►
From YouTube: 4/26/2021 - Senate 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
A
Here
we
have
a
quorum
present
and
that
allows
us
to
begin
our
business
for
the
day.
Welcome
again
to
a
hybrid
in
person
via
the
internet
committee
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
We
have
four
bills
to
hear
today
with
some
special
guests
from
the
assembly,
I'm
going
to
take
them
slightly
out
of
order,
but
we
are
going
to
start
with
ab115,
assuming
all
of
our
presenters
are
here
and
ready
to
present,
I'm
opening
the
hearing
on
ab115
right
now.
C
It's
probably
all
the
electronics
here
now
that
we
are
in
here
too
hello,
everyone,
rochelle
nguyen
from
assembly
district
10
for
the
record.
I
am
here
to
present
assembly
bill
115,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
parentage,
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
a
little
background
information
and
then
turn
it
over
to
some
of
my
co-presenters,
mr
wade,
who
is
on
the
line
he
is
on
the
zoom
as
well
as
mr
rat,
who
is
here
presently
to
answer.
Also
additional
questions
that
you
might
have
here
in
nevada.
C
C
If
you
do
have
the
opportunity
we
did
have
devin
reece,
reno
city
councilman,
that
testified
in
the
assembly.
Unfortunately,
he
was
not
able
to
be
here
today,
but
I
would
encourage
all
the
members
of
this
committee
to
if
you
have
the
opportunity
to
watch
that
proceeding
in
the
assembly,
because
his
story
is
very
powerful.
C
I
think
of
this
as
affecting
families
and
maintaining
the
family
relationship.
God
forbid
anything
happened
to
me
or
my
husband
and
our
two
children,
henry
and
hannah,
who
were
ages
9
and
11
were
put
into
a
situation
where
they
had
multiple
grandparents
that
wanted
to
take
care
of
them.
This
law
and
assembly
bill
115,
if
passed
and
made
a
law,
would
allow
all
of
those
grandparents
to
take
a
role
in
my
children's
life.
D
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
thank
you
chairs,
co-chairs
and
members
of
the
committee.
Again.
My
name
is
andre
wade,
a-n-t-r-e-w-a-d-e
and
I'm
state
director
for
silver
state
equality,
nevada-based,
statewide,
lgbtq,
plus
civil
rights
organization.
We
bring
the
voices
of
lgbtq,
plus
people
and
allies
to
institutions
of
power
in
nevada
and
across
the
united
states,
striving
to
create
a
world
that
is
healthy,
just
and
fully
equal
for
lgbtq,
lgbtq,
plus
people,
so
parenting
looks
different
for
every
family.
D
There
are
single
parent
households,
two
parent
households,
households
with
step
parents,
and
there
are
situations
where
children
have
more
than
two
parents
who
are
actively
engaged
in
parenting
duties.
This
often
happens
when
a
step
parent
desires
to
legally
take
on
the
responsibility
of
caring
for
a
child
in
addition
to
the
natural
birth
parents.
D
Yet
another
example
may
include
two
women
in
a
sustained
gender
marriage
who
form
a
family
with
the
help
of
a
male
friend
who
is
not
only
willing
to
help
with
the
women
conceive,
a
child
who
has
also
who
also
wants
to
fully
parent
the
child
with
the
couple
by
sharing
the
equal
duties
and
responsibilities
of
caring
for
and
raising
the
child.
In
these
situations,
families
should
be
afforded
certain
legal
rights
and
options
to
provide
stability,
protect
their
families
and
ensure
their
family
relationships
are
recognized
by
law
through
adoption.
D
Although
census
data
does
not
capture
households
where
multi-parent
situations
occur,
and
because
only
relationship
to
the
householder
was
collected,
we
do
not
know
that
same
gender
couples
are
more,
but
we
do
know.
Excuse
me
same.
Gender
couples
are
more
likely
than
their
opposite
gender
cohorts
to
form
families
through
adoption.
D
D
Also,
the
law
can
prevent
situations
where
a
child
is
separated
from
one
of
their
parents
due
to
a
lack
of
clarity
and
protections
in
the
law,
thereby
resulting
in
a
traumatic
situation
for
the
child.
So,
with
these
provisions
in
place
that
we
are
going
to
be
talking
about
today,
we
know
that
the
best
interests
of
children
being
cared
for
by
more
than
two
parents
will
continue
to
be
the
center
of
how
modern
families
are
formed
by
way
of
adoption.
This
ends
my
presentation.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
C
She
does
serve
on
the
family
law
section
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada,
but
she
is
here
in
her
private
capacity
here
today.
I
know
that
she
has
been
just
crucial
in
helping
me
try
to
get
the
language
right
and
the
intent
of
this
bill
on
the
record
too.
So
if
I
can
turn
it
over
her
from
for
some
further
statements
and
also
to
answer
any
questions
when
the
time
comes,
absolutely
please
go
ahead.
Ms
rat
thank.
E
You
chair
hello
senate
judiciary,
I'm
kimberly
surat,
I'm
a
private
family
law
attorney,
I'm
also
the
president
of
nevada
justice
association.
I
just
finished
my
eight-year
term
on
the
family
law
executive
council
at
the
state
bar
thankful
to
be
done
with
that
term.
Actually,
it's
a
lot
of
work,
as
stated
I
assisted
with
the
language
in
the
spill
and
also
helped
testify
as
to
each
of
the
sections.
E
With
your
permission
chair,
I
will
give
some
guidance
as
to
what
the
language
is,
starting
with
section
I'm
just
going
to
go
straight
to
parts
where
we
have
amendments
section.
Three
just
clarifies
what
the
intent
is
that
as
we
go
through
the
bill,
but
it's
not
the
substantive
part
of
the
bill.
Quite
honestly,
section
5.2
is
where
it
starts
with
the
most
pertinent
language.
E
Marriage
has
been
cured,
but
what
has
not
been
cured
is
the
ability
to
have
a
third
parent
on
the
birth
certificate
and
or
the
ability
for
unmarried
two
unmarried
individuals
to
adopt
in
my
practice.
I
do
a
significant
amount
of
this
work
and
there
are
many
examples
that
I
can
go
through,
but
the
highlight
examples
would
be
scenarios
where,
as
assemblywoman
wynn
stated
would
be.
E
E
I
have
a
significant
number
of
step
parent
cases
that
come
in
front
of
me,
where
the
biological
parents
or
legal
parents
of
the
child
would
like
a
step
parent
to
be
able
to
adopt
and
also
be
a
parent,
and
I
don't
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
That
was
the
example
given
by
renal
city,
councilman,
devin
reese
in
the
assembly
side
as
his
wife,
his
ex-wife
emily
had
passed
away
and
his
partner.
E
In
other
examples,
we've
had
situations
where
an
individual
has
raised
the
child,
believing
they
are
biologically
related
to
the
child
for
up
to
you,
know,
10
12
years
of
that
child's
life,
and
suddenly
there
is
a
controversy
amongst
in
within
the
marriage,
and
perhaps
bio
mom
brings
out
the
actual
genetic
father
of
the
child,
and
really
we
had
three
people
who
the
the
person
who
thought
they
were
genetically
related
to
the
child
and
thought
they
were
apparent
to
the
child.
E
Doesn't
want
to
be
removed,
doesn't
want
to
not
have
parental
rights.
The
only
option
we
have
for
these
families
is
our
third
party
visitation
chapter
and
that
third
party
visitation
chapter
is
a
very
limited
chapter.
It's
limited
appropriately
based
on
constitutional
rights,
of
a
parent
to
be
a
parent
and
make
decisions
about
who
the
child
spends
time
with.
But
when
you
have
families
that
are
willing
to
consent
to
the
adoption
and
willing
to
raise
that
level
of
parental
rights
to
an
adoption
level,
they
should
be
able
to
do
to
do
that.
E
So
you
got
two
separate
actions
with
heavy
amount
of
attorney
litigation
happening.
In
the
case,
there
is
a
proposed
conceptual
amendment
to
section
5.2,
and
this
was
based
on
my
communications
with
senator
pickard
and
that
in
the
intent
within
the
assembly
and
within
the
language,
was
that
if
there
are
legal
parents
to
the
child,
they
have
to
be
a
party
to
that
adoption.
They
have
to
be
consenting
to
it.
This
isn't
a
force,
the
adoption
on
parents
that
don't
want
to
allow
in
that
third
person,
so
there's
been
discussion
regarding
that
language.
E
I
believe
the
the
amendments
to
section
5.2
clean
up
that
language
I'll
discuss
a
separate
issue
in
a
second
regarding
that,
but
I
hopefully
it
makes
it
clear.
I
know
the
legislative
intent
is
the
legal
parents
of
the
child
and
I'm
not
using
bio,
because
they
may
have
adopted
to
start
with
or
use
reproductive
technology.
So
we
don't
want
to
use
biology
as
the
marker
for
that,
but
the
legal
parents
have
to
be
petitioners
to
the
case
whether
we
use
the
word
petitioner
or
party
there's
discussion
to
be
had
about
that.
E
They
need
to
be
a
party
to
the
case.
As
you
go
on
to
the
bill
later.
In
section
5.2,
subsection
6
this,
this
came
out
of
the
testimony
on
the
assembly
side,
where
discussion
was
had
about
things
that
are
frustrating
in
these
adoptions
when
we
have
stepped
parent
adoptions
and
the
process,
and
the
discussion
was
well,
the
most
frustrating
part
is
paying
for
an
attorney
to
have
to
go
to
a
hearing
that
lasts
all
of
five
or
ten
minutes,
and
they
well
used
to
drive
down
to
the
courthouse
to
participate
in
that
hearing.
E
Of
course,
it's
a
little
bit
easier
right
now
with
zoom,
but
in
a
lot
of
those
cases,
a
second
parent
or
step
parent,
depending
what
language
you're
utilizing
or
a
third
parent.
Now,
if
the
court
deems
it
necessary
to
waive
the
hearing,
we
would
like
the
court
to
have
the
discretion
over
that
and
that
came
out
of
the
hearing
on
the
assembly
side.
E
Section
subsection
7
under
section
5.2,
it's
just
additional
clarifying
language
about
the
intent
bill.
We
now
move
on
to
quite
a
few
changes
throughout
most
of
the
rest
of
the
bill,
which
is
really
just
that
issue.
I
just
mentioned
about
legal
parents
versus
the
bill
used.
The
whole
chapter
used
the
word
natural
parent,
which
really
wasn't
actually
defined,
and
we
don't
use
that
term
natural
parent
in
other
chapters,
family
law
chapters
and
nrs.
E
This
is
not
on
point
with
the
issue
of
multi-parent
adoptions,
but
it
was
added
at
the
request
of
assemblywoman
tolls,
who
has
was
concerned
about
human
trafficking
issues
within
adoption
in
general,
in
the
in
the
broader
picture
of
adoption,
and
we
discussed
adding
this
as
a
requirement
within
the
petitions
we
know
and
in
my
discussions
with
assemblywoman
tolls.
We
know
that
it
won't
stop
human
trafficking
by
asking
somebody
to
put
this
into
a
petition
for
adoption,
but
we're
hoping
to
raise
awareness
by
having
it
included
in
the
adoption.
E
E
That
is
the
the
new
amended
language
again,
it
was.
It
was
an
effort
to
achieve
the
legal
parents,
language
and
in
that
it
was
pointed
out
to
me
that
we
had
a
obvious
mistake
where
we
had
mentioned
consents,
but
we
didn't
mention
mention
relinquishments,
the
difference.
All
the
differences
is
that
a
relinquishment
is
to
an
adoption
agency
or
social
services
and
a
consent
is
a
private
consent
and
a
direct
placement
adoption
that
doesn't
utilize
agency
services
and
they
actually
are
two
different
beasts.
They
are
treated
differently.
E
E
I
think
that's
all
of
the
substantive
sections
to
discuss.
There
was
some
discussion
regarding
the
issue
of
parents
being
a
party
to
the
action,
and
whether
or
not
additional
sections
should
be
added
to
clarify
how
that
would
work
or
to
allow
it
to
work.
The
reality
is:
adoptions
are
multi-person
petitions
to
start
with.
We
often
have
more
than
one
party
because
by
their
own
nature,
a
lot
of
times,
couples
are
already
adopting
right
and
we
already
have
two
parties.
C
I
have
one
other
another
person
to
present
rochelle
win
for
the
record
at
this
time.
I
would
like
to
put
like
some
context.
I
think
it's
always
important
to
look
at
how
this
bill
potentially
can
influence
like
actual
nevadans.
So
I
have
a
nevadan
here
that
happens
to
be
one
of
your
own.
So
if
I
can
have
senator
harris
come
and
provide
her
testimony.
F
F
A
F
Yes,
so
this
is
us
lawrence
has
a
a
a
father,
as
I
imagine
you
all
would
expect
who
my
wife
was
married
to
at
one
point,
but
is
very
much
involved
in
lourdes's
life.
He
is
lawrence's
father
and
none
of
us
have
any
expectation
of
taking
that
away,
and
let
me
just
show
you
these
two
handsome
fellas.
F
They
spend
multiple
days
together
a
week
he's
very
involved.
He
does
a
great
job,
he's
a
great
role
model
for
him
and
none
of
us
have
any
interest
in
taking
his
parental
rights
away.
Here's
where
this
bill
comes
into
play
as
it
stands
right
now.
F
I
have
no
legal
parental
rights
for
lawrence
and
if
something
were
to
happen
either
to
his
mother
or
his
father,
god
forbid
both
at
the
same
time,
legal
difficulties
would
ensue,
and
so
I
wanted
to
come
before
you
all
today
and
let
you
know
that
if
this
this
bill
passed,
I
would
be
first
in
line
to
to
getting
some
parental
rights
for
lawrence
so
that
he
can
have
three
parents
legally
he's
already
got
it
in
practice,
but
I
want
to
be
on
the
books
his
mother
wants
me
to
be
on
the
books.
F
His
father
wants
me
to
be
on
the
books.
I
get
all
the
school
emails.
I
tried
to
go
for
career
day
this
year,
but
legislative
session
got
in
the
way,
and
so
it's
time
that
the
law
actually
conformed
to
what
a
lot
of
families
in
nevada
are
doing.
There
is
no
reason
why
we
have
to
limit
the
parental
line
to
two
folks
anymore.
F
F
A
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that.
I
appreciate
the
bill
and
the
concept
we
have
so
many
parents
out
there
that
are
helping
to
raise
sometimes
other
people's
kids
through
either
deceased
or
just
circumstances.
In
that
respect,
I
appreciate
the
bill.
I'm
questioning
a
little
bit
of
the
mechanics
of
it
who
decides
who
goes
on
to
the
birth
certificate?
G
E
It
depends
on
how
that
child
was
created
if
it
was,
for
example,
the
scenario
like
senator
harris's
family,
then
it's
after
the
fact
and
it's
an
adoption
if
it
is
through
reproductive
technology.
Our
assisted
reproductive
technology
statutes
that
we
passed
in
2013
are
already
gender
neutral
number
neutral
marital
status
neutral,
but
we
didn't
have
the
mechanism
with
vital
records
until
we
had
this
conversation
regarding
this
bill,
vital
records
has
promised
us
that
it
is
not
an
issue.
We
didn't
receive
a
fiscal
note
from
them.
They
know
they
can
achieve
it.
E
E
But
a
lot
of
these
will
be
post
through
this
chapter,
it's
just
through
adoption,
and
it
would
be
after
the
after
the
child's
born
and
depending
on
the
circumstances,
with
a
lot
of
my
same-sex
couples.
If
it's,
if
they
use
reproductive
technology,
I've
also
had
another
bill
in
another
session
for
affidavits
of
parentage
instead
of
paternity,
we
also
added
in
parentage
and
that
allows
them
to
fill
that
form
out
at
the
hospital
to
both
be
placed
on
the
birth
certificate
and
yeah.
E
G
Okay,
I
guess
that
brings
another
question.
If
I
could,
then
what
do
you
do
in
a
situation
where
the
mom
she,
in
her
opinion,
she
knew
who
the
father
was
at
the
time
of
conception,
but
since
then
had
established
a
relationship
with
someone
and
they
were
the
person
that
was
also
added,
so
he
had
two
fathers
on
that
and
then
unfortunately,
let's
say
a
couple
years
later,
it
didn't
work
out
and
then
she
goes
after
child
support.
How
does
that
work
out?
Do
both
fathers
pay,
because
both
fathers
are
the
father?
E
Your
phone
senator
cheyeball
chair,
kimberly
sarat
for
the
record
to
senator
settlemyre.
Yes,
the
contemplation
is
that
child
support
will
apply
to
any
parent.
In
this
scenario,
the
child
state
child
support
commission
will
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
language
and
determine
if
any
changes
are
needed
to
that.
I
am
the
chair
of
that
commission,
so
I
will
have
it
on
the
agenda,
but
quite
honestly,
the
way
the
language
is
written
within
the
child
support
chapter.
E
It
kimberly
surat
for
the
record,
based
on
the
other
states
that
have
had
three
parent
adoptions.
Yes,
there
there
have
been,
it
becomes
an
issue
for
the
court.
It's
the
discretion
of
the
court
to
determine
what's
happening.
It
may
be
based
on
you
know
the
scenario
where
the
the
genetic
dad
comes
out
of
the
woodworks
15
years
later
has
no
time
with
the
child.
Doesn't
have
an
interest
of
time
with
the
child.
Maybe
and
determinations
will
be
made
as
appropriate
for
the
child
based
on
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
G
Okay,
that
just
brings
up,
obviously
another
notion
of
questions
on
the
concept
of
joint
and
separate
liability.
If
so,
then
you're
saying
that,
even
though
both
of
them
are
the
father,
there's
two
fathers
that
one's
biologic
one
helped
raise
and
they're
both
materially
responsible
for
making
sure
that
this
person
is
taken
care
of
you're,
saying
that
one
person
could
potentially
have
a
hundred
percent
of
the
economic
burden
and
the
other
person
not
you're,
saying
that
could
be
a
decision
in
the
courtroom.
E
Kimberly
surat
for
the
record
that'll
be
dependent
on
what
the
custody
arrangement
is
and
who
has
custody
of
the
child
when
we
have
joint
physical
custody.
E
If
the
court
determined
that
it's
in
the
child's
best
interest
to
have
time
with
all
three
parents
equally,
which
I
doubt
would
become
the
best
interest
of
that
child,
probably
the
actual
reality
of
that
scenario
is
that
there
were
two
parents
that
that
child
was
spending
the
most
time
with
right
and
the
one
that
came
out
of
the
woodworks
doesn't
even
know
the
child
so
back
to
best
interests
of
the
child
and
if
it's,
depending
on
the
split
in
time,
if
mom
had
primary
custody
in
the
other
two
had
I
hate
using
the
word
visitation,
but
that's
what
it
is.
E
G
C
Should
the
relationship
between
the
parties
like
crumble,
that
it
is
our
intent
in
this
language
that
they
would
be
full
legal
parents,
and
so
they
would
be
responsible
for
child
support
visitation
any
of
those
things,
and
so
that's
the
intent
in
this
legislation.
Obviously
it
sounds
like
there's
some
other
issues
that
go
on
with
regards
to
paternity
and
other
things,
but
that's
why
we
wanted
to
contain
this
in
the
adoption
statute.
C
E
E
Thank
you,
chair,
kimberly
serap
for
the
record.
This
doesn't
fix
all
those
problems
out
there
there's
lots
of
scenarios
where
people
have
to
fight
for
their
parental
rights.
These
are
really
the
people
that
are
consenting
to
it.
Senator
pickard
had
an
example
for
me
too,
where
I
said
well
yeah.
They
could
have
used
the
old
law
even
for
the
adoption
chapter,
because
it
was
just
two
people,
but
unfortunately
this
is
a
narrow
window.
E
G
A
Thank
you
yes,
and
I
was
just
going
to
for
the
record-
excuse
senators,
settlemeyer
and
hanson.
They
are
not
fleeing
you
because
of
your
answers
to
the
questions,
but
they
have
bills
to
present
in
another
committee
and
I'm
sure
they
will
follow
up
with
you
offline.
A
I
also
wanted
to
get
something
on
the
record
for,
for
clarity's
sake,
even
though
senator
settlemyre
does
have
to
go
present
his
bill
elsewhere.
E
Kimberly
serrat
for
the
record
chair,
I've
seen
it
I've
had
it
in
cases.
There's
you
know.
The
beast
of
family
law
is
that
every
family
in
the
state
has
different
circumstances
and
situations.
You
may
have
guardians
collecting
child
support
from
two
legal
parents,
because
the
guardians
were
had
to
take
over
custody
over
the
child.
I've
had
lots
of
different
scenarios.
E
I
With
your
indulgence,
madam
chair,
I
have
lots
of
questions.
This
is,
I
won't
get
on
into
all
of
them,
but
as
the
two
practicing
family
lawyers
here
with
more
than
a
decade
of
practice
in
this
area
for
each
of
us,
there
are
many
different
facets
to
this,
and
so
I
want
to
acknowledge
number
one
that
I
agree
with
you
to
the
extent
that
if
we
have
a
joint
request
by
parents,
if
particularly
in
blended
families-
I
don't
think
gender
in
this
case
really
makes
a
difference.
I
Same-Sex,
marriage
or
otherwise,
I'm
in
a
blended
family-
and
I
raised
some
of
my
kids
since
their
toddler
years.
I
was
as
much
apparent
as
anyone
in
their
lives,
and
so,
although
I
do
not
enjoy
the
status
of
parental
right
or
one
possessing
parental
rights,
I
was
in
fact
more
involved
than
some
of
the
others.
I
But
that's
not
what
we're
arguing
about
today
or
discussing
is
what
I
mean
to
say,
and
I
appreciate
mr
out
you're
taking
the
hour
or
so
yesterday
to
talk
to
me
about
this.
I
So
I
just
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
things
that
you
and
I
spoke
on,
and
that
is
that
I
agree
that,
where
all
parties
agree,
then
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
this,
because
that's
at
the
outset
of
the
relationship
we
end
up
in
a
situation
where
a
the
two
natural
parents
to
use
the
terms
of
the
existing
statute
are
in
agreement
with
allowing
this
third
party
to
come
in.
I
In
the
beginning,
this,
however,
I
think,
would
change
that
and
so
to
continue
our
discussion
a
little
bit
under
section
5.2,
where
we're
not,
and
even
with
the
proposed
amendment
that
you've
provided
the
joint
petition,
as
we've
learned
from
many
many
supreme
court
cases,
you
know,
and
I'm
thinking
of
rivero
ii
and
schwartz
v,
schwartz
and
potter
v,
potter,
where
the
legislature
has
not
created
the
structure
and
guidance
for
the
courts
to
follow,
particularly
where
we're
talking
about
this
bill
doesn't
talk
about
any
of
the
best
interest
standards
that
would
apply.
I
I
One
of
my
presenters
to
answer
I'm
getting
there.
This
is
just
to
get
some
of
the
conversation
on
the
record,
so
everybody
understands
the
basis
for
the
question
I
mean
the
problem
we
face
is:
if
we
talk
in
technical
terms,
it
loses
everybody
else,
so
we've
kind
of
got
to
water
it
down
and
dumb
it
down,
so
that
that's
the
wrong
term,
but.
I
So
with
this
as
a
backdrop,
we
have
this
this
existing
supreme
court
direction
that
the
legislature
is
supposed
to
be
giving
guidance
to
the
courts.
How
is
it
that
the
term
joint
petitioner
without
the
structure
of
a
joint
petition,
which
is
not
allowed
under
this
bill
or
under
current
law?
How
do?
How
does
this
advise
the
court?
How
to
manage
that
case?.
E
Kimberly
serrat
cherish
tribal
to
answer
your
question
senator
the
joint.
I
think
the
problem
is
with
the
word
joint
because
of
the
fact
that
we
have
the
other
chapter,
other
statutory
structure,
for
a
joint
petition
for
divorce.
It's
its
own
beast.
We
happen
to
use
the
term
petitioners
within
adoption,
orders
or
decrees
right
and
petitions.
E
I
No
that's.
I
agree
with
that.
However,
these
situations
only
become
problematic
when
they're
being
litigated
at
the
termination
of
that
relationship
where,
where
the
parties
are
are
splitting
up,
and
now
we
have
to
divide
the
the
time
with
the
child
across
the
multiple
parents.
I
mean
the
thing
that
comes
to
my
mind
is
what
happens
now
when
you've
got
three
people
who
are
now
fighting
over
custody
of
the
child,
and
now
you
have
multiple
people
with
standing
and
equal
parental
rights.
I
How
do
we
divvy
up
the
without
guidance
to
the
court?
How
do
we
divvy
up
the
the
time
with
the
child,
we're
not
addressing
those
parts
of
the
statute
and
so
we're
giving
the
courts
no
guidance
as
to
how
to
address
the
the
parental
rights
of
each
parent?
So
we
just
we
start
with
the
assumption,
then,
by
the
way,
this
is
structured
that
each
parent
will
have
equal
parental
rights.
No.
I
Okay,
so
without
some
kind
of
guidance
as
to
how
we
structure
those
rights,
and
particularly
since
we
don't
address,
you
know
for
the
example,
not
necessarily
the
parent
who
comes
in
without
having
had
any
contact.
But
what
about
the
parent
that,
after
you
know,
post-divorce
they
are
no.
They
are
non-custodial
parents,
so
maybe
they've
only
had
every
other
weekend
and
and
the
occasional
time
during
the
summer,
so
significantly
reduced
time,
and
now
the
the
new
set
of
parents
with
the
new
parent.
E
I'd
much
rather
have
a
complicated
matter
within
family
court.
That's
one
matter
for
this
child
for
that
child's
best
interests.
All.
I
This
is
going
to
look
like
a
construction
defect
case
where
we've
got
multiple
angles
of
attack
from
four
different,
potentially
four
different
parties.
I
don't
know
somebody
said
more
than
that.
I
can't
envision
myself
a
situation
that
would
be
more,
but
won't
that
make
it
harder
to
determine
and
the
the
best
interest
factors
under
nrs
125,
c035
sub4,
don't
address
any
of
these
situations,
specifically
they're
more
broad,
so
won't
this
make
it
harder
for
a
court
to
determine
what
is
actually
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
E
Kimberly
surat
for
the
record.
I've
had
those
cases.
Without
this
chapter,
I've
had
them
with
grandparents
in
the
room
parents
in
the
room
potential
adoptive
parents
in
the
room,
and
I've
had
attorneys
all
the
way
around
with
cap
attorneys
for
the
child
and
guardian
ad
litems,
and
they
exist,
they
already
exist.
They
just
get
truncated
rights
and
in
terrible
outcomes,
and
so
with
this
at
least,
we
know
where
they're
standing
from
they
at
least
have
a
fighting
chance
and
those
cases
exist.
The
litigation's
out
there.
E
C
Right
and
I
think
there
are
also
things
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
to
that
even
before
we
are
looking
down
the
road
on
when
things
crumble,
because
I
realize,
as
a
practitioner.
That's
where
your
mind
goes
because
that's
usually,
when
you
see
the
cases
you
don't
see
them
as
frequently
on
the
front
end,
when
people
are
trying
to
become
these
families
and
trying
to
be
recognized
legally,
that's
why
you
have
to
have
consent
of
all
the
parties
in
order
to
get
it.
That's
why?
C
To
be
quite
honest,
or
you
know
legal
parents,
and
so
I
think
that
the
process
that
we
have
in
place
and
the
intent
that
we're
making
in
the
record
here
today
in
the
senate,
as
well
as
in
the
assembly,
is
that
these
are
consenting
like
adoptions.
These
are
situations
where
everyone
has
to
consent,
and
then
the
court
also
has
to
agree
with
that.
With
the
protections
and
the
like
conversations
that
we've
had
about,
like
you
know,
abuse
or
any
of
those
things.
So
there
has
to
be
that
kind
of
conversation.
C
So
if
you
got
a
situation
where
there
were
six
parents
to
be
quite
honest,
that
wanted
to
recognize
legal
guardian
and
five
of
them
all
agreed,
a
judge
would
still
have
to
look
at
that
and
say.
Is
this
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child,
to
agree
to
this
consensual
adoption
to
have
all
these
multiple
parents?
So
you
know
that
that's
kind
of
the
intent
there.
You
know
when
we
first
introduced
this
language.
C
It
was
in
the
wrong
chapter
and
if
you
look
at
the
assembly
side
and
what's
come
here,
we
did
remove
it
into
the
chapter
worked
with
lcb
worked
with
local
practitioners
to
try
to
overcome
some
of
those
concerns
that
you're
expressing
here
today,
so
hopefully
we'll
get
there.
I
know
it
is
a
continuing
to
be
a
dynamic
document.
Obviously
we
have
some
other
conceptual
amendments
that
will
be
working
if
we
are
fortunate
enough
to
have
a
work
session
in
this
house
on
the
bill.
I
Well,
I
appreciate
that,
and-
and
so
we
can
pretty
much
leave
that
part-
I
I
think,
we've
hit
it
enough.
I
just
I
think
that
the
difference
between
what
you're
describing
and-
and
I
agree,
I've
had
all
the
cases
or
most
of
the
cases
you
have
haven't
done
any
surrogacy
work
aside
from
those
I've
done,
those
nasty
grandparents
jumping
in
and
all
that,
but
we
had
the
starting
point
of.
I
There
were
two
people
and
only
two
people
that
possessed
at
any
given
time
the
parental
rights,
the
ultimate
right
to
be
able
to
determine
what's
in
their
their
child's
best
interest,
and
this
would
undo
that
moving
on.
Then
why
are
we
limiting
a
waiver
for
adhering
to
the
third
degree
of
consequinity?
E
Because
those
are
the
ones
that
are
based
on
consent
and
I
still
left
it
to
the
court
to
have
discretion
to
waive
it,
because
I
think
when
they
see
a
three-parent
adoption
they're
going
to
want
to
have
the
hearing-
and
I
wanted
to
keep
that
intact.
It's
kind
of
the
reason
I
didn't
want
it
to
be
just
to
use
the
language
from
a
different
discussion
about
a
summary
disposition
of
it.
E
I
don't
want
it
automatic,
where
it's
just
automatically
granted,
because
I
think
all
these
all
this
has
to
be
taken
into
consideration
for
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
When
a
child
is
adopted
out
of
the
when
they're,
not
third
degree.
Of
consequence,
there
has
to
be
an
investigation
and
report
that
has
to
go
in
front
of
the
court.
A
hearing
has
to
be
had
in
order
for
all
that
to
be
accomplished.
You
can't
get
around
that.
I
E
I
And
in
my
experience
you
almost
always
get
those
waivers,
particularly
where
everyone's
consenting
anyway
in
section
well
section
5.8,
is
different
from
section
5.3
in
that
it
only
deals
with
terminations.
You
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
difference
between
relinquishments
and
and
and
terminations,
and
I
appreciated
you
getting
that
on
the
record.
Is
it
your
intention
to
modify
the
statute
to
provide
for
termination
once
the
parent
without
the
others,
including
the
biological
parent.
E
Kimberly
sarat
for
the
record,
madam
chair,
they're,
on
on
consents
and
relinquishments,
there's
a
whole
set
of
statutes
within
this
chapter
that
deal
with
when
they're
valid
and
when
they're
not
and
when
they
can
be
revoked,
which
is
a
very
narrow
window
and
all
of
that
staying
intact
and
not
has
has
not
been
touched.
And
so,
when
I
added
it
into
this
part,
I
mean
I
took
a
really
good
hard.
E
Look
when
you
pointed
that
out
to
me
to
make
sure
it
wasn't
just
specific
to
consent
before
I
added
the
relinquishments
in
here,
because
there
is
a
little
bit
of
difference
when
the
agency
takes
a
relinquishment,
they
get
more
control
than
in
a
consent
scenario,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
appropriate
right
here.
But
I
kept
it
intact.
All
of
the
validity
of
the
consents
and
relinquishments
or
stuff.
I
All
right,
perfect,
thank
you
and
then
section.
Eight
last
question:
section:
eight
deals
with
extending
parental
rights
to
any
person
who
has
a
parent-child
relationship
and
I'm
thinking
under,
and
we
kind
of
touched
on
this.
A
bit
nrs125co4
establishes
that
a
non-parent
may
obtain
visitation
rights
after
pro
proving
that
a
child
has
established
and
under
the
statute
it's
called
me
a
meaningful
relationship
and
we've
used
that
elsewhere.
I
E
I
So
would
it
make
sense,
then,
to
also
add
some
best
interest
factors
to
the
statute
and
I
would
think
within
107
instead
or
at
127
instead
of
125c,
where
we're
giving
guidance
to
the
court
to
establish
what
those
best
interest
factors
should
be.
E
Kimberly
surat
for
the
record,
chair
scheible.
I
I
would
agree
that
there's
additional
work
to
be
done
throughout
all
of
the
family
law
chapters
to
continue
to
assist
all
of
our
lgbt
families
to
have
success
in
their
family
and
their
parenting.
I
have
done
that
incrementally
over
the
years
with
lots
of
different
bills
to
gender
neutralize,
to
you
know
all
that
type
of
stuff.
There's
more
work
to
be
done.
Absolutely
all.
I
Right,
but
specifically
as
to
my
concern,
is
just
as
I've
said
before,
we're
dealing
with
areas
where,
when
we
don't
give
guidance
to
the
court,
the
supreme
court
will
either
make
it
up
or
not
opine
on
the
issue,
because
we
haven't
delivered
that
kind
of
guidance.
Would
it
make
sense?
Are
you
amenable
to
in
the
process
of
working
this
bill
out
in
its
final
form,
to
provide
the
the
guidance
to
the
court?
I
So
we
can
establish
some
factors
that
the
court-
and
they,
of
course
won't
be
all-inclusive,
but
some
factors
to
give
guidance
to
the
court
in
how
to
assess
what
is
in
the
child's
best
interest,
particularly
since
now
we've
got
multiple
parents
that
are
all
vying
for
time
with
the
child.
C
And
rochelle
went
for
the
record
it.
It
is
something
that
it
like.
I
said
it
is
an
ongoing
conversation.
I
know
that
you've
had
pretty
detailed
long
conversations
with
mr
rat
this
weekend.
Regarding
you
know,
potential
changes.
I
know
there
are
some
things
that
we
are
incorporating
that
you
had
brought
up
in
the
thing
I
I
you
know
I
I
think
it
is
something
I
know
that
we
have
been
working
with
lcb
staff
to
make
sure
that
there
aren't
any
concerns.
C
I
think
that
we've
made
a
very
clear,
like
legislative
history
in
all
of
these
hearings,
to
like
incorporate
some
of
the
concerns
that
you
have,
but
I
think
I'm
I'm
obviously
open
to
having
any
kind
of
conversations
on
your
thoughts
on
the
matter,
but
I
do
believe
the
bill
as
we
have.
It
stands
with
some
limited
changes
that
we
had
mentioned.
That
would
be
forthcoming
in
any
potential
work
session
that
we
would
have
kind
of
incorporate.
Some
of
those
concerns
that
we
have.
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
jaren,
it's
aluminum
win
and
miss
rat.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
and
while
I
practice
in
a
family
courthouse,
I
don't
consider
myself
a
family
attorney.
I
practice
in
juvenile
court,
and
one
thing
I
like
about
the
bill
is
that
in
juvenile
court
so
often
I
see
a
real
vacuum
as
to
placements
for
children,
and
I
feel
like
a
bill
like
this
could
lead
to
more
possible
placements.
J
You
know
for
children,
and
that
would
you
know
be
be
someone
who
loves
them
and
wants
wants
them
there
and
wants
to
nurture
them
and
very
often
in
juvenile
court,
we'll
we'll
see
agencies
and
our
social
workers
looking
for
fictive
kin
to
see
if
we
can
place
a
child
there,
because
we
don't
have
enough
options
because.
J
Folks
on
the
birth
certificates
may
be
unable
to
care,
for
the
child
may
be
deceased,
maybe
incarcerated
and
and
on
and
on,
and
there
may
not
be
options.
So
I
really
like
the
bill
and
I
like
the
possible,
really
good
consequences
for
children
facing
facing
you,
know
juvenile
court
and
giving
more
options
for
placement.
J
One
question
I
have
as
to
the
language
on
page
3,
section
5.2
then
propose
new
language
at
section
lines
9-11,
it
says
each
prospective
adopting
adult
and
each
legal
parent
seeking
to
retain
his
or
her
parental
rights
must
be
joined.
As
a
petitioner,
I
like
that
language
about
the
jointer
of
the
current
legal
parents,
and
I'm
just
wondering
what
what
do
you
see
as
the
the
what
would
be
wade
in
terms
of
whether
the
legal
parent
is
seeking
to
retain
his
or
her
parental
rights?
J
Would
they
need
to
be
actively
involved
in
the
court
process
or
how
do
you
feel
that
will
be
defined
if
this
passes
into
law
that
new
language?
I
like
that
new
language,
I'm
just
wondering
how
you
think
that
would
be
interpreted.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
kimberly,
surat
for
the
record
to
you
senator
oran
shaw.
The
joined
as
a
petitioner
is
the
key
language
at
the
very
end
of
that
sentence
that
I
want
them
to
be
a
party.
In
the
case
we
use
the
word
again
petitioner
for
adoption
petitions,
and
so
you
know
it's
kind
of
a
slurred
word
there
between
party
and
petitioner,
but
we
it's
interesting
because
this
conversation
has
come
up
many
times
amongst
step
parent
adoptions
in
the
past,
where
I've
had
a
lot
of
practitioners.
E
Call
me
and
ask:
do
I
make
the
current
parent
a
petitioner
in
the
action,
and
I
say:
well,
you
know
by
practice
that's
what
we
do
when
we're
in
front
of
the
court,
but
the
chapter
was
silent
on
that
all
along
whether
or
not
you
were
supposed
to
do
that
or
not
I've
always
said
it
was
good
practice
too.
So
I'm
hoping
this
actually
is
the
first
time
we
actually
have
it
written
down
and
says
you
make
them
a
party.
K
Thank
you,
cherry
schreibel,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
you,
mr
rot
and
assemblywoman
win
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
obviously
am
very
supportive
of
this.
I
think
I
appreciated
assemblywoman
you
highlighting
that
when
we're
talking
about
an
action
under
this
particular
bill,
we're
still
dealing
with
a
court
system
we're
still
dealing
with
a
court
structure
that
requires
the
court
to
make
a
determination.
K
K
K
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense-
and
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
this-
is
probably
more
of
a
comment
than
a
than
an
actual
question
for
either
of
you,
but
I
think
when
we
talk
about,
if
it's,
if
it's
a
mom
and
a
dad
and
they're
married
that
somehow
that's
not
going
to
be
messy
for
anybody,
who's
been
in
the
middle
of
any
kind
of
divorce
case
or
knows
people
who
have
or
are
children
of
divorce.
K
K
Maybe
it
is
anyway,
but
at
least
we're
putting
some
legal
constructs
around
ensuring
that
that
a
child
has
someone
who
is
there
to
to
care
for
them,
not
only
in
their
day-to-day
lives
but
from
a
legal
sense,
and
I
just
really
think
that
that's
why
this
is
such
an
important
piece
of
legislation-
and
I
know
you're
still
working
on
some
language
for
amendments,
but
I
think
this
goes
a
long
way
in
allowing
us
to
set
up
a
system
that
really
does
benefit
the
child.
In
the
end.
C
Thank
you
and-
and
that
was
our
intent.
I
know
that
when
the
concept
and
the
need
for
it
was
brought
up
by
silver
state
equality-
oh
I'm
sorry,
rochelle
went
for
the
record,
you
know
it.
It
immediately
resonated
with
me
with
friends
that
I've
been
in
this
situation,
but
I
think
it's
something
that
potentially
affects
everyone.
It
is
it's
an
everything
like
it's
a
family.
It's
a
family
situation,
our
families
are
complex,
families
are
messy,
divorces,
are
messy,
adoptions
are
messy
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
those
children
shouldn't
be
in
the
like.
C
C
There
are
situations
where
you
have
siblings
that
are
taking
care
of
their
nieces
and
nephews,
and
they
are
every
part,
the
parent
in
those
situations,
and
if
they
want
that
legal
recognition
and
the
consenting
of
parents
want
that
as
well,
I
think
we
should
allow
for
a
child
to
receive
as
much
love
and
as
much
attention
not
only
in
their
hearts
but
also
under
the
law,
and
I
think
this
bill
is
a
step
in
that
right
direction.
So
I
appreciate
your
support
and
if
there
are
any
other
questions,
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
those.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
take
a
point
of
privilege
here
and
express
my
appreciation
to
everybody
for
presenting
this
bill,
and
I
also
I'm
a
co-sponsor
of
the
bill,
because
I
think
this
is
an
incredibly
important
part
of
making
the
law
to
reflect
the
community
that
we
live
in
and
ensuring
that
people
who
love
and
care
for
children
who
are
their
own
because
that's
what
a
child
becomes
when
you
adopt
them,
they
become
your
own,
and
I
think
that
it's
important
that
they
have
that
legal
recognition,
and
I
think
that
you
know
we've
heard
multiple
stories
both
in
the
assembly
and
here
in
the
senate,
that
demonstrate
that
this
need
exists.
A
It's
not
hypothetical!
It's
not
theoretical,
but
we've
seen
real
families
who
would
actually
benefit
from
having
the
ability
to
to
recognize
an
additional
parent,
and
so
if
we
can
do
that
for
families
going
forward
and
prevent
some
kids
and
some
parents,
some
heartache,
then
it's
well
worth
our
while.
So
with
that,
I
thank
you
again
for
your
presentations.
We
will
move
to
testimony.
Is
there
anybody
present
to
give
in
the
room
to
give
testimony
in
support
of
ab115,
I'm
not
seeing
anybody
so
we'll
go
straight
to
the
phones,
please,
mr
kyle.
L
A
L
M
Once
again,
I
did
not
push
star9
quick
enough
in
me
support
when
we
were
getting
testimony
for
support-
and
I
apologize
for
that-
and
I
will
continue
to
work
on
that,
but
if
it
is
okay
with
you,
I
will
just
quickly
register
our
support
for
this
incredible
piece
of
legislation
and
keep
it
at
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
L
L
L
M
M
I
think
it
would
be
a
critical
requirement
that
if
you
are
pushing
for
forward
three
four
five,
six
parent
adoptions,
that
the
biological
and
natural
legal
marriage
parents
be
required
to
terminate
their
rights
first
under
chapter
432
b
and
then
come
on
a
united
front
with
five
or
six
parents
under
chapter
nrs
127,
my
family
has
been
subjected
to
unauthorized
intrusion.
M
Currently,
we
have
not
seen
our
eldest
daughter
in
years
because
the
babysitter
moved
for
parental
rights
of
our
child.
Without
our
daughter
being
joined
to
the
action
without
the
father
being
joined
to
the
action
there
was
no
hearing
held
the
gor,
the
court
unilaterally
decided
there
would
be
no
hearing.
The
court
literally
awarded
this
married
woman
and
her
husband
writes
under
chapter
126
against
my
fit
parents
wishes.
So
if
any
of
this
legislation
needs
to
be
put
into
place,
I
mean
my
husband
and
I
are
married.
We
have
two
children.
M
We
have
not
seen
our
daughter
in
years
she
has
called
the
police
and
wanting
and
fighting
to
come
home.
She
was
taken
from
us
at
six
and
a
half
years
old.
So
if
this
legislation
it
in
its
current
format
and
my
opinion
is
filled
with
so
many
holes
and
so
many
room
for
error
and
misinterpretation,
and
when
you
talk
about
giving
guidance
to
the
judges,
it
needs
to
be
crystal
clear
so
that
there
is
no
room
for
interpretation
so
that
fit
parents
rights
are
violated.
M
Now
I
understand
you're
saying
when
you're
coming
to
the
to
together
on
a
united
front,
that
means
written
authorization,
notarized
authorization
presented
to
the
court
by
the
litigants,
not
by
their
attorneys,
not
by
some
other
representative,
but
by
the
litigants
themselves
to
prevent
any
misinterpretation
or
people
alleging
that
other
parties
were
served
when
they
were
never
served.
So
that
would
be
my.
My
biggest
opposition
is
that
this
legislation,
in
its
current
written
format,
is
filled
with
so
many
errors
that
could
create
disaster
such
as
been
created
in
my
family
for
eight
years.
L
L
M
My
name
is
emily
minnow
m-I-m-n-a
and
I'm
an
attorney
in
nevada,
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
pacific
justice
institute
center
for
public
policy
and
opposition
simply
put
this
bill
is
bad
for
nevada
supporters
have
highlighted
the
need
to
protect
step
parent
rights
and
lgbtq
rights.
However,
current
law
already
allows
such
persons
to
adopt
with
full
parental
rights.
What
this
bill
does,
however,
is
allow
any
number
of
adults
to
adopt
a
minor
child.
M
Now,
in
the
scenario
where
three
adults
have
a
pre-existing
parent-child
relationship
such
as
a
step
parent
courts
can
be
empowered
to
recognize
that
relationship
without
revising
the
entirety
of
nevada
adoption
law.
Likewise,
concerns
about
birth
certificates,
allowing
them
to
recognize
both
deceased
and
current
adopted
parents
can
be
revised.
Without
this
build
sweeping
proposals.
M
What
is
not
necessary
and
not
explained
is
why
courts
should
contemplate
allowing
four
or
five
or
more
adults
to
adopt
a
minor
child.
The
question
is:
why
is
there
simply
no
limit
to
the
number
of
adults
that
can
adopt
a
minor
child?
This
is
not
simply
recognizing
the
importance
of
extended
family,
that's
already
addressed
by
existing
law
that
empowers
parents
to
legally
appoint.
For
example,
the
adults
who's
to
care
for
their
child,
should
they
become
incapacitated
or
deceased.
M
This
bill
is
unnecessary
and
it's
a
radical
rewrite
of
public
policy
supporters
point
to
california,
one
of
only
two
states
with
even
remotely
similar
legislation,
but
that
law
sb274
only
applies
in
the
context
of
a
pre-existing
relationship.
It
does
not
allow
multiple
adults
to
simply
petition
for
the
adoption
of
a
minor
child.
This
is
also
practically
unworkable,
while
a
group
of
adults
may
be
united
and
agree
at
the
time
of
adoption.
M
There's
no
mechanism
to
address
subsequent
divisions,
disputes
or
divorces
across
these
groups
of
adults
who
will
have
equal
and
competing
legal
rights,
leaving
courts
to
resolve
messy
things
such
as
custody,
visitation,
child
support,
potentially
across
state
lines.
This
does
not
help
family
stability
and
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
a
child.
M
L
N
I
think
that
this
proposed
legislation
is
very
irresponsible
to
give
this
court
system
that
already
has
so
much
abuse
of
discretion
in
the
way
they
rule
and
what
they
do
is
a
disaster.
N
I
have
been
a
victim
of
this
family
court
and
this
this
legislation
would
just
it
would
be
awful.
I
have
not
seen
my
eight-year-old
son
in
almost
two
years.
I
have
no
idea
where
he
is
because
of
a
judge
who
used
discretion
to
do
whatever
she
wanted,
and
this
was
with
a
man
who
had
never
been
involved
with
my
son.
There
was
never
paternity
testing,
he
walked
in
to
court
and
he
walked
out
with
my
child
no
reason
as
to
why
the
best
interest
factors
are
a
joke.
N
So
when
there's
already
an
ongoing
problem
with
so
many
families
that
continue
daily
to
be
destroyed
because
judges
get
to
use
their
discretion,
this
is
demonic.
It's
not,
okay,
that
the
court
is
so
unclear
on
a
lot
of
things,
so
to
propose
something
like
this.
Without
there
being
specific
and
things
being
outlined
to
where
there
could
be.
No
other
interpretation
is
a
disaster,
and
my
son
he's
eight
he's.
Gonna
be
nine.
As
I
said,
he
has
three
siblings.
They
have
not
seen
him
his
grandparents
have
not
seen
him.
N
We
don't
know
where
he
is
nothing,
nothing
because
of
what
a
judge
did,
because
she
used
her
discretion
and
she
did
it
because
I
was
a
black
woman
and
the
other
man
was
white.
So
these
kind
of
things
cannot,
you
know,
just
have
so
much
room
for
error
and
it
does.
It
has
a
lot
of
room
for
air,
so
I
oppose.
L
L
L
O
Hi,
my
name
is
vladimir
kenkovska,
l-y-u-d-a
p-y-a-m-k-o-v-s-k-a,
I'm
avoiding
this
bill.
I
believe
this
assembly
bill
failed
to
present
a
compelling
state
interest
in
creation
in
creation
of
such
severe
intrusion
over
fundamental
liberty,
interests
of
fit
parents.
I
believe
there
is
no
authority
to
grant
parenting
rights
to
a
third
party.
One,
a
suitable
natural
parent
have
a
custody.
O
I
believe
cathedral
parents
have
a
common
law
to
veto
power
over
visitation
between
the
child
and
all
other
third
parties,
except
for
non-custodial
parents,
and
it
looks
like
this
deal
comes
with
the
presence,
it's
all
about
when
united
far
you
united
petition
comes
into
place.
However,
this
bill
completely
disregards
the
consequences.
When
there
is
dispute
comes
into
place,
I
believe
existing
laws
when
it
comes
to
third
parties.
Speaking
for
the
point
of
hesitation
or
child
custody,
was
a
kid.
O
The
third
parties
must
overcome
presumption
by
clear,
convincing
evidence,
but
evidently
hearing
when
parents
oppose
those
petitions,
we
have
nrs125c050
reputation
for
rights,
visitation
for
relatives
and
other
persons.
We
have
nrs125c004
a
word
of
custody
to
a
person
other
than
parents
who
have
an
arrest,
159061
guardianship
over
minor
kids.
That
says
the
parents
must
be
first
considered.
O
It
looks
like
the
people
who
create
this
deal.
They
they
are
facing
difficulties
to
overcome
those
presumptions,
so
they
found
a
way.
Let's
just
create
this
united
fund,
and
we
will
pretend
everything
everybody
is
peaceful
here,
but
the
problem
here
with
this
deal
is
completely
does
not
even
create
awareness.
What
happens
when
there
is
dispute?
This
bill
is
disaster.
I
believe
truxel
versus
trustful
case
in
the
united
states.
O
I
believe
that
you
know:
u.s
supreme
court
prohibits
state
intrusion
into
parenting
authority,
and
this
deal
violates
that.
L
L
L
N
Tiffany
wagner
last
name
w-a-g-n-e-r,
I'm
100
in
opposition
to
this
bill.
I
think
it's
disastrous
nobody's
talking
about
the
impracticality
of
the
ability
to
give
parenting
rights
to
unlimited
amount
of
people.
How
do
you
divide
a
child
for
five
six,
seven,
unlimited
ways:
how
do
you
divide
a
child's
time
like
that?
It
is
inarguably
not
in
the
child's
best
interest
to
have
this
kind
of
legislation
passed.
N
The
biological
parents
should
absolutely
have
to
have
their
rights
justifiably
terminated
first,
before
giving
rights
to
any
other
party.
That
is
my
stamp.
Thank
you.
A
L
L
J
N
My
name
is
mr
hall
h-a-l-l,
and
I
am
anything
but
neutral,
I'm
sorry.
I
couldn't
get
onto
the
line
for
some
technical
issues.
Here's
the
issue
that
we
have
with
this
bill.
Ab115
it
is.
N
First
of
all,
we
have
like,
in
my
particular
case,
I'm
involved
in
a
in
a
case
in
the
family
court,
which
is
now
in
the
coin
heading
to
the
supreme
court,
and
my
ex-wife
was
responsible
for
the
death
of
our
two-year-old
son.
Her
new
current
husband
has
over
20
felony
counts,
including
child
endangerment,
including
shooting
live
weapons
inside
of
the
house,
including
he's
responsible
for
the
death
of
three
of
his
children.
N
Now
I
don't
see
any
way
possible
to
give
any
more
discretion
to
a
court
that
is
just
unhinged
and
not
only
that,
but
there's
something
else.
I'd
like
to
say,
there's
a
there's.
The
person
that
proposed
this
spell
that's
sitting
there
across
the
desk
in
the
black
here's
the
problem
I
have
with
her
she's,
been
responsible.
A
C
Rochelle
win
for
the
record.
I
will
be
very
brief.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
assembly
bill
115,
just
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things.
Obviously,
it
sounds
like
there
are
lots
of
concerns
that
some
of
the
callers
in
opposition
had
with
our
family
court
system.
I
will
say
that
this
law
mandates
and
requires
consent
of
the
parents,
so
this
would
never
be
a
situation
where
you
had.
C
You
know
two
parents
and
they
got
a
divorce,
and
there
was
another
parent
that
wanted
to
adopt
that
child.
Both
of
those
two
original
parents
would
have
to
first
consent
to
that
adoption
of
that
third
parent
and
then
in
addition
to
that,
the
judge
would
have
to
also
consent
to
the
further
levels
of
consent.
So
this
is
a
situation
where
there
has
to
be
consent
before
it
even
goes
to
the
judge
for
that
determination.
So
I
want
to
make
that
very
clear
in
this.
C
You
would
have
to
have
that
consent
of
those
parents.
I
think
it's
very
clear
in
the
language
of
this
and
then
in
addition
to
that,
we
have
some
judicial
protections
that
they
would
also
have
to
review
this
to
see
if
the
consent
was
appropriate
as
well.
So
I
know
that
there
were
some
comments
in
opposition
and
I
think
that
it
is
misguided
if
you
look
at
the
language
the
plain
language
of
the
bill
again,
there
has
to
be
that
consent,
and
that
is
what
this
addresses.
So
with
that.
A
A
I
understand
we
have
ms
corbulic
here
in
person.
It's
a
pleasure
to
see
you
and
please
go
ahead
whenever
you're
ready.
C
Thank
you,
rochelle
wynn,
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
as
well
as
the
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
296.
This
establishes
penalties
for
those
who
engage
in
doxing.
This
bill
does
not
create
criminal
penalties.
It
just
creates
a
civil
cause
of
remedy.
C
Just
for
everyone's
edification
doxxing
is
one
of
a
form
of
online
harassment
that
has
been
gaining
popularity.
Doxxing
is
the
posting
of
private
or
identifying
information
about
an
individual
group
or
organization
with
the
intent
that
that
information
be
used
against
the
target
for
an
unlawful
purpose.
C
The
issue
of
doxing
came
became
real
to
me
about
a
year
ago,
when
I
had
the
privilege
to
meet
tanya
gersh
and
for
people
that
are
not
familiar
with
her
story
and
by
example,
only
there
was
a
publisher
of
a
neo-nazi
website
called
the
daily
stormer
and
one
of
its
organizers
in
2017
had
a
white.
C
He
was
one
of
the
organizers
of
the
2017
white
supremacist
rally
in
charlottesville
at
the
time
he
posted
the
name
and
address
of
a
jewish
real
estate
agent
in
montana
posted
photos
of
her
children
and
had
all
of
his
followers,
which
were
thousands
also
on
his
website
respond
and
his
and
purpose
and
intent
was
to
stalk
and
terrorize
this
poor
soccer
mom.
C
His
followers
understood
that
all
too
well
and
responded
with
hundreds
of
threatening
calls
anti-semitic
messages
posts
on
facebook
posts
on
social
medias
posts
on
things
like
yelp,
her
family
was
subject
to
swatting.
Her
parents
were
in
fear
she
was
worried
about
her
children
and
their
safety
when
they
walked
out
of
her
house.
C
In
this
case,
this
bill
would
distinguish,
and
not
only
capture,
conduct
that
simply
involves
identifying
people
online
with
the
purpose
that
they
may
be
protracting,
protecting
others
or
tracking
down
extremists
or
reporting
on
a
public
interest
story.
Unlawful
doxing
is
different
from
the
work
of
advocates
researchers
and
the
press,
including
those
at
the
anti-defamation
league,
who
are
doing
this
to
identify
extremists
and
help
with
law
enforcement
agencies
to
investigate
these
for
possible
crimes.
C
These
activists
and
researchers
are
operating
within.
There
are
not
operating
unlawfully,
maliciously
or
recklessly
with
a
reckless
state
of
mind.
The
same
goes
for
journalists
who
break
important
stories,
people
who
take
on
powerful
institutions
in
the
interest
by
disclosing
information,
for
example,
about
political
donations
and
things
like
that,
and
people
who
report
fuses
of
power
or
otherwise
act
as
whistleblowers.
C
Anti-Doxing
laws
should
not
apply
when
it
comes
to
online
harassment.
It
is
a
fine
line
to
walk,
and
so
it's
important
that,
when
we're
acting
this
enacting
anti-doxing
legislation
that
we
keep
that
in
mind.
I
know
that
I've
been
fortunate
enough
to
work
with
the
anti-defamation
league
and
I
believe
we
have
miss
jolie
brislin
and
I'm
not
sure
who
else
is
on
the
line
right
now
to
be
able
to
also
speak
to
this
issue
and
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
bill.
C
But
I
also
do
have
the
testimony
here
today
of
heather
corbiluk
kerberlich,
because
I
know
that
she
also
has,
like
I
said
her
own
personal
story-
that
this
type
of
legislation
would
prevent
others
from
having
the
same
kind
of
experience
that
she
had.
So
if
we
can
first
go
to
miss
corbelic,
that
would
be
great
you're
doing
great
corvu
like.
B
As
many
of
you
know,
in
april
of
2020,
governor
syslock
asked
me
to
step
into
the
role
of
the
interim
director
for
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
real
rehabilitation
commonly
known
as
dieter
a
month
beforehand.
The
governor
had
made
an
incredibly
difficult
decision
and
drastic
decision
to
shut
down
the
government
or
to
shut
down
the
state
of
nevada
in
the
best
interests
of
public
health
and
dieter
was
receiving
an
unprecedented
number
of
unemployment
claims.
B
Dieter
was
staffed
at
a
level
that
accommodated
the
state's
best
economy
and,
literally
overnight,
the
state
experienced
its
worst
economic
landscape
in
recorded
history,
tens
of
thousands
of
nevadans
were
justifiably
frustrated
and
scared,
adding
to
the
significant
challenges
that
dieter
was
facing.
Congress
had
just
introduced
a
new
unemployment
program
to
support
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
newly
unemployed
nevadans
who
lost
their
gig
employment
and
would
not
be
eligible
for
standard
unemployment,
insurance.
B
I
knew
that
I'd
be
walking
into
a
critically
important
response
effort
and
I
knew
that
nevadans
were
upset
and
they
needed
answers,
because
I
have
led
agencies
through
challenging
times
before.
I
knew
that
I
had
to
make
important
decisions
quickly.
I
needed
to
be
transparent
about
our
efforts
and
I
needed
to
constantly
communicate
with
the
public.
B
I
did
my
best
to
learn
and
move
fast
and
I'm
really
proud
of
what
was
achieved
during
my
short
tenure
and
even
more
proud
of
dieter's
continued
response,
since
thousands
of
nevadans
reached
out
directly
to
me,
while
I
served
as
the
director
and
all
of
them
had
equally
compelling
stories
of
desperation
and
fear
every
day
my
heart
was
heavy
and
I
felt
an
overwhelming
responsibility
to
help
a
small
percentage
of
these
people
targeted
their
anger
directly
at
me.
B
B
B
B
B
B
I
sat
down
and
I
wept
at
my
desk
and
I
decided
that
I
could
no
longer
tolerate
putting
my
family
in
this
position
and
I
could
not.
I
would
not
live
in
fear
for
simply
trying
to
do
my
job
during
this
time.
My
close
friends
and
family
who
knew
what
was
happening,
sent
me
articles
from
across
the
country
with
stories
of
public
health
officials
and
others
who
were
experiencing
similar
threats
and
harassment.
B
C
A
We'll
just
take
a
a
brief
pause
to
thank
ms
corbilic
for
having
the
courage
to
be
here
today
and
to
share
with
us,
and
it
is
unfathomable
what
what
you
have
gone
through
and
I'm
truly
sorry-
and
I
think
majority
leader
would
also
like
to
make
a
few
remarks.
K
And
I
you
know
I
to
me
the
fact
that
you
are
here,
I
think,
speaks
truth
and
life
into
the
words
from
your
husband
that
you
are
stronger
than
any
of
the
threats.
K
The
incredible
work
that
you
have
done
for
the
state
of
nevada.
We
should
all
be
so
thankful
for
to
not
only
stand
up
and
to
lead
us
in
developing
the
exchange
program
here
in
the
state
which
is
helping
tons
of
nevadans
have
access
to
health
care.
K
The
amazing
work
that
you
have
done
to
lead
us
through
that
process
and
to
make
sure
that
that
is
a
system
that
is
providing
help
to
nevadans
that,
even
over
and
above
that,
one
asked
and
called
to
do
one
of
the
most
impossible
tasks
that
I
think
anyone
in
public
service
could
be
asked
to
do
in
a
in
a
position
in
on
a
platform
that
could
not
have
have
dealt
with
the
magnitude
of
what
the
kovid
pandemic
has
put
and
thrust
upon
it.
K
And
the
fact
that
you
said
yes
in
the
first
place,
I
think,
speaks
absolutely
to
your
strength
and
to
your
capabilities.
And
frankly,
I
know
when
I
heard
that
you
were
coming
on
to
do
that.
I
thought
well,
oh,
my
goodness.
They
found
and
the
best
people
that
they
could
possibly
have
put
in
this
position,
and
if
there
is
a
way
out,
mr
bullock
will
be
the
person
who
helps
us
find
that.
K
I
believe
that
very
much
and
thought
that
immediately
when,
when
that
was
announced
and
thought
that
was
the
most
brilliant
decision
that
could
have
been
made,
because
if
there
was
a
way
out,
you
were
going
to
be
the
person
who
could
do
that.
The
fact
that
we
have
someone
like
you
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
I
think,
is
remarkable.
K
I
know
I
am
personally
grateful
and
I
think
there
are
so
many
nevadans
who
are
so
grateful
even
if
they
don't
know
that
you're
the
person
that
they
should
be
grateful
to
the
fact
that
you
are
still
continuing
that
work,
that
you
are
now
also
working
hand
in
hand
to
make
sure
that
we
can
do
the
business
of
the
legislature.
Here.
K
I
can't
thank
you
enough.
I
know
it
is
hard
to
share
these
kinds
of
stories,
and
I
can't
imagine
how
terrifying
this
whole
ordeal
has
been,
but
know
that
there
are
lots
of
people
here
in
the
state
who
appreciate
very
much
the
work
that
you
have
done,
that
you
are
doing
and
that
I
think
you've
demonstrated
to
all
of
us.
K
Certainly
today,
if
not
before,
certainly
before
for
me,
but
definitely
today
that
you
are
so
much
stronger
than
than
anything
that
that
people
can
throw
at
you,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
shouldn't
also
take
action
to
make
sure
that
doesn't
happen
to
someone
else
and
sharing
your
story.
I
think,
helps
to
lead
the
pathway
to
that,
but
the
amazing
things
that
you
have
done
for
the
state
of
nevada.
We
should
all
be
so
lucky
to
have
even
just
one
of
you
here
in
the
state.
A
C
C
D
For
the
record,
my
name
is
julie,
brislin
and
I
serve
as
a
regional
director
of
the
anti-defamation
league
nevada
regional
office.
Before
I
get
started,
I
just
want
to
thank
heather
so
much
for
sharing
her
story,
her
story
and
having
so
much
courage
because
of
her
testimony
today.
I
hope
to
prevent
this
from
happening
to
other
people
on
behalf
of
adl,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
this
afternoon
in
regards
to
ab2
966.
D
Thank
you
for
convening
today
and
thank
you
to
assemblywoman.
One
win
for
your
sponsorship
of
this
bill,
founded
in
1913
adl,
has
has
a
timeless
mission
to
stop
the
defamation
of
the
jewish
people
and
secure
justice
and
fair
treatment
for
all.
Today,
more
than
ever,
this
mission's
relevance
endures
at
adl
we
work
to
combat
anti-semitism,
prejudice
and
hate
of
all
kinds
while
defending
our
democratic
ideals
and
civil
rights.
Unfortunately,
we
know
that
hate
and
extremism
are
on
a
rise
in
digital
space
are
not
immune.
D
The
disparities
are
stark
in
terms
of
which
communities
are
particularly
impacted
by
hate.
According
to
a
recent
national
study
that
adl
released,
27
percent
of
americans
experience
severe
online
hate
and
harassment
defined
as
including
sexual
harassment,
stalking,
physical
threats,
swatting
doxing
and
sustained
harassment.
D
Generally,
28
percent
of
respondents
reported
having
experienced
race-based
harassment.
African-American
respondents
specifically
reported
a
sharp
rise
in
race-based
harassment
from
42
percent
last
year
to
59
this
year.
Additionally,
more
than
one
in
five
americans
reported
experiencing
harassment
based
on
their
religion
with
57
percent
of
muslims
and
31
percent
of
jewish
respondents
reporting
harassment
because
of
their
religious
identity.
We
must
do
more
to
ensure
we
are
protecting
against
online
hate
and
harassment
and
its
consequences
to
individuals,
personal
and
professional
lives.
D
Such
actions
include
the
emerging
threat
of
doxing
adl
urges
this
committee
to
support
ab296
to
address
doxing
in
nevada
state
law.
If
passed,
this
law
would
prohibit
a
person
from
posting
another
person's
information
online
with
the
intent
to
harm
them
with
the
reckless
disregard
of
causing
death,
bodily
injury,
stalking
or
mental
anguish.
According
to
adl's
2021
report,
81
of
americans
agree
that
laws
should
be
strengthened
to
hold
perpetuators
of
online
hate
accountable
for
their
conduct.
D
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
miss
corbulic.
I
agree
that
you
know
it's
it's
sad,
it's
frightening.
When
we
have
public
officials
that
are
targeted
for
doing
their
job
and
I
joined
with
everyone
else
in
applauding
you,
we
all,
I
think,
thought
that
you
would
do
a
fantastic
job.
Coming
in
your
represent
your
reputation,
preceded
you,
we
thought
you
know
we
had
a
chance
at
getting
this
fixed
and
then
we
saw
what
happened,
and
so
many
women
win.
I
glad
to
see
this
kind
of
attention.
I
I'm
just
a
little
concerned
with
it's
section:
1
sub
3
b,
where
public
officers
acting
in
their
official
capacity
are
excluded
from
application
of
this
bill,
so
miss
corbulex
perpetrators
would
not
be
subject
to
the
penalties
in
this
bill,
nor
would
law
enforcement
officers,
and
I'm
wondering
you
know
we.
We
just
saw
what
lebron
james
did
to
the
ohio
officer
acting
to
save
a
life,
and
yet
here
we
are
once
again
in,
in
my
view,
inviting
the
public
to
dox
these
law
enforcement
officers.
I
So
can
you
address
that
and
tell
me
how
this
isn't?
You
know
anathema
to
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here.
C
Thank
you,
rochelle
win
for
the
record,
that's
a
great
question
and
I
I
will
tell
you
that
any
of
the
dachshund
legislation
that
has
been
addressed
that's
been
proposed,
including
this.
There
is
a
lot
of
over
there's
a
lot
of
people
concerned
about
the
legal
overreach
of
doxing
bills,
there's
obviously
a
very,
very
fine
line
between
protecting
free
speech
on
both
sides,
both
online
and
offline,
and
rightfully
raises
serious
and
legitimate
questions
kind
of
about
how
it
comes
to
codifying
these
laws
and
who
it
applies
to
and
who
it
doesn't.
C
Especially
in
this
free
speech.
Well,
I
have
beth
holtzman.
She
is
on
the
zoom
right
now
she
has
been
working
tirelessly
across
the
country
in
developing
anti-doxing
legislation
and
I
think
she's,
probably
in
the
best
position
to
be
able
to
address
your
concerns
on
why
certain
people,
public
officials,
elected
officials,
law
enforcement,
would
be
specifically
excluded
from
the
provisions
of
this
civil
litigation,
and
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
her
chair.
If
that
is
fine,.
P
Beth
holtzman
for
the
record
I
serve
as
adl's
western
states
council.
Thank
you
for
having
me
here
today
to
answer
the
question.
So
that
is
true
that
it
is
hard
because
there
are
a
lot
of
public
officials
who
their
information
is
being
shared.
But
for
this
bill
we
were
really
focused
are
trying
to
enable
communities
to
still
hold
law
enforcement
officers
and
public
officials
accountable
for
their
actions
that
are
violating
the
law,
such
as
people
trying
to
expose
bad
behavior
in
a
whistleblower
capacity.
P
I
It
says
right
in
the
opening
sentence.
It
says
the
provisions
of
this
section
do
not
apply
to
the
dissemination
of
personal,
identifying
information
or
sensitive
information
which
depicts
law
enforcement
officers
acting
under
the
color
of
law
or
a
public
officer
acting
in
an
official
capacity.
So
this
this
bill
as
it's
written,
would
not
apply
to
the
perpetrators.
For
mr
bullock's
harassment,
nor
would
it
apply
to
the
ohio
office,
or
were
that
a
nevada
officer
or
any
other
public
officer
acting
in
their
official
capacity.
I'm
not
talking
about
those
that
that
are
committing.
I
You
know
illegal
acts
like
derek
chauvin,
but
even
then
to
release
private
information.
The
the
the
personal
identifying
information
that
could
lead
them
lead,
the
the
the
those
that
would
harass
directly
to
their
doorstep.
Why
isn't
that
illegal
for
any
recipient
for
for
any
person,
who's
trying
to
do
their
job
in
an
official
capacity?
This
does
not
apply
to
them.
How
is
that
in
even
remotely
appropriate.
C
I'll
go
ahead
and
try
to
answer
it
first
and
then
I
can
have
miss
holtzman
over.
You
know
follow
up
with
some
of
the
more
like
intricate
legal
arguments,
but
I
can
sorry
rochelle
win
for
the
record.
I
can.
I
can
tell
you
that
we
see
we
are
doing
baby
steps
to
get
to
the
legislation
and
make
sure
that
it
is
crafted
appropriately
that
it
protects
free
speech.
C
C
You
have
to
have
your
address
listed
because
you
have
to
live
within
the
district
that
you
are
running
for
office,
for
so
there
are
certain
things
that,
as
an
elected
official,
you
are
in
a
very
different
situation,
so
to
distinguish
just
in
that
group.
I
think
you
are
in
a
very
different,
like
scenario
of
like
individuals,
and
I
think
that
you
can
be
held
and
you
should
be
held
accountable
for
your
decisions,
your
statements
and
your
actions
as
a
public
official
and
especially
an
elected
official
as
far
as
law
enforcement.
C
What
our
intent
was
is
to
not
prohibit
it
and
make
the
language
so
difficult
that,
for
example,
with
the
insurrection
in
washington
dc,
you
want
to
be
able
to
help
law
enforcement,
be
able
to
capture
and
identify
some
of
the
individuals
that
were
involved
in
the
death
of
the
police
officer.
The
you
know,
the
beatings
that
took
place
against
security
officers,
the
vandalism
any
of
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
we
were
able
to
do
that
by
publishing
like
photographs
and
information
and
trying
to
identify
those
individuals
that
committed
those
particular
crimes.
C
We've
seen
all
too
often
that
members
of
the
press,
individuals
that
are
out
on
the
street,
it
had
not
been
for
their
recordings
of
police
officers,
unfortunately,
sometimes
those
acting
in
bad
faith
or
acting
criminally
or
recklessly.
We
would
not
be
able
to
find
that
information,
so
I
think
it's
a
very
important
balance
that
we
find
in
able
to
that
enables
free
speech
and
for
members
in
these
important
areas
of
public
interest
to
be
held
accountable.
C
So
you
know
that
that
was
our
intent
and
I
think
ms
holtzman
might
have
some
additional
information
on
you
know
when
it
rises
to
the
level
where
you're
inciting
that
violence
or
threats
of
violence
and
stalking.
P
Thank
you,
beth
holtzman,
for
the
record.
I
would
just
add
that
the
intent
of
this
bill,
the
target
that
we're
really
focusing
on
is
individuals
such
as
tanya
gersh,
who
was
not
a
public
figure
that
assembly
member
wayne
mentioned
earlier.
She
was
just
a
real
estate
agent
who
was
suffered
unlawful
doxxing
and
was
being
harassed
and
stalked
by
several
people.
Her
family
and
children
threatened
repeatedly,
and
that's
the
target,
and
this,
and
also
just
to
reiterate
what
somebody
remember
when
said,
we're
going
in
baby
steps.
I
All
right,
I
appreciate
that.
I
guess
I
misunderstood
the
intent,
because
when
miss
corbilic
came
up
and
talked
about
her
story,
I
thought
it
applied
to
the
bill
and
obviously
it
doesn't
we're
going
after
the
private
individual.
I
just
I
I
I
don't
think
then
that
it
if
this
is
narrowly
targeted
to
avoid
doxing
of
private
individuals,
then
the
public
individuals
that
I
mean,
I
don't
think
a
police
officer
signed
up
for
what
I
signed
up
for
when
they
joined
the
police
force
they
didn't
sign
up.
For
being.
I
You
know
their
families
being
targeted
for
the
acts
of
of
themselves.
You
know
publishing
their
their
information.
I
don't
believe,
is
any
more
appropriate,
but
we
don't
need
sub
b
at
all.
If,
if
that's
the
case,
but
anyway,
I'm
not
gonna
and
thank
you.
A
I'd
like
to
see
if
I
can
maybe
shed
some
light
on
the
subsection
b
of
subsection
three,
which
is
on
page
three
and
the
way
that
I'm
reading
it,
it
says
that
this
does
not
apply
to
the
dissemination
of
information
which
depicts
a
law
enforcement
officer
acting
under
the
color
of
law
or
public
officer
acting
in
an
official
capacity.
A
So
stop
me
if
I'm
wrong
and
explain
why.
But
it
sounds
to
me
like
this-
is
allowing
for
individuals
to
produce
and
publish
things
like
pictures,
videos,
screenshots
of
something
that
a
public
officer
did
in
their
official
capacity
standing
in
front
of
a
room
of
you,
know,
legislators,
standing
in
front
of
a
crowd
and
speaking
in
their
official
capacity
posting
on
their
official
facebook
page
any
any
type
of
speech
that
you
could
screenshot
and
share
with
the
public.
A
What
it
doesn't
say
is
that
you
can
search
for
that
public
officer's
personal
address
and
publish
it
along
with
additional
commentary
that
says
you
should
go
to
so-and-so's,
address
and
harass
him
or
her.
I
guess
if
the
person,
if
the
public
official
was
posting
their
own
address,
you
could
share
it,
but
the
way
that
I
read
this
is
that
this
allows
for
somebody
to
reproduce
and
disseminate
information
that
was
already
made
available
by
nature
of
somebody
being
a
public
official.
C
F
Thank
you,
cheers
scheible
and
I'll.
Just
I'll
echo
the
comments
of
my
colleagues
miss
corbilic.
Thank
you
for
being
here
and
sharing
your
story.
I'm
wondering
a
little
bit
about
you
know
if
you
guys
can
tell
me
how
old
this
isn't
already
an
actionable
suit
right.
So
is
this
not
a
classic
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress
or
is
there
some
other
tort,
that's
already
in
place?
Why
do
we
need
to
create
something
new.
P
P
However,
we've
found
in
other
states
that
it's
very
difficult
and
that
state
laws
are
not
often
written
to
contemplate
the
realities
of
online
spaces
and
how
cyber
harassment,
cyber
stalking
occurs
and
doxxing
is
the
online
elements
of
it
are
not
always
reflected
in
other
sorts
of
torts,
and
so
we
find
it
is
most
helpful
to
enact
a
statute
to
have
the
proper
language
that
really
takes
into
consideration
and
focuses
on
this
particular
actions
that
occur
online
and
are
able
to
reflect
that
and
to
provide
a
civil
cause
of
action
for
individuals
who
are
suffering
from
experience.
C
And-
and
I
will
tell
you
the
oh
sorry,
rochelle
wynn
for
the
record-
I
know
that
it
was
our
intent
to
look
at
this
because
a
lot
of
the
emerging
technologies
that
people
are
using
to
harass
and
target,
and
this
hate
is
online-
and
you
know,
unlike
someone
coming
and
yelling
at
something
to
you
in
person
like
this,
this
online
hate
survives
indefinitely
and
it
is
repeated
and
it
is
traumatic
and
it
is
traumatic
over
and
over
and
over
again
for
these
victims
who
have
to
go
on.
C
I
heard
when
I
spoke
with
tanya
gersh.
She
had
talked
about
how
people
told
her
just
get
off
facebook
just
get
off
of
you
know
twitter
just
get
off
of
all
the
social
media.
You
know
it's
in
tr,
it's
so
tied
in
with
how
we
communicate
it
is
so
tied
in
with
how
we
govern
it
is
so
tied
in
with
how
we
meet
and
communicate
with
our
families
with
our
communities,
with
our
business
interests
that
it
is
unrealistic
to
do
that,
and
I
think
our
not
laws
need
to
reflect
this
new
online.
F
And
sheriff
I
just
made
with
a
quick
follow-up.
I
don't
know
if
we've
taken
the
time
to
update
our
harassment
laws
to
sufficiently
capture
the
types
of
ways
you
can
be
harassed
online.
Releasing
your
personal
information
obviously,
is
not
the
only
way
people
are
harassed
online,
and
so
I
know
it's
a
little
late
in
the
session.
But
if
that's
a
topic
that
we
need
to
pick
up
and
make
sure
that
harassment
covers
the
the
the
type
of
ways
that
that
people
are
acting
nowadays,
we
should
try
and
fix
that
too.
Thanks.
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair,
scheible
and
sun
bloom
and
win.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
and
director
court
bullock.
Thank
you
for
sharing
what
happened
to
you
and
thank
you
for
leading
the
department
during.
I
think,
an
unprecedented
time
that
no
one
could
have
imagined
and
it's
terrible
that
you
and
your
family
had
to
go
through
this
kind
of
harassment
and
threats
when
you
were
just
trying
to
make
a
system
that
I
think
was
designed
in
the
50s
and
60s
work
with
just
an
unprecedented
pandemic.
J
P
Beth
holtzman
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
So
the
states
that
have
passed
this
it's
been
in
the
last
year,
so
we
haven't
really
seen
it
in
action.
Quite
yet.
However,
other
states,
in
addition
to
damages
they
have
done
criminal
penalties
for
unlawful
doxing,
and
so
that's
been.
P
What
more
of
what
we've
seen
is
states
that
have
the
unlawful
are
the
criminal
penalties,
but
this
is
something
that
I
can
look
into
and
follow
up
if
there's
additional
information,
but
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
these
state,
these
laws
have
been
passed
so
recently
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
yet
to
see
them
exactly
being
litigated.
A
Q
Good
afternoon,
chair
schaible
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans
and
I'm
the
policy
specialist
with
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
Here
today,
in
support
of
ab296,
we
know
that
stalking
harassment
takes
place
in
so
many
different
forms,
and
now
in
these
online
spaces,
it
really
creates
this
new
level
of
harassment.
Q
This
picture
to
his
followers
that
she
wants
to
live
out
a
rape
fantasy
and
to
break
into
her
house
at
this
time
to
rape
her
because
she
wants
to
experience
stranger
rape,
and
so,
while
this
act
may
not
come
through,
it
also
creates
this
level
of
harassment
online,
where
these
people
may
be
following
stalking,
sending
really
vulgar
messages
to
an
individual
online
and
creating
a
really
heightened
sense
of
fear.
So
we
are
in
full
support
of
this
and
we
thank
the
assemblywoman
anti-defamation
league
for
bringing
this
forward.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
L
L
N
Thank
you
and
greetings
to
the
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
maria
teresa
lieberman,
parraga
m-a-r-I-a,
hyphen-t-e,
r-e-s-a,
l-I-e-b-e-r-m-a-n-n,
hyphen
p-a-r-r-a-g-a,
and
I'm
here
representing
battleborn
progress
and
we're
in
full
support
of
ab296
and
thank
summerwoman
wynn
for
bringing
this
forward,
because
you
know.
M
N
Digital
space,
our
organization
works
on
that
every
single
day
and
we
have
seen
multiple
times
where
folks
on
all
sides
of
the
aisle
have
been
doxxed
or
there
have
been
attempts
to
docks,
and
that
is
something
that,
as
we've
heard
today,
has
a
serious
toll
on
people,
and
there
is
a
difference
between
holding
people
accountable
and
actually
actively
trying
to
hurt
them
by
taxing
them
and
putting
out
personal
information
for
dangerous
purposes.
So
thank
you.
Assemblyman.
L
L
A
L
R
R
R
In
section
one
of
the
bill.
It
describes
this
behavior
as
with
the
intent
to
encourage
facilitate
a
criminal
offense
likely
to
cause
death
bodily
harm,
so
on
and
so
forth.
This
is
very
serious
activity
which
we
are
talking
about
and
while
a
civil,
the
ability
to
file
a
civil
suit
is
good
too,
and
I
support
that
we
need
to
consider
keeping
the
criminal
penalties
in.
I
also
share
the
same
concerns
that
were
raised
by
senator
pickard.
Regarding
the
way
this
language
is
written.
R
It
says
the
provisions
do
not
apply
and
it
lists
public
officer
and
also
police
officer
if
the
intent
is
to
protect
whistleblowers
and
people
that
are
reporting,
unlawful
activity,
that
law
enforcement
officers
or
public
officials
are
engaged
in.
There
are
mechanisms
in
place,
and
there
are
protections
in
place
currently
to
to
make
those
complaints,
and
you
don't
report
unlawful
activity
by
doxing,
someone
again
the
intent
to
facilitate
criminal
offense
likely
to
cause
death
or
bodily
harm.
That's
not
how
you
report
someone
engaged
in
criminal,
unlawful
activity.
R
This
the
way
this
is
written,
you
could
be
protesting
in
front
of
someone's
home,
say
a
legislator's
home
because
you
believe
that
they
have
violated
the
constitution
of
the
state.
You
reasonably
believe
they
have
violated
the
law,
so
you
are
protesting
in
front
of
their
home,
live
streaming,
their
address,
encouraging
others
to
to
come
there
and
potentially
cause
harm,
and
the
way
this
is
written
you
would
be
exempt
from
from
the
penalties.
R
L
L
N
L
M
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible,
this
is
holly
wellborn,
h-o-l-l-y
w-e-l-b-o-r-n
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada,
testifying
in
neutral
of
assembly
bill
296..
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
wen
and
the
anti-defamation
league
for
working
with
us
on
this
bill.
We
share
their
commitment
to
protecting
people
from
terrifying
harassment
and
from
racist
and
bigoted
attacks.
It
is
our
position
that
this
bill
makes
clear.
This
statute
cannot
be
used
by
government
officials
as
a
tool
to
punish
innocent
behavior
in
constitutionally
protected
speech.
M
So
many
defining
moments
in
our
nation's
fight
against
prejudice
and
systemic
racial
injustice
have
been
the
result
of
a
bystander
picking
up
a
camera
filming
a
video
of
an
individual,
engaging
in
bigoted
or
violent
behavior,
and
sharing
that
video
and
the
accompanying
identifying
information
online
again.
Thank
you
to
the
sponsor.
We
believe
this
bill
is
in
a
good
place
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
this
conversation.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
kyle.
I'm
going
to
turn
to
our
committee
council,
mr
anthony,
at
this
point,
to
clarify
for
us
how
this
would
affect
and
if
it
would
affect
peace
officers
and
specifically,
I'm
going
to
refer
to
nrs
289.025,
which
I
believe
currently
already
prohibits,
sharing
a
peace
officer's
home
address.
But
if
you
could
just
elucidate
for
us
what
would
and
would
not
be
allowed
under
this
proposed
law,
I
would
appreciate
it.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
scheible,
nick
anthony
for
the
record.
Turning
back
to
the
to
the
bill
at
page
three
subsection,
three,
the
exceptions
that
were
discussed
earlier,
I
think
the
paramount
component
there
is
in
paragraph
b,
which
says
which
depicts
a
law
enforcement
officer
or
a
public
officer
acting
so
the
bill
as
written
doesn't
apply,
say
after
hours,
somebody's
at
home
somebody's
being
harassed.
G
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
clarification,
assemblywoman
wynn
and
your
co-presenters.
Do
you
have
any
closing
comments.
C
I
will
try
to
keep
it
brief
roshawn
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
hearing
assembly
bill
296..
I
I
will
continue
to
reach
out
to
work
to
the
opposition.
I
will
be
honest.
That's
the
first
time
I've
heard
that
there's
any
opposition.
I
think
that
having
legal
clarify
the
intent
and
who
would
be
covered
by
this,
I
know
that
a
lot
of
times
in
this
building
people
say
bills,
don't
go
far
enough.
C
Like
you
heard,
this
is
a
pretty
new
concept
in
law,
and
this
bill
is
a
step
in
that
right
direction
to
be
able
to
target
those
individuals
that
are
working.
You
know
in
this.
You
know
it's
my
understanding
under
the
provisions
of
this
law,
a
situation
like
heather's
and
her
experience
would
actually
be
covered
in
this.
She
was.
This
is
not
talking
about
her
like
job
duties
when
she's
giving
a
press
conference
or
she's
in
her
office
or
and
she's
in
her
place
of
business.
C
She
doesn't
have
the
protections
of
her
address
being
protected
like
other
first
responders
or
law
enforcement.
You
know
officers
do
you
know
this
would
directly
be
on
her
and
targeting
her
family.
Her
phone
number,
her
personal
information,
her
children,
her
husband,
so
that
is
the
intent
in
this
legislation
and,
like
I
said,
I'd,
be
happy
to
continue
having
this
conversation
with
those
members
of
the
opposition.
C
Like
I
said
it's
the
first
time,
I'm
hearing
that
there
was
some
concern.
I
don't
know
if
it's
concerned
with
the
language
or
just
we
always
wanted
to
go
farther.
We
want
to
do
more,
but
I
don't
think
that
is
a
reason
to
throw
out
all
of
ab296
because
it
doesn't
go
far
enough.
We
sometimes
need
to
take
baby
steps
to
figure
out
and
make
sure
that
we
are
balancing
those
first
amendment
rights
with
those
and
protecting
our
community
in
this
new
online
area.
But
thank
you.
A
P
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
I'm
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
vinisha
considine.
I
represent
assembly
district
18
in
southeast
las
vegas
and
a
little
bit
of
henderson,
I'm
here
today
to
present
ab214,
which
revises
language
in
the
sexual
assault
and
seduction
statute.
P
P
P
P
P
P
The
laws
governing
sexual
assault
in
other
states
and
territories
of
the
united
states
and
any
other
matter
that
the
advisory
commission
determines
is
relevant
relevant
to
the
discussion,
recommendations
and
input
from
attorneys
victims
and
any
other
stakeholders
concerning
necessary.
Statutory
changes
relating
to
sexual
assault
will
be
included,
and
the
subcommittee
shall
report
the
results
of
the
study
in
any
recommendations
for
legislation
to
the
full
advisory
committee.
Not
later
than
september,
1st
2022,
the
first
section
of
the
of
assembly
bill
214,
becomes
effective.
On
july
1st,
I'm
sorry.
Q
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee
again
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans
and
I'm
the
policy
specialist
for
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
For
those
of
you
who
may
not
be
familiar
with
us,
the
nce,
dsb,
is
the
statewide
coalition
of
domestic
and
sexual
violence
service
providers
throughout
nevada,
and
the
bill
that
sits
here
before
you
all
today
is
a
product
of
a
lot
of
conversations,
outreach
and
collaboration
over
the
interim,
as
mentioned
earlier
by
assemblywoman
considine.
Q
This
was
the
works
of
former
assembly
member
connie
monk,
so
we're
very
thankful
for
her
for
getting
that
ball
rolling
and
we're
extremely
grateful
for
some
assembly
woman
considine
for
carrying
this
on.
So
throughout
the
co.
The
interim.
The
coalition
had
been
repeatedly
contacted
by
programs
sexual
assault
advocates
throughout
the
state
expressing
interest
in
wanting
to
work
on
the
nevada,
revised
statute
definition
of
sexual
assault,
stating
their
concerns
that
they
didn't
feel
it
was
inclusive
or
expansive
enough
to
cover
and
product
all
victim
survivors
throughout
our
state.
Q
So
this
work
group
was
really
not
anything
formal
but
just
kind
of
where
I
brought
together
advocates-
and
I
listened
to
what
their
concerns
were
with
the
current
statute,
and
we
had
a
conversation
of
what
the
ideal
statute
of
domestic
sorry
sexual
assault
would
look
like
for
the
state
of
nevada
and
one
of
the
concerns
among
many,
not
among
many,
but
among
others
that
rose
out
of
this
work
group
was
that
the
current
gendered
language
used
in
nrs
200.366
is
problematic
and
not
necessarily
inclusive
of
all
victim
survivors.
Q
So
many
clients
that
are
wonderful
advocacy
organizations
serve,
don't
identify
as
female
or
male
and
fall
onto
the
non-binary
gender
spectrum
and
the
current
himself
herself
language
that
is
used
in
nrs
is
exclusive
of
these
non-gen
non-gender.
Conforming
survivors
and
many
lgbtqia
qia
plus
survivors
didn't
feel
safe
to
come
forward
about
their
sexual
violence.
Victimization
many
lgbtqia
victim
survivors
also
felt
that
their
victimization
wasn't
fully
valid
or
taken
seriously
with
the
current
use
of
gendered
language.
Q
The
other
part
of
the
conversation
was
that
there
has
been
this
traditional
narrative
that
sexual
violence
perpetrators
are
always
male
and
the
victim
survivors
are
traditionally
always
female.
We
know
that
that's
just
not
true,
so,
regardless
of
the
gender
or
sexual
orientation
of
the
victim
and
or
the
sexual
orientation
of
the
perpetrator,
people
can
feel
safe
coming
forward
with
their
sexual
violence
and
sexual
assaults.
Q
Replacing
the
language
with
themselves
and
gender-neutral
language
will
allow
for
all
survivors
to
feel
comfortable
and
hopefully
safe,
coming
forward.
So
really
what
section
one
of
this
bill
comes
down
to
is
the
power
of
language.
Inclusive
language
is
necessary
for
the
safety
of
everyone,
super
small
changes,
but
really
meaningful
impact.
A
couple
pieces
of
data
that
I
just
want
to
leave
you
all
with
is
that,
according
to
the
2015
u.s
transgender
survey,
47
of
transgender
people
are
sexually
assaulted
at
some
point
in
their
lifetime.
Q
That's
nearly
half,
and
according
to
the
u.s
department
of
justice,
sexual
assault
is
one
of
the
most
underreported
violent
crimes,
with
only
about
one-third
of
victim
survivors
reporting
to
law
enforcement.
So
if
we
can
make
this
small
change
to
increase
the
likelihood
of
more
survivors
feeling
comfortable
enough
to
come
forward
and
potentially
report
to
law
enforcement,
that
means
we
are
increasing
the
number
of
perpetrators
that
can
be
held
accountable.
Q
The
second
part
of
this
bill
and
the
conceptual
amendment
up
on
nellis
section
two
is
honestly
the
first
step
in
what
is
a
larger
effort
to
address
positive
changes
in
our
sexual
assault
laws
in
nevada,
and
so
this
proposed
amendment
adds
the
language
just
that
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice
bring
together
all
these
wonderful
stakeholders
to
collaborate
on
the
sexual
assault
and
consent
language.
Q
So,
throughout
our
work
group
that
we
held
back
in
november,
there
was
you
know,
kind
of
a
laundry
list
of
what
the
ideal
definition
of
sexual
assault
would
look
like
and
over
the
interim
we
were
working
with
different
stakeholders,
but
it
was
just
we
were
being
rushed
and
we
didn't.
We
didn't
have
the
time
to
commit
to
really
be
able
to
create
a
perfect
definition
that
would
work
for
everyone
and
for
victim
survivors
and
so
ourselves
at
the
coalition.
Q
Other
stakeholders
are
committed
on
working
on
this
throughout
the
interim
to
make
sure
that
the
final
product
that
does
come
out
comes
before
you
guys.
Hopefully,
next
legislative
session
is
a
really
good
piece
of
legislation
that
stakeholders
survivors,
advocates
all
feel
comfortable
bringing
forward,
and
so
the
intent
is
to
kind
of
look
at
the
definition
of
sexual
assault.
Q
Not
just
limiting
it
to
rape
is
what
it
currently
is
looking
at
our
consent
laws
and
then
hopefully
creating
a
sexual
assault
statute
that
encompasses
the
many
different
acts
of
sexual
violence,
and
so
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
all
might
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
also
warn
you
that
it
is
3
22.
I
know
other
committees
start
meeting
at
3
30,
and
so
I
expect
that
some
members
of
this
committee
will
be
slipping
out
and
I
don't
want
you
to
take
it
personally.
That
being
said,
are
there
questions
from
members
of
this
committee
senator
pickard.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
both
for
bringing
the
bill.
As
you
probably
know,
I
will
occasionally
represent
these
victims,
and
so
I'm
pretty
passionate
about
this
subject
as
well.
So
I
want
to
try
to
get
the
language
as
tight
as
we
can
also.
I
sit
on
the
advisory
commission,
though
I
assume
that
someone
has
spoken
to
the
leadership
there
and
that
they
can
take
this
on
so
because
we
are
pretty
busy.
Let
me
look
we'll
take
this
in
order.
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
mean
I
think
we
could
change
that
language
to
reflect
that
we're
not
asking
we're
not
worried
about
the
person
offending
against
themselves,
the
individual
against
the
same
individual
and
then
I
think
in
b.
It's
backwards.
I
think
we
want
to
say
the
perpetrator
instead
of
the
child,
because
we
don't
commit
a
sexual
penetration
upon
a
child
under
the
age
of
14
or
causes
a
child
under
the
age
of
14
years
to
make
a
sexual
penetration
on
the
child
themselves
right.
I
P
Thank
you
for
the
question
for
the
record,
this
vinisha
constandine.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
pickard
and
I
will
answer
it,
but
I
will
also
allow
miss
evans
to
follow
up.
It
was
my
understanding
that
the
way
that
this
was
originally
written
was
that
for
subsection,
1a
subjects
a
person
to
sexual
penetration
or
forces
that
person
to
make
a
sexual
penetration
on
themselves.
I
P
Same
thing
with
subsection
1b,
where
it
is
the
sexual
penetration
upon
a
child
or
to
have
the
child,
make
the
sexual
penetration
upon
themselves.
But
I
will.
I
I
All
right-
and
I
guess
I
read
that
the
other
direction,
so
maybe
we
have
a
third
condition
that
we
should
consider,
because
I
know
my
wife
being
a
district
court
judge
now,
having
previously
had
the
position
of
hearing
the
child
or
the
juvenile
sex
offense
cases,
she
will
tell
you
all
three
conditions
exist.
We
might
want
to
address
that.
Thank
you.
That's
all
I
have
madam
chair.
P
Thank
you
if
I'm
for
the
record
vanisha
conceding.
I
just
want
to
follow
up
with
that.
Thank
you
for
for
bringing
that
up
and
thank
you
for
sort
of
reinforcing
why
we've
added
section
two,
because
I
do
believe
that
we
need
to
have
an
advisory
committee,
look
at
all
this
and
update
these,
because
they
are
very
old
and
and
need
more
effectiveness
in
our
statutes.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you
and
madam
chair,
I
apologize
one
other
thing
on
its
section:
one
sub
four:
we
are
talking
about
a
category,
a
felony,
a
possibility
of
prison
without
possibility
of
parole
for
a
16
to
18
year
old.
I
There's,
no
reference
to
whether
or
not
that
individual
has
been
direct
reported
to
the
adult
court
and
I
believe
the
supreme
court
has
come
out
and
the
chair
can
speak
to
this.
I
believe
they
spoke
about
life
without
possibility
of
parole
being
unconstitutional
for
a
minor.
So
we
might
want
to
look
at
that
language
as
well
anyway.
I'm
completely
supportive
of
the
bill
just
want
to
make
sure
we
tighten
it
up
and-
and
you
know
we
address
ambiguities
so
that
there's
no
loopholes,
there's
no
way
to
get
around
this.
A
All
right
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
I
now
do
want
to
clarify-
and
I
think
this
actually
may
be
more
of
a
question
for
mr
anthony
than
for
the
sponsors
of
the
bill,
but
as
a
person
who
prosecutes
these
kinds
of
cases,
I
utilize
nrs
200.366
off
both
subsections
to
address
pretty
much
every
possible
scenario,
and
my
understanding
is
that
subsection,
a
which
starts
on
line
four,
the
that
offense
subjecting
another
person
to
sexual
penetration
is
what
we
traditionally
think
of
as
rape.
A
That
would
be
where
the
perpetrator
inserts
his
or
her
fingers
penis
other
object
into
the
child's
genital
opening.
Then
the
second
part
of
subsection,
a
forces,
another
person
to
make
a
sexual
penetration
on
themselves
or
another
is
the
part
where
an
individual
is
forcing
somebody
to
either.
A
You
know
sexually
penetrate
the
perpetrator
or
use
an
object
or
their
fingers
to
put
it
in
their
own
genital
opening.
Sorry,
that's
for
all
people,
and
then
part
b
is
the
same
thing
for
a
child.
Is
that
accurate.
G
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
that's
absolutely
correct.
A
L
N
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association.
We
are
in
support
of
ab214
and
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
constantine
for
reaching
out
to
us
on
this
bill
early.
N
The
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
de-gender
the
sex
assault
statute
and
we
completely
support
that
effort,
but
I
do
want
to
make
clear
on
the
record
that
the
intent
is
not
to
substantively
change
any
other
part
of
the
sex
assault
statute,
except
to
remove
the
gendered
language.
I
also
want
to
say
I
appreciate
the
senator
pickard's
question.
N
Maybe
in
section
1
sub
b
we
should
add
themselves
after
the
word
child
and
then
additionally,
in
section
one
sub,
five
excuse
me
section
one
sub
five
sub
b
on
page
three,
where
it
says
the
persons.
We
should
probably
change
that
to
the
perpetrators,
to
be
consistent
with
the
change
that
was
made
in
section
one
sub
a,
but
with
that
chair
scheible,
we
are
fully
supportive
of
the
intent
behind
the
bill.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
we
get
the
language
correct,
as
senator
pickard
indicated.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
caller
and
if
you've
recently
joined
us
this
afternoon,
we
are
currently
on
support
testimony
for
assembly
bill
214.
If
you'd
like
to
provide
support
to
testimony
at
this
time,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
cube
once
again
for
anyone
just
joining
us
we're
currently
on
support
testimony
for
assembly
bill
214.
If
you'd
like
to
provide
support
testimony
at
this
time,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
L
N
R
L
R
A
P
Thank
you,
vinicia
considine,
for
the
record.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
all
the
senators
for
for
listening
to
the
bill
and
for
asking
any
of
your
questions.
These
might
seem
like
small
changes,
but
they
make
huge
impacts
and
we
look
forward
to
improving
these
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
A
D
Good
afternoon
sheriff
shebo
vice
chair
cannizzaro
and
members
of
the
committee
and
the
committee
manager.
My
name
is
becky
harris.
Presently,
I'm
an
adjunct
law,
professor
at
unlv
and
teach
law,
725
gaming
law
and
policy
chair
yeager
generously
made
a
bill
available
for
the
law
class
you'd
like
to
provide
the
committee
with
some
context
about
the
genesis
and
development
of
ab405
prior
to
the
start
of
the
semester.
D
After
hearing
the
suggestions,
the
students
selected
an
issue
they
wanted
to
study
and
advocate
for
chairman
yeager
graciously
agreed
to
include
each
student's
issue
in
the
bill.
Students
then
wrote
white
papers
and
were
required
to
draft
a
bdr
for
their
issues,
both
of
which
were
submitted
to
chairman
yeager,
and
I
understand
that
our
draft
bdrs
were
forwarded
to
lcb
drafting
staff.
D
The
students
were
are
also
driving
the
advocacy
for
the
bill
and
have
reached
out
to
over
55
stakeholders
within
the
gaming
industry
in
nevada
for
feedback,
including
the
gaming
control
board.
Today,
you
will
hear
testimony
directly
from
two
of
the
students,
one
of
which
has
a
conceptual
amendment
based
on
stakeholder
feedback
and
that's
specifically,
the
gaming
control
board
der
scheibel,
thanks
for
having
us
before
the
committee
today,
and
if
it
is
your
pleasure,
I
would
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
tanner
britton.
S
Thank
you,
professor
harris,
and
thank
you
chair,
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
having
us
here
today.
S
As
professor
harris
has
stated,
my
name
is
tanner
britton,
I'm
a
third-year
student
at
boyd
school
of
law
down
here
in
vegas,
I'm
in
the
gaming
law
policy
seminar
over
the
course
of
the
past
semester,
myself
and
four
other
classmates
of
mine
have
worked
hard
to
draft
the
sections
or
the
five
sections
of
assembly
bill
405.
S
today,
I'm
here
to
speak
more
specifically
on
behalf
of
section
five
of
the
bill,
as
I
am
the
drafter
of
that
section.
The
remaining
four
sections
of
the
bill
have
since
been
amended,
which
are
available
on
amendment
325.,
with
the
initial,
with
an
additional
proposed
amendment
to
be
here
today
who,
after
I'm
done
presenting
I'll
pass
I'll
pass
on
to
my
classmate
erica
who's.
In
here.
S
Who
will
talk
about
her
amendments
so
section
five
of
a
of
assembly
bill
405,
proposes
an
amendment
to
nrs
465.00
regarding
the
criminalization
of
match
fixing
with
the
rise
of
legalized
sports
wagering
nationwide,
the
issue
of
match
fixing
becomes
more
and
more
prevalent
than
ever
in
the
eyes
of
law
enforcement
match
fixing
by
definition
of
sports
bribery
act
in
concurrence
with
with
other
research
on
the
topic
occurs
when
a
person
partnership
corporation-
or,
I
guess
just
an
entity
in
general
attempts
to
influence
the
outcome
of
a
sporting
event.
S
The
most
common
means
of
doing
so
is
bribery.
However,
threats
of
extortion
and
blackmail
are
also
two
other
other
prevalent
topics
in
the
world
of
match
fixing.
I,
the
marquette
university
law
review,
has
chronicled
in
detail
over
30
gambling
related
incidents
between
1945
and
1998..
S
Now,
obviously,
since
then,
with
the
repeal
of
passport
and
the
more
prevalence
and
acceptance
of
sports
wagering
nationwide
that
that
certainly
renders
match
fixing
more
of
a
hot
button
issue,
it
occurs
at
both
the
professional
and
collegiate
level.
However,
it's
disproportional
disproportional
where
collegiate
athletes
are
targeted
by
these
potential
match
fixtures.
S
The
issue
reeling
it
back
to
nevada,
I
think
a
fixed
match,
or
even
the
possibility
of
a
fixed
match,
violates
the
integrity
of
these
events
and
and
the
integrity
of
events
widget
on
at
sportsbooks
in
nevada.
The
amendment
to
nrs
465.070
isn't
the
end-all,
be-all
solution
to
the
issue
of
match
fixing.
S
However,
it's
a
great
start,
and
after
reaching
out
to
law
enforcement
and
law
enforcement
agencies,
it's
it's
good
to
provide
clarification
on
the
issue
where,
where
it
can
be
kind
of
a
gray
area,
assembly
bill,
405,
section
5
would
be
unique
and
that
no
other
state
kind
of
really
kind
of
defines
or
has
a
statute
defying
and
clarifying
the
issue
of
what
is
and
is
not
constituted,
match
fixing
assembly
bill
405
would
keep
and
about
at
the
forefront
of
gaming
regulation.
S
S
At
the
same
time,
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
now
or
I
would
be
happy
to
pass
it
on
to
my
classmate
erica
to
speak
on
her
section
and
then
answer
questions
after
or
whatever
you
feel
is
appropriate.
I
H
Good
afternoon
joe
schreibel
vice
chair,
canezaro
members
of
the
committee
committee
manager
for
the
record,
my
name
is
erica
adler.
I'm
an
llm
student
in
the
gaming
law
and
regulation
program
here
at
boyd,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
before
you
today.
I
will
be
presenting
on
the
foreign
gaming
section
of
this
bill,
which
was
amended
out
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
But
since
that
hearing
I've
worked
with
the
board
and
we've
come
to
an
agreement
on
an
amendment.
H
H
The
new
proposed
amendment
that
we've
agreed
to
would
simply
remove
nrs
463
point
seven
one
zero
section,
one
b,
which
requires
that
a
nevada
gaming
licensee
who
operates
gaming
outside
of
nevada,
submit
to
the
gaming
control
board,
their
systems
of
accounting
and
internal
controls
used
in
the
foreign
gaming
operations
and
any
amendments.
As
soon
as
they're
made,
the
removal
of
section
1b
would
effectively
reduce
some
of
the
reporting
requirements
that
some
licensees
submit
to
the
to
nevada
gaming
regarding
their
operations.
H
This
change
from
an
approval
process
to
only
reporting
requirements
was
done
because
in
the
early
90s
there
was
a
wave
of
jurisdictions
legalizing
gaming
across
the
u.s
and
nevada
gaming.
Companies
wanted
to
expand
into
those
new
markets,
but
the
approval
process
took
too
long.
The
legislature
found
that
instead
of
an
approval
process,
reports
would
be
a
more
efficient
means
of
ensuring
nevada
gaming
companies
operating
in
these
new
markets,
we're
doing
so
in
accordance
with
nevada's
high
gaming
standards.
H
H
So,
as
mentioned
after
dialogue
with
the
board
after
the
last
hearing,
we've
agreed
to
this
proposed
amendment,
which
would
remove
nrs
463.710
section
1b
and
be
a
means
to
update
how
foreign
gaming
is
reported
by
nevada
gaming
licensees
to
the
board.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
please
stand
ready
for
any
questions.
A
All
right
are
there
any
questions?
I
don't
have
any
questions.
I
appreciate
both
of
you
being
here
to
present
and
we
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
and
support
of
ab405.
L
L
L
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
ab405.
Thank
you
so
much
to
our
presenters
for
joining
us
today,
via
zoom,
to
explain
eb405
to
us.
I
think
I
mentioned
shortly
before
your
presentation
that
a
number
of
our
committee
members
had
to
leave
to
attend
their
next
committee
meeting,
so
I
will
be
providing
your
contact
information
to
them.
They
may
be
reaching
out
to
you
with
questions
that
they
have
when
they've
had
a
chance
to
review
the
recording
of
this
hearing
and
read
the
bill
and
do
their
other
due
diligence.