►
From YouTube: 4/22/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
C
A
Here
please
mark
assemblywoman,
hanson,
absent
excused
and
also
mark
assemblywoman,
billboard,
axelrod
absent,
excuse.
I
think
she's
going
to
be
just
a
little
late
in
joining
us
this
morning.
So
I'll
try
to
let
you
know
when
she
arrives.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning
to
committee
members
good
morning
to
those
joining
us
here
in
carson
city
and
to
those
who
are
on
the
zoom
and
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet.
A
This
is
day
81
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
on
this
morning's
agenda,
just
a
few
housekeeping
matters
for
those
who
are
in
the
room
with
us,
if
you
could,
please
silence
your
devices
and
if
you
are
here
in
the
room
and
you're
going
to
testify
today,
please
make
sure
when
you
come
to
the
table,
you
turn
the
microphone
button
on
you
state
your
name
and
then
after
you're
done
providing
your
testimony.
Please
turn
the
microphone
off
for
those
who
are
on
zoom.
A
If
you
could,
please
remember
to
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
if
you
could
also
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
particularly
when
answering
questions
that
will
make
life
a
little
bit
easier
for
our
very
hard-working
committee
secretaries.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
and
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
okay,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
each
other
of
the
legislative
process
and
of
our
hard-working
staff
and
then
finally,
keep
in
mind
that
many
members
will
be
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting,
including
ipads
their
phones,
their
laptops.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
A
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
at
various
points
during
the
meeting
with
those
matters
behind
us,
we
are
going
to
move
to
our
agenda
and
committee
members
we're
going
to
take
the
bills
slightly
out
of
order
due
to
some
timing
constraints.
A
couple
of
our
presenters
have
so
we're
going
to
start
with
senate
bill
71.
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
71
in
its
first
reprint
senate
bill.
71
revises
provisions
governing
unclaimed
property.
I
believe
we
have
our
treasurer
with
us
on
zoom
and
I
do
see
him
there.
A
So
welcome
welcome
treasurer,
mr
treasurer,
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
I
think
this
may
be
your
first
time
in
the
committee
this
session.
I
can't
quite
recall
because
it's
been
a
long
81
days,
but
nonetheless
welcome
to
the
committee
go
ahead
with
your
presentation
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
E
Treasurer
conan
for
the
record
thanks
so
much
for
having
me
today
good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members
for
the
record,
I
have
the
pleasure
of
being
your
nevada
state,
treasurer
zach
conan.
I
do
believe
this
is
the
first
time
I've
been
in
front
of
assembly
judiciary,
so
maybe
a
high
point
for
me,
but
we
still
have
40
or
so
days
left
in
session.
So
maybe
I
get
to
come
back.
It's
my
pleasure
to
be
here
this
morning
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
71,
broadly
senate
bill.
E
71
makes
changes
to
nevada's
unclaimed
property
statute
in
an
effort
to
modernize
and
align
nevada's
unclaimed
property
laws
with
national
best
practices
and
the
uniform
law
commission's
revised,
uniform
unclaimed
property
act
or
europa
pursuant
to
nrs
120a.
The
treasurer's
office
administers
nevada's
unclaimed
property
program.
In
this
role,
the
office
takes
custody
of
lost
or
abandoned
property
from
individuals
and
business
holders
and
works
to
reunite
it
with
its
rightful
owners
when
property
cannot
be
reunited
with
its
owner,
it
is
held
in
perpetuity
by
the
state.
E
When
you
have
a
free
moment,
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
search
for
themselves
and
their
neighbors
at
claymatenevada.org
to
see
if
the
state
is
holding
on
to
any
money
of
yours
while
valentine's
day
has
passed
mother's
day
is
coming
up,
makes
a
great
gift
for
scope.
Last
fiscal
year
our
office
processed
and
approved
38
368
claims,
which
resulted
in
a
return
of
46
million
dollars
to
nevada's.
On
the
holder
side,
last
fiscal
year
holders
reported
and
remitted
over
71
million
dollars
in
unclaimed
property
to
our
office.
E
When
the
pandemic
began,
our
office
looked
for
ways
we
could
assist
nevadans,
who
were
hardest
hit
and
struggling.
We
teamed
up
with
dieter
to
use
the
unemployment
insurance
claimant
list
to
cross-reference
our
unclaimed
property
database
to
determine
if
we
were
holding
any
unclaimed
property
for
ui
claimants.
To
date,
this
initiative
initiative
has
resulted
in
returning
more
than
two
million
dollars
in
unclaimed
property
to
owners
who
are
currently
filing
for
unemployment
insurance.
We
received
weekly
reports
from
dieter
on
new
claims,
and
this
effort
is
ongoing
unless
there
are
any
questions
at
that
point.
E
Thank
you,
sir
sections.
2378
and
9.5
of
the
bill
adopt
language
from
the
revised
uniform
unclaimed
property
act
or
europa
to
better
align,
nevada's
unclaimed
property
laws
with
other
states.
The
bill
was
amended
in
the
senate
to
add
more
sections
of
europa,
thus
bringing
us
even
closer
to
the
uniform
law.
Commission's
language
would
like,
like
to
thank
senator
orange
hall
for
our
efforts
on
that
front.
Section
four
of
the
bill
allows
the
office
to
create
a
claim
and
deliver
payment
to
the
owner.
If
we
reasonably
believe
we
have
identified
the
rightful
owner.
E
Currently,
the
statute
requires
the
individual
to
whom
the
property
belongs
to
file
a
claim
prior
to
delivering
payment.
At
the
beginning
of
the
coveted
19
pandemic.
As
I
mentioned,
we
started
working
with
dieter
in
cross-referencing,
the
property
databases,
our
intent
was
to
verify
the
information
and
remit
payment
directly
to
those
individuals
who
needed
it
the
most.
However,
given
the
requirements
of
statute,
we
instead
had
to
send
them
all
a
letter
indicating
we
were
holding
their
property
and
instructing
them
on
the
process
of
filing
their
own
claims.
E
This
flexibility
will
allow
our
office
to
more
efficiently
reunite
owner's
property.
Our
intent
is
to
use
this
allowance
under
statute
is
limited
in
controlled
circumstances
like
the
one
described
above
where
we
have
multiple
points
of
personal
information
that
match
our
database,
such
as
birthdays,
social
security
numbers
name,
address
and
phone
number
sections,
5,
10,
15
and
17
of
the
bill
simply
make
conforming
changes
to
statute
based
on
the
changes
in
the
bill.
Section
6
and
7-1
n
clarify
the
definition
of
a
count
of
funds
relating
to
the
cost
of
burial.
E
This
temperamentology
was
adopted
last
section
through
senate
last
session.
Excuse
me
through
senate
bill
44
and
after
speaking
with
the
industry
and
the
division
of
insurance,
governs
these
pre-need
contracts.
We
determined
that
additional
clarity
was
necessary
to
ensure
the
intent
of
the
law
was
achieved
in
the
language
section.
9
updates
existing
language
regarding
the
delivery
of
safe
deposit
boxes.
Currently,
the
law
requires
that,
once
a
bank
sends
a
report
of
the
safe
deposit
box,
they
must
wait
60
days
before
delivering
the
boxes
to
our
office.
E
As
you
can
imagine,
this
creates
inefficiencies
for
our
staff,
as
we
have
to
put
all
safe
deposit
box
work
on
hold
for
two
months.
The
updated
language
will
require
safe
deposit
boxes
to
be
delivered
within
60
days.
Therefore,
allowing
our
team
to
get
to
work
immediately
once
reports
are
received
section
11
allows
our
office
to
require
proof
that
someone
filing
a
claim
on
behalf
of
an
estate
has
the
proper
authority
to
be
doing
so.
The
section
also
makes
documentation
received
on
behalf
of
a
claimant,
confidential
and
not
subject
to
public
records.
E
E
The
inclusion
of
this
language
will
also
save
staff
time
by
allowing
our
processors
to
focus
on
claims
other,
rather
than
redacting
records
requests
section
12.
The
change
allows
us
to
make
property
available
for
claiming
once
we
receive
it
under
existing
law.
If
a
holder,
business
remits,
unclaimed
property
prior
to
it,
reaching
the
appropriate
dormancy
period,
usually
three
years,
we
must
hold
on
to
the
property.
For
the
same
amount
of
time,
the
business
would
have.
This
issue
most
often
arises
when
a
holder
goes
out
of
business.
E
Removing
that
requirement
from
statute
will
allow
our
office
to
connect
nevadans
with
their
property
when
we
receive
it
rather
than
holding
on
to
it
for
additional
years.
So
in
other
words,
if
there
was
a
business
that
sent
a
paycheck
to
an
employee
and
then
the
business
goes
out
of
business
right,
then
our
office
would
have
to
hold
on
to
that
check
for
three
years
as
opposed
to
giving
it
back
to
the
employee.
This
would
fix
that
problem.
E
Section
13
allows
our
office
flexibility
and
our
efforts
to
notify
holders
of
an
audit.
We
make
every
effort
to
give
reasonable
notice.
However,
in
limited
circumstances,
this
can
be
impractical,
such
as
when
a
holder
has
multiple
locations
and
does
not
respond
to
a
request
to
confirm
the
appropriate
location
to
send
notice
to
or
when
a
holder
never
acknowledges
receiving
the
notice.
The
section
also
allows
us
the
ability
to
request
copies
of
documents
during
an
audit,
rather
than
requiring
our
staff
to
travel
on-site
to
examine
the
originals.
E
Furthermore,
it
grants
us
the
ability
to
compel
production
of
records
through
an
administrative
subpoena
these
these
changes,
modernize
our
audit
processes
and
focus
our
auditing
staff's
time
on
identifying
reportable
property
rather
than
administrative,
back
and
forth.
Section
14
requires
holders
of
unclaimed
property
to
hold
on
to
a
backup
documentation
that
verifies
their
non-reporting
of
property.
For
example,
during
the
course
of
an
audit,
it
could
be
found
that
a
holder
has
10
uncashed
checks
that
were
never
reported
or
remitted
to
our
office.
E
The
holder
could
claim
that
they
had
cancelled
those
checks
which
would
render
them
worthless
and
not
reportable
to
unclaimed
property
under
existing
law.
There's
nothing
in
statute
that
allows
our
office
to
request,
backup
verification,
verifying
their
claims
to
prove
the
checks
were
indeed
canceled.
This
would
allow
us
the
ability
to
do
so.
E
Section
16
allows
air
finders
to
receive
a
higher
percentage
of
property
claimed.
Currently,
several
professional
firms
exist
whose
business
is
connecting
individuals
with
their
lost
and
abandoned
property.
These
firms
get
paid
a
percentage
of
the
property
they've
located
through
written
agreements
with
the
property
owner
existing
law
caps
that
percentage
at
10.
This
change
would
allow
firms
to
connect
owners
of
property
older
than
five
years
old.
Most
would
have
been
abandoned
or
lost
for
at
least
eight
years,
because
of
that
three-year
window.
E
We
talked
about
before
to
charge
up
to
20
to
the
property
amount,
allowing
for
a
higher
commission,
better
incentivizes.
These
firms
to
find
and
connect
nevadans
with
their
missing
money,
and
the
short
version
here
is
longer.
A
property
is
dormant,
the
harder
it
is
to
find
the
owner
and
most
often
that's
not
the
end,
the
original
owner,
it's
an
heir,
so
a
nephew
or
a
second
cousin,
twice
removed,
and
it's
harder
for
these
companies
to
find
the
individuals
harder
for
the
individuals
to
find
out
they
have
money.
E
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
creating
incentives
that
match
the
additional
work.
This
concludes
my
presentation.
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
Consideration
of
senate
bill
71
this
morning,
I'm
joined
today
by
our
deputy
treasurer
for
unclaimed
property.
Linda
tobin,
although
our
junior
deputy
teddy,
had
to
go
to
school,
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much
treasurer
conan.
Before
we
take
questions,
I
had
a
request
from
senator
orrinshaw,
who
is
with
us
on
the
zoom.
He
wanted
to
make
a
brief
comment
about
senate
bill
71
as
well.
So
if
we
could
go
to
senator
orrin
shell,
I
would
appreciate
that.
F
Thank
you
very
much,
terry
yeager
for
the
record
james
orange
all-state
senate
district
21
parts
of
henderson
unincorporated
clark
county.
I
want
to
put
on
my
uniform
law,
commissioner,
a
hat
this
morning,
as
as
you
and
many
of
the
committee
members
know,
I
assemblywoman
cohen,
senator
pickard
former
former
assemblywoman
bacchus
serve
as
some
of
the
uniformed
law
commissioners
for
nevada,
and
I
want
to
thank
treasurer
conan
and
his
staff
eric
jimenez
kristin,
rye
and
deputy
treasurer,
linda
tobin,
for
working
with
uniform
law.
F
Commissioners
to
I
believe
we
really
were
able
to
improve
senate
bill
71
and
get
us
closer
to
the
revised
uniform
unclaimed
property.
So
I
do
appreciate
the
treasurer
working
with
with
us
and
with
the
uniform
law
commission
on
on
this
bill.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
those
remarks,
senator
orrin
shaw
and
treasurer
conan.
Let
me
just
say
thank
you
for
the
work
you've
done
and
you
and
your
staff
have
done
on
the
unclaimed
property.
I
think
many
of
us
up
here
in
this
committee
have
either
found
unclaimed
property
of
our
own
or
have
found
some
for
family
members
and,
as
you
indicated,
I
think
that
is
in
large
part
due
to
the
efforts
that
your
office
has
made
to
publicize
the
fact
that
it's
so
easy
to
look
yourself
up
and
and
find
the
unclaimed
property.
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
and
I'm
just
very
impressed
by
the
amount
of
unclaimed
property
that
has
been
returned,
and
I
expect
that
to
continue.
So
before
we
take
questions.
Let
me
just
acknowledge
the
very
hard
work
you
and
your
staff
have
been
doing.
G
Thank
you
chair,
thank
you
treasurer
and
to
your
office
for
all
the
work
over
the
last
several
months.
My
question
is
about
on
page
seven,
let's
see
what
section
this
is
sorry,
I
usually
try
to
write
these
down
when
they're.
In
long
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
the
line
number
so
at
the
bottom
line.
39
sub,
4.
G
That
activity
poor
requirement
activity
by
an
apparent
owner.
So
I
how?
How
are
we
balancing
the
fact
that
that
some
people
don't
have
a
lot
of
activities
on
accounts,
but
they
know
that
the
account
is
there.
They
just
don't
really
use
the
account
like.
Maybe
it's
an
emergency
fund,
and
so
they
just
put
it
there
and
leave
it.
G
You
know
I'm
a
you
know:
I've
been
contacted,
I
have
an
emergency
fund
in
a
credit
union
and-
and
they
want
me
to
do
something
with
that-
they
literally
said
that
I
needed
to
oh
just
come
in
and
put
a
dollar
in
that
type
of
thing.
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
I
just
want
to
leave
the
account
alone,
and
so
how
are
we
making
sure
that
people
aren't
having
to
jump
through
a
lot
of
hoops
on
the
accounts
that
they
know?
Are
there
and
and
recognize?
Are
there.
E
Treasurer
conan
for
the
record
assemblywoman.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
and
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
point
out
that
the
fantastic
success
we've
had.
The
unclaimed
property
program
is
completely
due
to
our
deputy,
treasurer,
linda
tobin
and
her
fantastic
staff.
So
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
I
occasionally
tweet
about
it,
but
that's
the
extent
of
my
skill
set
there
on
this
specific
thing.
E
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
sure
that
any
touch
of
the
account
is
effective
and
that's
that's
a
series
of
things
that
could
be
the
bank,
sending
a
statement
to
the
house
that
doesn't
get
returned.
That
could
be
a
person
logging
into
an
online
account
or
viewing
it
online.
That
could
be
a
transaction
in
or
out,
but
the
the
goal.
C
Good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members,
linda
tobin,
deputy
treasurer
on
clean
property,
for
the
record
to
treasure.
Ko9's
point
that
is
the
intent
of
this
language
is
to
expand
some
owner
contact
to
account.
For
that
specific
scenario.
There
are
some
additional
safeguards,
in
particular
to
banking
type
accounts
that
owner
activity
on
any
of
an
account
will
constitute
activity
for
all
of
their
accounts.
So
that
helps
to
safeguard
against
this
as
well
as
does
prior
to
any
account
actually
coming
to
unclaimed
property.
G
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
because
I
I
literally
did
have
the
the
the
credit
union
say
that
they
were
going
to
turn
over
the
account
if
I
didn't
physically
come
in
and
deposit
a
dollar,
even
though
we
were
on
the
phone
and
doing
that
type
of
thing.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
Looks
like
when
you're
talking
about
section
two
and
gameplay.
E
Treasurer
conan
for
the
record
I'll
again
take
a
shot
here
and
then
turn
it
over
to
deputy
treasurer,
linda
tobin.
If
need
be
so.
The
the
goal
here
is
to
move
closer
to
the
uniform
unclaimed
property
act
or
revised.
Uniform
unclaimed
property
act
europa
and
specifically
here.
E
What
we're
trying
to
say
is
that
the
tokens
that
are
created
in
a
game
don't
ever
get
a
sheeted,
in
other
words,
that
if
you've
got
v
bucks
in
fortnite,
where
you've
got
pokey
coins
right,
because
your
slacking
has
done
a
great
job,
protecting
a
gym
that
that
doesn't
need
to
get
as
cheated
to
the
state.
Because
there's
no
way
we
can
functionally
return.
It
right.
A
And
treasurer
conan,
one
of
the
downsides
of
being
on
zoom.
Is
you
don't
get
feedback
on
your
jokes,
but
they
are
they're
going
over
very
well
this
morning.
So
just
know
that
we
we
really
appreciate,
especially
at
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning
on
an
unclaimed
property
bill.
Thank
you
for
making
it
entertaining.
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
treasure.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
what
we'll
do
is
ask
you
to
just
hold
tight
for
a
minute,
we'll
see
how
many
hundreds
of
people
we
have
on
the
phone
line
for
this
bill
and
we'll
take
some
testimony.
Then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
A
A
J
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
testimony
and
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city,
who'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition,
doesn't
appear
to
be
anybody?
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
opposition
bps.
Could
we
check
the
phones
to
see
if
there's
anybody
there
in
opposition
of
senate
bill
71.
J
A
A
A
E
Sharon,
no,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
the
committee
trader
conan
for
the
record,
you,
the
committee
and
our
fantastic
unclaimed
property
staff
for
their
work
thanks.
So
much
have
a
great
day.
Hope.
The
rest
of
the
hearing
is
exciting.
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
71
and
we're
going
to
take
senate
bill.
95
next
and
you'll
have
quite
a
task
to
try
to
match
the
wit
and
jokes
of
treasurer
conan.
But
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
95
in
its
first
reprint
senate
bill
95
revises
provisions
relating
to
business
entities.
A
We
do
have
again
senator
orenshall
here
with
us
this
morning
we
have
miss
warren
and
mr
kim
as
well
so
senator
orrinshaw
and
others
welcome
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
We
are
looking
forward
to
a
very
compelling
presentation
on
senate
bill
95
and
please
proceed
with
the
presentation
and
then
we'll
have
some
questions.
F
95
is
actually
a
pretty
exciting
bill,
even
though
you
might
not
think
so,
because
I
think
it
will,
if
passed,
help
nevada
become
more
competitive
in
terms
of
attracting
business
to
our
state,
more
modern
in
terms
of
what's
in
our
statutes
and
keeping
up
with
other
states
such
as
delaware,
south
dakota
wyoming
that
tried
to
you,
know,
modernize
their
statutes
to
attract
businesses
and
and
be
business
friendly
in
light
of
modern
developments
and
technology.
F
Chair
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
some
real
real,
knowledgeable
experts
in
the
area
of
business
law
who
have
helped
me
work
on
this
legislation.
But
before
I
do
that,
I
want
to
point
the
committee
to
a
mock-up
amendment
that
is
on
nellis.
F
We
did
amend
this
bill
in
the
assembly
to
try
to
work
with
different
stakeholders
and
there's
a
proposed
amendment,
which
is
on
nellis,
which
has
a
very
small
change.
I
propose
to
section
22.5,
which
represents
consensus
language
working
with
the
association
of
resident
agents.
That
I
believe,
makes
the
bill
better
and
addresses
some
concerns
they
have.
F
So
I
do
ask
committee
members
to
look
at
that
mock-up,
but
with
your
permission,
if
I
could
turn
it
over
to
mackenzie
warren
of
and
mr
robert
kim
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada
business
law
section
who
I've
been
working
with
on
on
this
legislation
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
H
Thanks
so
much
senator
good
morning,
chair
yeager,
vice
chairwin
and
members
of
this
assembly,
judiciary
committee,
mackenzie
warren
with
mcdonald
carano
on
behalf
of
the
business
law
section
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada.
I
have
to
give
senator
orrin
shaw.
A
big
shout
out
last
fall
when
I
was
hunting
for
a
bill
sponsor
senator
orrinshaw
perhaps
made
the
mistake
of
saying
that
geeky
and
wonky
was
his
middle
name,
and
I
said
I've
got
the
bill
for
you
and
I'm
starting
to
see
a
theme
this
morning
and
how
we've
we've
stacked
these
these
bills.
H
But
truly,
as
you
heard,
the
sponsor
say,
this
is
a
highly
technical
area
of
law,
but
it's
important.
We
want
nevada
to
be
cutting
edge.
We
want
to
stay
competitive
and
these
are
highly
vetted
changes.
So
just
a
bit
of
backstory
on
the
business
law
section
executive
committee.
H
This
is
comprised
of
practitioners
from
all
across
the
state
that
work
in
these
statutes
and
they
encounter
scenarios
in
their
everyday
practice
and
they
come
up
with
with
little
tweaks
that
we
can
be
doing
to
make
sure
that
our
laws
are
predictable,
that
we're
creating
default
rules
that
create
a
really
good
baseline
in
the
instance
where
you
know
governing
docs
may
not
exist
or
perhaps
they're
silent
on
a
certain
point.
So
it
really
protects
business
entities.
You
know
from
an
llc
all
the
way
to
some.
H
You
know
some
publicly
traded
corporation
issues,
and
especially
of
no
and
very
relatable
to
this
committee
and
and
really
the
entire
legislative
body
is
meeting
virtually
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
quirk
in
nrs
that
we
wanted
to
change
to
make
sure
that
when,
in
fact,
stockholder
meetings
are
noticed
and
they're
held
virtually
that
people
get
can't
get
cute
with
the
statutes.
That's
just
one
of
the
highlights.
H
Luckily,
I'm
not
really
in
the
hot
seat
this
morning,
and
where
am
I
the
big
brain
on
this
bill?
With
your
permission
chair,
I
will
turn
it
to
rob
kim
who,
as
the
senator
pointed
out,
there
is
a
memo
on
nellis
that
breaks
the
bill
down
section
by
section.
We
were
grateful
to
be
able
to
meet
with
many
of
you
members
yesterday
to
walk
you
through
it.
It's
also
available
for
the
public
and
rob
kim
will
be
taking
us
through
section
by
section
rob.
K
Thank
you
mackenzie,
robert
kim
here
before
you.
I
am
a
partner
with
the
law
firm
of
valspar
and
here
in
my
capacity
as
chair
of
the
executive
committee
of
the
state
bar
nevada's
business
loss
section.
I
appreciate
the
time
given
here
to
the
executive
committee
on
this
bill.
I
appreciate
senator
arnold
for
his
sponsorship
of
our
bill
and
to
chair
yeager
vice
chairwin
and
members
of
the
assembly
assembly
judiciary
committee.
I
plan
to
go
ahead
and
go
through
the
bill
and
go
through
the
memo
as
well.
K
Unfortunately,
in
in
my
years
of
knowing
treasure
conan
I've,
I've
realized
there's
no
sense
in
competing
with
his
humor
and
just
to
basically
laugh
with
him,
sometimes
in
other
ways
as
well,
but
I
didn't
have
anything
prepared,
as
he
did,
with
respect
to
pokemon
references
or
otherwise.
So
unfortunately,
I
think
I
have
to
leave
it
leave,
leave
my
humor
at
that
and
then
go
forward
and
dive
into
the
bill
and
get
through
it
as
quickly
as
as
we
can
so
give
your
time
back.
K
So,
generally
speaking,
you
know
the
bill
is:
is
a
product
of
input
from
various
practitioners
on
the
committee,
as
well
as
those
members
of
our
bar
who
have
committed
provided
us
with
feedback
and
suggestions
and
other
concerns
about
our
statute,
and
what
we
try
to
do
is
obviously
take
those
into
consideration.
K
Take
into
account
just
the
quirky
things
we
find
corrections
type
some
typos
in
a
way
and
also
recognize
different
trends
that
we
see
in
corporate
jurisprudence
throughout
different
jurisdictions,
namely
trends
in
the
model,
business
corporation
act
or
trends
in
delaware,
for
example.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
quickly
run
through
the
memo
that
has
been
provided
that
tracks
sp
95,
the
first
reprint,
where
we
reference
the
relevant
section
of
sb
95,
the
impacted
nrs
section
and
a
short
statement
as
to
what
it
is
that
we're
trying
to
accomplish.
K
K
We
want
to
shift
the
burden
from
the
clerk
of
the
court
to
the
actual
serving
party
just
to
make
sure
that
there's
no
latent
defect
in
terms
of
service
of
process
of
those
individuals
that
have
elected
to
use
our
state's
laws
but
happen
not
to
reside
in
nevada,
but
yet
are
necessary
parties
to
litigation.
K
K
Instead
of
having
it
tucked
away
in
one
of
the
anti-takeover
sections
of
our
corporate
statute,
again,
there
has
not
been
any
substantive
change
which
is
moving
it
forward,
so
that
is
easier
to
locate,
and
obviously
this
is
a
nod
to
the
fact
that
publicly
traded
corporations
are
more
prevalent.
More
people
are
comfortable
with
them.
More
people
invest
in
them.
K
More
people
have
relationships
with
publicly
traded
corporations,
so
we
thought
it
appropriate
just
to
move
that
forward,
so
that
it's
easier
to
locate
the
next
item
of
sb95
is
section
4
and
that
relates
to
existing
section
78046,
and
what
this
does
is
allows
a
corporation
and
its
bylaws
to
require
that
matters.
A
certain
federal
jurisdiction
or
federal
law
be
heard
in
specific
federal
courts.
K
This
is
somewhat
analogous
to
our
attempt
or
to
our
successful
attempt
to
introduce
state
forum
selection
provisions
that
allowed
a
corporation
and
its
bylaws
to
designate
state
court
nevada
state
court
as
the
exclusive
jurisdiction
for
matters
that
relate
to
the
internal
governance
of
a
nevada
corporation.
Again.
There
are
policy
reasons
why
we
wanted
that
to
be
the
case.
Obviously
we
want
our
state
courts
to
listen
to.
K
Listen
to
and
adjudicate
matters
relating
to
nevada
state
law
and
what
this
section
is
trying
to
do
is
just
to
allow
not
require,
but
just
to
allow
a
corporation
to
require
jurisdiction
on
certain
federal
law
matters
to
be
heard
in
federal
law
item
five
or
section
five
of
sp
95
merely
tries
to
clarify
that
nevada
at
in
its
state
as
a
multi-constituency
state,
where
the
board
is
permitted
to
consider
a
wide
range,
a
factor
not
just
the
interest
of
the
stockholders
when
in
doing
so
is
allowed
to
make
the
allowed
to
take
into
consideration
the
list
of
items
contained
in
78
138,
but
is
not
limited
to
so
we're
just
more
just
clarifying
that.
K
K
So
our
revisions
to
six
nine
and
ten,
as
evidenced
by
six
nine
and
ten
of
sp-95,
merely
are
reflective
of
the
current
practice
of
corporations
to
allow
distributions
to
different
classes
or
series,
and
that
is
that
was
just
the
goal
of
our
visions
here,
just
to
acknowledge
the
current
practice
and
and
kind
of
update
the
language
that
was
currently
in
effect.
K
The
next
item
relates
to
sections
11
and
14
of
sp
95
and
again
it
relates
to
virtual
stock
quarter
meetings,
but
it's
not
as
though
those
were
not
permitted
already
in
prior
sessions.
We,
it
was
made
clear
that
a
corporation
can't
hold
a
meeting
virtually
exclusively
so
and
obviously,
during
the
last
12
to
15
months,
that
has
been
a
distinct
transition
with
respect
to
stockholder
meetings
and
how
and
the
method
of
where
they've
been
conducted.
K
That
being
said,
there
were
some,
as
people
were
working
through
the
realities
of
having
stockholder
meetings
remotely
instead
of
in
person.
There
are
certain
language
and
terms
and
phrases
that
didn't
quite
work,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
it
was.
The
context
was
appropriate
such
that
the
different
requirements
are
related
notice.
The
stockholders
properly
accommodated
the
fact
that
meetings
can
be
held
virtually
on
an
exclusive
basis.
K
K
It
relates
to
section
30,
78
365,
which,
if
you
look
at
the
title,
is
actually
only
entitled
voting
trusts,
but
the
substance
of
78
365
actually
relates
to
voting
trust
and
voting
agreements,
and
the
purpose
of
our
amendment
here
is
to
eliminate
or
not
eliminate,
but
to
allow
parties
to
enter
into
stockholder
voting
agreements
that
have
a
term
in
excess
of
15
years
currently
to
the
knowledge
of
some,
but
to
unfortunately
not
to
the
ignorance
of
others.
K
There
is
a
hard
cap
of
15
years
on
a
stockholder
voting
agreement
per
statute,
and
we
thought
it
was
about
time
that
there
was
no
need
to
have
such
a
hard
ceiling
on
that
number
too,
since
the
parties
agree
otherwise,
and
so
what
we've
done
is
we've
just
included
language.
We
provide
365
to
allow
parties
after
the
transition
date,
I.e
typically
october
1st
of
this
year,
to
extend
past,
amend
their
agreements,
so
they
can
provide
for
a
date
that
extends
beyond
a
15-year
term.
K
We
hope,
to
provide
frameworks
for
people
to
extend
that
and
revise
if
they,
if
they
need
to
section
14.5,
is
merely
a
just
clarification
item
where
there's
a
10
threshold
or
making
motions
and
to
for
petitioning
the
court
to
appoint
a
receiver
or
trustee,
and
we
really
wanted
to
include
the
words
at
least
10
percent,
so
10
or
more
just
so
is
read
a
little
better
than
it
currently
did.
K
We
agreed
to
include
this
as
part
of
our
bill,
but
it
does
touch
upon
certain
corporations
and
associations
under
nrs
116
and
the
only
true
change
we're
trying
to
make
is
to
accept
from
the
membership
certification
requirement
of
certain
associations
and
corporations
under
nrs16
from
that
requirement,
and
the
reality
is
many
of
these
associations
do
not
actually
issue
paper
certificates
or
have
any
other
physical
manifestation
of
of
membership,
and
thus
it
was
appropriate
to
exempt
those
from
that
requirement
so
that
there
is
no
latent
defect
in
terms
of
how
they're
operating
or
any
claim
that
they
could
be
operating
improperly.
K
K
The
next
area
of
the
bill
is
relatively
significant.
I'd
say
it
covers
section
17
to
27
of
nrs
95,
and
it
covers
the
concepts
of
distributions
and
voting
rights
and
relative
rights
of
members
and
limited
liability
companies,
and
these
changes
were
prompted
by
the
changes
that
we
made
in
chapter
78.
As
a
related
distributions,
we
thought
well,
let's
take
a
look
at
what
86,
how
86
chapter
86
handles
it,
and
we
realize
that
there
is
no
definition
for
distributions
in
chapter
86
and
so
and
then.
In
doing
so.
K
We
also
noted
that
the
relative
rights
of
members
in
chapter
86
was
a
function
of
essentially
two
things:
one's
contributions
and
once
writes
the
shares
of
profits
in
the
llc,
and
we
thought
that
that
was
appropriate
to
add
a
definition
for
distributions
and
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
actually
not
have
varying
default
rules
as
it
relates
to
how
you
determine
the
rights
of
members.
And
so
we
went
with
the
contribution
concept
as
being
the
default
rule
for
members
and
determining
their
relative
rights
rather
than
the
rights
to
profits
and
so
in.
K
In
our
revisions,
if
you
see
a
section
in
particular
is
section
18
kind
of
is
where
we
set
forth
the
default
rule
in
terms
of
determining
the
rights
of
members
with
respect
to
their
interests
and
interest
is
a
function
of
their
contributions
to
the
capital
of
the
limited
liability
company.
K
When
reading
that,
one
would
think
that
that
references,
only
cash
contributions,
not
other
contributions,
but
nrs7
nrs
86-321,
is
very
clear
that
one's
contributions
to
the
capital
of
the
company
include
include
cash
include
property
include,
services
includes
a
wide
range
of
items,
not
limited
to
cash,
and
so
obviously
we
during
the
senate
side,
we
amended
the
bill
to
include
22.5,
which
made
clear
that
that
definition
applies
throughout
the
chapter
and
again,
as
senator
orange
mentioned
section,
22.5
will
be
further
amended
to
make
absolutely
clear
that
any
contributions
to
the
capital
of
llc
include
both
tangible
and
intangible
property
that
is
contributed
by
a
member.
K
So
again,
there's
no
intention-
and
it's
very
it
is
a
very
clear
statement
that
llcs
the
contributions
to
llcs
is
very
broad
and
it's
not
limited
to
cash,
not
limited
to
tangible
property,
but
related
to
any
any
any
any
benefit
and
any
intangible
rights
as
well.
That
can
be
contributed
to
members
and
then
section
19
of
sb
95
talks
about
distributions
and
basically
tries
to
just
set
a
baseline
standard
as
to
what
distributions
are
which
are
transfers
of
property
to
the
members
in
accordance
with
their
interests.
K
K
The
next
area
relates
to
sections
28
to
31
and
37
sb,
95
and
they're
related
to
center's
rights,
and
what
we're
doing
here
is
in
the
context
of
transactions
where
the
votes
are
being
solicited
or
obtained
via
written
consent
versus
a
notice
meeting,
which
is
consistent
with
the
with
the
methods
of
of
approving
transactions
under
title
vii
in
the
written
consent.
Context
that
the
parties
to
the
transaction
have
the
ability
to
reach
out
obtain
advanced
notice.
So
to
speak
of
those
stockholders
that
have
the
intention
of
exercising
their
dissenters
rights.
K
K
This
relates
to
notifications
of
rice
to
the
sense,
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
statute
was
clear
as
to
when
what
event
actually
triggers
the
time
frame
for
a
notice
of
dissent
to
be
sent
to
stockholders.
There
is
some
ambiguity
as
to
when
exactly
so.
We
thought
it
was
appropriate
just
to
make
that
change
in
section
636
of
sb95.
K
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation,
mr
kim,
thank
you
for
walking
us
through
the
bill
and
thank
you,
senator
owen
shaw
and
miss
warren.
Now
you
know
back
in
2017.
It
was
the
first
time
I
chaired
this
committee
and
I
relied
heavily
on
former
assemblyman
elliot
anderson,
who
was
our
business
law
expert.
I
could
always
count
on
him
to
have
several
questions
on
a
bill
like
this.
A
G
K
Robert
kim
again,
on
behalf
of
this
state,
bar's
business
law
section.
Well
I,
what
for
section
4
is
meant
to
do
is
merely
meant
to
provide
the
corporation
with
some
predictability
as
to
where
certain
claims
can
be
heard.
And
so
again
I
don't
know
if
it
changed.
I
guess
it
would
change
going
forward
once
adopted
it.
K
This
idea
of
tying
jurisdiction
to
federal
matters
was
was
developing,
as
was
the
state
court,
or
this.
The
eternal
affairs
kind
of
doctrine
and
tying
that
to
state
court
had
was
as
well
those
those
were
developing
somewhat
concurrently.
K
But
we
as
a
as
a
committee,
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
go
forward
with
the
internal
affairs
state
court
concept
first
and
then
wait
to
see
how
courts
had
viewed
this
particular
construct
and
in
the
last
year,
based
on
some
recent
delaware
chancery
court
decisions,
it
was
made
relatively
clear
that
this
construct
was
permissible
as
well
and
within
the
discretion
of
the
board.
To
do
so,
and
so
we
thought
it
was
appropriately
to
give
nevada
corporations
the
option
to
include
that
in
their
bylaws.
K
What
it's
meant
to
do
is
to
take
courts
with
subject
matter,
experience
in
federal
matters
and
have
those
those
subject
matters
be
heard
in
those
courts
versus
having
matters
filed
in
the
wrong
court
and
then
having
having
the
parties
have
to
either
face
move
motions
to
remove
or
other
venue
changes
along
the
way.
So
our
goal
is
to
make
sure
that
the
right
courts
are
just
hearing.
The
right
matters
or
have
the
ability
to
if
the
court
that
the
corporation
deems
it
appropriate
to
do.
G
So,
okay,
thank
you,
but
so
I
guess
I
what
what
I
want
to
know
is
on
a
on
a
very
basic
level
of
our
constituents.
If
they're
in
a
lawsuit
with
a
corporation,
how
does
how
does
this
change
affect?
K
Robert
kim
again
for
the
business
last
section,
the
state
bar
nevada.
What
if
the
corporation
were
to
take
advantage
of
the
statute,
then
they
could
merely
indicate
the
court
that
the
federal
actions
would
need
to
be
filed
in
so
a
plaintiff.
A
stockholder
would
would
then
be
required
to
file
that
action
in
that
federal
court
versus
in
state
court,
and
so
that
would
be
the
change
that
would
affect
a
stockholder
in
in
as
it
relates
to
this.
This
provision.
K
G
B
Good
morning
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
mr
kim,
the
expansion
of
indemnity
to
the
managers
of
the
organization,
as
laid
out,
I
believe
it's
in
34..
Can
you
kind
of
explain
to
us
why
this
was
expanded?
Generally,
it's
more
your
your
executive
directors-
and
I
was
just
found
this
curious-
why
it's
being
expanded?
Thank
you.
K
K
He
also
might
serve
as
an
appointed
board
member
or
appointed
manager
of
a
subsidiary
or
of
an
investment
in
the
llc
that
is
downstream.
So
to
speak,
and
so
we'll
all
all
we're
trying
to
do
is
acknowledge
the
fact
that
corporations
own
a
lot
of
llc's
and
usually
that's
their
subsidiary
of
choice
in
a
way
and
so
we're
just
covering
the
capacity
of
a
member
of
a
corporation
of
a
either
officer
or
director
of
a
corporation.
K
B
Chair,
if
I
might
have
a
follow-up,
this
is
not
my
area,
but
I
just
at
first
blush.
It
just
seems
to
give
an
unfair
advantage
to
someone.
If
they
hold
multiple
roles,
then
they
can
possibly
be
a
bad
actor
and
and
have
all
kinds
of
of
indemnity,
and
I
think
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
concern.
So
if
you
could
speak
to
that,
thank
you.
K
Yes,
no
problem,
robert
kim
again
for
the
biz
law
section
of
the
state
bar
nevada.
So
I
I
I
guess
I
would
respond
to
that.
Concern
in
one
in
two
ways.
First,
is
I
I
don't
think
even
without
including
this
reference
a
corporation
has
a
discretion
to
identify
its
representatives
and
agents
in
various
capacities
that
it
that
that
person
is
being
asked
to
serve,
but
I
think
more
importantly,
the
standard
of
identification
doesn't
change
just
because
they
serve
in
different
roles.
K
So
the
mere
expansion
of
the
roles
that
are
permitted
to
be
identified
again,
I
don't
think
increases
the
ability
of
a
person
to
be
a
bad
actor
and
secondly,
regardless
of
how
many
roles
one
has
and
whatever
hats
and
colors
shapes
and
sizes.
Those
hats
may
be
that
person
is
still
held
with
the
same
standard.
A
A
Ask
a
question
that
I
have
mr
kim
in
section
13,
which
talks
about
the
stockholder
essentially
entering
into
a
voting
agreement
and
right
now,
it's
15
years
is
the
cap,
and
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
in
the
bill.
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
give
us
a
sense
of
why
a
stockholder
would
want
to
enter
into
an
agreement
for
that
long
of
a
time
period.
K
If
you
read
the
statute
it
doesn't,
it
really
doesn't
really
accommodate
the
the
will
of
the
parties
to
go
beyond
the
15
years,
and
so
again,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
we're
retaining
the
15-year
concept
of
trying
to
change
the
rules
necessarily
on
individuals,
but
once
this
is
effective,
the
parties
can
then
go
back
and
at
amend
their
articles
I
mean,
and
then
there
are
voting
agreements
that
is
to
provide
for
it
and
take
advantage
of
the
fact
that
terms
can
be
longer.
K
There
are
cases
very
recent
matters
that
I've
had
to
deal
with,
that,
where
that
time
frame
has
been
has
already
been
passed
and
people
have
disputes
and
they're
unaware
that
these
agreements
are
no
longer
effective
and
and
basically
at
that
point,
it's
a
bit
of
a
mess.
Obviously,
because
then
people
are
now
only
relying
on
principles
of
equity,
reliance
and
and
other
items
to
really
establish
their
rights
and
resolve
their
disputes.
So
I
think
it's
appropriate
just
to
make
clear
that
parties
can
enter
into
agreements
that
have
a
longer
term.
A
K
I
think
you
know.
Obviously,
whenever
you
make
changes
to
default
rules
or
rules
or
expectations
of
what
people
believe
are
the
rules.
There's
a
lot
of
questions
and
a
lot
of
concerns,
and
obviously
people
wanting
to
make
sure
that
the
best
intentions
yet
don't
yield
unfortunate
results,
and
so
many
questions
that
we
received
just
related
to
the
fact
that
how
what
is
the
capital
of
a
country?
What
is
the
contribution
of
a
person
to
the
capital
of
llc?
K
K
Our
first
attempt
to
just
make
sure
to
clarify
to
clarify
the
situation
was
to
say
that
for
the
purposes
of
this
chapter
I.e
entirely
86
in
its
entirety.
You
know
the
contribution
of
a
cat.
The
cap
contribution
of
the
capital
corp
of
the
llc
is
this
definition,
which
is
which
is
very
broad,
and
I
can
I
can
read
it
to
you
real
quickly.
Just
to
pick
up
on
a
few
words
here
just
give
me
a
moment
to
get
to
that.
K
K
So
I'll
make
reference
to
the
way
it
was
originally
drafted
and
then
make
reference
to
the
amendment,
and
I
think
the
amendment
just
as
a
further
reiteration
of
the
concern
and
further
clarification
of
the
intent,
but
initially
86
321
referenced
contributions
to
the
capital
of
the
llc
as
consisting
of
property
or
services
or
promissory
note
or
other
obligation
to
contribute
cash
property
or
services.
K
In
response
to
some
concerns
about.
Does
that
really
capture
everything?
We
did
look
to
chapter
87a,
which
references
contributes
to
the
capital
of
a
limited
partnership,
and
in
that
section
there
was
a
another.
There
was
a
it
had
its
own
description
of
what
contributions
to
the
capital
were,
and
we
thought
it
was.
We
thought
the
balance
just
to
make
sure
there
was
no
confusion
that
we
would
pick
this
definition
and
adopt
it
in
chapter
86
and
now.
K
The
definition
as
as
read
and
amended
by
the
proposed
mock-up
to
22.5
says
that
a
contribution
to
the
capital
of
a
member
to
a
limited
liability
company
consists
of
tangible
or
intangible
property
or
other
benefit
to
the
llc
or
the
series,
including
without
limitation,
money,
real
or
personal
property
services
performed
or
a
note
or
other
obligation
to
contribute
cash,
property
or
services.
K
So
I
think,
in
the
end
we
we've
come
to
through
this
mock-up
initial
members,
22.5
a
very
clear,
unequivocal,
broad
statement
as
to
what
it
is
a
member's
contribution
to
the
capital
of
an
llc
can
be
because,
obviously,
it's
not
our
intent
to
not
by
statute
at
least
recognize
the
wide
range
of
contributions
that
can
be
made,
whether
it's
cash,
whether
it's
just
the
idea,
whether
it's
contacts,
whether
it's
someone's
credit
rating,
as
was
discussed
yesterday
with
one
of
the
assembly
persons.
K
So
it's
meant
to
just
be
as
broad
as
possible,
because
you
know
every
contribution
is
it
has
value
and
should
be
recognized.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time.
I
want
to
thank
the
three
of
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
Ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
couple
of
minutes
and
we'll
take
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time,
I'll
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
95..
A
J
C
Good
morning,
chair,
yeager
paul
moradkin,
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
senior
vice
president
of
the
gum
affairs
for
the
vegas
chamber.
We
appreciate
the
work
that
has
been
done
by
the
bill
sponsor
in
the
business
loss
section
of
the
state
bar
the
chamber
supports
sb
95.
As
you
heard,
it
provides
greater
clarification,
predictability,
conforming
changes
and
monetization
as
it
relates
to
nevada's
businesses.
These
proposed
changes
will
allow
nevada
to
remain
competitive
with
other
states
such
as
delaware.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
J
J
J
D
Good
evening
or
good
morning
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ken
evans,
evans
and
I'm
the
president
of
urban
chamber
of
commerce,
we're
pleased
to
be
testifying
in
support
of
senate
bill
95
this
morning
also
want
to
recognize
the
bill
sponsor,
especially
the
business
law
session
section
for
reaching
out
to
the
urban
chamber
the
last
few
sessions
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
could
participate
and
support.
Legislation
like
this
that
keeps
nevada
current
and
make
sure
that
our
state
remains
is
one
of
the
most
attractive
places
to
do
business.
G
D
Importantly,
we
do
have
several
of
our
members
that
often
use
llcs
in
order
to
get
structured,
so
we're
glad
that
we
continue
to
improve
the
ability
to
state
the
rules
in
a
manner
that
provides
predictability
as
far
as
their
governing
documents
are
concerned.
So
with
that,
thank
you
very
much,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
seminary
assembly
judiciary
and
we
ask
for
your
support
for
sb95.
J
D
Chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
my
name
is
peter
guzman
and
I
am
president
of
the
latin
chamber
of
commerce.
I'm
testifying
in
support
of
senate
bill
95
and
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
earnshaw
and
the
business
law
section
of
the
state
bar
for
including
the
latin
chamber
on
this
bill.
For
the
last
few
sessions.
J
C
D
D
J
C
C
C
During
these
tough
economic
times,
it's
more
important
than
ever
to
stay
current
and
competitive
with
other
states.
Many
of
our
members
use,
llc's
and
sp.
95
gives
owners
and
managers
that
understanding
when
the
llc
governing
documents
are
silent
or
when
the
llc
has
no
operating
agreement.
The
asian
chamber
would
urge
your
support
on
sb95
again.
Thank
you
so
much
and
have
a
great
morning.
A
A
A
L
Ahead
good
morning,
thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly,
judiciary,
tanya
brown,
for
the
record.
L
L
My
mother,
passed
away
in
2011.
several
years,
laters
passed,
I
received
a
letter.
I
thought
it
was
junk
mail
because
it
was
just
a
letter
had
the
address
from
vegas
and
addressed
to
me.
I
mean
you'd
get
that
in
the
mail.
It's
just
you
know
junk
mail.
For
some
reason
I
didn't
throw
it
away.
I
opened
it
up.
L
I
was
being
sued
by
an
attorney
was
suing
us
because,
on
behalf
of
a
bank
corporation
out
of
state
over
some
property
that
we
owned-
and
it
goes
back
to
the
year,
2000
or
sorry,
yeah
2000.,
my
mother
and
I
owned
some
property
together.
She
had
taken
a
reverse
mortgage
out
on
the
property
that
and
then
she
got
sick,
medic
medicaid
got
involved
which
is
federal
in
the
state.
L
So
my
name
had
to
come
off
the
title.
The
transaction
didn't
get
completed
and
I
had
no
idea.
We
had
no
idea
until
I
received
that
letter.
It
turns
out
that
I
still
own
part
of
the
property,
so
I
was
being
sued
and
if
I
had
not
by
the
bank,
if
I
had
not
responded
in
this
letter,
I
wasn't
served
by
law
enforcement.
It
was
just
a
letter
saying
that
they've
taken
legal
action
and
everything
else
I
had
to
respond.
I
contacted
the
attorneys
down
in
vegas
and
who
is
representing
the
bank.
L
A
J
M
I
wanted
to
provide
some
comments
on
section
4
of
the
bill
which
would
amend
nrs
78.04
deals
with
forum
selection
provisions
in
either
the
articles
or
bylaws.
M
The
bill
would
allow
the
articles
or
bylaws
to
require
that
actions
brought
by
the
corporation
or
against
the
officers
or
directors
of
corporations
to
be
only
brought
in
specified
courts
in
cases
of
what
is
known
as
concurrent
jurisdiction.
Concurrent
jurisdiction
is
when
a
case
could
be
brought
in
either
federal
or
state
court.
M
Perhaps
the
most.
The
prominent
example
of
that
is
the
federal
securities
act
of
1933,
which
provides
that
lawsuits
involving
the
public
offering
of
securities
may
be
brought
in
either
federal
or
state
court.
So
those
when
people
buy
in
ipos
or
in
registered
public
offerings,
they
have
a
right
to
bring
claims
in
either
federal
or
state
court.
M
M
This
this
bill
would
allow
the
bylaws
or
the
articles
to
require
that
those
kinds
of
actions
be
brought
in
a
specified
court.
My
concern
with
the
bill
is
that
it
doesn't
just
bind
stockholders
people
who
have
actually
purchased
shares
in
the
corporation.
It
would
also
extend
to
people
who
are
merely
offered
shares.
M
So
if
I
were
walking
down
the
street
and
I
offered
shares
and
you're,
then
an
offeree
seemingly
you
would
be
bound
by
the
articles
or
bylaws
of
the
corporation
that
you're,
not
even
yet
a
stockholder
of
you
would
also
apply
to
subscribers
again.
These
are
people
who
have
agreed
to
buy
shares
but
haven't
actually
become
shareholders.
Yet
so
I
think
that's
problematical.
A
Mr
mr
bishop
people,
mr
bishop,
if
I
could
interject
for
just
a
moment
if
you're
expressing
concerns
about
the
bill,
I'm
I'm
going
to
characterize
your
testimony
as
opposition
rather
than
neutral
neutral,
as
if
you
really
have
no
position
on
the
bill.
So
I'm
gonna
do
that
at
this
time
and
we
are
over
your
two
minutes.
So
I
would
just
ask
if
you
could
please
wrap.
L
M
Okay,
yeah,
I'm
not
a
just
to
be
clear,
I'm
not
against
the
policy
of
the
bill
or
the
bill
itself,
but
I
do
have
some
technical
comments
and
that's
why
I
thought
it
appropriate
to
characterize
my
position
as
neutral.
M
At
any
rate,
I
would
just
want
to
point
out
and
I'll
close
very
quickly
is
the
bill
would
seemingly
require
stockholders
who
are
bringing
lawsuits
totally
unrelated
to
the
corporation
against
officers
or
directors
to
be
bringing
those
suits
in
the
forums
specified
in
the
articles,
which
seems
a
bit
quirky
to
me.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
A
Thank
you
bps
and
before
I
close
neutral,
I
will
note
for
committee
members
and
members
of
the
public.
There
is
a
statement
from
the
nevada
secretary
of
state's
office
on
nellis
that
is
formally
neutral
on
the
bill
as
well,
so
you
can
find
that
under
the
exhibit
tab
in
nellis,
I
will
now
close
neutral
testimony
and
I
will
hand
it
back
over
to
our
presenters
to
make
any
concluding
remarks
on
senate
bill
95.
senator
orrinshaw.
Would
you
like
to
begin.
F
Thank
you
very
much
chair
yeager.
Thank
you
committee
for
your
close
attention
to
senate
bill
95.
I
believe
senate
bill
95
if
passed,
would
help
business
development
here
in
nevada
and
help
us
be
competitive
with
other
states.
I
certainly
want
to
thank
mr
kim
and
mr
kovacs
albert
kovacs,
robert
kim
of
the
state
department
of
business
law,
section
mackenzie
warren
for
reaching
out
to
so
many
stakeholders
trying
to
work
on
on
different
issues
and
get
the
bill
to
this
point.
F
I
want
to
thank
the
legal
division,
mr
anthony
and
mr
wilkinson,
for
their
their
help
in
getting
us
a
mock-up
so
quickly
that
the
committee
could
look
at,
and
I
appreciate
the
committee's
time.
Thank
you.
H
K
Yes,
robert
kim
business
lost
section
state
bar
nevada,
just
wanted
again
echo
of
the
thanks,
senator
arnold
sponsorship
for
our
bill
and
the
attention
and
time
taken
by
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
in
in
this
in
this
bill
in
particular,
and
and
you
know
to
know
for
the
record
we
have-
we
have
worked
with
mr
bishop
in
the
past
and
I'm
happy
to
have
additional
conversations
with
him
as
well
on
on
the
items
noted
and
obviously,
he's
he's
looked
in
the
battle
laws
for
quite
a
while,
as
he
stated,
and
so
obviously
we
look
to
speak
with
mr
bishop.
K
You
know
in
a
in
the
ordinary
course
in
productive
manner
to
obviously
make
our
menals
of
nevada
at
the
best
they
we
can
make
them.
So
I
look
forward
to
future
conversations
and
look
forward
to
the
actions
to
be
taken
by
the
judiciary
committee.
Thank
you.
F
A
Thank
you,
so
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
95
and
that
takes
us
to
our
first
listed
bill
on
the
agenda.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
41
in
its
first
reprint
that
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
orders
authorizing
the
installation
and
use
of
a
pen
register
or
trap
and
trace
device.
We
have
miss
adair
with
us
here
in
person
and
miss
har
on
the
zoom
with
us.
Thank
you
both
for
your
patience
this
morning.
A
I
Thank
you
chair
and
no
problem
at
all.
I
learned
quite
a
bit
in
this
hearing.
Thank
you
chair
good
morning.
My
name
is
jessica
adair
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
all
of
you
with
the
committee
hearing
senate
bill
41.
first
assistant
kyle
george,
had
to
I
believe
he
was
on
the
zoom
earlier.
He
had
to
leave
to
go
to
government
affairs,
but
I,
if
with
the
chairs
permission,
would
like
to
turn
the
virtual
mic
over
to
special
assistant
teresa
hart
to
present
senate
bill
41.
A
N
N
As
a
preliminary
note,
the
amended
language
in
this
bill
has
been
arrived
on
after
meetings
with
a
number
of
stakeholders,
including
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association,
aclu
of
nevada
clark,
county
public
defender's
office,
nevada,
district
attorneys
association,
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
nevada,
police,
union
and
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers,
and
we
appreciate
collaboration
with
those
groups
on
a
number
of
the
ag's
bills.
And
I
just
want
to
note
our
appreciation
for
that.
N
Law
district
courts
issue
the
orders
upon
application
by
a
member
of
a
district
attorney's
office
or
member
of
the
office
of
the
attorney
general,
based
on
an
affidavit
from
a
peace
officer.
This
proposed
bill
seeks
to
include
in
the
definition
of
peace
officer,
federal
officers,
who
are
members
of
task
forces
with
state
and
local
law
enforcement
officers.
N
The
proposed
bill
also
seeks
to
bring
the
mechanism
for
submitting
an
affidavit
into
the
modern
world
by
allowing
for
electronic
submission
for
the
supporting
affidavit
application,
and
particularly
in
as
we've
seen
over
the
past
year.
A
need
for
electronic
submission
is
very
helpful
when
courts
are
physically
closed
under
current
law.
N
And
lastly,
this
proposed
bill
eliminates
the
date
specified
for
the
federal
statute
that
is
incorporated
by
reference,
as
the
federal
statute
gets
updated
from
time
to
time.
That
way,
we
don't
need
to
come
back
here
and
request
updates
to
the
statute
every
time
the
federal
provision
changes
and
so
before.
I
close,
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
your
time
here
and
I
welcome
all
questions.
A
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
miss
har
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
quick
clarifying
question.
You
addressed
this
at
the
beginning,
but
I'll
be
candid
and
say
my
mind
was
elsewhere
for
a
moment.
So
you
talked
about
pen,
register
and
trap
and
trace
device,
and
I
know
those
are
defined
federally
under
the
us
code,
but
I
wanted
to
confirm
those
simply
capture
the
numbers,
one
of
them
being.
The
pen
register
is
the
the
numbers
that
are
dialed
out
from
a
phone
and
a
trap
and
trace
records.
N
Right,
yes,
that's
correct
teresa
heart
for
the
record.
That
is
a
correct
generalization
with
your
indulgence
under
18
usc
3127,
which
is
the
federal
definitions
we
have
incorporated
those
by
reference
into
this
new
provision.
A
pen
register
is
a
device
or
process
that
records
dialing,
routing,
addressing
or
signaling
information.
A
Thank
you
for
that
explanation
and
let
me
just
ask
a
follow-up
and
I
certainly
don't
want
you
to
reveal
any
information
you're
not
at
liberty
to
reveal.
But
can
you
give
me
an
example
of
an
investigation
that
would
would
benefit
from
the
use
of
a
pen
register
or
a
trap
and
trace
device?
I
understand
you
need
to
get
a
warrant
for
it,
but
I
think
maybe
it'll
help
the
committee
if
you
can
just
give
an
example
or
two
of
when
a
warrant
like
this
might
be
sought
and
what
the
context
would
be.
N
Great,
thank
you
teresa
harp
for
the
record,
where
we
see
pen
registers
and
trap
and
trace
devices
most
commonly
is
so
the
standard
for
it.
First
preliminarily
under
the
federal
provision
is,
it
has
to
be
related
to
an
ongoing
criminal
investigation,
and
so
we're
simply
looking
for
communications
between
two
individuals
and
part
of
why
this
is
incredibly
helpful
is
once
we
look
at
the
entirely
separate,
heightened
wiretap
application
standard.
N
You
have
to
demonstrate
that
you
have
done
all
of
your
due
diligence
in
less
intrusive
and
less
invasive
means
and
that
it
usually
includes
pen
registers
and
trap
and
trace
devices,
and
so
this
will
allow,
if
you
have
someone
that
you
suspect,
has
committed
a
crime,
you
can
look
at
their
communications
with
other
individuals
which,
based
on
the
phone
number
of
who
they're
regularly
communicating
with,
might
give
you
more
information,
is
who
else
may
have
been
involved,
based
on
the
information
that
you're
obtaining
during
your
ongoing
criminal
investigation.
I
I
I
wanted
to
give
you
a
hypothetical,
so
one
of
the
one
of
the
criminal
acts
under
our
jurisdiction
in
the
attorney
general's
office
is
insurance
fraud
and
commonly
we
see
what
are
staged
accidents,
so
someone
conspires
with
another
person
to
have
a
car
accident
and
then
bill
the
insurance
company
for
damage
to
that
vehicle.
I
So
if
we
suspect
that
this
a
car
accident
is
in
fact,
a
staged
accident
for
the
purposes
of
insurance
fraud-
and
we
have
reason
to
believe
that
these
two
drivers
of
these
vehicles
have
been
are
working
together
under
for
other
facts
and
circumstances
that
leave
us
to
lead
us
to
believe
that.
But
when
we
interview
these
people,
they
say
I've
never
met
this
person
before
in
my
life,
I'm
just
driving
my
vehicle
and
they
hit
me.
I
Tell
us
if
these
people
are
calling
each
other
and
planning
this
accident,
and
it
also
shows
us
that,
in
in
this
interview,
when
we
have
asked
them,
do
you
know
this
person
and
they
said
no.
I
don't
know
this
person
at
all
that
they
are
lying
to
us
and
that
helps
us
in
our
investigation
of
the
staged
accident.
Do
we
know
what
they've
discussed
on
the
phone?
No,
the
pen
register
and
trap
and
trace
device,
as
teresa
harr
stated,
do
not
tell
us
the
contents
of
a
communication.
I
It's
like
just
like
looking
at
your
phone,
and
you
can
see
the
calls
that
you've
dialed
and
the
and
the
calls
that
you've
received
those
phone
numbers
and
that
and
the
time
of
the
number
of
minutes
that
the
call
took.
That's
the
only
information
that
we
could
see
from
these
devices.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Question
is
a
very
important
clarification,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
committee
understands
that
what
we're
seeking
to
do
here
has
nothing
to
do
with
a
wiretap.
A
B
The
I
saw
that
you've
added
that
the
peace
officer
can
directly
ask
for
this.
Could
you
please
expound
on
why?
Because
the
example
that
you
just
gave
seems
to
be
when
you're
doing
something
coordinated
when
your
office
is
doing
something
when
there's
a
federal,
coordinated
investigation,
I'm
concerned
about
a
peace
officer
of
their
own
volition,
going
forward
and
asking
for
a
warrant,
and
I'd
like
to
know
why
you
all
added
this.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
teresa
hart
for
the
record.
As
a
preliminary
note,
under
nrs
179.045
or
in
that
general
section.
As
it
pertains
to
search
warrants,
law
enforcement
officers
are
permitted
to
apply
directly
for
their
own
search
warrants.
They
don't
have
to
rely
on
their
attorney.
N
It
is
only
once
you
get
into
the
wiretap
application
that
the
attorney
is
required
to
submit
the
application,
and
so
we
are
looking
to
make
this
in
conformance
generally
with
the
warrant
application
and
beyond
that,
under
the
federal
provision,
it
states
expressly
that
under
18
usc
3122
state
law
enforcement
officers
are
permitted
to
make
direct
applications
not
going
through
their
attorney
as
long
as
state
law
does
not
expressly
prohibit
it,
and
so
we
wanted
the
opportunity
to
clarify
that
our
state
law
does
not
expressly
prohibit
that.
N
Yes,
it's
by
teresa
harp
for
the
record.
It's
in
chapter
179,
it's
in
the
warrant
provision.
The
law
enforcement
officers
can
make
direct
application
for
the
warrants
themselves.
G
Thank
you
sharon.
Thank
you
both
for
the
presentation.
I
have
a
question
on
the
immunity
section,
the
the
civil
immunity
section
section,
one
sub
five
for
a
public
utility
that
relies
in
good
faith
upon
an
order
authorizing
the
installation
and
use
of
the
the
register
and
the
trap.
I
I
get
why
we
need
for
utilities
to
have
some
sort
of
immunity
when
they're
relying
on
what
they've
been
provided,
but
how?
How
do
they?
G
How
do
they
physically
get
the
traps
in
into
the
system?
Right,
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
is
is
if
they're
not
walking
onto
anyone's
property
where
they
could
possibly
break
anything
or
you
know,
and
then
they've
got
immunity
and
they
destroyed
someone's.
You
know,
yard
or
something
like
that.
It's
it's
all
done
from
their
facilities.
N
N
D
Thank
you,
chai
yeager.
I
was
just
looking
at
section
one
sub
five
of
the
bill.
I
was
just
wondering
first,
why
are
public
utilities
included
there?
Thank.
N
You
teresa
harper
the
record
again.
That
section
was
already
in
the
statute.
Pre-Existing.
The
public
utilities
are
mentioned,
just
as
a
a
phone
company
would
be
a
utility
company
that
would
be
included
in
this,
but
it
was
that
section
was
pre-existing
in
the
statute.
It
was
only
moved.
D
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
just
had
one
other
question
so
say
it's
a
public
utility
such
as
the
electric
company
and
they're
trying
to
see
if
somebody
has
a
grow
house
and
and
so
they're
monitoring
their
activity
of
electricity
used,
but
they're
not
finding
any.
How
long
would
that
trap
and
trace
or
pen
device?
Whichever
applies
here?
How
long
would
that
stay
in
place
I
mean?
Is
there?
Is
it
a
reasonable
time
like
a
month
or
two
months
or
three
months
or
is
it?
D
N
All
right,
teresa
hart
for
the
record
if
a
pen
register
or
trap
and
trace
device
is
being
put
into
place
by
a
phone
company
to
determine
this.
It
is
for
a
fairly
short
period
of
time,
but
there
is
a
provision
under
the
statute
and
it's
consistent
with
the
federal
statute
that
allows
them
to
reapply
I
for
it
if
they
need
additional
time,
but
the
time
specified
will
be
in
in
the.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr,
dare
would
it
be
fair
to
say
one
of
the
reasons
why
officers
are
allowed
to
go
directly
to
the
district
court
with
the
sworn
affidavit
because
of
exogenous
circumstances
being
two
o'clock
in
the
morning
the
to
go
to
a
district
attorney
find
the
district
attorney
delays
that
action
and-
and
that
would
be
one
reason,
a
good
cause
for
that,
and
it
is
a
sworn
affidavit
before
the
judge.
I
Yes,
assemblyman
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
you're
exactly
right,
and
I
so
I
want
to
be
absolutely
clear.
This
application
is
to
a
court
and
a
judge
has
to
make
a
determination
that
there
is
enough
facts
and
circumstances
that
have
been
provided
under
penalty
of
perjury
to
justify
a
pen
register
or
trap
and
trace
device,
and
the
judge
would
also
issue
the
time
limit
for
how
long
that
device
would
be
allowed
to
be
used
by
a
phone
company.
I
But
I
I
want
to
talk
just
very
quickly
about
why
we
included
the
direct
application
and
to
your
point.
It
has
to
do
with
efficiency,
but
also
when
you
think
about
the
level
of
privacy
that
is
involved
with
a
pen
register
or
trap
and
trace
trap
and
trace
device
and
the
and
the
warrant
itself
when
you're
talking
about
a
search
warrant.
So
someone
a
peace
officer,
is
entering
your
residence
and
going
through
your
property.
I
Your
level
of
privacy
is
very
high,
but
to
get
that
warrant,
a
peace
officer
can
directly
apply
to
a
judge
and
receive
that
warrant.
They
don't
have
to
go
through
a
district
attorney
to
get
a
pen
register
or
trap
a
trace
device
warrant.
You
have
to
go
through
your
district
attorney
and
then
to
the
judge,
but
the
privacy
interest
in
just
the
phone
number
that
you've
called
or
has
called
you,
is
much
lower
than
your
actual
property
and
so
to
us.
I
It
just
didn't
make
sense
that
there
would
be
more
bureaucracy
to
get
the
warrant
for
a
privacy
interest,
that's
much
lower
than
a
search
warrant
for
your
house,
so
that
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
felt
like
making
this
consistent
with
a
with
a
search
warrant
just
made
sense-
and
it
is
to
your
point-
it
is
also
more
efficient.
A
You
are
welcome.
Do
we
have
other
questions
from
committee
members?
Take
one
last
look,
it
does
not
look
like.
We
have
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
miss
adair
ms
har,
thank
you
for
presenting
we'll
take
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks
at
this
time.
I'll
open
up
the
hearing
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
41..
A
J
C
J
C
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
john
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
sb
41..
I
want
to
thank
a.g
ford,
chief
of
staff,
adair
and
special
assistant
har
for
presenting
the
bill.
Sb
41
is
a
procedural
cleanup
measure
and
we
again
we
are
in
support.
Thank
you.
J
C
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
sv-41
sb
41
extends
existing
law
using
used
to
fight
crime
with
pen
registers
and
trap
and
trace
devices
by
giving
the
authority
to
obtain
them
to
federal
law
enforcement
officers,
who
are
members
of
state
or
local
task
forces.
The
bill,
as
amended,
also
fortifies
the
requirement
that
such
devices
be
obtained
by
an
order
of
a
district
court.
Judge
in
this
state,
in
other
words
warrants,
are
necessary.
We're
not
getting
away
from
that.
C
J
C
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
I'm
eric
spratley
s-p-r-a-t-l-e-y,
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
41,
and
appreciate
the
attorney
general's
office,
bringing
this
important
bill
today.
We
thank
the
committee
for
considering
this
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
J
A
A
J
A
L
We
are
in
neutral
and
in
part,
assemblywoman,
krasner
kind
of
touched
on
why
we
would
be
in
neutral.
Let's
say:
hypothetically
someone
is
living
in
the
house,
and
the
public
utilities
see
something
grown
in
the
backyard.
Do
they
do
a
thorough
and
complete
investigation
as
to
who
is
actually
living
in
the
house?
It
could
very
well
be
a
person's
loved
one
who
may
have
some
some
illness
that
they
are
allowed
to
grow
medical
marijuana,
but
it's
not
registered
because
they
just
moved
in.
L
Do
they
actually
check
to
find
out
who's
doing
that
other
than
oh
they're
growing
it?
So
it
has
to
be
the
owner
so
and
then
there's
the
text
messages
too.
So
so
the
court,
the
text
mess
the
phone
calls
going
in
and
out
could
very
well
be
the
son
taking
care
of
the
mother
contacting
family
members.
They
know
she's
doing
okay,
but
it
could
show
that
maybe
they're
doing
drugs
or
whatever
so
we're
in
neutral.
On
this.
I
think
that
needs
to
be
I'd
like
some
more
information
on
that
as
well.
L
A
J
A
I
I
The
pen
register
and
trap
and
trace
device
do
not
apply
to
anything
other
than
telephones,
so
the
public
utilities
would
not
include
electricity,
gas
or
any
other
utility.
Only
phones,
also
the
public
utility
or
phone
companies,
cannot
unilaterally
install
these
devices.
They
only
can
do
so
under
a
court
order.
I
But
with
that
clarification,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
thank
the
committee
and
also
thank
our
many
stakeholders
who
helped
us
come
to
the
best
version
of
this
bill,
and
we
really
appreciate
your
time.
N
A
Thank
you
to
the
two
of
you
for
presenting,
and
you
know
as
chair.
I
just
want
to
express
my
appreciation.
I
think
the
bills
that
you've
brought
forward
this
session
have
obviously
been
worked
on
before
they
arrived
here
at
the
legislative
session,
and
that
makes
our
job
easier.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
the
hard
work.
I
know
it's
not
always
easy
to
get
all
those
people
in
one
room
and
try
to
get
them
to
agree,
but
that
work
is
not
unnoticed
and
certainly
appreciated.
A
So
thank
you
again
for
being
here
this
morning
and
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day,
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
41.
That
takes
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
By
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment
and
public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
very
hardworking
assembly,
judiciary
committee.
A
J
C
M
C
Was
just
one
of
several
men
in
your
state
affixated
by
police?
There
was
also
tashi
brown,
nico
smith,
justin
thompson
right,
roy
scott,
too
many
to
name,
and
they
all
deserve
justice.
Like
george
floyd's
family
got
and
seeing
the
killer
cop
convicted.
All
three
charges
brings
a
renewed
hope
to
us
families
who,
especially
our
families,
who
did
not
even
get
a
review
of
the
murder
by
the
district
attorney's
office.
If
anything,
I
feel
like
your
attorney
general
or
your
department
of
safety,
whatever
they
need
to
investigate.
C
I
don't
know
how
a
federal
investigation
was
never
done
into
warsaw
county
when
15
14
plus
people
died
at
the
jail
within
two
years,
people
people
who
were
some
awaiting
their
day
in
court
innocent
until
proven
guilty,
but
tried
convicted
and
executed
by
police.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
further
protect
police
officers.
If
anything,
I
think
we
should
repeal
nrs289.
A
A
G
I'd
just
like
to
thank
our
treasurer
zach
conan.
I
went
online
to
claim
it
nevada.org
and
I
had
property.
C
A
I
thank
you
for
that
comment.
I
would
certainly
encourage
anyone
in
the
committee
and
anyone
listening
run
yourself
on
that
website
run
people.
You
know
because
it's
an
it's
a
name-based
search,
you're
gonna
find
people
that
have
unclaimed
property,
and
so,
if
you
could,
let
people
know
it's
out
there
and
it's
theirs.
They
just
have
to
go
through
the
process.
So
please
please
do
encourage
others
to
do
that.
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
assemblyman
wheeler.
D
A
G
A
B
G
A
Tony
just
give
a
thumbs
up:
did
you
find
some
money
as
well
or
so?
Miss
brown
found
some
money
as
well.
Mr
finseth
is
in
the
room
he
found
some,
it
looks
like
maybe
mr
vieska
is
the
only
one
who
hasn't
yet
run
his
name.
There's,
probably
probably
money
out
there.
A
Assembly
assemblyman
miller,
found
everyone's
finding
money
so
make
sure
to
make
sure
the
shirts.
So
in
terms
of
the
rest
of
the
week
we
do
have
a
meeting
tomorrow.
It
is
at
eight
o'clock,
we
have
three
bills
and
then
a
reminder
committee
we
have
floor
today,
and
one
of
the
things
I
think
is
going
to
happen
on
floor
is
we're
going
to
receive
a
whole
lot
of
senate
bills
coming
over.
That
will
be
referred
to
assembly
judiciary.
A
So
I
don't
yet
know
what
next
week
is
going
to
look
like,
but
I
will
certainly
tell
you
tomorrow
what
monday
might
look
like
just
waiting
to
see
what
we
get
and
and
we'll
go
from
there.
So
thanks
again,
everyone
for
a
very
entertaining
judiciary
committee
meeting
this
morning,
we'll
see
you
back
here
in
this
committee
room
at
eight
o'clock
tomorrow
morning.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.