►
From YouTube: 2/13/2023 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Again
just
want
to
remind
people
that
we're
asking
and
I
know
that
this
is
new,
but
going
forward
for
all
of
your
exhibits,
your
PowerPoints
anything
like
that
to
refrain
from
including
any
logos
or
pictures
or
anything
like
that.
That
causes
an
actual
copyright
issue
that
we're
asking
that
you
just
submit
them
just
with
the
text
and
any
basic
computer
generated
graphs
or
charts
that
you've
included
it
just
again.
A
Our
goal
is
always
to
make
sure
that
members
in
the
community
have
the
ability
to
view
those
during
the
presentation,
but
that
we
can
always
have
them
uploaded
for
future
for
future
use.
As
people
look
back
on
previous
sessions
again
for
anyone
testifying,
we
ask
that
you
state
and
spell
your
name
and
identify
any
affiliation.
You
have
for
the
record.
We
will
have
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
and
today
we
have
two
bills.
A
So
with
our.
This
is
the
first
two
bills
that
we
are
hearing
today
in
the
82nd
session,
and
with
that
we're
honored
to
have
our
speaker,
Steve
Yeager
with
us
presenting
those
first
two
bills.
It
seems
that
it
is
the
appropriate
considering
that
speaker,
Yeager
has
chaired
this
committee
for
the
last
three
sessions,
so
I
was
honored
to
be
able
to
give
him
the
opportunity
to
open
up
with
the
first
two
Bill
hearings,
and
so
we
are
taking
the
bills
out
of
order,
which
means
we
will
actually
start
with
assembly
bill
76.
C
Thank
you
so
much
Madam
chair,
Madame,
Vice,
chair
members
of
the
assembly,
Judiciary
Committee,
my
name
is
Steve.
Yeager
I
represent
Assembly
District
9,
and
it
really
is
an
honor
to
be
in
front
of
this
committee.
It
feels
a
little
strange,
not
seeing
a
place
for
me
on
this
committee.
C
So
let
me
thank
you
in
advance
for
the
work
you're
going
to
do
in
the
next
113
days
or
so,
and
so
it's
my
pleasure
today
to
present
the
first
two
bills
of
assembly
Judiciary
to
you
and
as
a
chair
noted,
we'll
start
with
assembly,
Bill
76,
which
I'm
not
going
to
say
it's
a
simple
bill,
because
that
is
the
kiss
of
death.
But
it's
a
simple
presentation
of
the
bill,
and
so
I'll
just
go
through
some
brief
remarks
and
then
be
happy
to
take
any
questions
you
might
have.
C
So
this
bill
deals
with
the
recovery
cost
of
witness
fees.
The
cost
of
expert
Witnesses
in
the
civil
lawsuit
can
obviously
be
substantial
and,
as
such,
it's
often
a
significant
factor
in
the
overall
cost
of
litigation.
C
In
some
cases,
the
cost
may
be
so
high
that
it
can
significantly
impact
the
ability
of
a
party
to
pursue
their
legal
rights.
So
somebody
else
76
in
front
of
you
increases
the
amount
recoverable
by
the
prevailing
side
in
a
civil
case
for
the
cost
of
expert
Witnesses.
The
last
time
this
amount
was
increased
was
1989,
which
I
believe
my
math
is
good,
was
34
years
ago.
So
I'll
take
you
through
just
a
brief
history
of
of
this
amount
that
you
find
in
statute.
C
The
very
first
bill
that
authorized
a
court
to
award
the
prevailing
side.
Witness
fees
was
sponsored
by
the
legendary
Senator
Bill
raggio
in
1977
and
back
then
he
set
the
amount
at
250
dollars.
So
that
was
where
we
started
at
the
very
beginning,
and
then
it
has
been
increased
a
couple
times
since
then
in
1981,
the
government
Affairs
Committee
in
the
Senate
increased
it
to
750
dollars.
So
you
saw
in
a
four-year
time
frame
it
essentially
tripled
from
250
to
750.,
and
then
we
waited
another
eight
years
in
1989
a
couple
of
assemblymen.
C
C
The
other
provisions
of
the
bill
and
I
know
you
had
a
chance
to
read
them,
but
but
basically
this
would
apply
to
up
to
five
expert
Witnesses
and
there
is
a
provisionaire
that
allows
a
judge
to
Grant
above
and
beyond
the
statutory
amount.
But
typically
there
has
to
be
emotion
practice
to
do
that.
C
So
the
idea
here
is
to
say:
let's
go
ahead
and
increase
this
amount,
because
what's
happening
now,
I
think
in
almost
every
civil
case
is
the
winning
party
and
again
this
applies
to
The
Winning
Side
of
the
litigation,
whether
it's
the
plaintiff
or
the
defendant
after
the
case
is
over.
They
come
in
and
ask
the
court
to
grant
them
more
than
the
fifteen
hundred
dollars,
because
the
statute
allows
that.
But
there
has
to
be
all
this
motion
practice
that
goes
with
this,
and
so
that
increases
cost
increases.
C
Time
increases
the
inconvenience
of
the
court,
and
so
really
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
align.
This
number
to
Common
practices
today
is
very
difficult
to
find
an
expert
witness
who
will
do
anything
for
fifteen
hundred
dollars
because
you're
talking
about
a
case,
that's
going
all
the
way
through
trial.
So
if
you
think
about
I'll,
just
take
a
medical
malpractice
case
where
you're
hiring
a
physician
to
be
your
expert,
witness
they're
not
doing
anything
for
fifteen
hundred
dollars,
maybe
fifteen
hundred
dollars
an
hour.
C
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
folks
are
able
to
pursue
their
case
in
litigation
without
this
idea
that
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
to
recover
those
costs
that
they
need
to
lay
out
to
actually
prosecute
that
litigation
and
again
we'll
just
point
out.
This
is
for
the
prevailing
side.
So
it's
not
a
defense-friendly
mechanism.
C
It's
not
a
plaintiff
friendly
mechanism,
whatever
side
would
be
able
to
come
in
and
ask
for
the
recovery
of
those
expert,
Witnesses,
so
I'm
going
to
leave
it
at
that,
and
hopefully
that's
one
of
the
shorter
Bill
presentations
you
have
this
this
session,
but
chair
and
committee
members
I
would
obviously
urge
your
support
of
assembly
Bill,
76
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
might
have.
A
D
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record
share
through
you
to
assemblywoman
mosca,
that's
an
excellent
question
and
one
that
I
don't
have
the
answer
for
at
the
tip
of
my
tongue.
So
if
you
give
me
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
that,
I'm
gonna,
I'm,
gonna,
guess
that
states
are
kind
of
all
over
the
map
in
terms
of
what
they
do.
But
I
did
not
have
a
chance
to
look
at
that
and
I
appreciate
that
suggestion.
E
Good
morning,
sir,
so
with
this
fee,
if
it's
and
this
I
may
have
a
follow-on
to
this
as
well,
will
this
bump
in
fee
with
that
cover
I
mean?
So
if
you've
got
an
expert
witness
coming
in
for
DNA,
would
it
cover
DNA
testing
as
well
that
that
correlates
with
a
you
know
with
his
independent
lab
that
he,
you
know,
he's
obviously
going
to
want
to
retest.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
appreciate
that
I
want
to
make
a
couple
things
clear.
First
of
all,
it's
only
going
to
apply
to
civil
civil
litigation,
so
if
it's
a
criminal
case,
no
fees
allowed.
But
if
you
had
a
civil
case
where
you
needed
an
expert
witness
like
I'm
thinking
about
if
there
was
a
criminal
case
based
on
a
sexual
assault
and
maybe
out
of
that
comes
a
civil
suit,
where
perhaps
the
DNA
becomes
relevant.
If
you
had
to
hire
an
expert
either
as
the
the
defendant
or
as
the
plaintiff.
C
In
that
case,
this
would
be
eligible
to
be
recovered.
Now,
I
will
note
I
don't
want
to
get
too
much
into
the
Weeds
on
the
litigation
part
of
it,
but
sometimes
costs
are
required
to
be
awarded,
and
sometimes
they
are
discretionary
depending
on
the
types
of
cases.
But
if
you,
if
you
had
to
hire
that
expert
and
retain
them,
you'd
obviously
have
to
submit
proof
to
the
court
that
you
know
what
the
Billings
were.
C
But
the
court
would
have
the
ability,
under
this
statute,
to
reimburse
the
prevailing
party
for
the
costs
up
to
fifteen
thousand
dollars,
so
that
would
qualify
really
any
expert
witness
in
your
case
and
I
guess.
I
should
note
that
too,
because
I
know
we
don't
have
all
lawyers
on
the
committee,
but
you
know
an
expert
witness
has
to
be
deemed
an
expert
witnessed
by
the
court.
C
F
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
for
being
our
very
first
build
nice
to
see
you
I
was
just
wondering
how
you
came
to
the
15
000
number.
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record.
That's
also
an
excellent
question
and
I'd
love
to
tell
you
that
there
was
a
real
scientific
way.
I
came
to
that
I.
Don't
think
there
is
one
of
the
things
I
did
was
look
at
sort
of
the
history
of
of
the
numbers,
and
so
it
looked
like
it
took
us
about
four
years
to
Triple
the
number
and
then
eight
years
to
double
the
number
and
I
said.
Well,
it's
been
34
years.
C
So
if
we
doubled
every
four
to
eight
years,
we'd
actually
be
way
up
and
run
thirty
thousand
dollars,
so
I
scaled
that
back
to
15..
One
of
the
considerations
was
typically
speaking.
If
you
go
all
the
way
through
litigation,
you
go
to
a
verdict,
whether
it's
in
front
of
a
jury
or
a
court
fifteen
thousands
of
pretty
good
amount
in
terms
of
that's
going
to
cover
most
expert
witnesses
to
get
you
through
trial.
Of
course,
there
are
exceptions.
C
If
you
have
an
extraordinarily
complex
civil
litigation
case,
you
could
have
an
expert
witness,
that's
well
over
fifteen
thousand,
but
this
statute
would
still
allow
the
court
to
consider
that.
But
what
I
wanted
to
try
to
do
is
find
that
sweet
spot
where,
for
the
most
part,
we're
not
going
to
have
additional
motion
practice
with
expert
Witnesses.
I
will
say
this
just
as
always.
This
is
a
starting
point
for
the
bill.
C
So
if
this
committee,
it's
in
your
hands
to
decide
what
the
right
number
is,
and
so
certainly
I'm
willing
to
take
suggestions
or
considerations,
if
you
think
that
number
is
too
high
or
too
low,
but
I
thought
it
was
a
good
starting
point.
Given
it's
been
34
years
since
we've
had
any
increase.
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
just
have
a
question
because
I'm
curious.
Do
you
know
why
there's
such
a
difference
in
how
we
determine
attorneys
fees
through
the
court
and
expert
fees
right
because
for
attorney's
fees
you
have
to
prove
you
have
to
go
through
the
case
law
improve.
G
You
know
the
quality
of
the
work,
the
how
hard
the
work
was
and
and
other
different
factors
that
you
have
to
go
through
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
with
expert
Witnesses.
You
have
that
requirement.
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record,
also
an
excellent
question:
I,
don't
know
that
I
have
a
a
scientific
basis,
but
just
thinking
about
it,
my
guess
is
that
you
know
most
of
our
well
I.
Think
all
of
our
district
court
judges
who
would
be
presiding
over
trials
are
attorneys.
So
perhaps
there's
a
little
bit
in
a
little
bit
makes
sense
to
have
them
have
a
vetting
process
of
how
the
attorneys
did
in
the
case-
and
my
thought
was,
you
know,
maybe
maybe
expert
Witnesses.
The
court
obviously
might
not
be
an
expert
in
that
field.
C
A
I
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record.
We
didn't
find
any
bills
in
the
past
34
years,
so
it
may
have
just
been
I
guess
it
was
under
the
radar.
Nobody
thought
about
it.
I
will
say
it.
You
know
one
of
the
reasons
I
brought.
This
is
It's
been
brought
to
my
attention
more
frequently
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
where
people
go
into
court
and
say:
wow
1500
isn't
really
much
in
today's
world,
so
I'm
not
sure,
but
you
know
it
does
demonstrate
that
we're
so
busy
doing
other
things
up
here.
J
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record
I
think
that's
definitely
true
depending
on
the
circumstance,
but
you
know
anyone
who's
done
these
trials,
whether
it's
a
doctor
or
it's
an
architect
or
it's
a
real
estate
agent.
You
know
there
really
is
a
an
inconvenience
to
them
right
to
have
to
be
there
to
testify,
obviously
they're
being
retained
and
they
get
compensated.
But
there
is
an
impact,
and
especially
some
of
the
the
some
of
the
cases
I
mean
if
you're
using
a
solo
practitioner,
a
very
small
practice.
C
They
really
have
to
be
out
all
day,
and
those
of
you
who
have
been
in
trial
know
like
much
like
the
legislative
process.
Trial
is
very
unpredictable,
so
you'll
tell
them
to
be
there
Monday
morning
at
eight
and
they
might
not
testify
until
Wednesday
morning
at
nine.
So
you've
got
a
couple
of
days
there
and-
and
you
know,
certainly
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
compensated
for
their
time
and
again
you
have
to
Prevail
in
the
lawsuit.
K
Thank
you,
chair
good,
to
see
you
speak
Mr
Speaker
in
front
of
us
rather
than
town
to
my
left,
just
really
to
just
go
off
of
what
my
colleague
assembly,
woman,
marzola,
just
asked
about
them
losing
time
from
their
practice
in
a
medical
malpractice.
Just
curious
aren't
most
expert
Witnesses.
Would
that
be
a
fair
generalization?
This
is
kind
of
what
they
do
all
the
time.
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record,
I
would
say
it
really
depends
greatly.
There
are
certainly
folks
who
only
do
expert
witness
work,
although
I'll
tell
you
as
a
practicing
attorney
I,
don't
like
to
hire
those
kind
of
folks,
because
it's
very
easy
to
cross-examine
them.
You're
a
Hired
Gun
right,
so
I
in
my
mind,
I
think
the
the
best
Acts
were
Witnesses
are
ones
who
are
actually
practicing
and
and
I.
Think
that
really
is
more
the
trend.
C
I
guess
I
would
say
in
probably
like
big
National,
multi-million
dollar
cases,
you're
going
to
have
firms
that
just
provide
expert
witness
services,
but
most
of
the
work
that
I've
seen
done,
particularly
in
Las
Vegas.
They
tend
to
be
practicing
Physicians,
so
they
have
a
practice
on
the
side,
but
then
they
also
do
some
expert
witness
testimony.
I
mean
if
you
take,
for
example,
a
car
accident
case.
C
The
victim
of
that
car
accident
is,
is
most
likely
going
to
go,
see
a
seek
medical
services,
whether
it
be
at
the
hospital
and
of
course
those
doctors
are
practicing
there
or
whether
it
be
physical
therapy
or
Chiropractic.
So
you
know
that
they
are.
Those
experts
are
providing
that
service,
and
normally
you
will
have
the
physician
who's
actually
treating
the
person
come
in
and
talk
about.
C
You
know
what
happened
in
the
case
and
so
I
think
maybe
the
more
esoteric
the
issue
gets
the
more
you're
going
to
find
kind
of
an
academic
person,
but
by
and
large
are
the
ones
that
I've
dealt
with
tend
to
be
practicing
Physicians
as
well.
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record,
so
that's
a
great
question
in
terms
of
process.
Typically,
what
would
happen?
Is
you
get
a
jury
verdict
or
a
judge
verdict
and
then
the
prevailing
side
actually
files
a
motion
asking
for
their
costs
and
fees?
So
it
would,
it
would
happen
there.
The
judge
can
issue
those
or
whether
or
not
the
case
gets
appealed
if
the
case
gets
appealed.
A
Thank
you,
members
for
your
questions
with
that
I
believe
that's
the
end
of
our
questions,
so
I
will
open
it
up
for
Testimony,
just
a
reminder
that
our
rules
when
it
comes
to
test
testifying
in
support
of
a
bill
that
means
that
you're
supporting
the
bill
in
its
entirety,
based
on
how
it
was
presented
right
now,
so
the
same
with
opposition
you're,
opposing
it
in
its
entirety
and,
of
course,
there's
also
the
opportunity
to
support
in
neutral.
A
So
with
that
I
will
open
it
up.
We'll
first
go
to
anyone
here
in
Carson
City
that
would
like
to
approach
in
support
of
assembly,
Bill
76
and
then
we'll
move
to
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
and
then,
of
course,
anyone
on
the
phone
lines.
So,
if
there's
anyone
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
again,
you
will
have
up
to
two
minutes
for
your
testimony.
So
if
you're
here
in
Carson
City,
please
approach.
A
M
A
A
Yes,
everything
is
the
same
for
both
okay.
Thank
you.
So
let
me
announce
this
for
those
that
are
watching,
because
I
wouldn't
want
someone
to
miss
it.
The
phone
number
is.
A
A
Thank
you
with
that.
Then
we
will
move
to
anyone
interested
in
testifying
in
opposition
here
in
Carson
City.
Please
approach.
M
A
C
Thank
you
so
much
Madam,
chair,
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record
I
say
that's
unusual
that
you
don't
get
any
testimony
on
a
bill.
So
I
think
we
won't
have
that
on
the
next
one,
but
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
your
thoughtful
consideration
and
for
your
questions
and
as
always,
happy
to
continue
discussing
the
bill.
If
you
have
questions
after
this
morning's
hearing
and
would
just
ask
for
a
positive
outcome
in
assembly,
Bill
76-
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Madam,
chair
and
committee.
A
A
C
The
bill
also
exempts
from
registration
requirements
certain
offers
or
Securities
sales,
so
I
thought
we'd
have
a
civil
litigation
Bill
and
then
we
would
jump
to
Securities
today
and
that
I
think
demonstrates
the
breadth
of
the
topics
that
you'll
tend
to
hear
in
this
committee.
So
let
me
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
on
assembly
bill
75..
It
revises
Nevada's
Blue,
Sky
laws.
The
term
blue
sky
law
was
popularized
by
Supreme
Court
Justice
Joseph
McKenna
in
1917,
when
he
referred
to
speculative
schemes
that
have
no
more
basis
than
so
many
feet
of
blue
sky.
C
The
blue
skylofts
here
in
Nevada,
were
written
in
the
1990s
and
they
limit
who
may
invest
in
certain
private
Investments
within
the
state.
The
purpose,
which
was
a
very
good
one,
was
to
ensure
that
the
investor
had
the
knowledge
and
expertise
to
participate
in
these
offerings,
while
protecting
others
without
the
expertise
from
the
risk
of
losing
their
investment.
C
Nevada's
laws
are
hardwired
to
specific
federal
law
and
Regulatory
language
related
to
the
Securities
and
Exchange
commission's
Federal
accredited
investor.
Although
these
federal
laws
and
regulations
have
changed,
Nevada's
laws
have
not.
This
bill
would
provide
a
much
needed
update
to
Nevada's
Blue
Sky
laws.
Now
I
will
say
that
I
think
there's
always
a
balance
between
allowing
folks
to
invest
and
consumer
protection.
C
I'm,
not
sure
we're.
We've
landed
in
the
right
place
on
this
bill.
Quite
yet,
but
here
we
are
in
week
two
of
the
sessions
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
this
committee
know
that
I
appreciate
you
hearing
this
bill.
I
think
there's
probably
still
some
work
to
be
done
as
you'll
hear
from
other
folks
today,
but
you
can't
get
the
ball
rolling
until
you
have
the
hearing.
So
we
are
here
for
that
and
to
discuss
the
actual
bill
is
the
real
expert
on
this
topic
and
that's
Jeff
sailing.
C
He
and
I
have
been
working
on
this
issue
for
a
couple
of
years.
Now
he's
the
co-founder
and
executive
director
of
startup
NV,
which
I
think
some
of
you
may
have
heard
of
it's
a
non-profit,
Statewide
business,
incubator
and
accelerator.
So
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
over
to
Mr
sailing
to
take
you
through
some
more
information
about
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
bill
and
then,
with
your
permission,
Madam
chair,
we'll
try
our
best
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
has.
N
N
A
N
Yep
fantastic,
so
what
you
see
in
front
of
I?
Thank
you
I'm,
not
as
good
with
the
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
all
the
rest
of
that
stuff.
So
hopefully
they'll
be
some
forgiveness.
It's.
N
Right
great,
so
the
way
that
most
investment
works
is
that
a
Founder
is
going
to
ask
investors
for
money
and
they
generally
go
through
the
process
that
you
see
on
this
diagram.
Starting
with
an
idea,
you
know
validating
the
concept
developing
a
beta
or
an
MVP,
launching
the
product
going
out
to
the
market,
generating
revenue
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
N
Under
the
the
bubbles
you'll
see
sort
of
where
the
money
is
expected
to
come
from
as
they
get
through
each
of
these
stages
and
the
areas
and
whether
or
not
they're
actually
have
a
company.
That's
making
money
yet
or
not,
and
the
place
that
AB
75
focuses
is
on
sort
of
the
the
red
area
in
this
graph
from
concept
validation
through
Market
validation,
and
that's
where
the
investors
that
would
be
investing
under
the
scenario
proposed
and
ab
75
would
be
focused.
So
with
that
as
context
I'll
go
into
some
of
the
the
data.
N
You
have
to
have
a
million
dollars
of
net
worth
outside
of
your
principal
residence
or
you
can
be
earning
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
W-2
income
or,
if
you're,
a
couple
three
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
there's
as
you
might
imagine,
it's
a
fairly
limited
part
of
our
population.
N
According
to
the
research
that
I
did
about,
almost
nine
percent
of
the
U.S
population
falls
into
this
category,
but
in
Nevada
this,
in
addition
to
us
being
one
of
the
smallest
population
states
in
the
country,
less
than
four
percent
of
our
population
actually
falls
into
this
this
category.
So
not
a
lot
of
us
are
able
to
make
these
kind
of
Investments
and
because
it's
limited
to
people
who
are
are
already
of
means.
You
hear
this
phrase.
N
The
rich
get
richer
is
actually
true
in
this
case,
because
the
only
people
that
can
invest
in
these
early
stage
companies
and
get
the
kinds
of
larger
returns
that
come
with
them.
It's
risky,
they
don't
all
come
with
them.
It's
not
a
guarantee,
but
when
you
do
have
a
good
investment
go
through,
you
do
get
better
returns,
so
the
people
who
already
have
means
tend
to
be
the
ones
that
get
access
to
these
deals
and
and
make
money
from
these
deals
now.
The
idea
here
was
hey.
N
Businesses
comes
from
within
37
miles
of
wherever
it
is
that
the
business
is
located,
so
local
investors
bottom
line
are
the
ones
that
invest
in
these
businesses
and
our
businesses,
because
of
our
because
of
the
the
SEC
rules
that
we
have
to
follow
are
star
are
at
a
disadvantage:
sec,
I'm,
sorry,
AB
75
allows
more
locals
to
invest,
and
it
still
has
some
of
those
relevant
protections
that
you
see
in
in
the
accredited
investor
rule.
N
So
the
Nevada
certified
investors
would
allow
nevadans
with
above
Nevada's,
median
W-2
income
or
nevadans,
who
operate
a
business
with
gross
sales
above
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
invest
as
long
as
they're
investing
less
than
10
percent
of
your
net
worth.
So
that's
the
protection
that
we
are
trying
to
seek.
N
That's
similar
to
the
to
the
protection
that
you
see
in
the
accredited
investor
rule,
so
this
does
grow
the
investor
base
within
Nevada
for
all
kinds
of
Nevada
projects,
whether
it's
a
local
business,
a
local
high
growth,
startup
I'll
go
to
I'll,
get
into
a
couple
of
examples
here
in
just
a
minute,
a
private
project.
You
know
we
all
hear
about
somebody.
N
So
I've
got
two
examples.
One
is
a
local
business
example.
I
kind
of
picked
a
dry
cleaner
as
an
example,
and
that
might
be
a
personal
bias
because
after
covid,
the
dry
cleaner
in
my
neighborhood,
closed
down
and
I
have
no
one's
replaced
them.
So
I'd
love
to
see
somebody
invest
in
a
dry
cleaner
in
my
neighborhood,
so
that
this
business,
these
businesses
tend
to
do
250
000
a
year
of
Revenue,
and
this
particular
owner
said
all
right.
N
I'm
going
to
value
my
business
at
three
hundred
thousand
dollars,
I'm
gonna
I
need
sixty
thousand
dollars
in
startup
Capital,
which
is
20
of
the
value
of
this
300
000
business.
So,
under
this
rule,
this
founder
this
entrepreneur
could
sell.
Sixty
thousand
shares
raise
sixty
thousand
dollars
for
a
dollar
p,
a
dollar
a
piece.
Now,
of
course,
some
people
are
going
to
invest
more
than
others,
250
or
so
people
would
invest
in
this
deal.
N
The
founder
operates
the
business
for
five
years,
making
a
20
profit
or
about
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
then,
after
five
years
sells
the
business
for
a
half
a
million
dollars.
Now
the
investors
in
this
particular
deal
probably
people
in
a
neighborhood
like
me,
who
would
be
interested
in
supporting
this
founder
in
the
business,
assuming
that
the
business
is
making
profit
makes
about
83
cents
in
profit
over
the
five
years
and
then
a
dollar
sixty
seven
for
every
dollar
invested
when
the
business
sells
for
half
a
million
dollars.
N
So
ultimately,
in
this
deal,
every
dollar
invested
returns
two
and
a
half
dollars.
The
Foundry
doesn't
have
to
go
out,
get
a
loan.
Maybe
they
didn't
have
the
ability
to
get
a
loan,
which
is
the
case
in
a
lot
of
these
local
small
businesses.
The
entrepreneurs
just
don't
have
the
credit
wherewithal
to
get
a
loan.
They
incur
no
debt,
the
local
investors
probably
get
a
discount.
If
the
Founder's
smart,
say,
hey,
invest
in
my
business
and
not
only
will
you
own
part
of
it,
but
you'll
I'll
give
you
a
little
discount
as
well.
N
So
that's
that's
a
I
think
a
fairly
common
example.
It's
not
going
to
give
the
investors
a
huge
upside,
but
it
will
give
it
will
put
some
Nevada
money
to
work
in
Nevada
in
our
local
environment,
the
The
Venture
business,
the
the
big,
the
the
larger
returns
tend
to
come
from
these
Venture
style
of
businesses.
In
my
example,
here
we
have
a
couple
of
Hotshot
grads
from
UNR
and
UNLV
team
up
a
computer
scientist
grad
and
a
business
person.
N
They
require
250
000
to
get
started
and
that's
going
to
take
them
through
the
first
two
years
of
their
business
and
again
this
is
a
very
common
problem
that
I
see
in
our
in
our
world,
where
it's
hard
to
get
get
that
first
money
in
the
door
when
you
don't
really
have
a
product.
Yet
so
again,
they've
said
they've
said
that
that
this
250
000
is
going
to
buy
20
of
the
company
and
they
also
decide
to
sell
their
shares
at
one
dollar
per
share.
Now
they
could
be
doing
it
at
five
dollars.
N
A
share
ten
dollars
a
share,
but
the
the
math
still
works
the
same
way
but
they're
going
to
raise
it
from
a
Nevada
certified
investor
or
a
bunch
of
them.
Four
five,
two
three
four
five
hundred
of
them
to
raise
this
250
000,
and
then
they
go
on
because
they're
successful
to
raise
three
additional
rounds
at
six
at
succeeding,
valuations
they're
higher,
which
makes
the
an
original
investment
worth
more
money
over
time,
because
the
value
of
the
company
as
it
gets
more
investment
go
grows,
grows
and
grows.
N
N
You
know
13.3
percent
for
at
seven
and
a
half
million
dollar
evaluation,
16.7
percent
of
the
30
million
dollar
valuation
and
20
later
at
a
75
million
dollar
valuation,
eventually
selling
the
company
seven
years
later,
for
a
hundred
million
dollars
and
that's
I,
know
I'm
flying
through
these
numbers,
and
it
all
sounds
like
a
lot.
But
this
is
a
kind
of
a
common
scenario.
Most
startups.
These
kinds
of
startups
start
start
up
and
get
acquired
in
about
seven
or
eight
years.
N
So
this
is
a
pretty
common
path
for
it
if
it
works
now
for
the
investors
in
this
particular
case,
the
founders,
the
original
starters
of
the
business
by
selling
all
these
pieces
of
their
business
at
these
different
times,
end
up
retaining
about
30
percent
of
the
company
and
they
make
about
30
million
dollars,
which
is
awesome
for
them.
The
investors,
the
Nevada
certified
investors,
who
originally
put
up
that
2
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
at
the
beginning
now
have
an
investment.
N
That's
worth
ten
million
dollars,
which
is
where
that
really
large
wealth
creation
comes
from
is
in
this
scenario,
so
for
every
dollar
invested
by
those
newly
established
pre-seed
investors,
the
the
ones
that
are
allowed
under
SB
75,
every
dollar
makes
forty
dollars
back
and
that's
those
are
the
two
scenarios
that
that
this
bill
would
allow
and
and
lots
lots
of
others.
But
the
the
the
point
is.
N
We
can't
go
outside
of
the
state,
but
within
the
state,
by
allowing
people
who
want
to
make
that
investment
who
are
above
the
median
wage
or
who
are
sophisticated
enough
to
operate
a
business
at
200
000
a
year
or
more
and
they're
investing
less
than
10
percent
of
their
net
worth,
we'll
give
them
a
chance
to
invest
in
some
of
these
other
local
businesses
make
the
the
Main
Street
businesses
like
in
my
first
example,
successful
or
take
a
chance
on
the
one,
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
higher
flyer
and
perhaps
make
some
wealth
for
themselves
and
the
founders
and
lots
of
other
folks
in
Nevada.
A
G
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
have
a
question
about
the
well
section:
five
sub
22c
when
you're
talking
about
the.
G
The
net
worth
of
the
investor
is
when
you're
determining
the
net
worth
of
the
investor.
What
if
the
net
worth
is
I
mean?
Is
there
any
basis
about
anything
about
what
the
net
worth
has
to
be
based
on,
and
what
I'm
getting
at
is,
if
we're
talking
about
someone
who's
got
like
a
big
investment
in
crypto,
something
that's
not
something
that
could
be
volatile.
Is
that
are
we
looking
at
that
at
all?
Or
is
it
just
if
they
say
they've
got
the
net
worth
and
we
say:
okay,
okay,.
N
Yeah
net
worth
is
determined
by
the
individual
who's,
making
the
investment
in
the
case
of
there
under
the
the
way,
it's
done
with
the
SEC,
depending
on
how
the
investor
how
the
entrepreneur
is
raising
the
money,
there's
two
different
requirements:
if
they're
raising
it
privately
through
a
network,
it's
sort
of
on
the
honor
of
the
investor,
so
it's
stating
that
they
are
indeed
accredited
and
I
imagined.
It
would
work
the
same
here
if
you
do
go
out
and
publicly
advertise
the
investment.
N
That's
cut
that
comes
from
a
letter
from
either
your
attorney
or
your
CPA,
or
a
financial
professional
that
says
yes,
Jeff
sailing
is
a
certified
investor
in
this
case,
and
sometimes
you
have
to
prove
it.
You
turn
in
your
bank
account
statements
and
your
other
things
that
show
your
assets,
a
credit
statement
that
shows
your
liabilities
and
you
can
prove
whether
or
not
you're
you're
above
the.
C
What
we'd
hope
to
do
is
through
the
regulatory
process,
have
those
workshops
where
people
come
forward
and
there's
a
real
vetting
process
from
interested
parties,
so
I
think
some
of
that
would
hopefully
be
in
the
regulation,
because
obviously
there
have
has
to
be
some
guidance
to
folks
raising
this
money.
We
can't
just
have
them
doing
whatever
they
want.
C
G
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
this
presentation.
I
appreciate
the
trying
to
find
that
balance
between
opening
up
to
more
investors
so
that
they
can
get
more
involved,
but
also
attempting
to
keep
the
consumer
protection,
and
my
question
is
the
way
I'm
reading
this.
At
the
time
of
the
sale,
both
parties
need
to
be
Nevada
residents.
Nevada
certified
investors.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record,
like
we
talked
about
in
the
last
one
I
think
some
of
that
detail
would
be
you
know
in
part
of
the
regular
regulation.
That's
established,
I
think
that
initially
we
can
say
everybody
has
to
be
a
resident
and
the
business
has
to
be
in
Nevada
business.
N
The
intent
there
was
to
leave
that
up
to
there's
a
definition
out
there
that
that
goed
uses
for
what
a
Nevada
business
is
because
they
have
to
do
that,
a
lot
in
their
in
their
area.
But
what
happens
when
people
move
I
think
we'd
leave
it
up
to
The
Regulators
to
say
what
what
that
period
of
time
is,
or
whether
it's
one
moment
in
time
it's
somewhere
on
that
continuum.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Mr,
Yeager
good
morning.
Again,
I
love
the
idea.
It's
great.
You
know
a
little
concerned
about
the
consumer
protections.
That's
going
to
lead
to
my
next
question.
You
answered
the
first
one
with
basically
the
Secretary
of
State's
office.
Question
is,
though,
is
who's
going
to
be
responsible
for
enforcement
of
you
know
the
regulations
and
stuff
that
always
seems
to
be
the
the
portion.
That's
lacking
so
I
have
a
real
concern
about
that.
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record,
appreciate
the
question
and
I
think
I'll.
Let
you
know
I
think
the
Secretary
of
State's
going
to
weigh
in
as
well
and
and
the
way
I
see
it
is
and
first
of
all
I'll
just
you
know
this
is
a
tough
Balancing,
Act
Right.
C
We
certainly
want
to
protect
people
from
fly-by-night
Investments
and
losing
their
savings,
but
at
the
same
time,
hopefully
you
see
the
Merit
in
some
of
these
startup
companies
could
really
benefit
from
local
capital
and
there's
an
opportunity,
I
think
for
nevadans
to
invest
in
a
way
that
we
haven't
doesn't
mean
they're
I
mean
there.
There
will
be
bad
actors.
We
know
that.
C
That's
just
a
a
fact
of
life,
no
matter
what
we
do,
and
so
you
know
we
have
some
Securities
laws
on
the
books
that
are
I,
think
largely
prosecuted
by
the
Attorney
General's
office.
You
know
so
so
there
is
that
mechanism
there,
but
in
terms
of
the
Secretary
of
State's
role,
I'll
defer
to
them
because
I
don't
want
to
misstate
I
know
they
have
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
expertise
and
oversight
in
this
area
and
I
believe
that
there
is
a
working
relationship
with
the
Attorney
General's
office,
who
normally
would
prosecute
Securities
fraud.
C
Now
I
would
love
to
say
we're
not
going
to
be
in
that
situation,
but
I
live
in
the
real
world,
not
a
fantasy
one
and
and
so
I
will
leave
it
to
law
enforcement
to
be
able
to
look
into
that.
If
we
did
have
those
and
I
do
think
there
are
laws
on
the
books
that
just
your
typical
fraud
or
Securities
fraud
that
would
cover
Bad
actors
in
this
case
and
allow
them
to
be
prosecuted.
N
Oh
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record,
officially
plus
plus
winning
a
chair,
Jaeger's
statement.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
I
really
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill
and
I
I
applaud
the
desire
to
connect
nevadan's
with
capital
to
nevadans
who
are
starting
up
businesses.
P
That
said,
it
only
works
if
nevadans
with
capital
know
about
the
process
or
the
possibility
and
then
nevadans
with
an
idea
for
a
startup
know
about
the
the
possibility
of
connecting
to
the
Capitol.
So
how
do
you
conceive
of
this
being
publicized
so
that
people
can
actually
access
the
program.
N
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
the
question
have
thought
a
bit
about
this.
This
is
what
we
do
at
startup
NV.
We
we
are
in
contact
with
12
1500
entrepreneurs.
Every
year
we
run
programs
in
mainly
in
Las,
Vegas
and
Reno,
but
also
in
the
rural
communities
as
well
to
tell
them
about.
You
know
different
types
of
training,
all
sorts
of
things
that
are
to
their
advantage.
We
connect
them
with
other
people
that
are
following
the
current
SEC
rules
with
regard
to
Capital.
This
would
be
another
source.
N
N
We
would
like
I
could
imagine
that
our
organization
would
be
leading
it.
I
could
also
Imagine
groups
like
The,
sbdc
and
others
who
also
or
score
others
who
engage
with
the
entrepreneurs
around
our
state.
Once
they're
made
away
made
aware
of
it,
they
come
in
contact
with
just
as
many,
if
not
more
entrepreneurs
around
our
state,
as
we
do
and
then
making
that
making
that
same
case
to
the
people
in
the
in
the
ecosystem,
who
would
want
to
invest
is
is
done.
Similarly
at
least
that's
how
I
would
see
it
working.
C
Madam
chair,
if
I
may,
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record
I
think
one
thing
sometimes
we're
not
very
good
at
as
elected
officials
is
talking
about
the
bills
that
we
passed
during
session.
We
have
a
natural
inclination,
and
you
know
for
our
new
folks.
You'll
know
you
get
to
day
120
and
you're
tired
and
you
just
you
just
want
to
want
to
go
home
and
relax,
and
we
don't
always
have
that
secondary
Mission,
which
is
we
need
to
publicize
the
good
things
we
do
in
this
building
and
I.
C
Think
every
one
of
us,
certainly
in
this
Committee
in
this
building,
have
a
network
of
people,
so
my
hope
would
be
in
addition
to
the
great
work
that
Mr
sailing
is
doing,
and
our
other
organizations
are
doing.
Just
remember
that
we
are.
We
are
close
to
the
communities
we
serve,
so
we
have
a
role
in
getting
the
word
out
as
well.
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
with
us
this
morning,
so
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
qualifications
for
becoming
one
of
these
certified
investors.
So
in
the
presentation
there's
a
lot
of
positivity
about
the
benefits
for
the
investors
and
for
the
business,
and
so
my
question
is:
if
this
is
so
great,
then
why
do
we
need
the
income
protections?
Why
can
it
not
just
be?
You
can't
invest
more
than
10
percent
of
your
income.
N
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record,
it's
a
great
question,
I
I
was
I
was
following
the
pattern
that
had
been
established
by
the
SEC
over
time.
You
could
also
make
an
argument
about
why
what,
if
somebody
could
pass
a
test
and
just
and
display
knowledge
about
this
thing
that
that
said
that
they're
capable
of
doing
this,
no
matter
what
percentage
of
their
income
or
what
percentage
of
their
net
worth
I
think
those
are
all
things
that
could
be
on
the
table
and
I.
N
Think
if
you
look
at
the
angel
Capital
Association,
who
is
a
sort
of
a
lobbying
group
and
a
group,
that's
doing
this
on
a
national
basis.
Their
big
attempt
with
the
SEC
has
been
to
do
exactly
that.
To
make
this
a
Knowledge
Test,
not
a
financial
test
and
I.
Think
as
the
details
of
this
get
worked
out,
those
are
all
possibilities.
However.
I
saw
it
in
the
initial
part
here
was
to
kind
of
follow
the
same
pattern
that
had
been.
N
Q
Thank
you,
chair,
so
I
think
this
concept
is
fascinating,
but
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
it
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
this
is
kind
of
like
Equity
Zen
and
that
Concept
in
terms
but
just
Statewide.
And
then
would
you
be
also
thinking
about
creating
an
equity
Zen
like
website,
so
that
these
companies
would
be
somewhat
checked
out
and
then
also
the
ownership
of
these
Investments
would
be
logged
by
a
third
party.
N
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record,
I
was
just
checking
out
that
particular
thing:
I
assumed
it
was
a
crowdfunding
a
site.
It's
just
one.
There's
there's
lots
of
these
out
here.
I
I
I
imagined
that
something
like
this
might
come
out
of
it
and
the
reg
CF
or
the
crowdfunding
the
ways
that
people
can
do
this
on
a
national
basis
are
interesting
and
when
they
were
established
in
2012
as
a
as
another
method
for
for
Founders
to
raise
Capital,
everybody
was
very
excited
about
it.
N
It's
turned
out
to
to
be
somewhat
successful,
but
it
still
takes
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
and
a
lot
of
extra
work
for
people
to
put
to
put
their
business
up
on
one
of
these
crowdfunding
sites.
I
would
imagine
that
we
could
do
something
like
that
here
in
Nevada,
after
we've
gotten
a
little
bit
of
experience
behind
it.
There
might
be
something
like
this
that
pops
up
just
to
make
the
paperwork
easier,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
could
that
could
happen.
N
If
you
know,
if
you've
got
250
investors,
you
know
you're
gonna,
there's
a
couple
of
different
ways.
You
can
kind
of
put
them
into
a
an
LLC
or
some
other
ways
to
make
it
easier
for
both
the
investors
and
the
founders
to
manage
those
things,
and
I
would
imagine
that,
depending
on
how
the
regulation
is
finally
settled
out
that
that
some
of
that
may
become,
we
may
follow
on
to
some
of
the
the
reg
CF
like
things
for
our
intrastate
investing
as
well,
but
that
didn't
want
to
be
too
prescriptive
about
it.
D
N
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that.
It's
not
public.
Many
accredited
investors
hide
the
fact
that
they're
an
accredited
investors,
because
I
can
tell
you
from
being
kind
of
public
about
my
status.
You
get
a
lot
of
calls
and
a
lot
of
contacts
from
people
who
from
people
who
want
you
to
invest
in
their
company.
So
there
it's
a
very
it's
it's
kind
of
hard
to
figure
out
exactly
how
many
of
us
there
are.
N
Some
of
the
stats
that
I
quoted
were
the
best
I
could
find
and
a
lot
of
it
comes
from
our
you
know
the
IRS
and
some
other
people
who
can
they
can't
tell
you
who,
but
they
can
give
you
general
information,
so
I
I
can
tell
you
in
terms
of
the
diversity
issue,
it's
something
that
we
run
a
program
at
startup
MV
called
Angel
NV,
where
we're
looking
at
accredited
investors
and
we're
trying
to
create
more
investors
in
Nevada.
We
work
really
hard
to
be
inclusive
in
that,
and
we've
managed
to
do
so.
N
I
mean
there's
National
figures
that
say
that
that,
for
example,
women
make
up
about
they
get
about
two
or
three
percent
of
all
the
Venture
Capital,
that's
deployed
in
the
in
the
United
States
they're
they're,
making
up
a
growing
percentage
of
the
actual
investors
in
the
group,
but
I
don't
believe
that
they've
broken
past
about
five
or
six
percent
of
all
of
the
investors
in
the
group.
N
You
know
in
our
group
I'm
kind
of
proud
to
say
that
women
make
up
about
23
I
wanted
half,
but
everybody
says:
that's.
23
is
a
lot
better
than
the
national
average,
and
the
same
is
true
is
for
people
of
color.
N
N
You
know
we're
we're
working
closely
in,
for
example,
in
the
in
the
city
of
La,
in
Las
Vegas,
with
some
members
of
the
urban
chamber
to
try
to
make
sure
that
again
we're
being
inclusive
there's.
We
want
people
to
feel
comfortable
both
as
Founders
asking
for
investment
and
as
investors,
May
Investments,
both
in
their
community
and
with
other
people
in
the
community
who
are
doing
the
same
thing
so
I
think
it'll
improve.
If
we
do
this.
A
N
You
I
would
I
it's
still
frustrating
as
well
as
others.
Outsiders
tell
us
that
we're
doing
with
the
23
in
growing
number
that
it's
not
50
percent,
at
least
50
percent,
but
every
week
every
year
it
gets
a
little
bit
better
great.
K
Thank
you,
chair
I
need
a
definition.
First
then
I
can
ask
my
question:
if
that's
okay,
please
proceed
I'm,
trying
to
understand
the
oversight,
and
so
like
nationally,
it's
the
SEC
right
so
on
the
state
level,
with
the
regulatory
body
be
Secretary
of
State's
office.
Okay,
now
I
can
ask
my
question.
I'm
intrigued,
I
always
like
when
we
can
get
more
local
I
feel
there's
more
control.
K
There's
more
oversight
and
I
don't
mean
anything
by
this
I
just
happen
to
have
a
little
bit
of
free
time
to
watch
a
documentary
which
won't
happen
after
this
weekend,
and
it
was
the
Bernie
Madoff
documentary
like
I,
said
no
no
affiliation,
but
what
I
came
away
with
that
and
why
this
is
timely.
It
seemed
like
the
breakdown.
A
lot
of
it
was
with
Federal
oversight,
with
oversight
with
the
SEC
a
lot
of
things
falling
through
the
cracks
with
banking.
All
of
that.
K
C
Steve
Yeager
for
the
record,
excellent
questions
and
I
think
there's
certainly
some
lessons
to
be
learned
from
not
just
the
Bernie
Madoff
situation,
but
a
lot
of
other
ones
in
history,
but
that
is
our
vision
that
the
secretary
of
state
would
be
the
regulatory
Authority.
Obviously
we're
still
in
conversations
with
them.
It's
a
second
week
of
session,
so
I
don't
want
to
pretend
we
have
that
all
ironed
out.
C
Yet
in
terms
of
of
what
it
will
look
like,
but
we're
having
very
productive
discussions
to
talk
about
how
this
might
work
from
a
regulatory
oversight
perspective
and
then,
of
course,
the
secondary
part
of
that
is
making
sure
our
Secretary
of
State's
office
would
have
the
resources
necessary
to
do
anything
that
we're
asking
them
to
do.
But
that
is
indeed
how
I
Envision
it
sort
of
the
SEC
and
the
state
is
the
the
Securities
division
of
the
Secretary
of
State
and
then,
of
course,
the
enforcement
arm
would
be
the
Attorney
General's
office.
K
R
Thank
you,
chair
Miller,
and
thank
you
for
this
presentation.
It's
very
interesting
and
I
appreciate
you.
You
know,
as
you
said,
trying
to
have
the
opportunity
for
individuals
that
may
not
be
aware
or
be
able
to
invest
in
startups,
and
things
like
that
and
also
trying
to
ensure
that
there's
the
protection.
So
my
question
is
I'm,
always
interested
in
kind
of
where
the
idea
for
bills
come
and
have
you
had
people,
maybe
whether
it's
the
startups
or
the
individuals
say.
N
Thank
you,
speaker,
Yeager,
and,
to
your
to
your
point,
oh
Jeff,
sailing
for
the
record
and
to
your
point
because
we're
in
touch
with
so
many
entrepreneurs
they're
always
asking
how
do
I.
How
can
I
raise
money?
N
What's
the
right
way
to
raise
money
and
we
tell
them
what
the
rules
and
the
rules
are
as
of
right
now
and
they're
and
we're
on
the
other
side
too,
with
the
angel
MV
program,
that
I
was
just
describing
probably
at
least
20
percent
of
the
people
who
want
to
enroll
in
Angel
Envy.
When
we
ask
the
question,
are
you
an
accredited
investor?
The
answer
is
no,
and
the
head
goes
down
and
it's
like,
but
I'd
like
to
be
able
to.
N
You
know,
be
involved
with
the
group
and
be
an
investor
in
one
of
these
100.
This
year
we
had
103
companies
apply
to
the
group
to
get
an
investment,
and
you
know
we'll
probably
end
up
with
50
or
60
or
70
total
Angel
Investors
accredited
investors
who
are
putting
five
thousand
dollars
into
a
fund.
That's
going
to
go
on
and
be
invested
in
a
local
startup,
but
there's
there
are.
We
see
them
all
the
time
through
our
pit.
We
do
pitch
days
every
other
Wednesday.
N
We
have
full
rooms
of
people
looking
at
these
startups,
many
of
whom
are
just
there
sort
of
what
it's
like
watching,
Shark
Tank
they'd
like
to
invest.
They
see
a
cool
idea
and
they'd
like
to
invest
but
they're,
not
an
accredited
investor
and
and
if
you
as
an
entrepreneur,
take
money
from
somebody
you
know
who
is
not
an
accredited
investor.
N
The
accredited
investor
might
get
in
a
little
bit
of
trouble,
but
it's
really.
The
entrepreneur
is
the
one
that's
really
taking
the
big
risk,
because
then
there
could
be
a
lawsuit
later
and
you
didn't
follow
the
law
and
think
the
whole
deal
could
get
Unwound.
But
as
an
example,
there
was
a
woman
who
is
presenting
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
she
had
some
sort
of
patented
glue
that
helped
put
lash
extensions
on
and
I
gotta
tell
you
I
know
nothing
about
this
right.
N
N
You
know
there
there
was
a
there
were
at
least
four
or
five
women
in
the
room
who
wanted
to
join
our
group
and
be
an
investor
right
then,
and
you
know
a
bunch
of
them
couldn't
because
they
weren't
accredited
investors
now
I
have
no
idea
whether
or
not
this
is
ultimately
going
to
be
a
big
thing.
This
this
lash,
this
patented
lash
glue
with
blue
light
stuff,
but
you
know
it
sounded
like
I
knew
I
could
tell
by
the
reaction
in
the
room
that
this
was
something
kind
of
cool
based
in
Las.
A
I
Thank
you,
chair,
thank
you,
speaker
and,
and
Jeff
saling
for
coming
in
I've
always
wanted
to
take
advantage
of
these
kinds
of
Investments.
You
read
about
I.
Think
boy,
wouldn't
it
be
great
if
I
could
do
this,
but
I
also
have
this
sense
that
you
want
to
do
more
than
one
that
you
know
you're
going
to
have
some
big
payoffs,
but
it
might
I,
don't
know
if
it's
one
in
ten
one
in
five,
so
you
want
to
have
more
than
one.
So
this
seems
to
allow
just
one.
So
is
it?
I
Is
there
a
way
to
make
this
about?
You
know
I'd
love
to
invest
in
your
fund,
because,
if
I
invest
in
your
fund,
I
know
you're
going
to
spread
it
over
a
lot
of
Investments
and
then
I
get
the
benefit
of
a
diverse
portfolio.
So
is
that
a
way
to
do
this
to
make
sure
people
really
get
the
diversification
that
that's
advisable.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
yes,
that's
certainly
possible.
Under
this
provision
or
this
law,
there
would
be
no
reason
that
a
fund
that
was
in
Nevada
based
fund
for
nevada-based
investors
investing
in
the
database
companies,
could
not
form
and
and
and
happen
frankly,
I.
If
this
was
possible.
I
would
have
a
lot
of
interest
in
it.
N
If
we
did
form
a
fund
like
this,
we
we
would
have
to
be
much
more
careful
about
making
sure
all
the
people
in
it
were
from
Nevada
so
that
we
weren't
breaking
any
national
laws
and
all
the
businesses
that
were
in
it
we're
Nevada
businesses
which
all
of
which
is
possible.
So
you
would
get
the
diversification
that
you're
talking
about
and
as
an
individual
investor.
N
You
can
also
do
that
yourself
right.
You
might
pick
the
last
business
that
I
talked
about
in
a
dry
cleaning
business
and
the
the
G
whiz
kids
from
UNR
and
UNLV
that
I
talked
about.
N
Maybe
you
put
a
little
bit
of
money
in
all
those
things
as
long
as
you're
staying
within
your
10
percent,
all
of
those
things
would
be
illegal,
so
you
could
self-diversify,
but
I
do
believe
that
if
this
was
allowed,
this
this
bill
got
passed
with
whatever
sensible
oversight
and
everything
else
that
we
decide
that
it
needs
that
we
would
have
a
fund.
N
That
does
exactly
those
kinds
of
things
that
you
were
talking
about,
that
invests,
nevadans,
investing
in
Nevada
companies
and
you
buy
into
the
fund
for
a
few
hundred
dollars
or
a
few
thousand
dollars
and
you're
getting
a
tiny
little
piece
of
maybe
20
or
30
companies,
which
is
sort
of
by
Venture
Venture
Capital
standards,
sort
of
the
rule
of
thumb
that
you
want
to
be
invested
in
at
least
20
closer
to
40.
You
can
get
the
safer.
N
A
Yeah.
Thank
you
for
that.
Just
a
reminder
to
all
of
us
speaking
that
we're
asked
to
turn
off
our
microphones
in
between
I
know.
It's
a
habit.
I
have
to
work
on
myself,
so
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
for
anyone
at
the
testifying
at
the
table
or
up
here
on
the
dice.
With
that
we
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
exorick.
F
A
Thank
you
so
with
that
that
ends
our
questions.
That's
our
final
question.
We
will
move
into
testimony
in
support
for
assembly
Bill
75,
there's
anyone
here
in
Carson
City
that
would
like
to
approach
to
testifying
support
of
assembly
Bill
75
again.
Everyone
testifying
will
have
up
to
two
minutes.
A
A
T
Thank
you,
chairman
Miller
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Gabriel
decara
for
the
record.
That's
di
space,
capital
c
h,
I
a
r
a
I
serve
as
the
chief
deputy
secretary
of
state
I
would
like
to
thank
everyone
for
their
attention
to
detail
on
Securities
regulations.
Second
thing:
in
the
morning,
the
day
after
the
Super
Bowl,
our
office
is
testifying
in
neutral
on
this
bill.
T
The
Secretary
of
State's
office
is
the
front
line
for
small
businesses
through
our
commercial
recording,
Division
and
silver
Flume,
and
it's
a
priority
for
secretary
Aguilar
to
give
homegrown
nevada-based
businesses
the
tools
they
need
to
improve
our
improve
our
community
and
grow
our
state's
economy.
To
this
end,
the
secretary
absolutely
agrees
with
speaker,
Yeager
and
Mr
sailing.
The
Secretary
of
State's
office
has
many
other
functions
as
well,
including
the
regulation
and
enforcement
of
Securities
statute.
T
As
per
NRS
90.,
our
deputy
secretary
for
Securities
is
required
to
be
a
Nevada
Bard
attorney
and
the
enforcement
arm
of
this
division
is
staffed
by
post-certified
law
enforcement
officers.
For
example,
last
fiscal
year
we
brought
in
over
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
as
part
of
enforcement
actions
related
to
Securities
fraud.
This
is
something
we
take
very
seriously.
There
are
two
main
concerns
we
have
relating
to
this
bill,
although
we
believe
there
are
straightforward
Solutions.
The
first
issue
is
related
to
the
amount
of
capital
that
any
certified
investor
could
invest
into
this
class
of
Securities.
T
As
drafted,
there
does
not
seem
to
be
a
cap
on
how
much
any
individual
or
household
could
invest.
If
the
cap
was
clarified
to
be
10
of
the
income
in
this
class
of
investment,
we
would
find
that
much
more
comfortable.
This
would
present
someone
from
investing
10
in
company
a
10,
Company
B
Etc,
and
they
may
end
up
losing
everything.
The
other
concern
is
around
registration
of
the
issuer.
T
The
text
is
written
would
exempt
issuers
from
registering
with
our
office
if
they
sold
Securities
to
this
new
lower
threshold
of
investor
registration
with
our
office
provides
investors
the
opportunity
to
review
the
Financial
Health
of
a
company
before
choosing
to
invest.
It
also
increases
transparency
about
the
overall
structure
and
quality
of
the
investment
opportunity.
There
is
a
disproportionate
amount
of
fraud
in
private
placement
offerings.
The
kind
of
Securities
we're
discussing
here,
significant
number
of
the
cases
are
office
investigates
thank.
A
You
for
that,
your
two
minutes
are
up,
but
I
also
welcome
you
to
submit
any
additional
comments
to
the
committee
and,
of
course,
I
I'm
certain
that
the
the
bill
sponsors
are
welcome
to
any
further
conversations
which
we're
very.
A
U
Thank
you,
chair
Miller
members
of
the
committee,
speaker,
Yeager.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
testify
a
neutral
on
assembly
bill
75.
for
the
record.
My
name
is
James
Hunt
and
I'm.
The
director
of
public
policy
and
government
Affairs
for
the
governors
of
office
of
Economic
Development
as
the
bill
is
written.
U
We
are
here
to
to
we're
happy
to
work
with
the
deputy
of
Securities
and
off
the
definition
of
A
Nevada
business,
we're
here
in
neutral
today,
though,
because
we
would
like
the
opportunity
to
work
with
the
speaker
and
the
bill
sponsors
to
discuss
the
language
in
section
three,
the
intent
of
our
office's
involvement
in
the
expectations
required
from
our
agency
to
properly
carry
out
the
administration
of
the
bill
seems
like
everybody's
very
excited
to
work
together
on
this.
So
we
would
just
just
like
to
offer
our
assistance
as
well.
U
If
there's
any
clarification
or
or
Secretary
of
State
or
the
speaker
needs
any
assistance.
So
thank
you,
foreign.
A
A
C
C
That
makes
sense
we're
in
the
second
week
of
session,
but
I
think
the
intent
is
clear
and
that
intent
is
to
allow
more
nevadans
to
invest
and
to
reap
some
of
the
benefits
of
being
able
to
invest
in
Nevada
companies
and,
of
course
those
companies
would
have
the
capital
they
need
to
start
their
businesses.
I
want
to
thank
this
committee
because
you
made
some
really
good
suggestions
and
although
we
never
know
how
bills
are
going
to
play
out,
my
hope
would
be
we're
able
to
launch
this
and
every
session
thereafter
we're
back
at
the
table.
C
And
if
it's
not
me,
it's
somebody
else
saying.
Maybe
we
can
do
something
else
here.
Maybe
we
can
do
what
some
of
the
suggestions
that
were
referenced
in
this
committee
to
allow
the
pooling
of
finances
together
before
we
get
there.
We
have
to
take
step
one
we're
not
quite
there
at
step
one
yet,
but
you
have
my
commitment
that
I'll
continue
to
work
hard
with
those
who
are
interested
in
the
bill
and
with
committee
members
to
make
sure
that
we
have
it
in
a
place
where
this
committee
feel
feels
good
about
processing
it.
C
A
Our
final
order
of
business
on
the
agenda
is
public
comment.
So
again,
we'd
like
to
remind
anyone
making
public
comment.
That
public
comment
is
not
to
make
comments
on
the
bills
that
we
just
heard.
It's
actually
just
to
make
comments
for
anything,
that's
under
the
purview
of
this
committee
as
a
whole.
So
please,
if
there's
anyone
here
in
Carson
City
that
would
like
to
make
public
comment.
Please
approach.
A
V
Excuse
me
I'm,
coming
down
with
a
cold
I'd
like
to
pick
up
where
I
left
off
on
Friday.
Excuse
me.
If,
by
chance
there
should
be
something
come
become
before
this
committee
dealing
with
ndoc
and
ombudsman
I.
Just
would
like
for
you
to
know
that
in
2011
sb201
passed,
it
was
an
ombudsman
under
the
the
Attorney
General's
office,
to
look
into
grievances
filed
by
the
inmates,
medical
anything
and
everything
dealing
with
the
issues
that
the
inmates
had
it
has
never
been
funded
and
I
want
to
bring
to
your
attention.
V
In
case
you
have
not
heard
recently
an
inmate
by
the
name
of
Clifford
Miller's
lawsuit
was
settled
for
497
thousand
dollars.
If
this
Ombudsman
Bill
had
was
passed
for
the
funding
that
we
have
been
blocking
for
a
number
of
years,
this
lawsuit
would
have
never
gone
forward.
So
if
there's
anything
dealing
with
funding
for
the
Attorney
General's
office
that
we
could
slip
in
some
funding
for
this
SB
201
in
2011
bill
that
would
be
fantastic.
V
I
will
say
that
I
did
meet
with
the
AG's
office
I,
along
with
some
of
our
board
members.
Last
year
they
had
already
submitted
their
budget
so,
but
if
there's
something
that
should
come
up
also
after
Friday's
meeting
I
did
attend.
The
government
Affairs
assembly
of
government
Affairs,
in
which
the
Las
Vegas,
Sparks
and
city
of
renovated
presentation
I,
did
bring
to
their
attention.
The
the
recent
tests.
V
A
S
W
Chair
Ian
Marie
grant
for
the
record.
My
brother,
Thomas
Purdy
was
38
years
old
when
he
was
hogtied
by
Reno
Police
for
over
40
minutes
and
then
asphyxiated
to
death.
I'd
like
to
talk
about
another
Nevada
resident,
Byron,
Lee
Williams,
affectionately
known
as
Ronnie
to
his
family
members,
who
was
senselessly
murdered
by
Las
Vegas
Metropolitan
Police
in
September
of
2020
for
allegedly
not
having
a
safety
light
on
his
bike.
W
He
was
pulled
over
in
the
early
morning
and
likely
due
to
having
bad
experiences
with
police
before
he
decided
to
run
when
Metro
caught
up
with
him.
He
complied
and
got
on
the
ground.
Two
officers
jumped
on
his
back
holding
him
in
a
prone
restraint.
At
this
point,
Ronnie
began
stating
over
and
over
again
I
can't
breathe.
Just
like
my
brothers,
please
for
help
when
ignored
so
did.
W
Ronnies
no
officers
have
been
indicted
for
Ronnie's
death
when
my
brother
was
affixated
to
death
by
Reno
Police
of
Marshall
Marshall
County
D.A
did
not
even
review
the
case,
nor
the
two
other
deaths
at
the
hands
of
law
enforcement
in
Washoe
County
jail.
If
the
amines
of
death
is
asphyxiation
at
the
hands
of
deputies,
it's
apples
and
oranges
to
D.A
Chris
Hicks
per
the
washer
Conte
medical
examiner.
My
brother
would
not
have
died,
were.
B
W
Not
for
the
physical
Force
used
on
him,
my
brother
weighed
140
pounds
soaking
wet.
He
died
uncombative
having
assaulted
nobody
simply
for
asking
for
help.
It
is
disheartening
that
it
appears
police
were
performed
with
the
fad
of
2021.
There
are
people
still
dying
in
your
state
and
legislature
should
not
ignore
that
fact:
I
don't
see
any
bills
for
police
reform
and
it's
very
disheartening
as
someone
whose
loved
one
was
murdered
by
the
police.
Thank
you.
A
You
for
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
public
comment
and
with
that
just
to
let
the
members
know
that
the
rest
of
the
week
we
will
actually
have
a
mix
of
bills
and
presentations,
and
then
this
will
wrap
up
our
presentations
for
the
for
the
session
and
then
proceeding
the
next
week.
It
will
just
be
all
bills,
a
lot
of
bills.
So
with
that,
thank
you
again
for
your
attention
and
your
fantastic
questions
today
on
our
hearings.
I
will
go
ahead
and
close.