►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-17-22)
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
Like
to
welcome
everyone
this
morning,
chairman
westerfield
is
going
to
be
away
for
the
first
part
of
the
meeting,
and
I
will
be
handling
the
chair
until
he
arrives.
I'd
like
to
welcome
everyone
to
the
10th
meeting
of
the
2022
general
session
of
the
committee
on
judiciary
and
would
ask
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
A
We
do
have
a
quorum
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
welcome
a
group
that
is
here
from
the
hopkinsville
christian
county
chamber
of
commerce
and
also
leadership
hopkinsville.
Could
you
all
folks,
please
stand.
A
And
I
think
chairman
westerfield
said
something
about
paying
for
all
of
your
dinners
tonight
at
sarafini's.
So
when
you
talk
to
him,
you
should
mention
that
welcome,
and
I
appreciate
you
all
making
the
trip
up
here.
We
have
a
very
long
agenda
today,
so
we're
going
to
jump
right
into
it.
First,
on
the
agenda,
we
will
ask
senator
denise
harper
angel
to
come
to
the
table
senate
bill
378,
and
this
is
an
act
relating
to
crimes
victims,
compensation
board,
senator
angel
harper
angel.
C
C
D
Great,
thank
you.
Senator
harper
angel
and
members
of
the
committee,
as
well
as
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
co-sponsors
senator
neil
senator
westerfield
and
senator
rocky
adams,
and
we
are
here
to
support
senate
bill
378
ksap.
That's
what
we
call
ourselves
for
short
we're
the
coalition
for
the
state's
rape
crisis,
centers
and
our
centers
provide
support
to
individuals,
who've
been
sexually
assaulted
or
abused.
They
do
that
in
a
few
ways.
They
provide
therapy
counseling
education.
D
D
That
also
means
that
we
hear
about
the
barriers,
the
denials
or
recommended
denials
of
claims
victim,
blaming
and
more
that
some
individuals
have
experience
going
through
the
process.
We
know
that.
Excuse
me
the
knowledge
of
a
crime
victims,
compensation.
Member
who
reviews
the
claim
should
not
be
one
of
those
barriers.
D
We
understand
that,
while
the
crime
victims,
compensation
board
does
its
best
within
what
the
statute
requires
senate
bill.
378
addresses
the
training
gap.
Victims
depend
on
crime
victims,
compensation
board
to
understand
their
claims,
including
a
possible
delay
in
filing
a
claim
in
current
statutory
language.
The
board
can
make
certain
exceptions,
but
without
senate
bill.
378
members
may
not
fully
understand
why
or
when
exceptions
would
be
appropriate
crime
victims.
D
While
crime
victims
compensation
cannot
make
a
victim
whole
again
senate
bill
378
can
help
ensure
that
all
steps
are
taken
to
provide
victims
with
those
best
possible
outcomes
in
their
claims,
and
we
agree
with
senator
harper
angel
that
this
is
a
great
first
step.
So
thank
you
and
we're
happy
to
take
any
questions.
A
E
A
I
have
a
motion
for
consent.
A
second
all,
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
motion
carries
bill
will
be
carried
on
the
consent
agenda,
senator
denise,
harper
angel,
congratulations
and
looking
forward
to
that
bill.
Moving
forward
appreciate
your
work
on
that.
C
A
F
G
H
G
A
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
johnny
turner
senator
for
the
29th
district,
and
I
have
today
a
bill
which
is
commonly
referred
to
affecting
and
having
some
impact
on
epos
a
little
history
prior
to
the
epos
being
put
in
statute
in
1992,
a
aggrieved
party
and
a
domestic
relation
thing
had
to
file
a
actual
petition
or
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
which
retained,
which
required
retaining
a
lawyer
and
going
through
a
process
going
through
a
circuit
judge
in
92,
when
the
section
of
statutes
was
introduced,
4-0,
740
and
then
later
on.
I
We
got
456
which
comes
into
play
in
my
bill.
Also
the
403.
If
you
want
to
look
at
the
papers
in
front
of
you,
I
would
go
from
4
40,
I
mean
from
7
40
to
7
30.
I
I
under
the
amendments
that
I
have
filed
with
these.
In
these
two
provisions
and
they're
the
same
in
the
7
30
and
the
456.,
it
allows
the
judge
upon
the
filing
of
the
petition.
President
statute
says
upon
proper
motion
under
this
amendment.
It's
just
upon
the
finding
of
the
petition.
I
I
This
allows
either
party
to
retrieve
their
personal
belongings
from
the
party's
shared
residence
with
the
directing
directing
law
enforcement
officer.
That
normally
goes
and
serves
the
petition
to
assist
a
protective
provision
in
this
statute.
Also
says
nothing
in
this
paragraph
shall
be
interpreted
to
place
any
restrictions
on
the
restraint
of
the
petitioner.
I
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
in
the
second
on
the
sub,
all
those
in
favor
passing
this
up,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed
no.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
senate
bill
245
as
amended
by
senate
committee,
substitute
one,
and
that
was.
E
Aye
and
I'd
like
to
explain
please
proceed.
Thank
you.
I
want
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
the
senator
has
a
lot
of
experience
over
the
years,
and
this
is
an
area
where
I
get
a
lot
of
some
feedback
from
my
constituents
and
he's
talked
to
me
about
it
and
I've
read
over
and
I
think
it's
a
very
good
improvement.
Thank
you.
Senator.
J
A
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
michael
meredith,
representing
the
19th
house
district,
and
I
have
with
me
jim
daly,
the
president
of
the
kentucky
jailers
association
today
house,
bill
590
is
a
fairly
simple
piece
of
legislation
that
really
just
makes
sure.
We
continue
doing
the
same
thing
that
we
have
really
been
doing
over
the
years.
K
A
Is
there
a
second
second
by
senator
schroeder?
Do
we
have
any
questions
on
this
senator
neal.
L
E
F
L
Please
proceed
yeah.
My
concern
is
that
normally
we
have
in
jails
or
people
are
already
challenged
by
funds
and
so
forth.
They're
already
pressed
to
the
wall
and
I'm
ambivalent.
About
that.
That
gives
me
really
great
concern
doesn't
mean.
I
might
not
support
it
on
the
floor,
but
I
want
to
give
some
more
thought
to
it.
H
A
A
Let's,
if
you're
okay
is
there
any
preference
on
your
three
bills?
None
whatsoever.
Okay,
we'll
start
with
house
bill
310..
This
is
an
act
relating
to
home
incarceration.
You
have
the
for
serve.
Please
introduce
yourself
for
the
record.
Thank.
M
M
Judges
have
the
ability
to
give
home
incarceration
as
a
release.
They
can
do
it
either
monitored
or
unmonitored
it's
their
discretion.
Their
choice,
what's
happened
in
some
cases.
Is
people
started
out,
perhaps
maybe
unmonitored
and
then
later
because
of
covid.
There
was
a
lot
of
issues
about
keeping
people
incarcerated
and
later
on.
Then
they
were
monitored,
but
judges
in
their
discretion
have
given
credit
for
the
time
they
were
monitored,
but
weren't
giving
credit
for
the
time
somebody
wasn't
monitored.
So
in
fairness
and
justice.
E
B
H
Schroeder
mr
chair
explain
my
vote.
Please
proceed.
Thank
you.
I
vote.
No.
Today,
sorry
representative,
I
want
to
double
check
with
my
judges.
This
isn't
something
that
I
support
right
now.
I
want
to
check
with
my
judges.
I'll
represent
I'll
talk
to
you
again,
make
sure
I'm
not
missing
something,
but
for
today
I
vote
no.
J
M
A
We
we
have
a
motion,
senator
neal
seconded
by
senator
wheeler,
any
questions
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
A
The
bill
passes
on
a
vote
of
eight
to
zero.
I
have
a
motion
for
consent
by
senator
neil
second
by
senator
schickel.
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
Aye
opposed
no
bill
moves
on
with
favorable
expression
to
the
consent
agenda.
Mr
chairman,
your
final
bill
house
bill
501
an
act
related
to
child
support.
Please
proceed,
sir.
Thank.
M
You,
mr
chairman,
this
one's
not
a
complicated
matter,
but
it
was
difficult
to
put
into
statute
so
last
year
we
upgraded
our
child
support
guidelines,
which
had
not
been
done
in
over
20
years.
This
is
a
companion
to
that,
because
one
of
the
things
with
shared
parenting,
coming
in
as
a
preference
in
2017
or
as
a
basically
underlying
premise,
meant
that
we
had
to
give
credit
for
overnight
parenting
time.
So,
if
somebody's
paying
support,
it
can
be
adjusted
based
on
whether
the
person
has
shared
custody.
M
If
it's
50
50
it's
easy,
but
when
you
have
somebody
because
of
work
schedules
where
one
person
may
have
them
three
nights
a
week,
one
person
may
have
them
four
nights
a
week.
Then
there
has
to
be
adjustments
made
on
those
calculations.
We
tried
our
best
to
put
it
in
statute.
We
looked
at
the
oregon
method,
arizona,
method,
kentucky
method,
tennessee
method,
michigan
method.
M
We
came
up
with
a
kentucky
model
and-
and
we
did
put
it
in
statute
and
according
to
craig
ross,
which
is
the
computer
software
company
that
does
these
schedules
that
lawyers
follow
for
child
support.
It
is
a
workable
plan,
but
we
want
to
create
a
situation
that
doesn't
create
complexity
for
the
courts
and
doesn't
increase
the
workload
of
judges
or
practitioners
in
trying
to
compute
these
formulations.
M
M
The
child
support
commission
will
be
directed
and
will
create
a
manual
that
will
be
used
by
the
courts
used
by
practitioners
in
order
to
effectuate
the
outcome
of
this.
In
that
time
frame.
We
have
also
asked
for
the
input
from
family
law,
judges
from
practitioners
and
people
that
do
this
work,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
it's
the
most
simple
way
to
go
about
this,
we're
not
trying
to
create
work
for
anybody.
It's
just
a
very
laborious
process.
M
I
worked
with
a
drafter
on
this
for
nearly
a
year
and
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
two
drafters
lexington
sowers
and
roberta
kaiser.
They
have
worked
and
worked
and
worked
on
this
and
they
put
it
into
a
form-
that's
workable,
but
it's
hard
for
the
general
public
to
understand.
Hence
the
need
for
the
child
support
manual
that
will
be
created
by
the
child
support
commission
and
hence
the
need
to
delay
the
onset.
This
passed
unanimously
out
of
our
committee
and
judiciary,
passed
unanimously.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
to
be
clear.
The
new
manual
and
the
new
guidelines
will
allow
credit
for
that.
Time
specifically,
is
that
correct.
M
E
Thank
you
just
a
quick
question.
Having
been
through
this
most
of
my
life.
You
know
the
judge
decides.
Okay,
the
kid's
gonna
spend
three
nights
here.
Four
nights
here,
we're
gonna
redo
this
based
on
that
allegation,
and
then
one
of
the
parents
just
doesn't
show
up,
doesn't
show
up
and
doesn't
show
up.
Do
you
have
to
go
back
to
court
to
re-allocate
this
whole
distribution
because
one
of
the
parents
isn't?
M
Not
necessarily,
first
of
all,
in
that
particular
scenario
that
you
gave
it
would
probably
be
a
motion
for
contempt,
because
somebody
was
not
following
the
court
order,
but
if
somebody's
work
schedule
changes,
then
the
parties
would
first
try
to
come
to
an
agreement
based
on
the
formula
about
what
the
arrangement
should
be,
and
only
thereafter
would
they
go
back
to
court
we're
trying
to
keep
people
out
of
court,
which
is
why
we're
trying
to
make
it
as
simple
as
possible.
Hence
the
manual.
G
Please
proceed:
I
vote
aye
and
I
just
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
your
work
on
this.
I'm
a
real
estate
lawyer
and
there's
there's
a
reason
for
that.
G
You
get
into
family
law,
it
gets
really
really
crazy
and
anytime.
You
touch
these
child
support
guidelines.
I
know
how
much
work
was
involved
and
we
we
get
into
this
committee
and
we
just
talk
about
it
for
five
minutes
and
move
on,
but
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
your
hard
work
and
the
work
of
staff,
and
I
know
how
much
work's
involved
when
you
touch
these
things.
So
thank
you.
J
I
want
to
echo
the
comments
from
my
friend,
the
senator
from
bourbon
ed.
Thank
you
for
your
hard
work
on
this,
and
your
dedication
to
these
causes
are
very,
very
noble
and
praiseworthy.
So
thank
you.
A
Okay,
on
a
vote
to
of
eight
to
zero
passes
with
favorable
expression,
we'll
move
to
the
floor,
we
have
a
motion
for
consent
who,
who
made
the
motion
senator
senator
wheeler.
Second,
senator
turner,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
oppose
no
motion
carries
bill
will
be
moving
to
the
consent
agenda.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
attendance
and
presentation
of
your
bills
today.
Congratulations,
sir.
Thank.
A
Okay,
we're
gonna
move
up
to
house
bill
222.
A
Welcome,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
please
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
and
introduce
your
guest
representative
call
carney,
and
you
have
the
floor.
Man.
N
N
C
O
Jason
nemes
represent
house
district
33,
that's
jefferson,
oldham
and
shelby
counties.
A
N
And
I'm
so
sorry
we
have
two
guests
on
zoom,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
have
them
introduce
themselves.
N
Thank
you,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
considering
house
bill
222
this
morning
at
its
core.
This
bill
safeguards
first
amendment
rights
in
our
courts
and
make
sure
that
everyone
gets
a
fair
and
expeditious
day
in
court.
Specifically,
the
legislation
creates
a
procedure
by
which
a
judge
may
dismiss
certain
civil
lawsuits
that
are
used
strategically
to
intimidate,
censor
or
silence
those
who
speak
out
on
a
matter
of
public
interest
or
concern
by
burdening
them
with
the
cost
of
a
legal
defense
against
a
meritless
lawsuit.
N
N
N
It
has
been
modified
to
address
every
concern
that
was
brought
to
our
attention,
ensure
that
it
is
not
at
odds
with
any
aspect
of
our
civil
procedure
and
still
stay
within
the
realm
of
uniformity
for
ulc
purposes.
It
has
broad
bipartisan
support.
It
is
endorsed
by
organizations
across
the
ideological
spectrum,
including
the
aclu
americans
for
prosperity,
the
bluegrass
institute,
the
kentucky
open
government
coalition,
kentucky
press
association,
the
pegasus
institute,
public
participation
project
and
the
uniform
law
commission.
N
Thank
you
chairman.
This
legislation
passed
unanimously
out
of
house
judiciary
committee
and
on
the
house
floor.
It's
been
vetted
and
combed
through
for
the
past
three
years
by
numerous
legal
practitioners
and
it
is
narrowly
tailored
to
achieve
its
intended
purpose.
It
has
such
by
broad
bipartisan
support
because
it
makes
our
judicial
process
less
cumbersome
and
more
fair,
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
chairman
and
committee
members,
otherwise
I'll
turn
it
over.
Briefly
now
to
mr
mcgarvey
and
mr
bopp
for
their
comments.
P
Just
just
briefly
the
uniform
law
commission
I've
studied
this
issue
for
a
year
and
identified
the
various
sub-issues
that
needed
to
be
considered.
They
then
launched
a
drafting
committee
which
worked
on
it
for
a
year
presented
it
to
the
full
commission,
worked
on
it
again
presented
to
the
full
commission
and
tweaked
it.
It
was
offered
to
the
states
in
2020..
P
Q
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
I'm
pleased
to
testify
in
favor
of
house
bill.
222
kentucky's
anti-slap
act.
I
am
a
uniformed
law,
commissioner,
from
indiana,
and
I
was
on
the
uniform
law
commission
drafting
committee,
the
draft
of
the
ulc
anti-slap
act.
I
enthusiastically
endorse
house
bill
222,
which
is
based
on
the
uniform
law
commission
model.
There
is
broad
type
bipartisan
support
for
anti-slap
acts
and
both
liberals
and
conservatives
agree
that
it
is
necessary
and
vital
protection
of
the
first
amendment.
Q
This
act
prevents
wealthy
individuals
from
attacking
groups
or
individuals
from
engaging
in
free
speech
by
frivolous
and
meritless
lawsuits
by
requiring
them
to
show
that
they
have
a
case
with
merit
early
on
as
I
as
we
all
know,
government
cannot
suppress
free
speech
and
I
view
these
cases
as
using
government
I.e
the
courts
to
do
that
very
thing,
and
I
know
from
my
own
career
how
important
anti-slap
laws
are.
I
have
already
won
nearly
a
half
dozen
anti-slap
cases
throughout
the
united
states
on
behalf
of
conservative
groups.
Q
A
Good,
we
have
one
from
senator
neil.
L
Thank
you,
representative
carcani.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Basically,
what
this
does
it
doesn't
compromise
any
constitutional
rights
of
those
who
would
bring
a
lawsuit,
but
it
sort
of
expedites
it.
It
moves
it
forward
by
requiring
a
showing
of
a
substantive
claim,
as
opposed
to
going
down
the
process
and
having
the
system
exploited
by
conservatives
and
liberals.
I
don't
see
what
conservative
liberal
has
something
to
do
with
this.
Quite
frankly,
I
it
just
seems
like
it's
a
good,
solid
piece.
I
just
want
to
say
to
representative
namas
this.
N
Yes,
senator
neil,
that's
correct:
this
does
not
change
any
the
ability
of
anybody
to
bring
a
lawsuit.
It
doesn't
change
any
of
the
rules
of
our
current
civil
procedure.
What
it
does
is
provide
a
framework
for
an
expedited
motion
to
dismiss
essentially
and
a
framework
within
which
a
judge
can
analyze
whether
or
not
a
suit
is
being
brought
for
delay
purposes
or
to
intimidate
or
censor
any
speech.
A
G
West.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
and
anybody's
welcome
to
answer
this
question,
but
my
question
is
on
ref
is
in
reference
to
page
seven
line
12,
it
deals
with
the
costs
and
expenses.
Is
this
like
a
loser,
pays
type
situation
and,
and
I'm
first
let
me
say
I'm
not
against
that.
In
this
case
I
think
that's
the
that's.
G
The
cost
of
losing
in
this
particular
case
is
that
kind
of
I
mean
that
the
the
loser
in
that
case,
if
it
is
the
the
public
entity,
would
have
paid
court
costs
and
and
all
the
items
here
in
section.
G
O
Let
me
say:
first
off,
I
don't
know
if
I'm
in
the
minority
here
or
not,
I'm
against
loser
pace,
I'm
against
tort
reform,
I'm
against
loser
pay
and
that's
a
form
of
tort
reform.
This
situation
is
not
that
we
have
areas
in
our
law.
The
english
system
is
loser.
Pay.
The
american
system
is
not,
obviously
we,
but
we
do
have
areas
in
our
law,
whether
it's
by
contract
or
some
places
like
1983
claims,
where
one
can
get
get
fees
under
1988.
O
where
we
have.
We
do
allow
the
prevailing
party
whose
constitutional
rights
have
been
violated
to
prevail
in
this
case.
It's
more
akin
to
that.
Why?
Well
because
this
is
something
that
someone
has
proven,
that
they
have
been
sued
for
a
a
frivolous
or
a
unacceptable
reason.
They
have.
They
have
to
make
a
motion.
They
have
to
make
that
showing
and
once
they
make
that
high,
showing
that
on
then-
and
only
then
are
they
entitled
to
have
their
costs
paid
by
the
by
the
party
who
has
inappropriately
brought
the
lawsuit.
O
So
I
wouldn't
put
it
in
the
context
of
the
normal
loser
pays
as
we
as
attorneys.
Think
I'd
put
it
more
in
the
context
of
this
is
to
ensure
the
protection
of
the
constitutional
rights
of
the
person.
Who's
been
wronged
and
who's
proven
they've
been
wronged.
Thank
you.
Senator
schroeder.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
want
to
ask
about
an
example.
One
of
the
parties
in
support
of
this
legislation
sent
out
a
basically
one
pager
in
support
of
it
gave
an
example,
and
it
just
kind
of
I
thought
I
understood
it,
this
legislation,
but
now
this
is
kind
of
causing
me
some
questions,
so
it
says
a
restaurant
owners
threatening
defamation
suits
against
customers
who
leave
negative
reviews
on
a
website.
N
So
I
think
that
was
that's
a
very
specific
example.
The
applicability
of
the
statute
has
to
do
with
anything.
That
is
a
public
concern
or
public
interest
that
would
be
covered
by
the
first
amendment
right
to
free
expression.
So
I
think
what
that
example
was-
and
this
was,
I
think,
a
yelp
review
that
was
left
by
somebody
where
the
restaurant
owner
then
tried
to
sue
for
defamation
so
which
is
a
common
commonly
used
suit.
That
would
be
brought
for
these
purposes,
but
it's
it's.
It
could
be
applicable
in
a
lot
of
different
ways.
N
H
I
guess
extending
this
example
out.
You
know
a
restaurant
owner
well
I'll,
just
I'm
a
restaurant,
you
leave
a
bad
review
and
then
you
try
to
say
under
this
I
shouldn't
be
able
to
bring
a
defamation
case.
Is
the
judge.
Then
the
judges
looking
to
see
if
my
definition
defamation
claim
it
has
any
validity
and
then
is
making
a
decision.
N
Yes,
so
in
any
of
these
any
example
that
you
want
to
think
of
the
judge
would
provide
would
use
this
framework
as
to
an
analyze.
The
lawsuit
and
say:
is
this
being
brought?
Does
it
have
any
merit
right,
so
it's
it's
just:
does
it
meet
the
basic
requirements
and
you're
not
going
through
sort
of
the
whole
discovery
process
or
anything
to
get
to
the
end
of
the
defamation
lawsuit?
It's
an
expedited
review.
N
Basically,
so
if
the
judge
does
determine
that
it
is
frivolous
and
it
has
been
brought
to
suppress
speech
of
any
kind,
then
they
can
use
this
statute
to
you
know
expedite
the
dismissal
of
that
particular
motion.
H
Appeal
if
the
restaurant
owner
feels
yes
who's
that
who's
the
appeal
to
I'm
just
curious,
it.
O
J
J
J
Let's
just
say
I
happen
to
question
the
constitutional
validity
of
that
case,
because
you
know
constitutional
precedent
does
change
through
the
years
and
I
sue
a
reporter
and
they
make
a
motion
to
dismiss
under
new
york
times
versus
sullivan,
saying
this
is
inadvertent,
didn't
mean
to
you
know.
This
is
just
brought
to
cost
our
newspaper
money.
J
Given
that
I
have
an
actual
say,
constitutional
argument
that
I
feel
that
the
court
was
wrong
in
that
case
and
the
supreme
court
does
reverse
itself,
as
we
know.
Would
this
apply
to
me.
If
I
ended
up
losing
that
case,
would
I
have
to
pay
costs.
O
I
don't
think
so
senator
in
that
situation.
Obviously
you
don't
have
the
imbalance
of
power
that
this
is
designed
to
attack
in
the
first
place.
I
don't
think
you
would
be
meeting
the
standards
in
section
two,
one,
a
b
and
c
in
order
to
have
that.
O
There's
a
situation
occurred
where
you
would
have
to
pay
the
press,
their
legal
fees,
so
I
don't
think
the
answer.
I
don't
think
the
the
answer
that,
yes,
I
don't
know
john,
if
you
can
have
it
better
well,.
P
Representative
nemes
and
senator
wheeler,
I
think
commissioner
bob
may
be
able
to
respond
to
that.
Okay.
Q
Happy
to
the
the
lawsuit
has
to
be
the
plaintiff's
lawsuit
has
to
be
premised
on
the
exercise.
The
first
amendment
rights
by
the
defendant
and
if
the
the
defendant
can
demonstrate
that
that
is
the
case.
You
then
shift
to
the
second
part
of
the
of
the
lawsuit,
which
is
that
the
plaintiff
has
to
then
demonstrate
that
he
or
she
has
a
prima
facie
case
or
the
defendant
has
has
to
demonstrate
that
they
would
win
on
summary
judgment.
Q
So,
of
course,
if
you
have
defamation
claimed
against
a
public
figure,
you
do.
One
of
the
elements,
as
you
mentioned
is,
of
course,
malice
and,
and
so
malice
would
be
a
part
of
the
factors
that
would
have
to
be
considered
and
whether
or
not
there's
evidence
of
that
of
malice,
for
instance,
under
the
private
face
you're
showing
too
for
the
anti-slap
action
to
prevail.
A
Okay,
one
final
question:
senator
west.
Thank
you.
G
Mr
chairman,
my
questions
question
goes
along.
The
kind
of
similar
lines
is
center
schroeder
and
I'm
just
trying.
I
know
what
it
says
on
paper,
but
I'm
trying
to
get
an
idea
of
implementation.
What
it
looks
like
in
the
court.
So
currently
you
can
do
a
motion
for
summary
judgment,
and
this
this
would
be
kind
of
akin
to
a
motion
for
summary
judgment,
except
we're.
Setting
up
these
elements,
for
the
judge
to
consider.
So
is
that
how
how
you
envision
this
moving?
Is
it's
an
initial
action
filed
right
really
early?
G
N
Yes
and
I'll
defer
to
my
co-sponsor,
but
yes,
ultimately,
this
just
provides
for
an
earlier
analysis
so
that
the
cost
of
discovery
and
the
cost
of
the
full
litigation
does
not
stop
the
underlying
first
amendment
protected
speech
or
action
from
proceeding.
O
If
you
wanted
to,
if
there's
an
immediate
appeal,
obviously
in
kentucky
we're
very
rare
that
you
have
an
immediate
right
to
appeal,
here's
one
of
them,
but
I
would
say
yeah,
I
agree
with
everything's
been
said,
except
for
rather
than
a
rule
56.
I
think
this
is
more
akin
to
a
rule
12
motion,
because
the
discovery
would
be
would
we
wouldn't
be
along.
I.
P
A
Very
good:
we
had
a
motion
on
the
bill
from
senator
schickel
to
have
a
second
second
from
senator
westerfield
clerk.
Please
call
the
rope.
E
I-
and
I
would
like
to
thank
all
members
that
brought
this
forward.
It's
obviously
been
a
lot
of
work.
I've
been
hearing
about
this
for
several
years
and
I'm
just
really
really
glad.
We
got
to
a
point
that
we've
got
something
that
looks
good
and
workable.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
J
Mr
chairman
explain
my
no
vote.
Please
proceed.
It's
a
tough
one
for
me,
because
these
two
representatives
are
two
of
my
favorite
people
in
the
house.
I
mean
they
really
are,
and
I
and
I
believe
that
their
motive
in
bringing
this
is
good,
but
you
know
I've
consistently
been
against
loser
pays
and
you
know.
I
think
that
although
I
I
know
that
senator
nemes
doesn't
agree
with
loser
pays
in
most
circumstances.
I
think
that
this
somewhat
advances
that
argument,
which
I
think
limits
access
to
the
justice
system.
So
I'm
voting
no.
A
So
eight,
on
a
vote
to
eight
to
one
motion
bill
carey's
with
favorable
expression,
will
move
to
the
senate
floor.
Congratulations,
representative,
cole,
carney,.
A
R
Thanks,
I
appreciate
that
I
was
going
to
thank
vice
chairman
carol
for
presiding
over
the
committee
and
I
realized
now
what
a
grave
grave
mistake
I've
made.
Thank
you
chairman.
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
y'all's
help.
While
I
was
over
in
the
supreme
court
chamber
for
oral
argument
over
there.
R
Representative,
chad,
mccoy
an
act
relating
to
mental
illness
members.
This
is
a
bill
we've
seen
before
and
that
has
come
out
of
our
committee
a
couple
different
times
and
come
out
of
the
senate
a
couple
different
times.
I
want
to
thank
representative
mccoy
for
starting
it
over
in
the
house
and
welcome
michela
schuster.
Glad
to
have
you
here
with
us.
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
morning,
everyone,
as
the
chairman,
said
this
is
a
bill
we
passed
out
of
this
committee
last
year,
with,
with
a
little
modification
senate,
president
stivers
had
some
input
on
actually
tightening
the
language
here.
What
this
bill
does
it
says
that
if
a
defendant
has
a
serious
mental
illness
which
I'll
walk
you
through
real
quick,
then
the
death
penalty
is
off
the
table,
for
them
doesn't
mean
they're
going
free,
doesn't
mean
they're,
not
getting
punished.
S
It
just
means
it's
going
to
be
life
in
prison
without
parole,
rather
than
actual
death
penalty.
So
what
is
a
defendant
with
a
serious
mental
illness?
Well,
it's
someone
who,
at
the
time
of
the
offense,
has
active
symptoms
of
a
in
a
documented
history
that
was
documented
and
diagnosed
by
a
mental
health
professional
as
already
defined
in
statute.
So
if
you
meet
those
criteria-
and
you
have
one
of
the
four
listed
diagnosis,
then
you
are
a
defendant
with
serious
mental
illness
and
the
death
penalty
is
off
the
table.
A
Thank
you,
representative
and
sheila
in
in
the
past
years,
when
we've
had
this
bill.
My
my
concern
has
always
been
it
the
the
state
of
mind
at
the
time
the
crime
occurs,
and
so
I
think
you
all
have
addressed
that
in
in
that,
when
it,
when
it
comes
down
to
it,
it
will
be
what
was
occurring
at
the
time
the
crime
occurred.
The
the
manic
state
other
symptoms
of
that
mental
illness
would
have
to
be
present
during
the
time
of
the
crime
to
fall
under
this
correct.
That
is
correct,
sir.
Yes,
very
good.
R
E
I
and
again
this
is
one
of
the
recommendations
that
came
out
of
our
severe
mental
illness
task
force,
and
I
really
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
S
A
I'd
like
to
vote,
I
and
explain
my
vote.
Thank
you
all
for
the
changes
and
continuing
to
work
on
this,
and
you
know
I
think
now
I
don't
know
how
you
can
not
be
comfortable
with
this,
so
I
I
appreciate
your
efforts
and
I'm
glad
to
to
finally
be
able
to
vote.
I
for
this.
Thank.
K
H
I
vote
eyes
well
want
to
echo
the
comments
of
senator
carol.
I
appreciate
you
tightening
this
up
a
little
bit.
I
will
say
in
the
past
one
of
these
definitions.
I
know
the
prosecutors
had
concerns
with
it's
still
in
there.
They're
not
here
today,
to
express
any
concerns.
So
that
goes
a
long
way
to
me
that
no
one's
here
in
opposition,
so
I'm
I'm
for
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
R
E
You
can
I'd
like
to
change
my
vote
from
no
to
yes,
okay,.
R
That
means
nine
nine
to
zero
motion
made
and
seconded.
Thank
you
all.
Those
in
favor,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
aye
aye
those
opposed
there.
You
go.
Thank
you.
Representatives.
Thank.