►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-9-22)
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
D
B
A
Here
in
the
room,
all
right,
so
let
me
explain
a
few
things
for
purposes
of
today.
We
have
five
bills
and
we
have
an
hour
and
45
minutes.
That
means
the
total
presentation
of
each
bill
is
going
to
be
around
20
minutes.
We
have
some
people
speaking
in
opposition
on
some
bills,
so
I
want
to
remind
the
sponsors
and
remind
all
of
those
who
are
testifying
that
we
need
you
to
be
to
the
point
quickly.
We
don't
have
time
to
meander
much
today,
I'm
also
given
some
events
earlier
in
the
session.
A
A
If
you
have
a
cell
phone,
please
turn
it
to
off
or
to
vibrate
or
some
other
mechanism,
so
it
doesn't
disturb
the
meeting
and
note
that
the
microphones
are
very
sensitive.
Finally,
if
you
are
a
sponsor-
or
you
are
a
presenter,
please
make
sure
that
your
microphone
is
on
at
the
testifying
table
and
we
will
remind
you,
if
not
but
try
to
make
sure
the
microphone
is
on
and
that
the
microphone
is
called
or
pulled
close
to
you
so
that
everyone
can
hear
today.
If
representative
moser
is
ready.
G
A
H
Chairman
in
19
and
2021.,
we
talked
about
the
dire
need
for
state
involvement
and
what
had
gone
on
in
louisville
and
gave
an
overview
of
what
had
happened
in
louisville.
To
that
juncture
quickly,
I
will
explain
how
2021
wrapped
up.
We
had
188
homicides,
that's
the
most
homicides
we've
ever
had
in
the
city's
history.
H
That
was
on
top
of
2020,
where
we
had
173.
That
was
previously
the
all-time
high
641
louisvillians
were
not
fatally
shot
of
those
24
of
those
murder.
Victims
were
juveniles.
123
juveniles
were
shot
in
the
city
of
louisville.
The
city
of
louisville
in
2021
averaged
more
than
a
carjacking
every
two
days.
I
We've
had
several
cases
where
truancy
kids,
that
have
already
been
habitually
truant,
have
been
through
a
truancy.
Diversion
program
have
missed
over
a
hundred
days
of
school
and
the
case
still
hasn't
come
to
court.
Well,
that's
that's
a
problem
that
that
kid's
that
kid's
school
year
is
shot.
It's
gone.
That's
not
accountability!
That's
not
real
intervention.
That
case
needs
to
come
to
court
for
some
sort
of
judicial
intervention.
I
Also,
we
see
juveniles
who
are
not
able
to
participate
in
diversions
merely
because
their
parents
are
not
cooperating
and
there's
nothing
really
that
a
court
can
do
about
that
right
now,
house
bill
318
addresses
that
it
allows
judges
to
see
the
case
come
to
court,
but
send
it
back
to
diversion
with
orders
to
the
parents
to
be
involved
in
that
and
to
cooperate
with
that
diversion
to
allow
that
youth
the
opportunity
to
have
those
interventions
in
the
middle
of
the
spectrum.
It
tolls
the
time
period
for
probation
if
there's
a
violation.
I
Currently,
if
there's
a
probation
violation,
there
are
set
time
limits
on
how
long
that
probation
can
be.
What
happens
is
the
case
gets
into
court
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
maneuvering
to
where
people
run
out
the
clock.
They
play
four
corners
offense
and
then,
as
soon
as
that
time
period
goes.
Where
there's
not
going
to
be
real
consequences,
then
they
go
ahead
and
handle
the
case.
That's
that's
not
effective.
That
creates
an
atmosphere
of
no
accountability
for
these
young
people
and
for
the
most
violent
of
felonies.
I
It
requires
detention
in
a
secure
facility
until
the
detention
hearing
can
be
held
and
it
allows
public
access
to
records
of
those
proceedings
in
the
most
violent
of
felonies.
Only-
and
this
is
something
that,
like
these
gentlemen
said,
it's
it's
a
big
issue
in
louisville.
But
frankly
this
is
an
issue
all
over
the
state.
We
are
seeing
an
increase
in
young
people
with
guns
and
that's
something
that
we've
got
to
have
meaningful
early
interventions
to
address
and
house
bill.
318
is
a
step
in
that
direction.
Thank
you.
C
You
know,
mr
chairman,
some
of
the
members
might
not
remember
senate
bill
200..
What
it
did
was,
expand
and
come
up
with
diversions
and
alternatives
to
when
juveniles
get
in
trouble,
and
you
can
consider
this
to
be
maybe
a
course
course
change
for
for
that
bill.
That
was
like
seven
years
ago,
maybe
five
2014
2014,
and
but
almost
immediately
I,
within
one
or
two
years
the
police
in
louisville
were
saying
that
there's
there's
some
loopholes
that
need
to
be
changed,
so
I'm
glad
we're
getting
around
to
doing
it.
C
A
We
have
a
second
by
representative
mccoy,
I
will
say,
as
I'm
looking
for
questions.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill,
and
I
appreciate
the
flexibility
within
the
bill
to
allow
the
officials
that
are
dealing
with
it
to
make
the
necessary
changes
that
may
inevitably
arise.
I
saw
a
hand
over
here
representative,
scott.
I
Thank
you,
chairman
chairman
bratcher,
just
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
you,
so
I'm
looking
at
section
one
of
the
bill
and
it
talks
about
the
court,
may
order
parental
cooperation
and
refer
the
case
back
to
the
court
designated
worker.
Can
you
just
explain
a
little
bit
about
what
parental
cooperation
would
look
like,
possibly.
I
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
We've
had
a
lot
of
young
people
who
have
been
entitled
to
a
diversion,
but
they
can't
drive.
They
can't
get
themselves
to
appointments
a
lot
of
times.
These
referrals
for
diversions
will
include
things
like
some
sort
of
counseling,
some
sort
of
mental
health
assessment.
I
They
can
refer
to
court,
essentially
with
a
tag
on
it
that
says,
lack
of
parental
cooperation,
and
at
that
point
the
judge
can
look
at
it
and
determine
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
enter
orders
ordering
the
parent
to
go
to
this
appointment
or
something
like
that.
That's
helpful.
Thank
you
so
may
ask
another.
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
talley
good
to
see
you
again.
I
You
talked
about
folks
getting
out
on
on
quick
releases,
which
you
know
it's
really
interesting.
Not
everybody
gets
out
quickly,
especially
girls
and
women.
So
that's
an
issue
of
concern
for
me,
so
I'm
not
sure
who
chairman
bratcher
would
answer
this
question,
but
I'd
like
to
know
in
section
two:
it
talks
about
shall
be
detained
in
a
secure
juvenile
detention
facility,
and
so
I'm
curious
to
know
what
are
those
detention
facilities
here
in
kentucky,
because
I
can't
help
but
think
about
jenny
mcmillan
who
died
in
a
juvenile
detention
facility.
I
C
So
well,
I
do
know
that
you
know
when
the
the
jy
center
was
shut
down
in
louisville,
that
that
many
times
they're
they're
taken
to
oldham
county-
and
you
guys
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
that
has
been
a
problem.
Anybody
else
want
to
elaborate.
H
On
that,
within
the
louisville
metro
area,
there
is
a
facility
on
lagrange
road
that
has
opened
since
the
the
juvenile
facility
closed.
There
are
also
a
number
of
facilities
across
the
commonwealth
that
would
qualify
for
this,
these
juvenile
detention
facilities,
but
the
the
primary
one
for
for
louisville
metro,
at
least
with
the
that
lagrange
road
facility,
but
across
the
commonwealth
there
are
a
variety
of
facilities.
I
So
if
chairman
bratcher-
and
you
know-
I
usually
don't
take
this
much
time
on
questions
chairman,
so
I'm
gonna
try
to
I'm
gonna
move
quickly,
taryn
bradshaw.
If
someone
could
get
me
that
list
of
facilities,
because
I'm
not
only
thinking
about
jefferson
county,
I
am
thinking
about
the
entire
commonwealth.
So
thank
you
so
much.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
commend
all
of
you
for
bringing
this
bill
working
on
this
bill.
I
particularly
appreciate
you,
mr
crawford,
and
the
pegasus
institute
working
on
these
matters
for
former
u.s
attorney
coleman
and
all
the
excellent
work
you
all
are
doing.
D
D
D
I
And
we
talked
about
these
yesterday
and
from
what
I
understand
this
bill
will
take
young
children
that
are
in
10
categories
and
consider
it
dangerous
and
put
them
before
a
judge
in
order
to
put
them
in
perhaps
a
detention
facility,
and
they
and
right
now
they
cannot
be
held.
But
you
this
bill
will
allow
them
to
be
held
for
48
hours.
H
So
the
the
detention
provision
in
here
allows
for
violators
of
of
krs
532
200..
I
think
I
got
that
right
to
be
detained
for
a
maximum
of
48
hours
to
see
a
judge.
It
does
not
dictate
anything
about
detention
or
lack
of
detention
after
that
period,
and
so
a
judge
could
still
release
that
person
if
they
do
not,
if
they're,
not
a
public
safety
risk,
if
they're
not
a
flight
risk,
anything
like
that,
but
that
sort
of
pre
until
they
see
a
judge
they
could
be
detained
for
up
to
48
hours.
That
is
correct.
Yes,.
I
Excellent
another
question
chairman:
are
there
wraparound
services
like
we
talk
about
gun
violence?
Are
we
doing
anything
about
that
at
the
lagrange
in
place
where
they're
putting
these
children
are
there
services
for
mental
health
food?
What
are
we
doing
to
interrupt
whatever
it
causes
them
to
be
in
that
spot?.
J
I'll
take
a
stab
at
that,
so
one
of
the
things
we're
doing
at
the
office
of
safe
and
healthy
neighborhoods
and
part
of
that
15
million
investment
of
arp
funding
is
to
provide
just
that
type
of
resources.
Those
types
of
resources
to
those
kids,
one
of
the
programs
is
trauma,
informed
care,
and
so
one
thing
I
want
everyone
to
understand:
is
it's
not
just
a
victim?
It's
not
just
the
perpetrator,
it's
their
siblings,
it's
their
neighbors!
J
Part
of
gvi
is
when
we
go
out
in
what
is
called
a
call
in,
and
so
we
go
out
with
lmpd
we
go
out
with
someone
from
the
community,
usually
from
the
religious
community,
and
then
someone
from
my
outreach
an
offer
of
services.
What
what
do
you
need?
What
can
we
provide
you
to
help?
Make
that
change?
Do
you
need
anger
management
are?
Are
you
do
you
have
issues
with
with
de-escalating
events
that
are
occurring
in
your
life?
Do
you
need
substance
abuse
help?
J
Do
you
need
mental
health
support?
All
of
those
things
are
offered
at
that
time,
and
so
and
and
even
further
than
that,
because
I
think
we
did
that
before,
but
part
of
what
we're
doing
now
with
the
additional
funding
is
providing
ongoing
case
management,
so
that
kid
says
no,
I'm
good,
which
most
of
them
will
say
at
that
first,
offering
we
stay
in
contact
with
them.
We
go
back
a
week
later
we
go
back
and
usually
at
some
point
that
kid
breaks
down.
J
They
gain
a
little
trust
and
then
what
I've
been
told
by
the
outreach
workers
at
some
point
that
kid
breaks
down
tears
flow
and
they
go
yes,
I
need
help.
I
want
help
and
so
to
answer
your
question
directly.
We
are
trying
to
provide
that
ongoing
support
and
make
sure
they
get
the
resources
they
need
to
make
the
changes
to
get
away
from
that
lifestyle.
K
I
That
representative
stevenson,
the
these
are
department
of
juvenile
justice
facilities
and
they
do
have
mental
health
providers
on
staff
that
do
those
interventions
and
partner
with
other
organizations
to
provide
that
case
management,
which
is
such
an
important
piece.
How
many
kids
with
this
impact?
And
what's
the
number
of
beds
at
the
lagrange
facility,.
H
H
I
Just
one
last
question-
and
this
is
to
the
attorney,
how
much
success
have
we
had
in
order
parents
that
don't
care
to
care?
I
What
what
house
bill
318
does
is
it?
It
tries
to
cut
down
a
little
bit
of
that
that
middle
area,
where,
because
there's
there's
kind
of
a
a
lack
of
overlap
between
the
cdw
and
the
the
interventions
that
they
can
provide
and
the
department
of
juvenile
justice,
one's
pre-court
one's
post
court
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot
in
the
middle.
And
you
know
that,
like
I
said
that
case
management
piece
is
so
important.
A
You
very
much
seeing
no
further
questions
and
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
on
the
bill.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
A
D
L
I
Stevenson
I
explain
my
vote,
I'm
passing
because
there's
something
about
what
the
government
and
the
court
systems
can
do
to
better
address
this
situation
that
we're
not
doing
so
I'll
pass
and
have
that
conversation.
A
Yes,
there
being
14,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes
and
four
passes.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass.
Thank
you
for
an
excellent
presentation
and
representative
mosher.
Are
you
now
ready
and
mr
gold
as
you
leave?
I
I
missed
your
mohawk
today,
so
I
hope
to
see
you
in
it
soon
see.
A
All
right
good
deal
and
while
representative
moser
is
coming
forward,
I
do
have
a
guest.
I
wanted
to
recognize.
There's
a
bryce
clayton
with
us
here
today.
Bryce.
If
you
raise
your
hand,
he
is
a
first
year
law
student
at
chase
college
of
law.
His
father
is
the
superintendent
of
warren
county
schools
and
he's
here
today
to
see
what
we
do
in
judiciary.
So
welcome.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
thank
you
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
come
back
and
and
discuss
this
important
piece
of
legislation
house
bill.
Well,
I
should
say
I'm
representative
kim
mosher,
representative
of
the
64th
district,
for
the
record
and
I'll,
allow
my
guests
to
introduce
themselves
in
just
a
minute
but
house
bill.
G
362
is
a
law
that
became
or
a
provision
that
became
law
in
2014,
and
what
we
are
doing
today
is
updating
the
burden
of
proof,
because
there
have
been
some
constitutional
challenges
to
this
bill
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
it
right.
I
am
the
the
law
was
in
response
to
the
tragic
death
of
matthew,
casey
weddington,
who
died
of
a
heroin
overdose
at
the
age
of
23,
and
mrs
webbington
charlotte
weddington
is
with
us
today.
G
Since
2004,
there
have
been
more
than
6
000
referrals
in
kentucky
into
treatment
due
to
casey's
law.
It's
a
very
successful
program
and
we
want
to
make
it
even
better.
So
that's
really
why
we
are
here
today
to
provide
life-saving
treatment
to
individuals
with
a
substance,
use
disorder
who
need
it
and
we
believe
in
casey's
law.
Very
much.
We
want
even
more
victims
of
substance
use
disorders
or
with
substance
use
disorders,
to
be
able
to
get
the
treatment
that
they
need,
and
so
that's
what
we're
here
to
discuss
today.
F
Good
afternoon
I'll
try
to
move
fairly
quickly
through
the
two
minor.
What
we
think
are
minor
changes
to
this
bill
and
then
we'll
push
it
to
miss
weddington,
to
introduce
herself
and
and
give
her
unique
perspective
on
on
this
issue.
F
So
the
two
changes
that
you
have
before
you
today
are
one
that
created
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt,
standard
that
a
petition
must
meet
before
someone
is
committed
to
treatment
and
two
to
allow
someone
up
for
commitment
to
cross-examine
the
health
professionals
who
examined
or
submitted
written
testimony
about
him
or
her.
F
Now
before
we
talk
too
much
more
about
those
changes,
I
think
I
or
I
want
to
reiterate
something
that
representative
moser
just
said,
and
that
is
that
everybody
here
is
a
fan
of
casey's
law
and
that
we
support
what
the
law
does,
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
even
more
individuals
have
the
opportunity
to
get
the
treatment
and
the
help
that
they
need.
F
Part
of
the
reason
for
these
changes
is
that
casey's
law
is
currently
not
being
enforced
everywhere
in
the
commonwealth,
and
we
want
to
try
to
fix
that,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
can
get
the
help
that
you
need,
irrespective
of
where
you
live.
So
let's
talk
about
the
first
change,
the
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Standard
casey's
law
currently
provides
for
two
hearings.
F
Currently,
casey's
law
establishes
a
burden
of
proof
for
that
first
hearing,
which
is
probable,
cause
it's
a
pretty
low
burden
to
meet
the
there
are
some
who
argue
that
the
second
for
the
the
burden
of
proof
for
that
second
hearing
is
a
little
bit
in
doubt
and
what
what
burden
the
judge
should
use
there.
They
argue
is
sort
of
up
for
for
interpretation
now.
F
Part
of
the
reason
we
believe
this
is
because
there
are
a
number
of
judges
across
the
commonwealth
who
are
already
using
a
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
standard
in
that
second
hearing
now.
The
second
change
casey's
law
currently
requires
two
healthcare
professionals,
one
of
whom
must
be
a
physician
to
examine
the
individual
in
question
and
to
submit
their
findings
to
the
court.
F
We
believe
that
if
the
individual
who's
up
for
commitment
wish
to
do
so
that
he
or
s
he
or
she
could
currently
subpoena
those
professionals
for
cross-examination,
there
are
some
who
disagree
or
who
say
that
casey's
law
is
deficient
because
it
doesn't
state.
So
specifically,
so
our
second
change
would
simply
write
into
casey's
law.
What
we
already
believed
to
be
true,
which
is
that
an
individual
up
for
drug
treatment
may
subpoena
the
healthcare
professionals
who
examined
him
or
her
with
that
I'll
just
simply
say
that
again,
we're
big
fans
of
what
this
does.
F
I'm
from
estell
county
in
eastern
kentucky
at
one
point
or
another
estill
county,
led
the
state
in
the
number
of
overdose
deaths
per
capita.
If
my
memory
serves
at
one
point
in
time,
it
was
close
to
almost
one
out
of
every
thousand
people
in
my
hometown
died
annually
from
a
drug
overdose,
and
then
I'm
tired
of
it.
M
I'm
I'm
most
appreciative
of
being
here
today
and
having
the
opportunity
to
share
with
you
about
casey's
law
and
what
it
has
meant
to
so
many
people
in
the
state
of
kentucky
and
their
families.
It's
been
almost
two
decades
now.
It
will
be
two
decades
in
august
of
this
year
that
we
lost
casey
and
we
were
facing
the
worst
nightmare
of
our
lives.
M
We
were
losing
our
son
to
a
chronic,
progressive,
potentially
fatal
illness,
and
there
was
absolutely
nothing
that
we
could
do
to
intervene
on
him.
At
one
point
I
did
call
the
prosecuting
attorney's
office
and
asked
them.
If
I
could,
you
know
somehow
use
the
court
to
get
help
for
casey.
I
knew
he
needed
it
at
the
time.
I
was
very
ignorant
about
the
disease
of
addiction.
M
M
I
could
have
casey
arrested
if
I
had
something
that
I
could
charge
him
with,
but
then
to
know
that
there
was
nothing
that
I
could
do
after
that
that
the
court
would
be
in
charge,
and
I
was
afraid
and
I
backed
off
and
so
every
day
now
I
live
with
what.
If
I
had
made
a
different
decision,
then
what?
If
I
had
said
you
know,
let's
get
casey
arrested,
would
it
have
made
it
a
difference
in
the
trajectory
of
his
life?
M
M
M
Actually,
I
was
asked
to
clarify
that
it
was
2004
when
casey's
law
passed.
We
brought
it
to
the
legislature
in
2003
and
were
back
in
2004
at
his
pa
at
the
passage
of
the
law.
M
M
Most
of
the
reports
that
we
get
are
anecdotal
reports.
People
saying
you
know
thanks
for
casey's
law,
and
there
was
one
comment
that
I
was
going
to
share
with
you
from
manches
manchester
kentucky.
We
here
in
manchester
kentucky
value.
Casey's
law
like
we
value
bread
that
may
sound
like
a
weird
analogy,
but
just
as
bread
gives
life
so
does
casey's
law
and
then
jacob
wrote
to
me.
I
just
wanted
to
reach
out
to
you
and
let
you
know
that
casey's
law
saved
my
life
and
gave
my
daughter
a
father.
M
M
Contrary
to
that,
in
from
2004
to
2021,
the
total
petitions
filed
was
7020.
M
M
However,
we
always
want
to
improve
on
our
law
and
make
it
even
more
effective
for
the
families
in
kentucky
and
and
sometimes
that's
for
various
reasons
that
the
petitions
may
not
be
fi
or
may
not
go
to
a
judgment
and
order.
But
just
because
a
petition
is
filed
does
not
guarantee
that
that
person
is
going
to
be
ordered
into
treatment.
M
It
guarantees
that
there
will
be
evaluations
done
that
there
will
be
due
process
for
that
individual,
so
that
the
goal
again
is
to
get
that
person
the
help
that
they
need
and
deserve,
and
I
don't
think
that
this
was
quoted,
but
the
cdc
in
an
article
said
that
kentucky
was
the
fourth
had.
The
fourth
most
overdose
deaths
in
the
nation
between
april
of
2020
and
april
of
2021.,
so
you
know
now
more
than
ever
we
need
a
strong
casey
law
in
2002
when
casey
passed
away.
M
It
was
a
heroine
for
him,
but
since
the
excuse
me
since
then,
there's
been
so
many
other
things
that
have
come
on
the
forefront
and
fentanyl
happens
to
be
the
current
one.
So
now
more
than
ever,
we
need
an
option
for
families
to
be
able
to
intervene
on
their
loved
ones.
Like
I
said,
the
intent
of
the
law
has
been
and
always
will
be,
to
help
the
families,
and
that
includes
the
respondent
and
to
protect
the
rights
of
the
respondent.
M
And
I
hope
that,
with
these
amendments
we
can
more
fully
realize
this
intention.
I
would
close
with
just.
I
went
to
a
black
bloon
event
in
covington
on
saturday,
and
there
were
several
family
members
that
stopped
by
our
table
that
day,
but
two
of
them
have
stuck
out
in
my
mind,
so
much
that
I
just
cannot
keep
stop
thinking
about
them.
M
M
Thank
you
so
much
the
other
one
on
the
flip
side
of
that
was
a
mom
who
had
gotten
no,
no
a
support
from
her
husband
and
her
son,
of
course,
was
not
thrilled
about
casey's
law
and
she
was
crying
so
hard
and
weeping
so
so
horribly
it
just.
It
broke
my
heart
because
she
said
that
her
son
had
died
just
a
few
days
before
his
25th
birthday.
M
So
for
her-
and
for
me
you
know
it's
too
late,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
families
who
will
be
and
probably
are
missing
their
loved
ones
in
the
time
that
it
is
taken
to
work
on
this
appeal,
I'm
sure
of
it.
M
M
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
nemes,
a
second
by
representative
blanton.
We
do
have
a
question
representative,
decker
or
comment:
okay,
all
right,
seeing
none
other!
Madam
secretary.
Please
call
the
roll.
D
And
just
explain
my
vote.
I
really
appreciate
you
all
coming.
Thank
you
for
the
for
the
changes
to
the
bill.
I
think
they're
excellent
and
I
just
wanted
to
tell
you
miss
wellington.
I
know
three
people
I
I
am
the
executive
director
of
a
of
a
charity
that
operates
two
homeless
shelters
for
women
and
children.
D
D
E
Quickly
explain
my
vote.
Mr
chairman,
I
proudly
vote
yes
on
this
bill
as
I
proudly
voted.
Yes
in
2004
when
you
presented
this
bill
at
the
first
time.
I
this
is
an
amazing
bill,
it's
one
of
the
best
laws
that
we've
ever
passed
in
my
tenure
here
in
24
years
and
it
has
saved
lives
and,
and
I'm
very
proud
of
you
and
proud
of
your
devotion
to
this
cause.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
N
I
A
G
If
I,
if
I
could
just
say
one
thing,
mr
chair,
I'm
I'm
very
proud
to
carry
on
the
work
of
my
predecessor,
representative,
former
representative
tom
kerr,
who
worked
on
this
legislation
in
2004,
and
I
too
am
very
proud
of
charlotte
for
all
of
her
advocacy.
Thank
you
all.
A
Thank
you.
The
next
bill,
we're
going
to
hear
is
my
bill,
which
is
house
bill
690,
but
I'm
going
to
stay
up
here
to
make
it
quicker
pass
the
gavel
over
to
my
vice
chairperson
and
I'm
ready
when
you
are.
A
A
I
did
not
know
it
when
I
took
the
office
of
judiciary
chair
that
there
was
a
judiciary
council,
and
I
was
on
it.
Apparently
it's
one
of
those
committees
that
was
created
in
statute
that
never
was
more
advisory
and
never
really
took
any
action
in
working
with
representative
petrie
over
the
last
three
years.
This
actually
started
with
representative
petry.
A
A
We
are
working
with
some
other
groups
right
now
about
the
makeup
and
the
seats
on
the
council,
but
essentially
the
vision
is,
is
that
judicial
matters
that
would
be
coming
from
the
supreme
court
would
be
vetted
through
this
judicial
council
process
motion.
F
L
I
That
is
okay,
chairman
massey,
I'm
trying
to
understand
this
bill,
so
it's
expanding
representation,
but
you
mentioned
that
it
already
existed.
So
how
are
you
going
to
guarantee
that
they
actually
meet.
A
The
the
current
the
current
makeup
of
the
council
is
an
advisory
form.
This
will
not
be
an
advisory
council,
it
would
be
an
active
council.
We,
you
know.
Basically,
there
are
certain
constitutional
duties
that
the
chief
justice
still
has.
This
will
not
impede
those
constitutional
duties.
He
still
has
those
it
will
just
give
the
opportunity
for
district
judges
circuit
judges,
other
participants
in
the
judicial
process
to
have
input
before
recommendations
are
being
made.
That
will
affect
them.
That's
it.
C
You
miss,
madam
chairman
woman.
The
this
council
has
met
a
few
times
when
chief
justice,
lambert
was
the
chief
justice
that
also
met
once
or
maybe
twice
with
chief
justice
minton.
I
support
this.
The
one
thing
that
I
don't
like
about
it,
though,
is
that
it's
a
member
of
the
supreme
court.
That's
not
the
chief
justice
in
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky.
C
We
have
a
very
strong
court
of
justice,
that's
run
by
the
chief
justice,
and
I
think
the
chief
justice
should
be
the
speaker
of
the
supreme
court
on
this
council,
not
one
of
the
other
members,
and
in
this
actual
council,
or
at
least
he
should
be
able
to
be
it.
I
think
he
should
certainly
be
it,
but
on
this
in
this
bill,
he's
not
allowed
to
be
on
the
council,
and
I
think
that
unnecessarily
pierces
the
integrity
of
the
unification
of
the
court
of
justice
that
we
passed
in
1976.
C
A
C
B
D
C
Briefly,
explain
yes,
contingent
upon
my
vote
on
the
floor,
be
contingent
upon
the
chief
justice
he's
the
speaker
of
the
court
of
justice
pursuant
to
our
constitution,
and
he
must
be
the
one
that's
on
this
council
contingent
upon
that
being
on
the
floor
with
the
floor
amendment
I'll
vote.
Yes
now.
Thank
you.
I
I
A
A
All
right,
the
next
bill
that
we
will
hear
is
going
to
be
house
bill,
675
sponsored
by
representative
mccoy,
and
it
has
another
bill.
That's
been
incorporated
therein
that
was
brought
by
representative
minter
and
I
believe
they're
going
to
testify
together
and
they
have
a
witness
and,
while
they're
moving
forward
there
is
a
committee
sub
on
this
bill.
A
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chad,
mccoy
50th
district.
Let
me
do
my
part
real
fast,
because
I
think
my
part
is
quick.
The
speaker
asked
if
I
would
would
carry
this
portion
of
a
bill.
He
had
a
friend
of
his
name,
jeff,
tyler
and
jeff
was
incapacitated
and
in
the
hospital,
and
because
of
some
procedural
rules,
couldn't
get
a
guardianship
put
in
place
in
time
so
and
ended
up
passing
away
before
the
proceedings
stopped.
A
L
Okay,
yeah
thanks
representative
patty
mentor
representing
the
20th
district
in
bowling
green
and
I'm
honored
to
work
with
representative
mccoy
and
speaker
osborne
on
these
very
necessary
updates
to
our
conservatorship
law.
118
that
is
now
rolled
into
one
675
was
the
care
act,
the
conservatorship
advocacy
to
remove
exploitation
act
and
this
bill
is
supported
and
has
rolled
into
675.
L
L
The
bill
requires
that
more
information
be
gathered
and
available
regarding
near
and
extended
family
members
who
play
a
role
with
the
individual.
It
assures
that
the
individual
is
apprised
of
any
civil
pending
civil
or
criminal
actions
that
are
filed
against
him
or
her
and
requires
notification
by
the
conservator
or
guardian
that
these
notifications
are
made.
L
Q
I've
witnessed
that
behind
the
closed
doors
of
these
quasi-confidential
proceedings,
but
then
the
world
got
to
see
the
need
for
those
changes
in
britney
spears's
case.
Everybody
is
familiar
with
that
so
house
bill
675,
I'm
sorry
675
would
modify
the
existing
language
of
seven
statutes
in
chapter
387
as
it
relates
to
the
adult
guardianship
statutes
and
while
the
modifications
may
appear
minimal
in
writing.
They
have
far-reaching
effect.
Q
This
bill
would
ensure
that
the
right
people
are
at
the
table.
When
we're
discussing
disabled
adults,
it
closes
the
ability
for
disgruntled
parents
to
bring
a
guardianship
action
for
their
17
or
18
year
old,
while
surreptitiously
trying
to
keep
the
other
co-parent
out
by
failing
to
tell
the
court
that
there
are
family
court
orders
in
place.
Q
It
impresses
upon
the
court
its
own
duty
to
let
someone
know
when
their
rights
have
been
stripped
from
them,
that
they
don't
just
have
the
option,
but
they
have
the
right
to
come
back
before
the
court
and
ask
for
a
change
in
their
circumstances
and
if
your
rights
have
been
stripped
away
from
you
by
the
court.
Think
about
the
glimmer
of
hope
that
that
gives
you,
when
a
judge
themselves
tells
you
you
have
the
right
to
come
back
before
me.
Q
It
makes
it
easier
for
people
to
be
able
to
modify
their
guardianships
to
terminate
their
mark
their
guardianships,
because,
right
now
someone
has
to
know
who
they've
got
to
call
what
lawyer
that
they
call
in
order
to
be
able
to
get
that
done.
So
this
impresses
upon
the
bar
association
itself,
even
if
they
do
not
practice
in
this
type
of
law,
to
let
the
circuit
clerk
know
and
get
the
ward
in
contact
with
the
circuit
clerk
in
the
event
that
they
receive.
Q
It
also
expands
the
district
court's
ability
to
give
certain
relief
to
wards
and
their
family
members
right
now.
As
the
law
stands,
the
district
court's
hands
are
tied.
This
specifically
gives
the
district
court
the
ability
to
seek
visitation
schedules
for
a
ward
and
a
loved
one
right
now,
if
you're.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
heaven,
the
second
by
representative
nemes,
typically
when
you're
when
you're
doing
well,
we
stop
talking
so
but
with
that,
I'm
going
to
defer
to
representative
elliot
who
had
a
question
earlier.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
had
a
bill
several
years
ago
that
rewrote
the
guardianship
conservatorship
laws
to
some
extent
with
the
removal
of
the
jury
trial
as
a
requirement
which
we
were
the
only
state
at
that
time
that
had
that
requirement
up
until
that
bill
passed.
There
is
a
mechanism
for
I
practice
in
this
area,
so
there
is
a
mechanism
to
have
a
temporary
or
emergency
guardian
custodian
appointed
now
in
the
law.
P
That
requires
action
by
the
county
attorney
and
in
some
of
our
counties
I
won't
name
jefferson.
They
have
a
different
process
and
do
it
differently
and
therefore,
we've
had
this
scenario
pop
up
where,
if
they
choose
not
to
act
in
representative
eliot,
I
think
it's
like
a
ends
up
taking
like
four
days
or
something
like
that,
and
it's
in
that
intervening
time,
that
this
emergency
limited
conservatory
limited
guardian
pops
up.
E
I
see
in
if
I
might
follow
up
mr
chairman,
certainly
in
the
district
that
I'm
in
it's
fairly
routine
for
a
a
family
member
to
go
to
a
private
attorney
who
then
files
the
petition.
Of
course,
the
county
attorney
is
consulted
and
part
of
that
process.
E
P
P
No,
not
at
all,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
paragraph
one,
there
still
has
to
be
finding
by
the
court
of
a
danger
of
serious
impairment
to
health
or
safety,
responding
to
damage
or
disposition
to
the
property.
So
we're
still
talking
about
getting
the
judge
involved.
P
Now
now
that's
going
to
be
something
less
than
the
full
on
hearing
where
all
of
the
evidence
is
presented.
This
is
simply
allowing
for
this
to
happen
immediately,
almost
like
a
a
tro
situation,
you
know
where
I
can
come
in
in
a
civil
case.
Go
ex
parte
tell
the
judge.
We've
got
to
do
this
now,
but
we'll
be
back
in
front
of
you
tomorrow
with
everybody.
E
I
A
A
N
A
This
brings
us
to
our
final
bill
for
today,
which
is
going
to
have
some
discussions.
So
it's
going
to
be
house
bill,
489
sponsored
by
representative
blanton,
and
I
know
there
are
several
people
that
are
going
to
testify
on
this.
We
did
gain
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
that
doesn't
give
you
the
ability
to
go
on
and
on
we've
got
to
keep
this.
A
We
need
to
wrap
up
by
145
in
order
to
get
members
over
to
the
floor
for
session,
so
we
do
have
at
least
I
think
two
witnesses
in
addition
to
the
sponsor
speaking
favorably
and
maybe
two
speaking
in
opposition
and
we'll
try
to
get
all
of
that
testimony
in
here
before
we
call
a
vote
on
this
bill
with
that
representative
blanton,
you
can
introduce
your
guest
and
you're
ready
if
you're
ready
to
proceed.
Please
do
so.
R
R
Mr
chairman,
today
I
I've
come
before
you
all
to
present
house
bill
489.
The
intent
is
of
house
bill.
489
is
to
put
in
place
guard
rails
to
protect
consumers
who
are
awaiting
a
settlement,
and
a
financial
need
were
to
arise
whether
it
is
to
pay
an
electric
bill,
a
mortgage
payment,
a
car
payment
or,
in
the
case
of
my
colleague,
representative
flannery's
client,
simply
to
buy
some
christmas
presents
for
his
family.
R
This
product
is
currently
being
used
in
kentucky
without
any
parameters
in
place
to
protect
the
consumer
or
the
funders
who
provides
the
product
simply
put.
This
legislation
brings
forward
proper
legislation
that
regulates
this
industry
that
is
currently
not
regulated
in
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I
want
to
yield
to
my
colleague
for
further
testimony
to
show
the
need
for
this
product
and
this
legislation
in
kentucky
representative
flannery.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
you
all.
So,
as
many
many
of
you
all
may
know,
I'm
a
I
am
an
attorney
by
by
trade,
and
I
have
a
small
town
practice
and
at
any
given
time
I
probably
have
five
to
ten
car
wreck
cases
that
I'm
that
I'm
working
on
and
and
these
types
of
products
have
always
been
something
that
I
have
tried
to
learn
my
clients
away
from
for
different
reasons.
But
one
of
the
reasons
I've
co-sponsored
this
is.
O
I
had
a
client
that
was
very
seriously
injured
in
a
car
wreck
case
and
he
he
was
unable
to
get
any
sort
of
unemployment
for
different
reasons
and
was
was
not
able
to
get
disability
payments
and
he
had
really
felt
on
hard
times
financially,
and
he
came
to
me
and
and
talked
to
me
about
this,
and
I
I
discouraged
it
at
first,
but
after
talking
with
him,
you
know
I
set
him
up
with
a
company
and-
and
he
received
a
thousand
dollar
loan
and
primarily
what
he
needed
was
was
a
thousand
dollars
just
to
get
him
through
christmas
time
he
had
a
hard
time
paying
bills
and
other
things,
and-
and
I
hear
a
lot
of
rhetoric
that
you
know
this
is
going
to
cause
more
litigation,
and
I
think
we
really
need
to
this
abuse
people
of
that
notion.
O
This
is
not
going
to
cause
more
or
less
litigation
out
there
we're
going
to
have
the
same
amount
of
lawsuits
that
will
be
filed.
Secondly,
the
companies
that
lend
this
that
lend
these
dollars-
this
is
a
non-recourse
loan,
so
they're
going
to
be
smart
about
who
they
lend
this
money
to
they're.
Not
going
to
lend
money
to
people
that
that
have
a
case
that
is
unstable,
questionable
you
know
or
without
merit.
O
These
loans
are
typically,
you
know
smaller
amounts.
The
client
that
I
referred
to
recently
had
very
sizable
damages.
There
were,
you
know,
fairly
large
insurance
policies
and
he
received
a
thousand
dollar
loan.
O
So
these
are
not
large
amounts
of
money.
No
way
would
it.
It
should
not
encourage
anybody
to
file
a
lawsuit
to
get
these
loans,
because
the
lenders
are
not
going
to
lend
money
to
people
that
that
do
not
have
good
cases,
and
I
think
that's
a
very
important
fact
to
realize,
but
there's
some
I've
seen
some
comments
that
that
indicates
that
you
know
these
loans
are
illegal
in
certain
cases.
O
There's
a
I
don't
really
want
to
bore
people
with
the
the
doctrine
of
champerty.
Some
of
you,
lawyers
may
have
heard
that
I
know
honestly.
I
could
not
remember
that
that
concept
from
law
school
I
see
representative
elliot
shaking
his
head.
Maybe
he
doesn't
either,
but
it's
just
a
very
archaic
concept,
and
you
know
there
there
are
a
lot
of
gray
areas
with
these
products.
It's
kind
of
murky
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
good
things
about
this
bill
is
it
does
it
does
set
some
guardrails?
It
helps
regulate
it.
O
As
representative
blanton
said,
and
sets
forth
some
safeguards
to
be
sure
that
that
our
our
constituents,
the
people
that
we
represent,
if
they
use
these
products,
that
there
is
some
law
guiding
this
and
it's
not
the
wild
wild
west
and
and,
like
I
said
it's,
it's
important
to
note
that
these
are
non-recourse
loans.
So
obviously
that
is
going
to
it's
very
risky.
It's
going
to.
O
It
is
going
to
be
a
higher
percentage
payment,
but
I
mean
that's
just
kind
of
part
of
this
transaction,
but
you
know
in
no
way
shape
or
form
are
people.
You
know
forced
to
do
this.
I
actually
think
it's
probably
not
right,
for
you
know
most
of
my
clients
and
we'll
discourage
it,
but
for
some
people
it
can
be
be
a
big
help,
so
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
discuss
and
and
proud
to
co-sponsor
this
bill.
R
K
K
Briefly,
let
me
just
kind
of
reiterate
what
consumer
legal
funding
is.
Is
we
provide
financial
assistance
to
consumers
who
have
a
pending
legal
claim
that
is
to
be
used
for
immediate
household
needs?
It's
not
to
be
used
to
further
litigation.
It's
only
to
make
sure
they
have
a
roof
over
the
head
food
on
the
table
and
they
can
pay
their
bills.
K
What
this
legislation
does
is
set
up
proper
regulations
and
set
up
a
structure
with
strong
consumer
protections,
along
with
the
abilities
to
offer
their
product
properly
some
of
the
highlights
of
the
bills.
It
clearly
defines
what
the
product
is
requires.
The
companies
must
register
with
the
commonwealth
prior
to
doing
business
if
they
don't
they're
subject
to
a
fifty
thousand
dollar
fine,
they
must
have
a
registered
agent
in
the
commonwealth.
They
must
put
up
a
bond,
clear
notice
and
disclosure
to
the
consumer.
K
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
by
representative
elliot.
Is
there
a
second?
We
have
a
second
by
representative
nemes.
I
know
that
we
do
have
some
other
folks
that
are
speak
for
and
against
so
with
that,
and
because
we
have
a
lot
of
the
time
we're
going
to
allow
that
to
proceed.
So
typically,
we
would
stop
and
and
potentially
vote
on
the
matter,
but
I
know
that
I've.
I
will
honor
those
witnesses
that
have
signed
up
to
testify
and
we
also
will
have
some
questions.
A
With
that,
I
believe
that
we
do
was
there
anyone
else
representative
blanton
that
was
going
to
testify
on
your
behalf,
was
that
yeah
is
that
it
okay?
So
we
have
with
us
virtually
today
jack
kelly,
and
I
don't
know
if
he
was
had
a
back
up
again.
S
Mr
chairman,
I
have
a
backup,
I'm
at
a
medical
appointment
that
I
apologize.
My
colleague
mr
husker
will
briefly
testify
and
we'll
keep
our
remarks
brief
and
appreciate
the
members
of
the
committee
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
the
one
singular
amendment
that
we'll
seek
at
a
time
just
a
technical
amendment.
A
Very
good,
sir,
please
identify
yourself
name
address
and
who
you're
affiliated
with,
and
then
we
will
give
you
the
floor.
T
Sir,
thank
you
chairman
and
members
of
the
house
standing
committee
on
the
judiciary.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
address
the
committee.
I
am
harrison
hosker
of
the
american
legal
finance
association,
also
known
as
alpha
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
house
bill
489
with
one
technical
amendment
that
we
ask
to
be
adopted
by
way
of
introduction.
Alpha
is
a
trade
association
consisting
of
32
of
the
nation's
leading
and
largest
consumer
legal
funding,
companies
that
do
business
throughout
the
united
states
established
17
years
ago.
One
is
one
of
alpha's.
T
T
It
is
critical
for
the
committee
to
know
that
alpha
members
do
not
provide
funds
to
individuals
for
any
costs,
fees
or
expenses
related
to
the
prosecution
of
litigation.
Therefore,
the
plaintiff
can
solely
use
the
funds
provided
by
alpha
member
companies
for
their
personal
life
needs
like
rent
food
or
other
expenses.
T
This
legislation
before
you
today
establishes
a
robust
system
of
registration,
licensure,
prohibited
practices
and
requirements
for
transparency
and
uniformity
and
contracts,
while
ensuring
consumer
protection
for
those
who
need
consumer
litigation.
Financing
kentuckians
truly
deserve
law
that
will
provide
consumer
protection.
Alpha
commends
you
for
considering
this
legislation
and
welcomes
working
with
you
to
address
any
concerns.
T
Alpha
has
led
the
charge
in
helping
adopt
sound
consumer
protections
law
in
numerous
states,
including
indiana,
oklahoma,
utah,
nevada,
tennessee,
vermont,
ohio,
maine
nebraska,
and
looks
forward
to
the
commonwealth.
Adopting
this
needed
law.
Consumer
legal
funding
provides
consumers
with
a
lifeline
and
they
have
nowhere
else
to
turn.
It
enables
a
plaintiff
to
obtain
the
settlement.
They
deserve
not
to
be
forced
to
accept
an
unfair
offer.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns
about
this
industry.
A
Thank
you,
sir.
I
appreciate
your
testimony.
We
next
have,
I
believe,
kerry
silverman
that
is
speaking
in
opposition.
I
believe.
A
Yes,
sir,
you
may
identify
yourself
where
you're
located
and
who
you
represent
or
who
you're
speaking
on
behalf
of.
N
Sure,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
My
name
is
carrie
silverman,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
american
tort
reform
association,
which
is
a
national
group
that
seeks
predictability
and
fairness
and
civil
justice
in
washington
dc
and
across
the
country.
N
While
this
bill
may
be,
I'm
here
to
express
our
concerns
with
house
bill
489.
Well,
this
bill
may
be
intended
to
protect
consumers.
If
enacted,
it
will
legalize
lawsuit
loans
that
courts
have
already
found,
are
now
prohibited
in
kentucky
and
it
allow
lenders
to
charge
excessive
interest
rates
in
exchange
for
what
we
view
as
a
licensing
requirement
and
very
relatively
weak
regulation.
N
Over
the
years
actress
watched
the
lawsuit
landing
industry
emerge
and
grow
with
concern.
You
know,
a
quick
search
on
the
web
turns
up
numerous
companies
that
are
advertising.
You
know
quote-unquote
lawsuits
for
cash.
These
businesses
often
offer
people
who've
experienced
an
injury,
quick
cash
in
exchange
for
being
entitled
to
a
portion
of
their
settlement.
N
In
these
cases,
lenders
know
it's
almost
certain
that
the
consumer
will
receive
a
settlement
from
the
defendant
or
its
insurer,
whether
it's
a
ordinary
slip
and
fall,
or
a
fender,
better
vendor
or
other
action.
It's
just
a
matter
of
time,
and
that
time
is
during
during
which
the
lender
can
profit
from
the
extremely
high
interest
rate.
It
would
be
foolish
for
them
to
make
the
loan
otherwise
and
from
a
civil
justice
perspective.
These
types
of
arrangements
are
also
problematic.
N
N
Because
a
person's
taken
out
a
lawsuit
loan
must
not
only
calculate
how
much
of
his
settlement
is
going
to
go
for
the
lawyers,
attorney's
fees
and
costs
which
might
be
35
or
40
percent
or
more,
but
how
much
of
what
little
then
remains
will
go
to
repay
the
lawsuit
loan
and
once
the
plaintiff
takes
out
a
lawsuit
loan,
he
can't
just
walk
away
from
the
litigation,
even
if
it
turns
out
that
the
lawsuit
shouldn't
have
been
brought
in
the
first
place,
abandoning
the
lawsuit
could
subject
them
to
immediate
repayment
of
the
entire
loan
and
with
interest
and
fees
and
these
arrangements
they
can
also
encourage
litigation,
as
some
people
who
may
not
have
sued
might
be
enticed
by
the
prospect
of
getting
some
cash
money
money
and
keep
in
mind
that
lawsuit
lending
isn't
needed
to
promote
access
to
justice.
N
We
already
have
contingencies
fees.
For
that
reason,
I'd
like
to
give
you
an
example
of
how
this
system
works.
In
a
case,
it
actually
involves
a
kentucky
resident.
Christopher
bowling
was
seriously
injured
when
a
gas
can
ignited
and
he
sued
the
manufacturer
of
the
can
claiming
it
was
defective
during
the
litigation
he
took
out.
N
Four
lawsuit
loans,
totaling
thirty
thousand
dollars
the
loans
accrued
interest
at
a
rate
of
four
point:
nine
nine
percent
per
month,
which
may
sound
like
not
a
lot,
but
when
is
compounded
monthly,
he
was
subject
to
an
effective
annual
rate
of
79
percent,
so
in
the
lawsuit
settled
five
years
later,
the
outstanding
balance
on
his
30
000
loan
was
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
more
than
eleven
times
the
amount
that
he
had
borrowed
and
likely
a
substantial.
If
not
the
entire
settlement,
he
would
have
received
as
compensation
for
severe
burns.
N
He
no
longer
wishes
to
prosecute.
It
complicates
the
ability
to
settle
cases
and
it
encourages
litigation.
The
court
said
that
the
loan
agreements
also
violated
the
state's
law
against
excessive
interest
rates,
which
generally
doesn't
allow
an
apr
above
eight
percent
and
the
court
invalidated
the
agreement
and
required
the
consumer
to
repay
the
lender.
Only
the
principal
and
the
lender's
cost,
which
was
34
twenty
five
dollars
as
opposed
to
three
hundred
forty
thousand
dollars.
N
That's
consumer
protection
and
that's
what
kentucky
law
is
now.
So
what
hb
489
does
in
effect?
Is
it
carves
out
lawsuit
loans
from
kentucky's
champerty
statute,
it
carves
out
lawsuit
loans
from
kentucky's
usury
statute,
and
it
replaces
these
strong
protections
that
are
already
in
place
with
a
licensing
requirement
that
legitimizes
these
types
of
practices
and
it
will
allow
the
laws
of
loans
to
flourish
here.
A
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
not
a
legal
expert.
I
appreciate
you
allowing
me
to
be
here
and
I'm
nick
deandre
with
ups
I'm
the
vice
president
of
public
affairs
and
in
true
ups
fashion.
I
promised
the
committee
chair
that
I
would
do
this
in
two
and
a
half
minutes
and
I
promise
non-time
delivery
so.
T
But
I
am
here-
I
just
want
to
say
I
am
representing
various
businesses
from
the
kentucky
chamber
of
commerce,
nfib,
kentucky
kentucky
association
manufacturers,
kentucky
hospital
association,
kentucky
association
of
healthcare
facilities,
kentucky
home
care
association,
greater
louisville
inc,
kentucky
trucking
association,
kentucky
farm
bureau,
kentucky
medical
association,
kentucky
civil
justice
alliance
and
the
institute
insurance
institute
of
kentucky.
T
I
just
want
to
give
the
you
know
just
from
a
business
perspective,
what
this
means
for
us
in
states
that
do
have
these
third
party
litigation
financing
legalities,
where
it
is
legal,
we
do
see
higher
litigation
costs,
we're
also
extremely
concerned
about
what
it
would
mean
for
insurance
premiums.
Our
insurance,
our
insurance
premiums
at
ups,
have
gone
up
440
in
the
last
two
years.
T
So
that's
why
I'm
here
at
the
table
discussing
that
this
bill
could
adversely
affect
both
of
those
not
just
for
us,
but
other
companies
in
the
commonwealth
and
just
know
that
for
every
dollar
that
we're
not
paying
or
that
we're
paying
for
litigation
or
paying
for
insurance
premiums
is
a
dollar
that
can't
be
invested
in
our
people,
our
plants
and
our
equipment
here
in
kentucky.
So,
mr
chairman,
thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
We
do
have
some
questions
and
will
the
people
asking
the
questions
or
representatives
asking
the
questions?
Please
direct
your
questions
to
whom
they
they
go
to,
as
we
have
testimony
that
was
given
by
video.
We
just
need
to
know
who's
going
to
be
answering
the
questions
you
may
have
with
that
representative
nemus.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It's
interesting
that
the
case
that
the
gentleman
brought
up
was
a
case
that
I
represented
the
defendant
on.
I
was
not
involved
in
the
in
the
the
loan
I
represented
the
the
gas
company
that
was
sued
by
mr
bowling,
who
I
my
memory
was.
Mr
bolling
was
an
attorney
with
us
here,
nor
there
he
probably
knew
more
than
most
people
the
contract
he
was
getting
involved
in
my
question.
Is
this
there's
no
cap,
I
think
the
language,
the
situation
that
we
heard
kind
of
shocks,
the
conscience.
C
R
Very
good
question,
representative
nemes
understand
your
concern.
Originally,
that
was
tossed
around.
There
was
some
caps
in
there.
We're
certainly
willing
to
take
a
look
at
that
put
reasonable
caps
in
place
that
protects
the
consumer
and
and
the
and
the
companies
here
as
well,
and
would
be
welcome
to
take
a
look
at
that
for
a
floor
amendment.
Let
me
let
me
point
out
something
here
that
we've
been
hearing
and
and-
and
that
is
this
first
of
all,
this
is
going
on
in
kentucky
right
now,
but
it's
illegal,
but
it's
still
going
on.
R
So
that's
why
we're
trying
to
put
some
guardrails
in
place
to
protect
our
consumers
when
they
need
it?
The
most
and
the
big
fear
from
a
lot
of
people?
Is
they
don't
want
them
to
have
this
protection
because
it
means
they
can
stay
in
the
fight
longer?
They
want
to
settle
quickly,
so
they
can
settle
cheaper.
They
don't
want
them
staying
in
this
fight
longer.
K
No
thank
you,
sir,
and
one
of
the
things
I
just
want
to
also
to
clarify
that
was
stated
previously
is
that
the
consumer
only
has
to
meet
this
obligation
if
they
have
a
settlement
and
if
there's
enough
money
out
of
the
proceeds
of
the
settlement,
we
stated
before
that.
If
the
consumer
drops
the
claim
that
they're
still
on
the
hook,
they're
not
and
that's
why
we
have
specifically
stated
in
the
statute
that
only
out
of
the
proceeds
of
legal
claim
can
this
obligation
be
met.
Eric.
C
What
can
we
do
to
make
sure
that
somebody
that
gets
a
30
000
loan
doesn't
have
to
pay
back,
300,
000
and-
and
so
I
don't
know,
if
that's
put
a
cap
on
the
total
amount,
maybe
it's
double
the
amount
of
the
loan
put
a
cap
on
on
percentages,
but
I
don't
know
that
that
works
very
well,
especially
with
civil
trials,
not
getting
trials
quickly
anymore.
C
K
K
One
of
the
things
we
do
have
in
there
is
a
time
cap
that
all
fees
stop
at
36
months,
but
I
think
what's
important
in
this
situation.
Here
too,
is
you
have
an
attorney
looking
over
these
contracts,
they're
going
to
be
involved
in
the
settlement
process?
So
if
the
attorney
goes
listen
you
know
you
guys
are
charging
outrageous
rates
here
on
the
front
end
and
on
the
back
end,
they're
negotiating
these
contracts
also
all
the
way
through
the
process.
So
let's
say
we
we
look
at
a
claim.
It's
say
we
think
it's
gonna
be
valued.
K
Fifty
thousand
dollars
also
and
as
the
case
progress
find
out.
There's
some
share
liability
with
it.
It's
not
gonna
settle
that
attorney
is
gonna,
get
a
hold
that
funding
company
says.
Listen,
don't
expect
a
big
return
on
this
thing,
because
this
is
gonna
happen.
Also,
in
the
case
settles
for
twenty
thousand
dollars
whereby
everybody's
gonna
sell
it
for
50..
K
That
company
is
going
to
probably
barely
get
their
principal
back.
That
attorney
has
a
fiduciary
responsibility
with
their
client
to
negotiate.
That's
why
we
make
sure
the
attorney
is
fully
involved
in
this
process,
all
the
way
along,
because
it's
their
responsibility
to
look
out
to
make
sure
their
client
gets
the
best
settlement
that
they
can.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'll,
have
some
questions
for
nick.
If
you
want
to
come
back
up
to
the
table,
you
can
sit
by
representative
blanton
there.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
clarify
something.
This
is
not
illegal.
P
Champerty
is
here
is
illegal,
but
this
is
not
illegal
and
I
say
that
because
it's
been
going
on
openly
notoriously
and
continuously
my
entire
career
since
2004
I've
done
almost
exclusively
plaintiffs
in
plaintiff's
personal
injury
work
and
nick,
I
would
love
to
see
the
evidence
that
the
costs
are
higher
in
states
where
this
is
regulated
not
doubting.
It
just
have
never
heard
that
before
would
love
for
you
to
share
that.
P
But
but
let
me
ask
you
this
question,
because
I've
got
a
job
to
do
and
that
is
to
do
whatever's
in
the
best
interest
of
my
client.
First
and
foremost,
that's
my
ethical
obligation,
so
I've
got
a
this
case
right
this
second,
this
was
last
week's
decision.
I
won't
mention
dan's
last
name,
but
my
client
dan
was
rear-ended
sitting
in
a
stop
light.
I
think
everybody
would
agree,
he's
not
at
fault
the
lady
that
hit
him
has
no
insurance.
P
His
company
is
going
to
step
up
and
pay
his
medical
bills,
his
lost
wages
and
some
amount
for
pain
and
suffering.
He
has
now
been
told
he
has
to
go.
Have
surgery
he's
going
to
be
out
for
two
months
who's
going
to
pay
his
mortgage
who's
going
to
pay
his
car
payment
who's
going
to
pay
anything
in
that
man's
life
because
I'll
tell
you
who's
not
paying
is
the
big
insurance
company
that,
without
a
doubt,
owes
him
the
money?
It's
not
even
a
question.
There's
no
questions,
liability!
There's
no
question!
P
T
Yeah-
and
maybe
I
think
I'm
on
here-
maybe
carrie-
can
help
answer
that
too,
but
I
can
tell
you
I
can't
speak
for
the
insurance
companies.
I
can
just
say
in
our
in
our
cases.
What
ends
up
happening
right
is
the
fact
that,
because
of
the
usury
rates
are
higher
than
usually
rates
that
are
being
charged
dan.
In
your
case,
if
you
were
to
settle
right
or
we
offer
ups
offers
a
settlement
agreement,
he
owes
more
than
the
settlements
worse.
P
That
is
a
rare
occurrence
and
I
haven't
really
seen
it
happen
with
with
good
companies
and
good
lawyers
involved.
I
hear
that
I
can
see
where
it
would
cause
problems
getting
them
resolved
if
somebody
owes
more
than
the
settlement,
but
come
back
and
answer
my
question:
what
are
the
options
for
somebody
who
is
completely
without
income
completely,
not
at
fault
has
a
massive
insurance
policy
and
we're
just
being
delayed.
P
T
I
understood,
but
would
you
also
agree
that
maybe
the
interest
rate
should
be
a
limit
once
where
they're
not
ended
up
having
to
pay
back?
You
know
thousands
and
thousands
of
dollars
more
than
what
they
could
get
a
loan
for,
maybe
somewhere
else
or
or
in
a
way
in
which
it's
fair
to
the
to
the
to
the
plaintiff.
P
I
can
tell
you
traditional
lending
operations,
do
not
lend
based
on
a
contingency
fee
lawsuit,
because
it
is
in
fact
contingent,
there's
no
guarantee
that
we're
going
to
get
anything.
So
I
don't
know
that
it
exists.
Absolutely.
If
we
had
other
options,
the
market
would
drive
those
rates
down
and
I
think
that's
sort
of
the
point
of
this
bill
is:
if
we
make
it
clear
that
nobody's
going
to
get
sued,
then
now,
hopefully,
people
are
going
to
come
into
this
market
space
and
we'll
get
some
of
those
options.
P
I
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair
representative
glenn.
I
just
I
had
a
quick
question.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
on
page
six,
the
clause
where
it
says
in
in
bold
bold
typeface
that,
if
there's
no
recovery,
that
the
the
individual
will
not
have
to
pay
anything
back
in
excess
of
their
recovery,
that
is
that
exclusive
of
the
interest
that
are
that's
going
to
be
charged.
D
R
Well,
I
I'll
I'll,
let
eric,
but
I'm
going
to
take
a
stab
at
they're
they're,
going
to
look
at
these
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
think
that
if
you've
got
a
good
case
and
you
need
the
monies
and
it's
like
a
credit
card
once
they're
in
it's
what
they
make
back
in
their
interest
right
but
I'll.
Let
eric
answer
that.
K
Thank
you.
It's
it's
a
free
market
solution.
It's
there's
a
need
for
this
product,
so
these
companies
have
come
up
and
developed
this
product
to
to
fill
that
need
and
to
fill
that
gap.
As
representative
mccoy
said,
you
know
what
do
what
are
com
people
going
to
have
to
be
able
to
do
when
they're
out
of
out
of
income
or
to
make
ends
meet
and
also
to
address,
represent
mccoy's
issue
about
the
the
free
market?
I
can
point
to
oklahoma.
K
Oklahoma
doesn't
have
any
rate
caps
in
it.
Oklahoma
has
probably
one
of
the
lowest
rates
that
are
charged
across
the
country,
because
companies
are
know
exactly
what
everybody
else
is
charging
it's
an
extremely
competitive
market
down
there.
There
have
been
three
companies
that
have
been
started
in
oklahoma,
since
the
legislation
has
passed
and
they're
driving
the
national
players
making
them
chase
their
tails,
because
the
fact
that
they're
a
local
provider-
they
can
say,
hey,
I'm
right
here
in
oklahoma
city,
where
I'm
right
here
in
tulsa.
You
need
something
to
deal
with.
K
Let's
go
talk
about
it.
You
don't
need
to
talk
about
that
guy
in
new
york
or
la
or
wherever.
That
is
that's
what
the
market
does
it
once
you
level
the
playing
field,
meaning
it
knows
and
disclose
all
the
consumer
contracts
together,
so
attorneys
can
go
from
company
a
company
b
can
pc
and
see
exactly
what
the
terms
and
conditions
are.
G
G
I'm
not
sure
that
I'm
in
favor
of
caps,
but
you
know
that
would
that
would
certainly
solve
the
issues
I
think
in.
In
some
cases
I
mean,
I
think.
Maybe
I
just
contradicted
myself,
because
I'm
talking
about
competitive
markets
is
a
very
kind
of
confusing
issue.
I
think
I
I
mean
I
understand
both
sides
of
this.
G
I
yeah
I'm
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
exactly
what
this.
What
this
is,
I
I
guess
the
the
long-term
effects
of
this,
as
well
as
the
immediate
provisions.
I
don't
know.
I
I'm
not
sure
where
I
stand
on
this
right
now,
so
I
appreciate
your
your
comments
about
other
states.
I
think
that
that
was
really
my
primary
question.
So
thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
have
not
read
the
bowling
decision,
but
that
seems
to
be
the
the
primary
issue
here
under
under
that
decision.
If,
if
someone
enters
into
a
one
of
these
contracts,
these
financing
contracts
receives
a
settlement
and
then
decides
to
rescind
that
contract
without
paying
the
financing
company,
then
he
does
not
have
to
pay
the
financing
company,
because
it's
unenforceable
under
the
bowling
decision
is
that
my
understanding
I
haven't
read
the
case.
K
K
I
can
tell
you:
the
industry
has
matured
and
changed
dramatically
in
the
last
10
years,
you're,
not
seeing
those
types
of
rates
and
you're
not
seeing
that
those
types
of
charges
being
done
anymore,
because
this
has
become
a
very
competitive
industry
and
attorneys
will
see
three
four
or
five
of
these
contracts
a
year
and
if
they
have
a
bad
player.
I
can
tell
you
right
now:
they're
never
going
to
work
with
that
company
again
and
they're
never
going
to
operate
again
in
that
state.
B
S
Representative
fisher,
it's
jack
kelly,
good.
To
see
you
again,
sir.
I
apologize
the
the
issues
that
were
brought
up
by
mr
schuler
was
that
the
case
was
brought
under
diversity
in
erie.
In
the
bowling
case,
there
was
no
statutory
doctrine
in
kentucky
on
whether
this
was
alone
or
it
was
champertis.
S
The
court
took
the
position
that
they
could
sit
in
the
chair
of
kentucky
and
interpret
what
they
felt.
Kentucky's
law
would
be.
What
this
statute
does.
Is
that
resolves
that
ambiguity
or
lack
of
statutory
clarity
for
any
court
that
were
to
look
at
this
and
therefore
remove
that
that
uncertainty.
A
Thank
you,
representative,
bratcher.
C
Just
quick
to
just
to
be
clear:
the
interest
is
really
just
paying
upon
the
future
settlement
right,
there's,
that's
what
the
interest
is
the
concerns
and
then
second
question.
Then
a
com,
a
quick
comment:
are
these
funds?
Are
they
delivered
like
in
a
lump
sum
or
a
draw
over
time?
Somebody
said
two
years
for
a
settlement.
C
And
you
know
just
quickly,
I
know
everybody
on
this
committee,
especially
the
lawyers
roll
their
eyes
when
I
complain
about
how
long
it
takes
for
these
judges
in
courts
to
to
move
along.
I
mean
two
years
three
years:
it's
crazy
and
there's
during
this
off
year,
I'm
just
going
to
find
ways
that
the
constitution
can
be
changed
to
have
a
speedy
trial
and
verdict.
So
that's
all.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
We
did
have
one
person
that
also
signed
up.
I
didn't
want
to
neglect
anyone.
I
can
only
give
mr
it's
ed
o'neill
a
couple
of
oh
daniel,
a
couple
of
minutes
if
you'd
be
very
limited,
sir,
because
we're
gonna
have
to
vote
and
get
the
session.
But
do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
J
Matter
pass
this
bill
and
it
might
not
be
debatable
anymore
there's
this
legislation
will
have
the
effect
of
driving
up
the
cost
of
settlement
of
cases
and
will
result
in
in
higher
awards
being
paid
in
these.
In
these
cases,
the
kentucky
trucking
association
asked
that
the
committee
not
vote
to
enact
this
piece
of
legislation.
R
R
R
Nobody
else
will
lend
them
money
they
just
need
enough
to
get
by
and-
and
they
do
have
some
legal
protections
with
their
attorney
their
attorney's
not
going
to
let
them
be
signed
up
with
somebody
who's
going
to
take
advantage
of
them,
they're
going
to
be
pointing
them
in
the
right
directions
to
people
that
can
help
them,
so
they
can
get
through
this
and
yeah.
It
might
mean
higher
settlements
because
they're
able
to
stay
and
fight
longer
to
fight
what
they
deserve
to
get
from
the
beginning,
and
so
this
is
a
good
consumer
protection
bill.
R
It
puts
guard
rails
in
place
and
I
hope
each
of
you
can
can
vote
yes
on
this
house
bill
489
today.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
L
Thank
you,
I'm
gonna
pass
today.
I
have
a
lot
of
mixed
feelings
about
this
practice.
I
I'm
familiar
with
the
bowling
case
pretty
well
and
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
injured
people
having
the
resources
that
they
need
to
proceed
with
their
legitimate
claims.
L
But
the
problem
is
when,
when
these
loans
that
are
intended
to
provide
a
short-term
bridge
to
get
them
through
the
litigation
end
up
costing
them
so
much
more
in
the
long
run
that
it
affects
their
settlement,
which
is
a
legitimate
resolution
of
maybe
even
a
lifetime's
worth
of
injuries
and
and
you
have
a
short-term
bridge
loan
cutting
into
that
cost
and
it
becomes
a
long-term
problem
for
the
system
and
just
because
I
have
such
mixed
feelings
about
this
today,
I'm
going
to
pass,
but
I
do
hope
the
discussion
moves
forward.
Thank
you.
D
B
Representative
elliott,
representative
fisher
pass
representative
hevron
pass
and
explain
my
vote.
B
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
I
just
like
to
be
respectful,
I'm
gonna
pass
today.
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
on
both
sides
of
it,
and
I
would
like
just
to
see
the
final
version.
I
know
that
one
member
of
the
caucus
wants
to
see
caps
and
one
doesn't
so.
I
just
want
to
see
the
final
version
of
the
bill
and
representative
plant
I'll
be
working
with
you
to
hear
more
on
that.
Thank
you,
representative
cole,
carney.
D
Briefly,
explain:
I'm
going
to
pass
today.
I
understand
the
intent,
but
I
think
there
were
a
lot
of
questions
ray
so
I'd
like
to
resolve
some
of
those
in
my
mind
before
I
decide.
Thank
you.
F
L
G
Explain
my
vote.
I'm
going
to
be
a
past
today.
I
I
have
some
concerns
and
I'd
like
to
work
out
some
of
the
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
folks
who
are
in
opposition.
I'm
just
I'm
worried
about
a
few
things.
I
think
it
might
drive
up
premiums.
C
Explanation
please!
Yes,
I'm
gonna
vote,
yes,
promise
that
to
you,
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
bill.
It
has
the
makings
of
a
really
good
bill.
We
need
guard
rails
in
place,
but
representative
blanton.
We
have
to
have
caps
not
only
because
these
people
are
poor
people
who
are
getting
these
loans.
It's
not
me
and
you
they're
poor
people,
and
they
can't
afford
this
kind
of
an
interest
we
have.
We
have
usurious
caps
or
caps
against
usury
loaning
on
payday
lending
it.
C
M
A
Yes,
there
being
11,
yes,
votes,
six
pass
votes
and
zero,
no
votes.
The
same
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass.
I
would
ask
you
to
continue
working
on
this,
because
I
don't
know
where
it'll
be
on
the
floor,
but
for
purposes
of
today
it
does
pass
out
of
committee.
So
thank
you,
gentlemen.
Seeing
no
other
matters
except
for
this
announcement,
we
will
have
a
meeting
tomorrow
upon
adjournment
to
discuss
three
bills.