It
was
it
fitting
on
car
fentanyl,
I
think,
and
so
when
they
had
two
officers
who
responded
to
this
and
they
changed
their
mask
or
their
gloves
or
something,
and
when
they
did
this,
they
must
have
inhaled
some
of
the
fentanyl
and
both
of
them
had
to
be
narcan
one
of
them
twice.
O
O
We
had
almost
2
000
overdoses
and
out
of
those
2
000
70
percent
involve
fentanyl
in
perry
county.
I
can
speak,
we
have
seen
a
drastic
increase
in
overdose
deaths.
I
mean
we
had
a
drug
problem
anyway
with
the
opioid
opioid
crisis.
It's
gotten
far
worse
with
fentanyl,
I
mean
a
lot
of
times
these
people
don't
know.
What's
in
the
drug
or
the
dealers
don't
even
know
it's
in
the
drugs,
sometimes
they
do
know.
Sometimes
it's
sort
of
a
status
symbol
to
be
the
one
where
somebody
died.
O
Narcan
has
been
having
to
put
on
on
all
the
flop
houses,
and
I
mean
it's
just
gotten
to
be
a
really
big
problem.
We
can't
do
anything.
We
got
one
of
the
big
fentanyl
dealers
the
other
day
and
he
told
the
police
go
ahead
and
do
what
you
want
to
do.
I
know
they
can't
do
much
to
me
anyway
and
put
the
bond
as
high
as
you
want
it.
O
I
can
make
it
so
that's
what
we're
fighting
and
we're
losing
too
many
of
our
young
people
to
it,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
here
today
and
I
appreciate
representative
fugit
inviting
me
up-
it's
an
honor
to
be
here
and
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
him.
With
that.
K
Thank
you,
scott,
and
you
know
scott
approached
me.
I
think
I
told
this
story
of
the
of
the
10
over.
It
was
actually
10
overdoses
at
one
time
in
hazard,
four
four
deaths
four
had
to
be
triple
narcan
and
the
two
hazard
police
officers
had
to
be
double
narcan,
so
they
could
live
prior
to
me
being
in
the
state
legislature.
K
I
served
22
years
with
the
kentucky
state
police
three
years
as
a
radio,
dispatcher
nine
and
a
half
years
on
the
road
as
a
trooper,
nine
and
a
half
years
as
part
of
the
height
of
drug
task
force
and
back
in
those
days
it
was
prescription
medication,
lorcet,
oxycontin
oxycodone.
That
was
the
big
deal
on
the
streets,
tylox
and
all
that,
and
so
we
dealt
with
that
and
then
toward
the
end
of
my
career.
Methamphetamine
came
on
the
scene
and
we
took
down
we
dismount
meth
labs.
K
You
know
three
or
four
a
week
and
and
so
it
it
was
dangerous.
K
But
when
you
start
talking
about
fentanyl
it,
it
raises
to
a
whole
new
level,
because
just
the
exposure
of
being
of
to
the
fentanyl
can
can
result
in
death,
and
so
you
look
at
the
kids
that
are
in
the
houses
where
fentanyl
is
being
trafficked.
You
look
at
all
the
deaths
of
possible
deaths
to
the
police
officers
that
respond
and
to
those
that
are
on
the
street,
who
are
who
are
users.
K
So,
if
you
think
about
you
know
the
the
value
of
life,
you
know
these
drug
traffickers,
they
know
what
they're
selling
the
people
that
are
buying.
They
don't
really
know
what
they're
buying
in
a
lot
of
instances,
and
so
I
appreciate
our
commonwealth
attorneys,
stepping
forward
and
being
kind
of
the
lead
within
the
the
commonwealth
attorneys
across
kentucky,
and
I'm
I'm
honored
to
be
able
to
try
to
pass
or
pack
this
through
the
legislature.
So
we
can
get
it
passed
and
and
protect
those
in
you
know
in
our
streets
and
homes
and
hollers.
A
Thank
you,
representative
few
good.
I
know
that
many
of
our
members
have
heard
that
story
before
and
and
certainly
just
like
the
story
we
talked
about
earlier
today.
That's
tragic
and
we
as
policy
makers,
have
to
find
ways
to
address
that.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
forward.
We
do
have
some
questions.
Senator
wheeler.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
representative
fugitt,
for
for
bringing
up
this
important
subject,
and
one
thing
I
was
wondering
have
you
all
also
thought
about
some
civil
forfeiture
penalties
as
well,
based
on
what
the
commonwealth
attorney
said
about
I'm
able
to
make
any
bond,
it
sounds
like
some
people
are,
are
making
a
lot
of
money
off
of
this,
and
you
know
to
the
extent
that
we
can
actually
find
them
or
create
some
private
causes
of
action
to
for
victims
to
get
assets
might
be
something.
D
D
They
seized
just
two
pounds
of
fentanyl
and
20
29
pounds
of
fentanyl
and
already
during
the
2021
fiscal
year,
agents
have
found
41
pounds
so
far
coming
over
the
southern
border.
Do
you
think
that
controlling
our
southern
border
and
the
failure
of
washington
to
do
that
is
placing
some
of
our
young
people
at
risk
in
eastern
kentucky
and
other
rural
areas.
K
To
answer
your
first
question:
as
far
as
the
the
forfeiture
of
money
that
we
have
that
already
have
laws
on
the
on
the
books
that
allows
police
officers
to
seize
money
and
it
to
be
forfeited.
Now,
as
far
as
going
to
the
victims
of
the
crimes,
I
don't
know,
if
there's
any
legislation
that
would
do
that.
Second
part
of
the
question.
Of
course
you
know
there
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
things
we
could
blame
as
far
as
the
fentanyl
company
and
that
that's
one
of
them.
K
I
mean
if
we
tightened
up
on
the
borders
and
and
all
that,
but
it,
but
really
you
know,
kentucky
could
be
the
state
that
would
that
would
kind
of
set
the
bar
of
we're,
not
gonna.
We're
not
gonna
put
up
with
any
fentanyl
traffickers
in
kentucky
you're
gonna
be
punished.
If
you
come
to
kentucky
and
sell
this
stuff
to
our
kids
and
our
people,
then
we're
going
to
punish
you
in
kentucky,
and
I
we
I
don't-
have
any
control
over
the
border.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
all
for
bringing
this
piece
before
us
today,
quick
question.
It's
been
a
few
years
since
I've
studied
krs
and
fentanyl.
Wasn't
in
my
day,
like
representative
fugit,
wasn't
an
issue.
What
class
felony
is
fentanyl
trafficking?
Currently
it's.
F
F
Okay,
so
I
asked
those
questions,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
not
familiar
with
the
classifications
of
felonies
and
how
long
they're,
already
pulling
so
potentially
with
probation
and
different
things.
Someone
that's
trafficking
in
fentanyl
could
get
charged
in
a
matter
of
just
a
very
few
years,
be
out
and
back
on
the
street
and
back
to
trafficking
and
fentanyl,
and
it
is
a
very,
very
extremely
dangerous
drug.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
just
yesterday
in
ashland
here
in
kentucky
two
police
officers
there
from
the
ashland
pd
was
involved
in
a
traffic.
F
F
F
Necessarily,
we
see
it
all
the
time
in
the
federal
system
and
we
need
to
keep
these
people.
Part
of
our
responsibility
is
to
keep
our
public
safe
and
keeping
these
people
off
the
street
as
long
as
possible
is
doing
that
now,
we've
just
lived
through
a
a
year
and
close
to
a
year
and
a
half
we're
pushing
towards,
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
arguments
or
one
of
the
statements
that
I've
heard
time
and
time
again
is
every
life
matters.
F
Well,
either
every
life
matters
all
the
time
or
it
doesn't
it.
Doesn't
you
can't
pick
and
choose
what
issues
that
every
life
matters,
and
so,
if
keeping
an
individual
off
the
street,
that
is
trafficking
in
fentanyl
for
a
longer
period
of
time,
is
protecting
lives.
We're
hearing
about
the
increase
in
overdose
deaths
then
do
not.
We
owe
it
to
our
citizenry
to
keep
those
people
off
of
the
streets.
F
You
see
what
we
have
lost
focus
on,
whether
it's
fentanyl
or
injustice
in
general,
with
the
new
catchphrase
of
criminal
justice
reform
is
actually
disguised
for
being
soft
on
crime
and
all
we're
doing
is
creating
more
victims.
All
we're
doing
is
costing
more
lives
as
a
matter
of
fact,
with
all
the
rhetoric
that's
been
going
on
over
the
past
year,
with
all
the
softening
of
things,
we
led
to
a
deputy,
getting
assassin
assassinated
this
morning
in
louisville
kentucky.
F
F
If,
if
and
we're
worried
about
a
dollar-
let's
be
honest,
that's
all
we
hear
about
is
how
much
it
costs
to
incarcerate
people.
There
was
a
bill
back
several
years
ago
that
nobody
in
law
enforcement
supported
house
bill
463
that
did
nothing
but
hurt
and
create
more
victims
in
the
commonwealth.
Kentucky
now
we're
either
going
to
stand
by
and
protect
the
citizens
of
this
commonwealth
that
we
up.
We,
we
took
an
oath
to
to
to
do
or
we're
not
it's
time
we
stop
being
soft
on
crime.
F
If
we
want
to
solve
the
problem,
let's
build
more
prisons,
hey
build
them
up
my
area.
We
can
put
people
to
work,
we
got
people
that'll,
fill
the
positions
up
there,
but
letting
everybody
out
and
another
fallacy.
That's
contributed
to
the
fentanyl
problem
to
the
overdose
problem,
to
the
problems
we've
seen
with
our
police
dying
on
the
streets.
F
F
They
may
have
pled
to
that
possession,
but
they
were
charged
with
trafficking,
the
vast
majority
of
them,
nobody,
mr
commonwealth
attorney.
You
know
this
to
be
a
fact:
nobody
goes
to
prison
on
a
first
offense
possession
of
a
drug.
It
just
doesn't
happen,
don't
happen
in
kentucky.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
it's
multiple
times
we
keep
talking
about
second
chances.
F
We
just
had
brought
in
a
few
weeks
ago,
a
family
in
louisville
that
lost
their
son
from
somebody
who
shouldn't
even
been
on
the
street.
How
many
times
do
we
give
these
people
second
chances,
and
this
fentanyl
is
just
another
issue
I'll
support
you,
brother,
representative,
fugit
I'll
sign
on
to
co-sponsor
your
bill
to
push
for
85
percent
for
fentanyl,
but
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
other
crimes
that
need
to
be
increased
to
85
percent.
F
A
N
Thank
you,
sir
representative
fugit.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
is
fentanyl.
Maybe
you
or
your
your
partner
there
will
know,
is
fentanyl
a
brand
name
or
is
it
just
the
type
of
of
a
drug.
K
100
sure,
I'm
not,
I
think
it's
a
type
of
drug,
just
like
cocaine
heroin,
it's
a
type
of
a
drug
not
like
a
and
some
of
the
doctors
or
somebody
represent
moser
could
probably
answer
that.
But
I
think
it's
a
type
of
drug,
not
just
a
pharmaceutical
name.
K
A
I
know
that
we
have
a
few
other
questions.
Did
you
want
to
comment?
I
know
representative
mosher
was
just
saying
what
fentanyl
was
if
you
want
to
quickly
say
that.
P
Sure
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
clara
help.
Clarify
fentanyl
is
an
opioid,
it's
a
synthetic
opioid,
and
so
it's
it's
manufactured
to
be
about
10
times
stronger
than
heroin
in
in
really
simplistic.
I
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
to
representative
mosher's
comments
and
senator
wheeler
and
representative
brasher.
You
know
in
pharmacy.
You
typically
don't
see
much
fentanyl
these
days
when
it
is
prescribed,
it's
typically
given
to
terminal
cancer
patients,
but
you
don't
really
see
much
anymore
to
my
understanding
and
from
the
people.
I've
talked
to
in
the
dea
most
of
it's
coming
from
china
going
to
mexico
and
then
coming
up
through
the
border,
fentanyl
and
also
carfentanil,
but
representing
a
few
good
scott.
G
I
just
want
to
thank
you
all
all
for
bringing
this
here.
I
remember
being
on
the
house
floor
next
year,
representative
fugit,
I
think
representative
blanton
was
there
too,
as
all
this
was
going
down
and
and
it's
it's
heartbreaking
for
the
families,
not
only
in
eastern
kentucky
but
across
kentucky
as
a
whole
in
our
nation,
I'm
in
support
of
this
bill,
and
I
look
forward
to
helping
you
craft
it
going
forward.
Thank
you
all.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
fugitive,
I
also
appreciate
you
bringing
this.
All
I
would
ask
is
that
my
40-something
years
you've
been
an
officer
and
I've
been
in
the
court
system.
We
ought
to
mandate
some
type
of
rehab
and
education
because
these
people
are
going
to
be
back
out
on
the
street.
We
represent
they're
back
in
there
again
and-
and
I
know
that
some
of
them
won't
even
go
through
the
sap
program-
will
spend
their
time
instead
of
getting
out
15
or
18
months
earlier.
Q
Q
I
know
the
department
of
justice
has
their
own
things,
that
they
want
them
to
get
rehabbed
and
whatever,
but
I
think
we
should
mandate
that
legislatively
at
the
same
time,
so
that
it's
just
like
the
85
percent
that
they've
got
to
go
through
that
rehab
set
in
those
classes
and
go.
They
don't
have
no
choice
to
so.
I'd
appreciate
and
I'll
work
with
you
on
that,
if
you
so
desire
from
this
side.
Thank
you.
K
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
had
to
look
this
up.
I
remembered
from
a
couple
years
ago
we've
talked
about
what
a
deadly
substance
fentanyl
and
car
fentanyl
are.
We
amended
the
manslaughter
in
the
second
degree
statute,
to
include
the
proxy
if
the
proximate
cause
of
death
is
the
result
of
a
schedule,
one
or
two
substance,
then
the
I
guess
that
the
trafficker
or
the
person
who
supplied
those
substances
could
also
be
charged
with
manslaughter,
in
the
second
degree,
now
they're,
both
class
c's.
O
To
give
you
a
crazy
example,
it's
sort
of
like
counting
on
someone
to
know
how
to
land
the
plane
who's,
not
a
pilot.
If
something
happens
to
the
pilot,
you
know
what
I'm
saying
I
mean
it's
just
like,
because
it's
really
hard
to
prove
and
a
lot
of
times
it's
hard
to
make
that
jump.
A
matter
of
fact
I
saw
I
was
in
louisville.
O
You
guys
from
louisville
might
have
seen
it
a
couple
weeks
ago,
and-
and
there
was
a
big
issue
on
the
tv
there
about
how
they're
trying
to
go
about,
investigating
and
proving
all
these
to
make
the
approximate
cause
and
a
lot
of
it,
too,
is
a
lot
more.
We
don't
have
the
legwork
in
perry
county
to
to
go.
Do
all
the
detective
work
I
mean,
because
actually
all
of
our
state
police,
county
and
city
are
fighting
against
the
drugs
and
everything
else
that's
going
on.
J
J
The
first
focus
is
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
future
victims.
We
have
fewer
future
victims.
We
want
to
treat
an
addict
different
than
a
trafficker.
That's
what
this
bill
does.
That's,
why
criminal
justice
reformers,
I
think,
will
be
supportive
of
this
bill.
We
want
to
keep
people
who
are
trafficking
this
stuff
in
prison
for
a
long
time
we're
not
talking
about
referring
performing
these
types
of
folks.
J
We
are
longer
term,
but
we
need
to
keep
them
off
our
street
longer
and
we're
only
talking
about
8.5
years
here
if
they
get
the
maximum
sentence
of
10
years
under
a
class
c
if
they
get
the
minimum,
which
is
five
years
in
one
day,
it's
85
percent
of
that
we're
not
talking
about
lifetime
in
prison
here-
and
I
agree
with
my
my
friend,
the
senator
from
senator
turner
that
we
need
to
have.
We
need
to
mandate
treatment,
criminal
justice,
reformers
believe
in
treatment
very
deeply.
So
do
you
representative?
J
We
believe
that
people
need
to
go
through
the
substance
abuse
program.
We
believe
in
dismissed
charities
and
things
of
that
nature,
criminal
justice,
reformers
and
hard
on
crimers.
Like
my
good,
my
good
friend,
who
I
love
representative
blanton,
agree
on
a
great
deal,
so
the
first
focus
of
criminal
justice
reform
is
to
is
to
have
fewer
victims
in
the
future.
These
folks
are
going
to
get
out
of
prison
at
some
point
and
the
addicts,
our
our
neighbors,
our
family
members,
who
we
love.
J
We
need
to
treat
them
not
throw
them
away
and
lock
the
key,
don't
lock
the
lock
the
door
and
throw
them
away,
we
need
to
get
them
treatment.
That's
what
criminal
justice
reform
is
about.
That's
point
number
one
point
number
two:
as
the
commonwealth
attorney
said,
we
don't
have
the
legs
to
do
all
this
work.
J
Criminal
justice
reformers
believe
that
properly
allocating
scarce
resources
on
serious
crimes
like
trafficking,
trafficking
fentanyl,
is
what
we
need
to
focus
on,
and
so
by
properly
allocating
our
scarcity
resources
we
can.
We
can
go
after
serious
crime
and
then
and
then
leave
the
people
who
need
to
be
treated
to
treatment.
So
that's
what
criminal
justice
reform
is.
J
I
know
my
friend
throws
some
pejoratives
at
us,
but
we
are
in
it
to
reduce
victims,
the
future
victims,
so
this
bill
I'd
like
to
request
to
be
a
co-sponsor
of
because
this
is
this
is
right
in
line
with
what
criminal
justice
reformers
support
and
that
is
to
go
after
serious
crime
that
will
reduce
future
victims.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
representative
nemes,
and
thank
you,
gentlemen
for
being
here
today,
we'll
continue
to
discuss
and
work
on
this.
It
sounds
like
there's
some
things
that
your
discussion
has
started,
that
might
even
strengthen
the
bill
and
so
we'll
look
to
that
in
the
future.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
Thank.
A
Next,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
anti-slap
legislation
and
we
will
have
representative
call
carney
and
representative
nemes
and
laughingly.
I
will
tell
you
that
my
my
assistant,
josh
nacy,
said
we.
We
could
call
this
the
the
swatting
and
slapping
meeting
so
we're
gonna
have
the
anti-slap
legislation
piece
now
so
go
ahead
and
come
and
get
situated
and
when
you're
ready
to
proceed.
Please
introduce
yourself
and
we'll
be
glad
to
hear
from
you.
A
R
R
Well,
I'd
like
to
start
chairman
by
thanking
you
by
thanking
vice
chair,
banta
representatives,
petrie
elliott,
josh
nacie
and
my
colleague,
representative
dimas,
who
signed
on
as
a
co-sponsor
for
this
bill
in
this
past
session,
we're
going
to
be
discussing
anti-slap
legislation,
which
is
a
bipartisan
measure.
It
has
broad
bipartisan
support.
R
I
want
to
give
a
quick
shout
out
to
the
staff.
They
had
forwarded
a
a
series
of
statements
to
you
all
this
morning
of
organizations
that
support
anti-slap
legislation,
ranging
from
the
aclu
to
americans
for
prosperity,
the
bluegrass
institute,
the
pegasus
institute,
the
kpa,
open
government
coalition
and
national
groups
like
the
public
participation
project
and
the
uniform
law
commission,
which
we
will
be
talking
about
a
little
bit
later.
So
I
wanted
to
start
with
explaining
what
slap
legis,
what
slap
lawsuits
are
and
with
the
show
of
hands.
R
A
R
R
But
these
are
essentially
civil
lawsuits
that
are
filed.
It
can
be
a
claim
or
a
counter
claim,
filed
again
against
non-governmental
individuals
or
groups
because
of
their
communications,
to
a
government
body,
a
government
official
or
to
the
electorate
at
large,
and
it
must
be
on
an
issue
of
some
public
concern
or
significance.
R
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
understand
about
slap
lawsuits
is
that
they
essentially
change
the
balance
of
power
between
parties.
So,
in
a
slap
situation,
you
will
see
an
imbalance
of
resources,
whether
that's
money,
wealth
influence,
some
form
of
imbalance
in
that
situation,
and
that
is
because
slap
lawsuits
essentially
intend
to
take
a
matter
of
public
concern
or
significance
out
of
the
public
arena
and
into
the
courtroom
which
shifts
the
attention
from
the
speech
or
activity
that's
being
engaged
in
and
towards
a
legal
defense.
R
It's
also
important
to
note
that
plaintiffs
that
bring
slap
lawsuits
do
not
intend
to
prevail
in
court.
Often
these
lawsuits
are
intended
simply
to
delay
matters
or
to
discourage
individuals
from
continuing
in
that
speech,
it
could
be
just
until
the
point
becomes
moot.
It
could
be
until
public
interest
wanes
eventually
the
point
being
that
the
plaintiff
continues
the
activity
that
is
unresolved
in
the
public
arena.
R
Largely
these
types
of
lawsuits
take
the
shape
of
six
types
of
torts,
but
largely
libel
and
slander,
so
defamation
lawsuits
or
business
torts,
which
could
include
interference
with
contract,
tortious
interference
or
economic
expectancy.
Those
are
the
most
common
types
of
torque
of
torque
claims
that
these
are
essentially
masquerading
as
so.
The
the
simple
elements
are
that
this
is
these:
are
civil
lawsuits
masquerading
as
potential
potentially
normal
tort
lawsuits
that
are
actually
not
intended
to
prevail
on
the
merits
and
are
instead
intended
to
delay,
chill,
suppress
or
discourage
free
speech?
R
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
know
nina
you
and
I
have
discussed
this
in
the
past
and
I
you
know
I
as
an
attorney
myself
and
somebody
who
regularly
participates
in
the
civil
justice
system,
representing
aggrieved
parties.
D
I
think
you
know
public
figures
that
a
lot
of
times
the
press
and
some
of
these
people
and
organizations
that
put
a
lot
of
garbage
out
there
do
get
a
free
pass
in
the
media
for
saying
things
that
simply
aren't
true
and
that
people
have
a
right
to
go
to
court
to
seek
recompense
for
any
damages
that
are
done,
and
you
know
I
just
have
a
fundamental
issue
with
loser
pace.
I
think,
when
you
have
loser,
pays
that
also
inhibits
people's
ability
to
access
the
justice
system.
D
So
you
know
I
I
can
see
some
merit
to
what
you're
trying
to
achieve,
but
you
know
I
also
think
it's
a
slippery
slope
towards
a
a
system
in
a
civil
justice
system
in
kentucky
that
I
just
really
am
utter
you
know
extremely
opposed
to,
which
is
that
the
prevailing
party
always
is
entitled
to
attorney's
fees
from
the
person.
That
doesn't
I
mean,
there's
a
lot
of
different
types
of
lawsuits
out
there
that
are
very
difficult
to
to
prove
in
court.
D
That
doesn't
mean
that
they
were
meritless
at
the
time
they
were
filed.
So,
although
I
appreciate
what
you
and
representative
nemes
are
trying
to
do,
I
think
they're.
You
know
I.
I
have
faith
in
the
justice
system
to
to
see
that
you
know
the
resolution.
The
right
resolution
comes
about
in
most
cases,
so
I
do
appreciate
your
efforts,
but
I
have
some
issues
with
this
type
of
bill.
J
Thank
you
senator.
I
completely
agree
with
you.
I
trust
the
justice
system
and
I
want
people
to
be
able
to
have
access
to
the
courts.
This
is
when
someone
files
a
frivolous
lawsuit
and
and
having
the
loser
pays
is.
This
is
not
exactly
that
this
is
more
akin
to
sanctions
under
rule
11,
which
are
already
allowed
and
have
been
allowed
in
every
court
across
the
country
for
a
long
time.
That's
why
groups
like
from
the
right,
like
the
afp
and
from
the
left
like
aclu,
support
this
bill.
J
That's
why
the
kentucky
justice
association
is
not
opposing
the
bill.
That's
why
the
kentucky
press
association
supported
we
so
so
I
agree
with
all
of
your
concerns.
This
bill
is
very
tight.
Let
me
give
you
an
example
that
I
read
about.
Last
week
there
was
a
mom
who
showed
up
to
a
school
board
meeting
and
against
crt
school
board
files,
a
lawsuit
against
her
frivolous,
completely
a
joke.
J
Under
this
bill,
she
would
have
the
right
to
go
to
go
on
offense
against
them,
because
that
and
challenge
them
for
bringing
that
frivolous
lawsuit.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
easy
to
prove,
but
if,
if
you
file
a
lawsuit
against
someone
for
exercising
the
right
to
speech
to
speak
and
participate
in
the
public
process-
and
they
can
prove
that
that
is
a
misuse
of
the
court
system-
they
have
to
prove
it
in
court.
J
Only
then
will
this
apply
only
then
well,
so
that's
what
this
bill
is
trying
to
do
we're
not
trying
to
get
away
from
the
court
system.
They
can
still
go
to
court,
they
have
to
prove
it
in
court,
we're
trying
to
it's,
and
so
you
said
about
the
new
york
times
versus
sullivan.
I
think
the
concerns
we
have
here
are
in
line
with
your
view
of
new
york
times
versus
sullivan.
D
You're,
mr
trump,
I
have
a
brief
response.
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
you
you
kind
of
made
my
point.
There
are
procedures
within
the
court
system
right
now
via
rule
11
and
including
a
counter
claim
for
malicious
prosecution
that
are
available.
That,
I
would
think,
would
would
essentially
result
in
the
same
type
of
of
outcome
that
you
all
are
seeking
to
to
effect.
With
the
passage
of
this
statute,
I
mean
those
are.
Those
are
types
of
claims
that
you
can
assert.
D
R
And
very
quickly
chairman,
if
I
might
senator
wheeler,
I
completely
agree
with
you
and
I
understand
your
concerns
and
there
are
absolutely
legitimate
concerns.
There
has
been
a
wide
variety
of
anti-slap
legislation.
That's
been
enacted
in
in
many
states,
so
as
of
today,
there's
33
states
plus
d.c
and
the
territory
of
guam
that
have
some
version
of
anti-slap
legislation,
but
they
are
not
consistent
and
they
have
resulted
in
a
lot
of
meritorious
lawsuits
not
being
able
to
go
forward.
R
R
In
section
three,
a
freeze
or
a
stay
of
discovery,
and
this
version
allows
for
a
limited
allowance
for
the
in
the
court's
discretion
to
in
case
there
are
facts
that
need
to
be
discovered.
R
So
it's
not
an
absolute
stay
of
discovery.
It's
expedited
disposition.
There's
got
to
be
a
hearing
on
this
slap
motion.
If
it
is
indeed
found
to
be
a
slap
situation
by
the
court,
it
requires
a
show
of
merit
on
the
plaintiff's
part
and
it's
got
cost
shifting
sanctions.
So
it's
a
burden,
shifting
statute
and
cost
shifting
statute,
which
means,
if
you're
the
person,
that's
bringing
this
motion
or
this
slap
suit,
and
somebody
brings
emotion
under
this
act.
You
have
to
prove
that
your
claim
is
legitimate,
that
it's
with
merit
and
it's
a
probability.
R
It's
not
a
an
absolute
clear
and
convincing
standard,
and
that
is
something
that
these
statutes
provide
is
a
framework
of
identifying
what
actually
constitutes
a
slap
suit
and
a
way
for
the
court
to
expeditiously
resolve
that
meritless
suit,
so
that
the
underlying
cause
of
action
can
move
forward.
So
your
cl,
your
concerns
are
absolutely
legitimate.
R
R
They
have
had
all
of
these
issues
that
that
you
are
concerned
about
with
the
slippery
slope.
This
particular
draft
has
a
lot
of
exemptions.
J
N
R
So
slap
laws
slap
is
a
a
lawsuit
right,
so
it's
a
claim,
that's
brought
strategically
and
it's
brought
in
order
to
essentially
suppress
an
action
or
a
speech
that
is
being
brought
forward.
So
there
are
several
examples
that
were
provided
by
some
of
these
organizations
and
this
could
apply
in
whistleblower
lawsuits.
So
that
happened
in
kentucky
where
there
was
against
a
mining
company,
actually
where
there
was
safety
concerns
and
the
mining
company
sued
the
individual
for
sorry
for
defamation
and
so
that
individual
had
to
bear
the
cost
of
defending
the
entire
process
of
that
defamation.
R
Lawsuit
ultimately
prevailed
because
it
was
not
a
meritorious
claim,
so
the
mining
company
lost
the
defamation
claim,
but
in
the
meantime,
that
litigation
process
took
years
cost
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
this
individual
and
and
didn't
really
change
anything.
So
the
mining
company,
whatever
the
dangerous
practices,
were
continuing
to
go
forward.
R
So
it's
brought
in
in
a
variety
of
different
cases
and
it's
sometimes
difficult
to
identify
something
as
a
slap
suit,
which
is
exactly
what
this
bill
tries
to
pro
like
essentially
present
a
framework
for.
J
J
If
some
people
do
that
just
to
delay
the
process,
so
this
kind
of
has
a
similar
thought
there
in
in
expediting
a
resolution
and
and
so
in
in
some
ways
I
think
a
similar
thought
is.
N
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
that
forward.
I
think
I've
learned
a
lot
through
this
process
because
doing
the
kind
of
legal
work
I
do.
I
didn't
know
what
slap
litigation
was
until
I
got
into
this
conversation.
So
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
very
well
done
next.
We
have
we
went
from
from
slapping
to
now
we'll
do
swatting
and
so
representative
pratt.
If
you
could
come
forward
and
you
can
get
comfortable
and
introduce
yourself
and
your
guests
and
when
you're
ready
proceed.
A
N
There
he
is
there
anyway.
Thank
you,
chairman
massey.
Thank
you,
members
for
allowing
me
to
present
us
spotting
bill
day
much
like
earlier.
You've
probably
never
heard
of
swatty,
and
I
did
not
until
I
got
a
call
from
my
sheriff
here,
tony
hampton,
who
was
talking
about
a
couple
who
got
swatted
in
georgetown
and
at
that
point
in
time.
What
brought
this
bill
about
right
now,
a
swatting
call
is
a
misdemeanor.
N
It
has
no
recourse
to
get
compensation
back
and
that's
what
brawl
is
about
at
this
point
time,
if
you
will
play
the
video,
I
think
it's
pretty
self-explanatory
as
to
what
we're
going
after
and
why
we're
here
and
they
don't.
Let
me
touch
computers
for
a
very
good
reason.
N
P
N
N
G
G
Assault
isn't
a
joke,
it
is
and
that's
how
exactly
how
we
feel
that
we
have
been
assaulted.
When
I
looked
out
the
door,
I
saw
an
officer
with
a
gun
pointed
at
me
and
I
was
petrified.
I
said
what
is
going
on
here.
Come
on
now,
no
ma'am
you're
coming
out
now.
O
G
N
G
N
S
N
G
Yeah
to
me,
that's
a
joke
100.
This
should
be
a
felony.
This
should
be
a
felony
crime.
You
know
we're
still
dealing
with
this
trauma
from
this.
You
know
and
the
idea
that
that
this
could
be
associated
with
a
video
gaming
situation
or
a
prank
call.
This
surpasses
that
by
far
this
is
so
much
more
than
a
prank.
Damn.
N
G
C
N
Thank
you,
as
you
guys
can
see
from
the
video
I
want
yeah.
I
want
to
thank
the
scott
county
sheriff
department
of
deputies
for
de-escalating
a
very
dangerous
situation.
Just
recently
in
tennessee
a
gentleman
was
swatted
and
died
of
a
heart
attack.
His
daughter
said
he
was
shocked
and
confused
after
swatting
call
and
looked
out
at
all
the
armed
men
in
his
out
in
his
yard
and
actually
had
a
massive
heart
attack
and
died.
So
this
can
lead
to
death
and
we
again
need
to
put
some
teeth
in
again.
N
That's
a
youngster
again
bored
on
the
farm.
I
have
called
a
drug
store
and
said
you
have
prince
alvin.
Can
yes,
we
need
to
lay
them
out.
This
is
nothing
to
do
with
this.
This
is
much
more
dangerous.
This
is
on
a
different
level,
but
again
so
at
this
point
time.
I
plan
on
following
this
legislation
and
today,
but
I
also
want
to
thank
the
staff,
the
judiciary
staff,
for
the
hard
work
and
help
me
write
this
bills.
N
You
know
I'm
not
an
attorney
and
also
for
mr
hampton
his
his
leeway
and
for
lax
18
for
their
production
of
this.
So,
if
you
don't
have
any
questions,
gentlemen,
I
would
like
to
entertain
him
at
this
point
in
time
we
have
representative.
Q
As
as
I
understand
it,
and
thank
you,
gentlemen
for
bringing
this,
but
as
I
understand
it,
there
still
is
a
section
for
a
class,
a
misdemeanor
in
here.
The
one
that
you're
really
talking
about
is
whenever
there's
a
false
alarm
involved
within
a
fire
emergency
visual,
vile
that
section
a
you.
You
got
this
quantified
intersection,
that's
going
to
make
it
a
class
d
felony!
Yes,.
N
Q
N
Again,
I
don't
know
if
I'm
you're,
not
an
attorney,
not
a
judge,
so
I
don't
get
to
say
what
it
is
and
isn't
it
we'll
get
you
there,
but
if
someone
is
physically
injured,
such
as
heaven
forbid,
while
you're
racing
to
that
scene,
you
you
turn
your
you
know
cruiser
or
your
fire
truck
over
and
you're
energy
injured.
There
should
be
some
penalties
with
that.
Q
Okay,
there
is
a
second
physician
position
that
says
if
it's
a
serious
physical
injury,
it's
a
class
b
which
goes
to
10
to
20
years
for
that
truck
to
turn
it
over.
But
if
he
mashes
his
finger
on
the
door
drills
his
ankle
anything
the
person
gets
five
to
ten
years.
Independent
teacher
see
it's
a
simple
injury.
N
Q
N
Q
S
You
senator
turner,
I'd
like
to
make
a
response
and
understand
what
you're
saying
about
smashing
a
finger
tripping
twisting
an
ankle,
but
we
had
a
lot
of
vehicles
route
to
this
call
and
going
at
at
a
very
exponential
speed
to
get
there
not
knowing.
What's
going
on
so
we're
looking
at
the
possibility
of
a
serious
wreck,
all
kinds
of
possibilities
when
we
show
up
a
homeowner,
doesn't
understand
what's
going
on
and
they
come
out
with
a
gun.
So
I
just
want
to
throw
that
in
there.
A
Senator
turner,
I
will
also
tell
you
that
these
bills,
that
we've
discussed
today
are
potential
legislation
they're
not
filed.
Yet
the
whole
purpose
of
having
our
discussions
today
was
to
to
bring
these
highlights
to
the
attention
so
that
the
parties
could
get
together
and
and
tighten
it
up
or
fix
anything
they
need.
So
we
certainly
thank
you
for
your
comments.
S
On
the
incident
in
march
that
lee
seriously
reported
on,
obviously
he
sounded
like
a
young
man,
probably
a
teenager.
We
tracked
this
to
texas
and
it
looked
like
it
was
coming
from
scrambled
computer
phone
number.
N
Well,
you
know
it's
just
like
these
telemarketing
laws
that
we've
passed
last
few
sessions-
it's,
I
guess
it's
just
impossible
to
find
out
who's,
sending
these
phone
calls
when
they
scramble
or
whatnot.
I
I
think
we're
not
getting
enough
help
from
from
the
providers
at
t
and
whatnot,
but
that's
another
subject
for
another
day,
but
so
you
would
have
to
put
a
lot
of
man-hours
in
to
find
who
this
is.
Is
there
any
with
with
the
misdemeanor
that
it
is
now?
Is
there
any
civil
penalty
like
do
they
have
to
retribution
or.
S
A
You
next
we
have
senator
westerfield.
E
Thank
you,
chairman,
sheriff
good,
to
see
you
and
representative.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this.
I
support
the
bill.
I
mean
I
I
didn't
know
what
it
was
when
I
saw
it
on
the
agenda.
I
was
curious
and
I
hadn't
heard
of
this
happening
and
and
the
story
that
happened
there
in
scott
county
was
related
to
me.
E
It
didn't
occur
to
me
at
the
time,
but
watching
that
that
news
segment
of
it
prompted
this
question
in
my
mind
and
share
if
you
might
be
the
best
person
to
answer
this
question
but
and
it
kind
of
goes
along
with
what
representative
bratcher
was
just
out
talking
about
and
asking
about,
I'm
curious
what
the
dispatch
system
is
able
to
see-
and
I
know
not
every
system
around
every
county
and
every
municipal
area
is
the
same,
but
I'm
curious
what
what
it's
able
to
see,
and
why
or
or
is
there
something
that
maybe,
in
addition
to
making
this
an
offense,
and
I
think
we
should
I
support
the
bill,
but
I'm
curious
if
our
systems
aren't
sophisticated
enough
to
understand
that
this
number
is
not
being
it's
not
connected
to
that
physical
address,
where
it's
not
even
at
or
near
that
physical
address
and
who
knows
if
it
was
when
they
placed
the
call
and
curious
what
the
system
can
tell
us
or
what
it
could
if
we
invested
more
in
it.
S
A
good
sorry.
S
That's
a
good
question
and
I
was
listening
to
the
radio
the
night.
This
call
came
out
and
I
immediately
thought:
could
we
be
being
swatted
because
it's
happened
before
in
georgetown
scott
county,
so
I
called
dispatch
and
I
said
what
number
did
this
come
from?
Did
this
come
into
9-1-1
or
did
this
come
in
from
just
a
phone
number
and
they
said
just
a
phone
number,
so
I
called
a
lieutenant
that
was
in
a
route
and
said:
hey
just
be
aware,
I
think
you
may
be
swatted,
but
we
still
have
to
treat
it.
E
Well,
I
I
think
that
highlights
the
need
for
not
just
the
the
legislation
that's
being
presented
by
the
representative
there,
but
but
also
for
us
to
have
a
conversation
and
maybe
in
other
committees
about
what
we
can
do
to
help
these
systems
be
more
accurate
and
and
tracking
this
information.
When
a
call
comes
in
I'm
hearing
what
you
just
said,
sheriff
you've
got
a
top-notch
team
there
in
scott
county.
E
E
I'm
not
sure
that
everyone
would
have
had
the
presence
of
mind
to
do
that
and
that's
a
scary.
That's
a
that's!
A
terribly
frightening
situation
for
your
deputies
to
be
in
and
for
those
those
homeowners
to
be
in
who
are
clueless
about
what's
about
to
come
literally
knocking
on
their
door
and
as
the
representative
mentioned,
there
have
been
fatalities.
E
In
fact,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
don't
think
you
all
mention
this,
but
I've
heard
of
situations
where
you
know
people
have
responded
very
defensively
to
law
enforcement
showing
up
and
it's
resulted
in
casualties
or
even
in
an
escalated
incident.
That
would
have
been
obviously
entirely
avoided.
Had
the
swatting
incident
not
taking
place.
S
You're
absolutely
correct,
and
I
give
credit
to
my
lieutenant
for
making
the
decision
to
call
from
a
neighbor's
house
from
someone
they
knew
to
give
them
a
heads
up.
Hey
we're
here,
here's!
Why
we're
here
because
going
approaching
that
house
with
with
rifles
and
some
homeowners
like
I
said
they
may
come
up
with
theirs
as
well,
so
it
could
be
a
very
bad
situation.
Yeah.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
the
presentation
and
I
have
to
admit
this
is
the
first
I've
heard
of
this
being
an
issue
I
haven't
heard
anything
of
this
nature
down
in
my
part
of
the
state.
My
questions
were
pretty
much
answered
and
just
a
couple
comments.
I
think,
with
the
next
gen
9-1-1
with
ksp.
M
It
needs
to
be
treated
very
harshly,
and
I
had
no
issue
at
all
with
the
the
injury
part
of
that
being
a
class
d
felony,
and
I
appreciate
the
efforts-
and
you
know
if
this
is
this-
is
probably
still
in
its
infancy
and
we're
probably
going
to
see
a
lot
more
of
this
and
the
more
comfortable
these
people
feel
about
maintaining
their
anonymity.
M
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
a
couple
quick
points,
one
the
need
to
increase
it
to
a
felony,
as
the
sheriff
talked
about
tracking
it
back
at
least
to
texas.
We
really
don't
know
where
it
originated
from,
but
in
a
misdemeanor
case
in
kentucky
you
can't
extradite
someone
into
kentucky
from
another
state
if
they've
made
that
call
as
a
felony,
the
commonwealth
kentucky
the
commonwealth
attorney
can
seek
then
to
extradite
them
back.
F
So
that
gives
another
tool
for
someone
who
does
this
from
outside
the
state.
Second,
in
the
question
about
being
able
to
identify
phone
numbers,
I'm
assuming
we've
all
been
I'll
call
us
all
victims
of
the
spam
calls
we
get
and
it
looks
like
a
local
number
column.
So
the
technology's
out
there
to
call
someone-
and
it
show
up-
you-
know
someone
in
the
local
area's
number.
F
So
that's
out
there
and
really
that's
something.
We
probably
need
to
address
to
try
to
put
a
stop
to
I'm
tired
of
getting
those
calls,
but-
and
also
it
gets
to
the
point
representative
pratt
was
even
describing
to
me
that
someone
used
it
as
basically
as
a
tool
of
bullying
or
threatening
they
were
wanting
to.
They
wanted
somebody's
name
on
a
gaming
system.
They
wanted
to
use
that
name
for
themselves
and
they
wouldn't
sell
it
to
them,
and
so
they
swatted
them
and
told
them.
You
know
this
is
this
is
what's
gonna
happen?
F
If
you
don't,
let
me
have
that,
so
it's
also
used
as
a
form
of
intimidation
as
well
and
just
just
wanna
make
those
few
points.
Sir.
Next.
C
S
That's
a
good
question
and
I
was
going
to
elaborate
on
that
and
speaking
with
my
detectives,
they
felt
like
with
a
lot
more
resources
and
time
they
possibly
could
have
located
where
it
came
from.
But
we
have
to.
We
have
to
dedicate
our
time
to
more
serious
offenses,
that
you
know
that
we
can
prosecute
felonies
as
opposed
to
what
is
now
a
class
a
misdemeanor.
So
they
did
feel
like
that.
We
possibly
could
have
identified
a
suspect.
C
And
then
I
I
think
my
second
question
goes
to
the
technology,
because
I
completely
agree
with
with
senator
westerfield
and
senator
carroll.
If
we
had
a
system
in
place,
I
mean
like
in
jefferson
county,
which
is
part
of
what,
if
you
call
from
a
home
phone,
it
will
identify
the
location
for
you,
I'm
assuming
there
is
no
way
at
this
point
from
a
cell
phone
call
to
identify
the
location
of
the
caller.
H
F
H
Because
I'm
assuming
tennessee
doesn't
have
a
similar
like
it
might
have
been
sort
of
a
different
charge,
so
I'll
just
be
curious
about
what
the
charge
was
and
whether
we
have
a
similar
charge
here.
It
looks
and
also
looks
like
the
article
I'm
reading.
Do
you
know
whether
california
has
a
specific
swatting
bill,
because
they
were
talking
about
another
case
in
california,
a
man
admitted
to
making
a
phony
emergency
called
a
police
that
led
to
a
shooting
death
of
someone,
and
he
got
a
20-year
prison
sentence.
H
Okay,
I'd
be
curious
what
those
differences
are,
but
you
know
one
led
to
a
five-year
sentence.
One
led
to
a
20-year
sentence,
we're
obviously
looking
to
to
punish
people.
My
other
question
is
I've
been
on
some
text
threads
with
some
individuals
and
people
are
saying.
Well,
you
know
why
not
want
an
endangerment
charge.
It
seems
wanton
endangerment's,
a
pretty
good
catch-all
crime
that
we
have
in
our
state.
For
for
when
someone
is,
you
know
recklessly
and
negligently
put
into
a
lot
of
danger.
H
S
Without
having
the
statute
in
front
of
me
of
wanting
endangerment,
I
know
you
have
to
have
one
conduct,
and
certain
things
would
have
would
have
to
happen
to
meet
that
threshold
to
charge
them
with
it.
I
just
feel
like
creating
a
swatting
bill,
would
be
much
cleaner
and
a
much
more
efficient
way
for
us
to
go
after
these
people
that
are
making
these
these
phone
calls
and
and
cause
them
the
havoc
that
they
are.
H
A
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
I
will
make
one
comment,
and
the
comment
is
simply
this:
that,
in
addition
to
all
the
things
we
talked
about
about
punishment
or
danger,
there's
a
tremendous
amount
of
resources
at
bay
here,
iran,
ems
for
a
number
of
years,
and
so
when
all
your
units
are
responding
to
that
scene,
there
could
be
a
legitimate
call
somewhere
else
that
you
don't
have
sufficient
units
to
respond
to.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
that
go
into
this
consideration.
To
thank
you
for
bringing
this
forth
we'll
continue
to
work
with
it.
A
Certainly
our
staff
will
be
glad
to
look
into
some
of
these
things
that
other
states
are
doing
and
report
back.
So.
Thank
you
very
much,
gentlemen.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you,
members,
we'll
move
now
to
our
last,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
people
to
present
on
this
last
piece,
and
this
is
something
that
is
a
carryover.
A
A
And
so
we
last
year
we
talked
about
this
and
it
got
out
of
committee,
but
the
commitment
was
that
we
would
revisit
it
this
year,
and
so
we
have
here
with
us
today
a
great
group
of
people
they
all
are
very
respected
in
their
various
communities.
I
think
judge
jameson
brought
the
he
brought
the
bill
last
year,
so
we'll
let
him
go
first
and
just
introduce
himself
and
we'll
go
down
the
road.
A
So
everybody
knows
who's
speaking
today,
and
I
will
tell
you,
though,
as
we
go
about
this
conversation,
that
there's
a
commitment
by
myself
that
we
will
have
some
further
discussions
beyond
today,
because
there
are
other
people
that
are
affected,
whether
it
be
sheriffs,
whether
it
be
jailers,
etc.
There's
a
whole
lot
of
components
that
would
have
to
go
through
this
and-
and
I
thought
last
year
we
brought
it-
there's
probably
not
going
to
be
enough
time
unless
we
have
time
to
sort
through
this.
A
So
please
know
that
we'll
get
us
through
as
much
as
we
can.
Today,
we've
got
45
minutes.
You
know
we'll
allow
room
for
questions,
but
there
may
be
some
other
meetings
forthcoming.
Regarding
this
particular
topic,
so
with
that
judge
jameson
you
have
the
floor
and
you
can
either
introduce
them
or
let
them
introduce
themselves
and
you
can
proceed.
P
L
Patricia
sumi,
I'm
a
circuit
court
judge
from
kenton
county
president
of
the
circuit
judges
association.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
here,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
nice
junk
out
on
the
road
on
the
way
here.
So
I
almost
stopped
a
few
times,
but
really
happy
to
talk
about
this
and
and
more
than
happy
to
enter
into
any
kind
of
discussions,
because
I
know
everybody's
got
some
sort
of
concerns
about
what's
going
on
here.
So
open
discussion
is
always
good
with
me.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
laurie
dudgeon.
I
think
everybody
knows
I
am
actually
not
a
judge
and
everybody's
probably
very
grateful
for
that.
I
am
the
director
of
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
and
really
only
here
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
with
respect
to
where
we
are
on
the
technology
side,
statewide
in
all
of
our
courtrooms
and
our
ability
just
to
support
this
initiative.
So,
okay.
T
Just
to
get
started,
I
get
to
kind
of
carry
us
back
into
the
session.
First
of
all,
why
am
I
here?
Okay,
let's
get
a
little
closer
first
of
all,
why
am
I
here
at
all?
Well,
I
was
asked
last
session
to
kind
of
get
with
the
partners
on
virtual
court,
everyone
that
would
be
affected
or
be
a
stakeholder
in
that
and
did
so
just
trying
to
see
if
we
couldn't
come
up
with
some
legislation
that
everybody
could
be
okay
with
and,
of
course,
that's
always
the
sausage
process.
T
You
guys
know
very
well
how
that
how
that
goes
down,
and
it
was
something
that
was
concerned
to
me
and
also
to
my
state
representative
chris
friedlin.
We
had
discussions
about
that.
So
the
long
and
short
of
it
was
the
original
bill
was
introduced
with.
I
don't
think
there
was
a
strong
expectation
that
that
was
going
to
pass
in
its
original
form.
T
There
was
a
committee
sub
filed
that
changed
everything
from
mandatory
to
permissive.
If
I
remember
correctly,
there
was
another
committee
sub.
However,
that
was
really
the
work
that
I
put
in
with
all
of
the
other
individuals.
So,
head
of
the
commonwealth,
attorneys
association,
county
attorneys,
sheriffs
jailers,
caico
and
also
talking
with
mr
preston
from
dpa,
not
saying
all
of
those
supported
the
bill,
but
I
don't
think
dpa.
T
I
think
they
have
their
concerns
and
mr
preston,
I
can
express
those
but
the
one
that
did
not
get
filed.
I
have
with
me.
I
think
I
hope
the
committee
members
were
sent
that
this
morning
by
mr
nacy.
I
don't
know
if
you've
had
an
opportunity
to
review
it
or
not,
but
this
is
a
compilation
of
the
opinions
of
everyone
that
was
that
was
talked
spoken
with,
and
you
know
there
were
still
concerns
on
on
many
issues
and
how
we're
going
to
carry
this
out
in
a
practical
way.
T
Different
jurisdictions
have
different
problems
with
carrying
out
virtual
court
etc.
So
this
is
but
this
was
the
language
that
was
agreed
upon
by
everyone,
except
for
we.
You
know
we
couldn't
get
a
confirmation
from
any
either
the
judges
associations
and
there
really.
There
is
no
way
to
do
that
because
you
have
no
one
person
who
speaks
for
all
of
the
all
of
the
judges
as
far
as
their
opinions
on
laws,
and
they
may
speak
for
them
on.
T
You
know
such
as
the
chief
on
other
issues,
but
but
so
that
that
was
the
biggest
effort.
There
was
trying
to
get
some
kind
of
language
as
a
start,
and
is
that
a
statute
or
you
know
several
statutes
or
is
that
a
criminal
rule?
Or
is
it
a
combination
of
the
two
and
how
you
know?
How
does
that
all
lay
out?
T
There
are
probably
some
constitutional
potential
issues
with
doing
all
of
this
by
legislation,
but
some
thought
that
the
supreme
court
may
or
may
not
adopt
these
policies
if
they
were
passed
through
comedy,
obviously
the
policy
of
a
supreme
court
where
they
can
decide
that
something
does
violate
the
constitution
separation
of
powers,
but
then
also
uphold
that
statute,
because
they
believe
it's
good
policy.
So
now
that
obviously
couldn't
be
determined
until
the
supreme
court
heard
it
on
a
challenge.
But
there
are
legitimate
concerns
there,
because
this
does
get
into
area.
T
That
typically,
would
be
left
to
the
supreme
court,
but
the
as
far
as
going
forward
with
a
statute
itself,
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
across
the
board
from
the
players
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
sheriffs
etc
was
having
a
statute
that
required
jails
to
cooperate
with
virtual
court,
so
that
there's
consistency
across
the
state
right
now.
There
are
many
that
still
participate
in
virtual
court
and
my
the
ones
that
I
deal
with
most
still
do
virtual
court.
T
But
we
have
some
that
do
not
and
there's
legitimate
reasons
for
that,
and
you
know
those
are
things
that
are
going
to
be
need
to
be
addressed
to
figure
out.
You
know
why
is
that
a
a
serious
problem,
for
example,
jefferson
county?
That's
a
lot
of
issues
when
they
help
people
from
all
over
the
state.
However,
you're
going
to
have
room
space
technology
to
carry
out
virtual
court
with
courts
all
over
the
state.
T
However,
you're
going
to
schedule
that
those
sorts
of
things,
although
it
was
arranged
for
about
a
year
due
to
covid,
but
I
don't
think
anybody
thinks
that
that
was
the
perfect
way
to
carry
it
out.
But
this
language
in
the
amended
bill,
the
original
bill
was
pretty
much
mandatory
across
the
board.
This
one
is
not.
It
is
permissive,
except
for
when
an
inmate
is
held
outside
of
that
circuit.
T
Now
I'll
tell
you,
that's
not
really
the
best
way
to
draw
that
line,
because
you
have
circuits,
like
canton
county
judge,
semi
circuit,
where
they
have
several
circuits
in
one
county.
So
that's
not
a
good
way
to
draw
that
line
across
the
state.
T
So
perhaps
a
mileage
line,
maybe
100
miles,
was-
was
thrown
about
by
a
couple
of
different
players,
but
the
idea
being
that
a
situation
that
was
presented
to
me
this
morning,
actually
by
the
head
of
the
jailers
association
that
they
have
one
that
is
in
campbell
county
last
week
that
needed
to
go
to
fulton
county
and
took
him
to
fulton
county.
T
But
he
had
a
court
again
in
campbell
county
the
next
day
and
so
somebody's
got
to
go
nearly
clear
across
the
state,
both
directions
to
do
that,
and
it
was
an
appearance
that
my
understanding
it
was,
you
know
less
than
10
minutes.
So
those
are
the
sort
of
situations.
I
think
that
for
judges
like
myself,
that
are,
you
know,
I
guess
say
pro
pro-virtual
court,
although
acknowledging
that
there
are
things
that
need
to
be
worked
out.
Those
are
the
sort
of
things
that
I
think
this
is
intended
to
go.
T
After
is
those
very
short
hearings
that
you've
got
someone
having
to
haul
somebody
long
distances
and
expend
a
lot
of
resources.
And
it's
my
understanding
from
conversations
today.
All
of
the
groups,
except
for
the
commonwealth's
attorneys
association
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
still
endorse
this
amended
language.
Now.
T
Does
that
again
come
out
as
a
mixture
of
legislation
and
a
rule,
or
that's
for
somebody
else
to
decide,
but
as
far
as
this
language,
they
still
endorse
that
commonwealth
attorneys
asked
me
that
they're
told
me
that
their
official
statement
was
that
there
was
concerns
about
the
problems
with
virtual
court
and
that
there
needs
to
be
some
figuring
that
out
and
they're
gonna
discuss
it
more
at
their
next
meeting,
and
I
think
that's.
T
What
all
of
us
are
are
saying
is
that
there
are
problems
that
we
need
to
sort
out
what
happened
at
the
beginning
here
this
morning,
I
think,
is
a
perfect
example
of
the
sort
of
issues
that
we
have
on
a
regular
basis.
So
we
need
the
technology
in
place.
The
the
training
in
place
to
make
everyone
more
comfortable
with
it.
T
Some
people
are
just
more
comfortable
with
technology
than
others,
all
those
sorts
of
things
and
and
I'm
kind
of
speaking
from
opinions
of
all
of
those
groups
that
I've
that
I've
talked
to.
So
this
is
not
me
speaking
for
any
group
of
judges.
I
am
here
as
jamie
jameson,
who
happens
to
be
a
circuit
judge
and
had
to
live
through
this.
T
You
know,
like
everyone
else
doing
virtual
court
due
to
covet,
and
but
there
are
benefits
speaking
with
kba
president
current
president
of
the
kba,
their
membership
clearly
believes
that
virtual
courts
should
continue
in
some
form
or
fashion.
I
think
that's
part
of
the
discussion
is:
is
it
just
civil?
Is
it
all
permissive?
Should
there
be
some
mandatory
if
there
is
mandatory?
What
does
that?
Look
like
those
sorts
of
things,
so
I
think
there's
lots
of
different
issues
there
that
need
to
be
vetted
out,
but
the
core
being
that
virtual
court
as
a
whole.
T
It's
pretty
hard
to
you
know,
have
a
logical
conclusion
that
it
doesn't
have
its
benefits
and
that
they're
worth
pursuing
it's
inconvenient
for
all
of
us.
I
mean
I,
I
end
up
having
to
do
sort
of
a
virtual
quarter,
each
docket
and
an
in-person
cord,
each
docket
and
it's
a
hassle,
you
know,
takes
a
little
extra
time,
etc.
But
I
think
the
advantage
is
there
protecting
officers
from
not
having
to
be
exposed
to
that
transport
almost
eliminating
escapes.
T
My
experience
escapes
always
generally
happen
when
someone's
in
transport,
or
certainly
when
they're
out
of
the
jail.
There
are
some
examples
where
they
leave
the
jail.
That's
generally
not
the
case
and
then
quality
of
the
job
for
the
sheriffs
or
whoever
in
that
county
is
having
to
carry
out
the
transports
in
our
jurisdiction.
We
don't
have
the
manpower
to
send
to
people
on
a
transport,
so
you
might
have
someone
who's.
T
You
know
convicted
of
some
very
serious
dangerous
crimes
and
you've
got
one
gentleman,
who's
generally
been
retired,
and
this
is
a
part-time
job
for
him
or
her
by
themselves
to
go
pick
this
individual
up,
carry
them
across
the
state
and
have
to
stop
and
go
to
the
bathroom
a
few
times
and
get
a
meal
and
all
those
things
so
there's
potential
for
danger
to
those
officers
there
as
well.
So
a
myriad
of
benefits.
T
T
But
there
won't
be
any
expense
for
getting
things
up
to
par,
which
I
believe
aoc
was
gendered,
an
additional
4
million
in
their
budget
this
year
for
virtual
court
and
some
concern
by
the
jailers
that
you
know
they
may
need
some
funding,
whether
whether
it
comes
from
this
body
or
wherever
it
comes
from
that
may
very
well
need
some
money
to
carry
out
the
technology,
the
way
that
it
needs
to
be
done.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
catch
up
as
far
as
moving
forward.
T
I,
the
partners
that
I've
spoken
with,
I
think,
all
sort
of
agree
that
jumping
right
into
let's
just
do
virtual
record
is,
is
just
not
a
workable
plan
at
the
moment,
but
you
know
this
body,
however,
they'd
like
to
proceed
with
either
forming
a
commission
or
another
body
with
all
of
the
interested
parties.
Looking
into
the
issue
and
figuring
out,
what's
going
to
work
where
and
what's
not
and
how
we
carry,
those
things
out
is
probably
the
option
I
think
most
everyone
agrees
is
prudent.
T
Another
idea
that
came
up
was
perhaps
treating
it
like.
You
do,
or
did
a
drug
court
years
ago,
basically
allow
the
judges
that
want
to
do
it
to
do
it
to
get
a
test
pilot
out
there
and
then
come
up
with
rules
and
procedures
for
how
to
carry
out
virtual
court
based
on
that
and
then
perhaps
make
it
more
widespread
down
the
line.
So
that's
that's
what
I
have
up
front.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
I
know
that
you
know
and
working
with
and
we're
gonna
let
everyone
speak
working
on
this.
Last
year
I
heard
things
that
I
didn't
even
anticipate
and-
and
I
talked
and
talking
with
miss
dungeon
talking
with
the
aoc
about
how
you
know
some
places
have
the
capability
and
some
don't
some
have
good
bandwidth.
Some
don't
you
know.
A
I
had
those
personal
experiences
myself
where
you're
on
a
call
and
they
tried
to
get
somebody
in
another
jail
out
of
the
area
and
they
couldn't
get
them
on
the
call
and
they
weren't
going
to
disrupt
their
whole
docket.
So
they
had
to
move
on
and
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
and
pieces
that
go
with
it.
A
But
I
do
think
we
learned
a
lot
through
the
the
pandemic
that
we
can
maybe
benefit
from,
and
so
the
goal
is
to
bring
some
of
the
people
that
do
this
every
day
to
the
table
like
yourselves
and
try
to
find
a
way,
that's
workable.
So
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
judge
thomas,
so
judge
thomas,
please
feel
free
to
share
with
us.
P
There
we
go,
I
think
you
can
hear
me
now.
Is
it
recording
great?
Thank
you
so
much.
I
I've
been
a
judge
for
25
years,
so
I've
done
court
a
lot
of
different
ways
and
I
love
pilot
projects.
I
love
trying
new
things.
P
I
will
tell
you:
the
pandemic
is
probably
one
of
the
hardest
things
I
ever
had
to
do
and
still
run
a
court
and
make
sure
everybody
had
been
heard
and
make
sure
all
due
process
rights
were
given
to
make
sure
all
my
pro
se
litigants
could
take
the
benefit
of
the
court
system.
The
way
they
were
supposed
to
so
the
pandemic
caused
a
lot
of
issues,
but
I
agree
with
chairman
massey.
It
also
caused
a
lot
of
opportunities
for
us
to
re-examine
how
we
held
court
and
and
what
we
did
and
how
we
did
it.
P
What
I
will
tell
you,
I'm
sure
that
we
all
have
horror
stories
about
how
we
held
court
during
the
pandemic
doing
virtual
court.
I
mean
I
can
tell
you
about
the
lady
that
took
me
shopping
at
walmart.
That
was
fun
during
criminal
court
or
the
guy
that
came
in
half
naked.
That
was
also
interesting.
It's
you
know.
We've
all
got
this
story.
Is
anybody?
That's
run
a
virtual
court
during
the
pandemic.
You
don't
even
want
to
know
some
of
the
things
that
went
on
and
we've
learned
to
deal
with
them
in
various
ways.
P
I
will
also
tell
you
there
that,
even
as
of
yesterday
or
yesterday
or
friday,
I
held
court
in
my
court,
my
links
froze
so
I'm
in
the
middle
of
court
hooked
up
to
a
jail
and
all
of
a
sudden
everybody's
frozen
and
it
so
we
we
couldn't
move
forward.
We've
got
officers
in
all
kinds
of
different
ways.
It
was
just
a
mess
because
we're
not
quite
there
yet
with
the
technology.
P
At
some
point,
I
even
had
to
use
my
cell
phone
as
a
hotspot
to
run
court
because
everything
went
down.
Fortunately,
I
knew
how
to
do
that
thanks
to
judge
blau.
Who
is
the
one?
That's
taught
me
how
to
do
a
lot
of
this
stuff.
In
fact,
we
bought
our
own
camera
system
because
we're
just
not
there
yet,
technologically
speaking,
to
be
able
to
do
all
the
wonderful
things
that
we
think
we
can
do
and
utilize
it.
P
P
My
zoom
is
running
the
entire
time.
I'm
holding
court
criminal
court.
Civil
court
doesn't
matter
that
thing's
running.
We
have
a
process
where
all
civil
cases,
all
probate
cases
are
deemed
virtual.
Unless
you
call
and
ask
to
be
in
court,
all
criminal
cases
are
deemed
in
court.
Unless
you
call
and
ask
to
be
on
virtual,
that's
working
for
us
because
of
how
we're
handling
the
situations
and
and
we're
able
to
get
the
bar
bar
interested
in
that
and
be
able
to
get
that
information
to
people.
It
has
its
drawbacks.
P
Definitely
but
it
works
for
us
because
we
were
able
to
fix
our
technology
to
make
it
work.
Other
jurisdictions
they're
not
interested
in
zooming
with
me.
I
can't
get
boone
county
to
come
online
at
all,
and
I've
tried
getting
will
and
we
move
things
around
and
we
call
and
we
get.
You
know
that
kind
of
stuff
with
anybody
that
will
we
try.
P
We
really
do
try,
but
technology
is
is
terribly
difficult
to
deal
with
at
this
point
in
terms
of
all
of
us,
I
think
I
think,
judge,
jameson
and
judge
me
would
agree
all
of
us
around
the
state
have
different
issues
and
different
problems
associated
with
virtual
court.
I
think
probably
I'm
going
to
yield
any
time.
I
have
left
to
direct
your
judges,
so
she
can
actually
tell
you
about
that.
Staffer.
Do
you
want
to
we've
already.
L
It's
really
good
to
be
with
you
and,
and
I'm
glad
that
we're
invited
to
the
table,
because
I
think
last
year,
when
this
particular
bill
became
somewhat
problematic,
it
was
there
was
very
little
input
from
judges
and
they
felt,
as
we
were,
the
individuals
who
were
in
fact
most
affected
or
the
individuals
we
serve
every
day.
So
we're
really
happy
to
be
here
can't
wait
to
be
in
the
room
with
those
individual
other
individuals
who
have
either
monetary
stakes
or
security
stakes
or
any
of
those
other
things,
because
obviously
we
all
work
better.
L
When
we
work
together,
you
know
one
of
the
bigger
issues
we're
hearing
about
just
now
in
terms
of
extradition.
Extradition,
of
course,
is
a
very
expensive
transport
piece.
So
talking
with
my
jailer
and
my
sheriff
about
that
the
other
day
going
well,
if
you're
going
to
california
to
get
somebody
who
only
owes
me
two
thousand
dollars,
I
just
issue
a
warrant.
I
don't
know
they're
in
california.
Why
isn't
someone
calling
me?
L
So
you
know,
there's
lots
of
communication
issues
that
we
all
get
to
you
to
work
to
together,
and
I
think
that
this
process
now
that
it's
been
all
brought
here,
I
think,
will
be
pretty
substantial.
I
don't
want
to
go
into
I
have
I
have
had
so.
The
association
doesn't
speak
in
just
one
voice
but,
as
I
said
to
representative
massey
last
year,
we're
trying
to
get
that
survey,
monkey
thing
together
and
I'm
just
I'm
just
not
a
tech
kind
of
girl,
but
I've
been
getting
comments
in
the
family
court.
L
Judges
are
extremely
concerned
about
remote.
Everyone
is
really
concerned
about.
You
know
the.
I
guess
a
forced
issue,
you
know
an
arraignment
and
the
old
bill
if
it
was
in
another
county,
was
mandatory.
Some
judges,
if
that's
a
murder,
arraignment,
might
be
okay.
With
that
I
may
not
be
you
know
if
someone
is
being
arraigned
on
a
murder,
I
don't
want
to
be
told.
I
can't
bring
that
person
into
my
courtroom.
L
L
When
we're
made
aware
of
that,
we
can
work
with
that
and
try
to
make
that
as
minimalistic
as
possible,
so
they're
not
traveling
for
a
short
period
of
time,
but
that's
again
a
communication
piece
and
so
lots
more
communication
needs
to
go
into
that.
So
we
did
learn
a
lot
about
covid
darren
covid
covet
was
a
real
forced
issue.
L
I
have
people
back
now
that
I
haven't
seen
since
the
march
before
who
have
lots
of
issues
going
on
that
are
finally
in
my
courtroom
and
the
judges
are
starting
to
find
out
for
themselves
coming
back
a
little
bit
because
of
the
current
covert
issue,
how
they
may
or
may
not
want
to
use
this.
There
are
some
judges
who
love
it.
There
are
some
judges
who
hate
it.
L
I
will
tell
you:
the
majority
of
judges
feel
that
there
are
certain
appropriate
uses
for
remote,
so
it's
not
as
if
you're
walking
into
a
land
where
everybody
says
no,
we
don't
want
to
cooperate.
No.
It's
also
convenient
for
me
to
use
this,
but
we
all
know
the
constitution
trusts
convenience,
and
so
anything,
that's
going
to
affect
the
defendant's
right
or
affects
someone
else
in
terms
of
credibility
is
something
that
that
that
group
in
that
particular
situation,
needs
to
look
at.
L
So
I
just
want
to
say
just
a
little
concerned
about
a
full
kind
of
look
at
mandatory,
just
because
everything
is
circumstantial
and
look
forward
to
working
with
everybody
on
it
for
everybody's
best
interest
in
using
taxpayers
money.
I
Chairman,
thank
you,
members.
I
also
want
to
just
thank
all
the
members
of
this
committee
and
all
of
your
colleagues
for
the
investment
and
covert
relief
funds
you
made
in
the
court
system
and
our
ability
to
upgrade
the
technology
that
they
talked
about
when
you
passed
house
bill
556
last
year,
specifically,
you
appropriated
six
million
dollars
to
expand
video
arraignment
systems
to
all
courtrooms
and
then
4.6
million
dollars
to
support
video
conferencing
systems
to
permit
a
hybrid
court
model.
When
the
pandemic
began,
we
all
flipped
the
best
we
could
to
the
use
of
zoom.
I
We
were
plugging
up
basically
television
monitors
and
courtrooms
to
essentially
create
a
hybrid
environment
for
folks
who
were
appearing
remotely
and
somewhere
in
person,
just
as
you
experienced
at
the
beginning
of
this
meeting,
and
I
know
that
lrc
has
quality
equipment
and
even
sometimes
you
have
challenges
with
quality
equipment.
So
we
were
basically
using
duct
tape,
equipment
together
in
a
lot
of
our
courtrooms
to
try
to
create
a
record
and
then
a
record
that's
going
to
be
preserved
into
our
jav
system
for
a
record
on
appeal.
I
I
So
that's
why
you
see
the
variety
statewide
one
of
the
things
that
I
know
our
cio
would
like
to
tell
you,
and
I
think
our
judges
would
too
ease
of
use
in
the
courtroom
is
important:
the
ability
to
switch
from
a
criminal
motion
hour
to
a
in-person
hearing
right
now.
It's
not
easy
for
our
judges
to
use
and
our
bench
clerks
still
need
to
be
our
bench
clerks.
I
I
We
saw
35
supporting
it
for
arraignments
20
for
bench
trials
and
then
40
for
oral
arguments.
So
I
think
when
we
say
that
we've
got
to
get
all
of
the
stakeholders
together
in
one
room
at
one
time
talking
about
this.
This
is
important,
and
I
appreciate
you're
interested
in
this,
especially
in
the
criminal
rules
context,
one
of
the
things
that
chief
justice,
minton
and
justice
keller
wanted
me
to
mention,
because
I
know
at
the
time
of
this
hearing
we
were
really
thinking.
I
I
You
know
we
have
employees
testing
positive
every
day
who
are
quarantining,
we're
bringing
servpro
in
every
day
to
clean
courtrooms
and
facilities.
You
know
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
have
jury
trials
when
we
have
a
10
positivity
rate
in
the
state.
It's
still
a
challenge
for
us
excited
about
the
opportunities
that
we
have
excited
about,
the
partnership
with
the
legislature
and
very
grateful
for
the
money.
That's
going
to
make
this
possible
to
roll
this
out.
I
I
think
the
big
important
piece
and
shelly-
and
I
were
talking
about
this
just
before-
is
to
get
the
systems
in
place
in
the
jails
is
critical,
but
the
jails
were
never
designed
to
have
remote
hearing
rooms
in
the
jails
and
they're.
Certainly
you
know
not
staffed.
Our
jailers
will
tell
you
they
have
they're
facing
staffing
shortages
like
we
all
are
right
now,
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
jail
or
time
to
support
this.
So
that's
another
piece
of
that
that
we
have
to
you
know,
try
to
solve
as
well.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much.
We
will
I've
got
a
I've
got
I'm
going
to
defer
to
chairman
westerfield
in
just
a
second.
I
will
say
that
that
there's
some
things
that
came
up
through
the
last
process
that
I
want
to
hit
on
it
might
spurn
some
discussion.
First
of
all,
there
were
some
some
folks
that
thought
that
we
were
going
to
impair
the
discretion
of
judges
and
that
there
is
no
desire
to
do
that.
There
are
certain
circumstances
where
you
need
that
person
there,
whether
it's
a
civil
docket
or
a
criminal
docket.
A
You
just
need
them
there.
You
know
they're
not
complying
whatever
the
case
may
be.
You
just
need
them
there.
That's
certainly
we
don't
want
to
change
that
at
all.
We
have
heard
from
the
sheriffs
about
their
concerns
with
staffing
and
and
the
time
it
takes.
We
had
a
recent
case
that
I'll
just
throw
out
there
from
boone
county
same
thing.
A
We
couldn't
get
the
jail
online
in
fulton
county,
so
we
had
to
send
two
bailiffs
down
to
get
the
individual,
bring
them
to
boone
county
and
then
drive
them
all
the
way
back
to
fulton
county
and
then
drive
back
and
that's
a
lot
of
hours
on
the
road.
A
lot
of
time,
a
lot
of
taxpayer
money
that,
depending
on
the
type
of
hearing,
might
have
been
able
to
be
averted
if
they
were
able
to
do
it
remotely
now.
That
being
said,
I
understand
that
not
all
jails
are
up
to
speed
and
I
get
that.
A
I
know
that
they
don't
have
the
rooms
or
the
capacity
or
the
people,
and
so
the
idea
here
is
to
have
these
discussions
to
get
cooperation
and
collaboration
among
ourselves
and
and
not.
You
know
it's
like
not
waiting
until
all
the
lights
are
green
before
you
go,
but
but
going
ahead
with
the
green
light
in
front
of
you
and
then
getting
to
the
next
step,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
get
through
those
steps.
A
So
I'm
committed
through
the
rest
of
this
interim
session,
not
necessarily
in
a
committee
meeting
but
to
having
some
additional
meetings,
whether
it's
through
a
task
force
or
whether
it's
to
a
an
unofficial
group
that
sits
down
with
representatives
from
these
various
stakeholders
that
tries
to
work
through
this,
I'm
a
I'm
a
fan.
I
mean
I
wasn't
sure
I
would
be
a
fan
initially,
but
having
done
it,
you
know,
I
think,
the
and
on
the
admin
side
away
from
this
you
know
still
workers
comp
is
still
going
to
all
video
at
hebman
hearings.
A
I
did
a
trial
for
these
for
the
kentucky
disability
through
that
it
was
a
three-day
trial
and
I
did
it
by
video
and
it
and
it
worked,
but
but
that's
different
than
a
criminal
trial
where
you
might
be
affecting
somebody's
constitutional
rights
et
cetera,
and
we
get
all
of
that.
So
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts,
a
lot
of
pieces.
A
I
know
judges
are
like
lawyers
if
you
put
10
in
a
room,
you'll
get
300
opinions
and
I'm
not
being
critical
because
you're
you're
at
the
top
of
your
field,
and
you
you
see
a
lot
of
experiences.
You
have
a
lot
of
experiences
and
something
else
spurns
a
new
idea.
So
I
want
to
get
us
together.
I
think
we
need
to
take
advantage
of
what's
in
front
of
us
and
and
make
what
we
can
workable.
A
E
E
Actually,
I
think
remote
court
ought
to
be
available
for
any
litigant
that
wants
it
period
if
the
court
has
some
desire,
particularly
in
a
criminal
case,
as
the
chairman
just
mentioned,
for
some
sort
of
compliance
reason
for
for
good
cause
or
something
if
the
court
believes
it's
necessary
or
they're
in
the
best
interest
of
justice
or
or
whatever
to
have
someone
appear
in
person.
E
I
can
understand
that,
but
otherwise,
and
particularly
on
the
civil
side,
if
a
litigant
wants
to
appear
remotely
it's
dumb
to
not
let
them
do
that.
I'll.
Give
you
a
couple
of
examples,
I'm
not
going
to
mention
the
court
but
and
I've
already
told
director
dudgeon
this.
I
told
the
chief
this
in
a
meeting
a
few
weeks
ago
and
I
and
judge
jameson.
I
may
have
shared
this
with
you
as
well,
but
I
had
to
cajole
for
the
better
part
of
10
minutes,
the
secretary
of
a
judge.
E
E
You
three
judges
know
how
little
opposition
there
typically
is,
and
a
motion
to
reschedule
a
sale
and
like
every
other
foreclosure,
it's
got
15
or
20
parties,
all
the
different
interested
folks
from
the
city
in
the
county
to
the
property
owner,
the
foreclosed
property,
the
the
bank
so
forth,
and
so
on.
No
one
opposes
it.
E
It's
the
procedural
next
step
that
you've
got
to
do
and,
of
course,
no
one
opposed
in
this
case,
but
I
had
to
spend
10
minutes
to
save
myself
more
than
two
and
a
half
hours
of
driving
round
trip
for
a
hearing
that
took
exactly
20
seconds
and
thankfully
I
was
able
to
succeed.
I
I
managed
to
let
them
appear
by
phone.
Of
course,
no
one
else
showed
up.
E
I've
been
in
a
courtroom
where,
just
in
the
last
few
months
and
again,
I've
shared
this
with
you,
director,
dudgeon,
where
the
bailiffs
are
yanking
the
equipment
out
of
the
room
in
front
of
my
eyes,
because
they
just
don't
like
zoom
or
they
don't
like
fill
in
the
blank
platform.
I
don't
care
if
it
zoom
or
something
else,
but
while
that's
happening
in
the
last
two
or
three
weeks,
at
least
in
the
western
end
of
the
state
I
got
I
saw
on
twitter
this
morning.
E
The
third
judicial
circuit
here
in
christian
county,
has
issued
an
order.
It
was
signed
yesterday
by
all
of
our
judges
circuit
and
district
and
family
here
in
christian
county,
and
it
was
effective
today
that,
because
christian
county
is
now
back
in
the
red
that
they're
requiring
masks
for
everyone
that
shows
up,
and
only
in
the
course
discretion
can
the
mask
be
removed,
and
only
if
social,
distancing
requirements
and
standards
are
met
and
so
forth.
And
I
say
all
that,
because
here
we
are,
we've
got.
E
We've
got
this
delta
variant,
that's
causing
new
concern.
At
the
same
time,
we've
got
courts
yanking,
foolishly
this
equipment.
Out
of
the
room,
because
they
just
they
don't
like
technology
or
they
don't
like
the
cords
running
across
their
courtroom
or
some
other
with
all
due
respect.
Dumb
reason:
they
don't
like
this.
E
I
think
it's
dumb
for
us
to
foreclose
or
stop
an
opportunity
to
to
use
technology,
to
bring
efficiency,
to
save
costs,
to
save
time
and
frankly,
to
improve
participation
of
litigants
and
virtual
court's
been
able
to
do
that
in
every
court.
I've
been
in
where
it's
been
used.
Perhaps
your
experience,
the
three
of
you
in
your
counties
is
different,
but
in
the
court-
and
I
haven't
been
in
front
of
any
of
your
three
courts
during
this
time,
but
in
the
courts.
E
I
have
been
in
in
a
number
of
counties
around
the
state
that
the
anecdotal
information
suggests
that
attendance
has
been
much
better.
I've
been
covering
dockets
in
jefferson
county
and
there
are
people
who
show
up
now.
They've
got
to
be
reminded.
Just
like
you
have
to
remind
litigants
that
walk
in
the
door
right
now
in
your
courtrooms,
who
may
not
be
dressed
quite
appropriately
for
the
occasion
and
for
the
the
decorum
and
for
the
spirit
of
the
room
and
the
business.
E
But
there
are
people
who
show
up
because
they
can
do
it
from
the
comfort
of
their
kitchen
or
their
living
room,
where
they're,
confident
and
at
peace
and
at
ease
instead
of
in
an
intimidating
room.
And
this
I'm
just
talking
about
the
civil
docking
instead
of
showing
up
for
court
going
through
the
metal
detector,
not
sure
if
they
can
bring
in
their
purse,
not
sure
if
they
have
to
wear
a
mask
and
then
they're
surrounded
by
bailiffs
at
any
given
time
whenever
they're
in
the
building.
E
If
a
litigant
wants
to
show
up
for
a
civil
hearing,
they
ought
to
be
allowed
to.
I
fully
support
aoc
and
I'll
vote
for
any
other
appropriation.
You
need
to
make
sure
every
court
has
the
opportunity
to
staff
and
put
all
the
equipment
necessary
that
it
needs
wherever
they
need.
It
to
adequately
do
this,
I'm
surprised
to
hear
any
opposition
from
jailers,
and
I
know
that
there
are
several
jails,
many
jails
that
are
short,
staffed
and
struggling
with
issues.
E
If
you
got
to
fiddle
with
a
camera
and
a
computer,
I
think
preserving
the
record
is
important,
but
we've
managed
to
do
this.
Pretty
I
mean
it
was
rocky
of
course,
and
there
are
still
places
where
it's
rockier
than
others,
because
the
equipment
or
the
lack
of
sufficient
equipment,
but
we've
managed
to
make
do
for
a
good
long.
While
now
I
I
I'm
tickled,
it's
given
us
a
chance
to
see
where
we
can,
where
we
most
need
to
put
help,
but
we've
shown
we've
been
able
to
do
it.
I'm
not
aware
of
anybody.
E
Who's
filed
an
appeal
and
hasn't
been
able
to
perfect
their
appeal
and
pursue
it
and
prosecute
it
fully
because
they
didn't
have
a
sufficient
record
created.
Maybe
you
all
are
aware
of
a
case
like
that
anyway,
that's
my
position.
I
think
it's
dumb
for
us
to
abandon
this
when
it
allows
practitioners
to
go
everywhere,
it
allows
litigants
to
appear
at
a
better
rate
than
otherwise
it's
more
cost
efficient.
E
It's
different
and
that's
true
and
can
sometimes
be
cumbersome,
but
we
all
can
experience
cumbersome
friction
even
when
we're
there
in
person.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
for
being
here
today
and
as
a
fellow
it's
been
practicing
since
78,
been
in
courtrooms
and
tried
cases
from
bowling
green
to
the
chief
justice,
always
in
eastern
kentucky,
all
the
many
counties
familiar
with
them.
The
pandemic
really
causes
problems.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
volunteer
to
join
this
group
of
people.
That's
working
on
this.
B
Q
Of
the
layout
of
the
systems,
I
don't
think
we're
there
yet,
but
I
would
like
to
work
with
this
with
the
group.
I've
been
in
bell
circuit
and
harlan
circ,
just
different
ones
during
this
pandemic,
and
I
appreciate
the
worked
with
the,
as
you
know,
with
the
chief
justice
trying
to
get
some
of
this
stuff.
As
I
saw
the
problems
and
conveying
my
concerns
and
knowledge
to
the
people
to
get
it
worked
out.
So
I'd
like
to
volunteer
for
this,
I
think
it
needs.
Q
As
a
chairman,
westerville
said,
we
need
to
keep
this
thing
going
in
that
direction.
Getting
it
done.
It's
been
a
great
week.
Workers
comp
is
the
chairman
said
I'm
in
that
also
and
they've
backed
the
virtual,
in
that
I
saw
that
same
thing
come
down,
but
I
would
like
to
work
to
get
it
as
best
as
I've
experienced
and
if
you
all
accept
me.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
A
Thank
you,
senator
wheeler.
Did
you
have
something.
D
Just
briefly
really
I
I
couldn't
agree
much
more
with
what
chairman
westerfield
said.
I
think
he
hit
that
down
the
head
spot
on
and
I'm
not
going
to
say,
there's
not
a
time
and
place
for
in-person
hearings.
I
mean
I
do
both
civil
practice
and
a
lot
of
workers.
Compensation
law
plaintiff
perspective.
D
I
think,
when
you're
dealing
with
simple
motions,
especially
if
you're
the
plaintiff,
in
the
case,
the
burden
of
proof,
if
you
choose
to
show
up
virtually
or
think
you
need
to
be
there
virtually.
I
I
kind
of
think
that
should
be
the
choice
of
the
party
putting
the
motion
forward
and
whether
or
not
they
want
to
show
up.
I
think
we
ought
to
have
the
option
of
appearing
virtually
if
we
want
to
you
know.
D
So
I
think
it
is
something
especially
on
motion
hours
that
we
need
to
continue
now,
there's
other
parts
of
the
system
that
I
do
think
I
mean
if
you're
going
to
try
a
case
I
mean
I
would
want
to
be
there
in
person.
I
don't
like
virtual
workers,
compensation
hearings.
I
think
there
is
a
value
to
the
judge,
seeing
my
client
hearing
him.
You
know
looking
at
him
face
to
face
when
he's
talking
about
the
pain
that
he's
in
when
he's
talking
about
his
injuries.
D
D
You
know,
if
anything
I
mean
no
offense
to
my
colleagues
on
the
on
the
defense
bar
the
only
complaint
that
I've
heard
is
they
don't
get
a
bill
for
drive
time,
which
I
understand
that
I
want
everybody
to
be
able
to
make
a
living,
but
you
know
that
that
to
some
degree
is
not
my
problem,
I
shouldn't
have
to
appear
in
court
just
so
they
can
get
their
drive
time
in,
but
again
I
agree
with
senator
westerfield
I
think
he's
spot
on,
and
I
hope
that
this
has
made
a
more
permanent
part
of
the
judicial
system.
A
I
think
senator
schickel
made
a
stroll
down
to
see
everybody
so
he's
been
on
the
call
the
whole
time.
So
we
appreciate
that
senator
we
have
a
question
from
senator
berg.
C
Thank
you,
sir.
Just
a
comment.
I
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
I'm
not
a
judge,
I'm
a
physician
and
it's
hard
to
tell,
but
it
was
probably
about
10
years
ago,
at
the
va,
maybe
a
little
longer,
we
were
told
that
we
needed
to
start
doing
virtual
medicine
and
I
initially
my
initial
response
was
you're
crazy.
C
There's
no
way
to
do
this
without
seeing
people
without
touching
people
without
being
able
to
look
directly
in
their
eyes.
How?
How
are
we
going
to
do
this
and
in
fact
I
was
wrong
and
not
only
have
we
been
able
to
do
it,
but
I
think
we
in
a
lot
of
circumstances,
have
been
able
to
offer
a
better
service
at
a
much
more
effective
cost,
because
you
know
particularly
the
va
you've
got
people
coming
in
from
all
over
the
state,
for
what
is
just
you
know,
a
routine
checkup
that
you
don't
have
to
drive.
C
We
can
do
this
remotely.
I
don't
know
if
you
all
heard
you
know
senator
westerfield.
He
made
his
point.
We
felt
his
emotion,
we
understood
what
he
was
saying
and
he's
on
a
tv
in
front
of
us,
so
it's
doable.
I
mean
yes,
the
technology
has
to
be
in
place
and
I
know
at
the
va.
We
spend
a
lot
a
lot
of
money
getting
that
technology
in
place
in
the
long
run.
Is
it
worth
it?
I
think
in
our
new
world?
Absolutely
absolutely
so.
C
I
encourage
this
discussion,
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
of
what
you
all
are
looking
into
and
trying
to
do,
and
then
the
last
thing
I
would
do
is
you
know
just
caution.
All
of
us.
We
don't
have
to
reinvent
the
wheel,
there's
a
lot
of
other.
You
know
states
and
jurisdictions
that
are
working
on
the
same
exact
thing
we
are,
and
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
best
policies
that
are
going
to
come
out
and
there's
going
to
be.
C
A
You
I
know
that
we
have
somebody
from
the
sheriff's
department
here
too,
or
the
sheriff's
association.
Mr
wagner,
is
he
still
here.
I
know
he's
here
and
I
know
I
know
that
you're
in
support
of
it.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
say
anything
or
not.
I
just
know
you
were
in
the
room.
You'd
text
me
so
I
didn't
know
if
you
wanted
to
say
anything.
G
Here
I
think,
we're
moving
forward.
I
appreciate
the
judges
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
have
input
even
in
their
own
counties.
I
know
there
have
been
a
lot
of
conversation
with
all
of
you
for
the
last
few
weeks,
so
I'm
more
than
appreciative
and
I'm
pinch-hitting
today,
our
president
sheriff
ward.
He
also
lost
a
deputy
this
week
to
an
accident
so
but
thank
you
all
for
the
opportunity
and
we
look
forward
moving
forward.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
You
know
I
find
it.
I
find
it
ironic
that
we're
having
this
discussion
about
virtual
hearings,
while
many
of
our
members
are
participating
remotely
or
virtually.
A
I
also
find
it
ironic
that,
during
session
because
of
covid,
we
were
permitted
to
stay
in
our
offices
and
vote
from
our
offices
which
actually
worked
effectively
but
kept
us
safe,
because
you
know
at
the
time
we
didn't
want
to
be
in
any
more
danger
than
anyone
else.
I
think
there's
a
way
to
navigate
through
this.
I
think
common
sense
has
to
be
the
rule
of
the
day.
A
Obviously,
if
there's
a
place
that
doesn't
have
adequate
equipment
or
doesn't
have
adequate
staffing,
you
have
to
consider
that,
on
the
other
hand,
if
there
are
places,
as
senator
chairman
westerfield
said,
that
do
have
adequate
equipment
and
can
do
it
but
choose
not
to
to
me
that's
problematic,
that's
just
not
addressing
the
situation,
so
I
think
we've
got
to
find
a
way
to
all
work
together.
I
certainly
am
empathetic
to
the
words
of
senator
wheeler.
A
I
remember
the
days
before
any
of
these
video
hearings
when,
when
I
was
going
to
be
in
two
tried
to
be
two
courts
at
one
time,
and
the
question
in
my
personal
mind
was:
which
judge
am
I
going
to
tick
off
today
and
I
don't
want.
I
try
to
call
ahead
and
let
them
know
I'm
running
late
and
they're.
Very
understanding.
Don't
get
me
wrong.
A
The
point
is:
there's
a
lot
of
efficiency
for
a
practitioner
to
be
able
to
do
virtual
court,
especially
if
you've
you
know,
in
most
cases
all
the
judges
and
the
cases
I've
done
criminally
have
asked.
Do
you
have
any
objection
to
appearing
virtually
and
they'll
say
no,
ninety
percent
of
the
time,
if
not
more
so,
I'm
hopeful,
I'm
optimistic,
I'm
an
optimist
anyway,
but
I'm
hopeful
that
we
can
work
through
the
the
situations
that
we
have
the
here.
A
The
the
successes
you've
had
the
failures
you've
had
and,
like
I
said
I
I
am
going
to
continue
this
process.
I
think
it's
the
prime
time
to
do
it.
So
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
being
here
today:
judge
jameson,
judge,
thomas
judge,
summey
and
lori.
I
appreciate
your
commitment.
We've
talked
offline
several
times
about
this
and
we'll
continue
to
work
together
with
the
sheriffs
with
the
jailers
and
with
all
those
people
that
are
affected
by
this.
So
I
appreciate
your
time
with
that
we're
out
of
time.
A
So
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
participating
today
and
coming
down
and
we
try
to
keep
these
meetings
very
informative.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
and
we'll
look
forward
to
the
next
meeting
with
chairman
westerfield
that
will
come
in
in
let's
see
september.
I
had
to
get
my
dates
right,
so
thank
you,
everyone
for
participating.
Is
there
anybody
before
I
get
off
the
call
here
that
was
on
remotely
that
er
is
concerned
about
not
being
reported
as
as
present,
because
we
had
that
little
snafu
at
the
beginning.
A
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
that
that
wants
to
be
accounted
for
is
accounted
for.
We
think
we
have
everybody,
because
we
got
your
logins
because
it's
remote.