THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WE DO NOT YET HAVE A
QUORUM IN. THE HEARING ROOM BUT
WE CAN START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
JUST SOME THE BASICS FOR OUR
CURRENT SITUATION. IS THAT DUE
TO THE CONTINUED STAY HOME
ORDER WE'RE PRACTICING PHYSICAL
DISTANCING. HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM AND THROUGHOUT THE CAPITOL
BUILDING AND WE ARE ONLY ABLE
TO HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF
PEOPLE ABLE TO WATCH THE
HEARING IN PERSON. WE HAVE-
WHICH VIDEO WITNESS ROOM THAT
CAN BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE AND WE
DO MOST OF OUR- TESTIMONY AND
COMMENTS VIA TELEPHONE. WE'RE
ASKING THAT REQUIRING THAT
EVERYON WEAR A MASK AND
MAINTAIN PHYSICAL DISTANCING.
BOTH IN THE HEARING ROOM AND
THROUGHOUT THE CAPITAL TODAY.
SO WE CAN ONLY ACCOMMODATE A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF STAFF AND
LIMITED PUBLIC AND MEDIA WITHIN
THE HEARING ROOM AND MAINTAIN
THE SIXTY OF SPACING THAT IS
APPROPRIATE. WE ASK THAT
EVERYONE. USE UTILIZED PHYSICAL
DISTANCING PROTOCOLS ENTERING
AND LEAVING THE CAPITAL AS WELL
AS HERE IN THE ROOM ANY MEMBER
THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY ON A BILL PLEASE RAISE
YOUR HAND THEN I'LL ASK YOU TO
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE WE ASK
THAT NO ONE TOUCH THE
MICROPHONE WHEN THEY'RE GIVING
THEIR TESTIMONY AND DO SO IN AN
ORDERLY. MANNER MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO ARE ON THE PHONES.
AND WANT TO BE MAKING COMMENTS
WE HAVE A- TOLL FREE NUMBER
WHICH IS EIGHT SEVEN SEVEN. SIX
NINE TWO. EIGHT NINE FIVE
SEVEN. THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE ON
YOUR SCREEN AND- IS ALSO
AVAILABLE ON THE COMMITTEE
WEBSITE AGAIN THAT NUMBER IS
EIGHT SEVEN SEVEN. SIX NINE
TWO. EIGHT NINE FIVE SEVEN. AND
THE ACCESS CODE IS ONE THREE
ONE. FIVE FOUR TWO OH TWO AND
AGAIN THAT IS ONE THREE ONE.
FIVE FOUR TWO- TO. ADD THOSE
NUMBERS ARE BOTH SHOULD BE ON
YOUR SCREEN AS WELL AS- ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. OKAY WE
ARE A COUPLE OF- ITEMS TO
NOTICE ITEM NUMBER TEN AB
FIFTEEN EIGHTY WHICH IS THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILL IS
BEING MOVED TO THE PROPOSED
CONSENT AGENDA. AND WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE. A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE
ORDER OF BILL PRESENTATIONS
WE'RE GONNA TAKE AB THREE
SEVENTY ONE. BY MISTER JONES
SAWYER WHICH IS OUR ITEM NUMBER
FOUR FIRST. BECAUSE WE ARE
ACCOMMODATING A WITNESS. WHO WE
HAD HOPED WOULD BE HERE. BUT I
THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WITH US
ON THE PHONE SO LET US MOVE TO
OUR TO OUR ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB
THREE SEVENTY ONE. THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR AND I. AM THINKING
OF BOTH MY WITNESSES ARE
VISUALLY CHALLENGING BY OTHER
WITNESSES HERE RIGHT NOW SO I.
I THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
MAKING ACCOMMODATION FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE ADHD
CHALLENGES. I PRESENT AB THREE
SEVEN ONE THIS BILL EXTENDS
LIABILITY PROTECTION TO
PEDESTRIANS IF THEY ARE INJURED
BY AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER OR BIKE
COLLECTIVELY E. DEVICES. AB
THREE SEVENTY ONE ALSO REQUIRES
THE ADDITION OF BRAILLE AND
TACTILE SIGNAGE TO THESE
DEVICES SO NON VISUAL
PEDESTRIANS HAVE TO CONTACT
INFORMATION TO FILE ANY TO
REPORT. IF THEY EXPERIENCED AN
ACCIDENT SAYS IS TRIPPING OVER
AN ABANDONED P. DEVICE ON THE
SIDEWALK. WHEN THIS BILL
SPONSOR THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL
OF THE BLIND. FIRST CONTACTED
ME I NEED TO REACH OUT TO MY
BROTHER DR FRED JONES WHO IS
ALSO NON VISUAL. I RECALL TIME
WHEN I HELPED MY BROTHER WALK
INTO A BATHROOM AND HE HEARD ME
TURN ON THE LIGHT AND HE SAID
WHY DID YOU DO THAT I CAN'T SEE
ANYWAY. IT WAS AT THAT MOMENT
THAT I REALIZED THAT I NEEDED
TO TALK TO SOMEONE WHO IS
VISUALLY CHALLENGE TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND. WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
BE. NOT DID WAS LIKE TO HAVE
THE CHALICE GENDER STAND ISSUES
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT VISUAL
YOU CAN I HAVE YOUR EYES WIDE
OPEN. BECAUSE OF THE COUNTLESS
EXPERIENCE MY BROTHER HIS FACE
AND STILL CONTINUES TO FACE. I
WANT TO ENSURE EQUITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY FOR NON VISUAL
PEDESTRIANS. OUT ARE THE HEART
OF THIS BILL. FIRST I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE I HAVE TAKEN
AMENDMENTS IN PRIVACY
COMMITTEE. TO INDEMNIFY
COMPANIES FROM BEING HELD
LIABLE IF AN ACCIDENT RESULTED
FROM USER NEGLIGENCE SUCH AS A
USER DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED.
THESE AMENDMENTS ENSURE THAT
PROPER PARTY CAN BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR
NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT TAKING AWAY
PEDESTRIANS AND ACCIDENT
VICTIMS LIABILITY COVERAGE. FOR
INJURIES RESULTING FROM NO
FAULT OF THEIR OWN. SECOND I'VE
TAKEN AMENDMENTS TO DELETE ALL
REFERENCES TO TRACKING. THE
CURRENT ISSUE WE ARE FACING IS
THAT EXISTING LIABILITY
COVERAGE INVOLVING E. DEVICES
ONLY EXTENDS TO USERS INJURED
AS A RESULT OF OPERATING E.
DEVICES. IF IT DOES NOT COVERED
PEDESTRIANS AS IT DOES NOT
COVER PEDESTRIANS ACCIDENT
VISTA. THE EXISTING INSURANCE
COVERAGE SHOULD SEND SIMILARLY
BE EXTENDED TO PEDESTRIANS
INJURED BY EACH DEVICES AT THE
BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD
NOT FALL ON THE ACCIDENT
VICTIMS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY
TRUE PEDESTRIANS WERE NON
VISUAL THAT THEY RELY ON CLEAR
WALKWAYS FREE OF HINDRANCE ALSO
THE ABSENCE OF BRAILLE AND
TACTILE SIGNAGE PREVENTS NOT
VISUAL INDIVIDUAL FROM
ASSESSING THE KHI DEVICE
COMPANIES. CONTACT INFORMATION
AFTER AN INJURY THE ADDITION OF
DESIGNERS WILL GUARANTEE NON
VISUAL ACCIDENT VICTIMS CAN
PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE DEVICE.
COMPANIES INFORMATION TO
CONTACT ABOUT ANY TO REPORT. AB
THREE SEVEN ONE ENSURE THAT
INDIVIDUALS ESPECIALLY THE NON
VISUAL HAVE A METHOD TO BE
COMPENSATED IF INJURED BY
IMPROPER USE OF STORAGE OR
STORAGE OF THE DEVICES. THANK
YOU CHAIR AND MEMBERS WITH ME
TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. IS JEFF TOM OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND.
AND MY BROTHER DR FRED JONES
FOR MOST OF HIS LIFE HAD BEEN
REFUSED THE OPPORTUNITY HAVE IS
SEEN AYE DOG IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL WAS TOTALLY COULD HAVE
BRAILLE AS GOING TO COLLEGE.
BUT HE OVERCAME ALL OF THAT
BECAUSE IT IS PHD. AND HE'S A
MEMBER OF THE NON VISUAL
COMMUNITY ON THE PHONE. THANK
YOU WITH THE MESSAGE ALSO YOU
MENTION AMENDMENTS YOU'RE
YOU'RE TAKING AS AUTHORS OF
EVENTS THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED
IN THE- IN THE ANALYSIS CORRECT
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THANK
YOU VERY MUCH THAT WERE OFFERED
BY PRIVACY COMMUNITY. IN BRAVE
AND GO INTO THAT YES. OKAY SO
LET US MOVE SINCE WE HAVE
MISTER JEFF TOM HERE IN. THE
CHAMBERS MISTER TOM. YES THANK
YOU MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MY NAME
IS JEFF TOM I AM THE
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
CHAIR. FOR THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL OF LINES. WE'RE THE
LARGEST AND OLDEST ORGANIZATION
OF CONSUMERS WITH VISION LOSS.
AB THREE SEVEN ONE IS A COMMON
SENSE SOLUTION. TO A
SIGNIFICANT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
CHALLENGE. THE USE OF EITHER
VICES SCOOTERS ON THE BIKE HAS
BECOME AN EVER IMPORTANT AND
GROWING- PORTION OF OUR
TRANSPORTATION LANDSCAPE. BUT
WITH SUCH CHANGES HAVE PROBLEMS
OCCURRED AND ONE OF THEM IS A
PEDESTRIANS HAVE SUFFERED
INJURIES DUE TO COLLISIONS WITH
OR DUE TO FALLING OVER THESE
DEVICES WHEN THEY'RE CARELESSLY
LEFT ON THE SIDEWALK. THUS SOME
SOLUTION MUST BE FOUND IN ORDER
TO ENSURE THE PEDESTRIANS WERE
INJURED. BY THESE DEVICES.
WHETHER THROUGH COLLISIONS OR
FALLING OVER THEM OUR- NOT ARE
ABLE TO COLLECT FOR THE DAMAGES
DUE DUE TO PERSONAL INJURY OR
PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT THEY
SUFFER. AB THREE SEVEN ONE
PROVIDES A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO
THIS PROBLEM BY MAKING
LIABILITY INSURANCE HELD BY THE
SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE
COMPANIES APPLICABLE TO
SITUATIONS WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE
FALLS ON THE PART OF THE
COMPANY OR THE END USER. THIS
IS A FAIR SOLUTION IT IS NOT A
SOLUTION INTENDED TO HARM THE
INDUSTRY IN FACT WHEN THE
INDUSTRY EMBRACES THE SOLUTION
AND MAKES IT WORK. I THINK IT
WILL ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF THE
INDUSTRY TO THRIVE AND PROSPER.
I ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. GIVE US A TOM. SO DR
FRED JONES WHO I BELIEVE IS
WITH US ON THE TELEPHONE ARE
YOU WITH THE SECTOR JOBS.
APOLLONIAN CAPTAIN OF MY
BROTHER REGINALD JONES. HOW
YOUR DOING THIS AFTERNOON I'M
GOING TO ALSO IF DOORS IS-
EIGHTY THREE SEVENTY ONE BILLS
WELL UNDER TWO CATEGORIES.
ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS AS WELL AS
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS FOR A
PERSON WITH A VISUAL IMPAIRMENT
THIS BILL WILL ALLEVIATE THE
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS BECAUSE
ONCE A PERSON IS WALKING FROM
ONE SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. THEY
ARE USING THEIR TAX ALKANE
INFORMATION TO ENSURE THAT THEY
LIKELY CROSS THE STREET WITHOUT
ANY OBSTRUCTION SEVEN EIGHT
EIGHT. IN THE MIDDLE OF A
WALKWAY FOR A STREET CALLED
THEM TO HAVE TO GO AROUND THE
HOOTER AND REPOSITION
THEMSELVES TO GET TO THE OTHER
SIDE. LUCRECE ARCHITECTURAL
BARRIER BECAUSE IT'S IN THEIR
WAY OF GETTING FRANKLY ACROSS
THE STREET. AND IT ALSO HAS THE
ADDED SIMPLE VERY ATTACHED TO
IT BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO LEFT
IT THERE HAD NO IDEA WHAT
YOU'RE CARELESS IN THEIR
THOUGHT PROCESS. OF HOW A
PERSON WITH A VISUAL IMPAIRMENT
OR SOMEONE JUST WALKING ACROSS
THE STREET WE GET AROUND THIS
VEHICLE. SO THEY'RE ONLY
THINKING OF THEMSELVES AND THAT
CREATES AN ADDED TO THE VALUE
IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY. SO WITH
THIS BILL IS PASSED IT WILL
ALLEVIATE AND THE MINISTER
ADDED TO HER BARRIER AS WELL AS
THE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS
THAT. WILL IMPOSE FOR BLIND
PERSON FAKE BECAUSE FROM ONE
SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE
OTHER. WITHOUT ANY HURT PROPER
DANGER AND THEY HAVE THE
BRAILLE THERE SO IT GIVES
SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT CAUSED
THE INJURY THEY CAN ACTUALLY
USE THE ROYAL PALM BEACH
SCOOTER. THE CONTACT THE
INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF
OF THIS EIGHTY THREE SEVENTY
ONE AND MY BROTHER FOR GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU
COMMITTED. THE YOU DR JOE FOR
YOUR- VERY ARE. AND APPROPRIATE
TEST PERHAPS YOU COULD TEACH OF
THAT YOUR BROTHER. FOR OUR
BENEFIT HERE- ALL RIGHT HIS.
TEST JUST TEASING COLLEGE HERE
RIGHT IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD TO TEST
INTO OF THIS BILL AB THREE SO
ONE. I'D SAY NONE I SEE ANYONE
IN THE WITNESS VIDEO ROOM.
AFRAID YOU CAN OPEN THE LINES
FOR SUPPORT FOR AB THREE
SEVENTY ONE IF THERE'S ANYONE
ON THE LINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AFFILIATION
AND THAT YOU SUPPORT THE BILL
THIS WOULD BE YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
OPERATOR. HELLO. OPERATOR. CAN
WE WHEN IT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE
OPERATOR. SERIAL NUMBERS ON.
OPERATOR WE CANNOT HEAR YOU WE
NEED TO OPEN THE LINES FOR.
SUPPORT. IF SOMEONE COULD
CONTACT THEM IN THE MEANTIME
I'D LIKE TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
STONE HERE GALLAGHER CHAO TWO
DAVIES GONZALEZ HOLDEN KALRA
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN REYES. THANK
YOU WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THE
BILL. THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. BUT WE DO
NOT HAVE. CONTACT WITH THE
OPERATOR RIGHT NOW. SOMEBODY'S
THERE BUT IT IS A GUARD AND I.
ARE YOU READY FOR THAT ARE YOU
READY FOR Q. AND A I CAN GO
AHEAD AND START THAT FOR YOU SO
IF YOU ARE- AND PROPOSED TO
HAVE A ONE. PLEASE THAT ONE
THEN ZERO. THANK YOU IF YOU'RE
IN SUPPORT OF AB THREE SEVENTY
ONE AND WANT TO GIVE US YOUR
NAME AFFILIATION THAT YOU
SUPPORT THE BILL PLEASE HIT ONE
AND THEN ZERO THE OPERATOR WILL
PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE. OUR
SYSTEM. THIRTY TWO. I ONE
MOMENT PLEASE. CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT. CAN YOU HEAR ME YES
WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE WE
DID NOT GET YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION. THE NUTCRACKER THE
CONSUMER JOURNEY THE
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT THANK YOU.
AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE THANK
YOU ALL RIGHT THANK YOU THANK
YOU VERY MUCH OPERATOR WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION I HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE LINE WHO
WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
AB THREE SEVENTY ONE I DON'T
HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL LISTED HERE.
HELLO MULLER WITH SPENT OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. GO AHEAD. OKAY
GREAT- GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS MY NAME IS BRETT MILLER
SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY MANAGER AT
THE BANK HERE IN RESPECTFULLY
IN OPPOSITION TO AB THREE
SEVENTY ONE TO START WE DO NOT
DISPUTE THE AUTHORS GOAL TO
PROVIDE EQUITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY WHICH IS WHY WE
ARE HAPPY TO ADD KEY CONTACT
INFORMATION IN BRAILLE AND ALL
OF OUR COMBINED FIFTY THOUSAND
ELECTRIC SCOOTERS THE MAIN
PROBLEM AB THREE SEVENTY ONE
SIX OR TRACK IT INJURIES THAT
RESULT FROM IMPROPERLY PARKED
SCOOTERS OR RECKLESS WRITING WE
UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY
CHALLENGES WITH MICROBIOLOGY
AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. CITY ALT
WHERE WE OPERATE ALSO IMPOSED
VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO
MANAGE THEIR PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY
BONTA SPEAKING TO PRICE ACTED
TO NEW AND MARK DEPENDABLE
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
IMPROVING SAFETY OUTCOMES FOR
BOTH WRITERS AND PRODUCTION IS
OUR TOP PRIORITY AT THE
INDUSTRY INDEED OUR VIABILITY
OF THE BUSINESS DEPENDS ON IT
THIS COMMITMENT STARTS WITH
EDUCATING ALL OF OUR USERS
ABOUT THE FRIDAY AND PARKING
PRACTICES WHERE THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO TAKE A FEW KEY
COURT AND LOCAL RULES TEST
BEFORE THEIR FIRST FLIGHT OF
COURSE WE ALL KNOW THAT NOT
EVERYBODY FOLLOWS THE RULES
THAT'S WHY WE ALSO TAKE A
PARKING. PLACE WE HAVE A CLEAR
THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT
POLICY FOR WRITER TO BREAK THE
RULES REPEATEDLY SPEND ALSO
REQUIRES WRITERS TO TAKE IT
INTERPOSED A WHEN THEY COMPLETE
THEIR TRAP TO MAKE SURE THEIR
SCOOTER PARKED PROPERLY AND OUT
OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MOST
RECENTLY HAS BEEN WE HAVE EVEN
STARTED PILOTING REALTIME
SIDEWALK PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
WHICH I KNOW SOUNDS IMPOSSIBLE
BUT I TRIED IT MYSELF ACTUALLY
AND IT REALLY CAN'T READ THE
TOPOGRAPHY OF THIEF AND AUDIBLY
WARN BOTH RIDERS AND
PEDESTRIANS IF SOMEONE USED TO
DATE COULD ARE ON THE SIDEWALK.
DESILU SINCE WILL LEAD TO
BETTER ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE DATA AND
MEANINGFULLY IMPROVED SAFETY
OUTCOMES UNFORTUNATELY AB THREE
SEVENTY ONE ACCURATE AND GOES
BEYOND THIS ISSUE AND REQUIRED
INSURANCE THAT WILL AND ACTED
TO MAKE MOBILITY CALIFORNIA FOR
BOTH SHARED SCOOTERS AND E.
BIKES UNLIKE ANY OTHER STATE OR
COUNTRY AND AFFECT ANY OTHER
PRIVATE INDUSTRY THIS BILL
WOULD SET A NEW PRECEDENT BY
MAKING SHARED MOBILITY
COMPANIES LIABLE FOR THE
NEGLIGENCE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR
USERS MEANING WE HAVE COMPANIES
WOULD BE LIABLE FOR OUR WRITERS.
BEHAVIOR LEAVING THEM OFF THE
HOOK FOR THEIR- OWN ACTION. WE
DISAGREE THAT THEY CAN THEN BE
A- THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE.
INTENSIFIED USERNAME. THREE OUT
IS THE MEN AND ONLY INCUR. PRO
WOULD. AND THESE MICRO. TO PUT
THE BILL UP FOR THE- OF OTHERS.
NO OTHER COMMERCIAL INSURANCE
MODEL POLITICS APPROACH. WHEN
YOU RENT A CAR FOR EXAMPLE A
DRIVER MUST HAVE THIRD PARTY
LIABILITY COVERAGE IN THE STATE
TO COVER DAMAGES TO OTHERS. IF
THIS THE CURRENT THE DRIVER
IT'S WIDELY HELD RESPONSIBLE
AND LIABLE FOR THEIR OWN
ACTIONS. THE RENTAL CAR COMPANY
IS NOT LIABLE THAT THEY HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. AB THREE
SEVENTY WHAT WOULD CHANGE THAT
ONLY PER SHARE YOU BY
CONTRIBUTORS. IN THIS WAY WE
BELIEVE THIS BILL UNFAIRLY
SINGLED OUT THE SHARED MOBILITY
INDUSTRY. IT'S ALSO WORTH
NOTING THAT THE ONLY
MICROBLADING INSURER HAS.
STATED IN WRITING THAT THIS
WOULD CHANGE THE MICRO BILITY
LANDSCAPE OR OPERATE IN
CALIFORNIA AND IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THEY ARE WILLING TO
PROVIDE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR.
THAT APPLY TO GOING.FORWARD AS
WELL- IF ENACTED SUCH COVERAGE
WOULD ALSO BE COST PROHIBITIVE
KEEP IN MIND THAT THE POLICY
LIMITS PROPOSED IN THIS BILL
FOR BODILY INJURY OF A
PEDESTRIAN. R. SIXTY SEVEN
TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT IS
REQUIRED FOR CARPET CALIFORNIA.
SPECIFICALLY I'M REFERRING TO A
ONE MILLION DOLLAR MINIMUM FOR
SCOOTERS AND BIKES IN A SPELL
OR SAY FIFTY THOUSAND MINIMUM
LIABILITY COVER FOR CARS. THAT
SIMPLY HAD NO REASONABLE OR
DATABASES. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS TO KEEP
THE LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS
OPEN AT THIS TIME WE CONTINUE
TO REMAIN OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. BY THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT THAT THE DOES NOT
ADDRESS OUR IABILITY CONCERNS
BECAUSE THE BILL CONTINUE TO
TREAT IT DIFFERENTLY COMPARED
TO ANY OTHER GOOD IN OUR
ECONOMY THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE ON THE
LINE WHO. IS SUPPOSED TO AB
THREE SEVENTY ONE. OPERATOR
PARDON ME MISTER CHAIRMAN ARE
YOU CALLING FROM THE FOR THE
TELEPHONE LINES AT THE TOP. YES
FOR THOSE IN OUR LOCATION.
ABSOLUTELY AND IF YOU WERE
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THIS
MEASURE PRESS ONE THEN ZERO AT
THIS TIME. ONE MOMENT PLEASE
WHILE WE PROVIDE THEM THEIR
LINE NUMBERS. WE WILL FIRST GO
TO LINE THE NUMBER THIRTY THREE
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. GOOD MORNING
MR SURE NUMBERED AND UNITY
HERE- OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED ON
BEHALF OF THE LINE AND BIRD.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION. WE WILL GO TO LINE
THIRTY ONE GO AHEAD PLEASE. SH
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS HASN'T CHANGED HELPED
WITH THE SUPPORT JUSTIFICATION
CALIFORNIA ALSO APPROACH
INVESTMENT AT A MOTEL THANK YOU
THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE
IN QUEUE AT THIS TIME. I THANK
YOU AND JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK
ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS MONEY
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF A- NEW
ONE. SEEING NONE. ALRIGHT I
WILL OFFER YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES FOR AB THREE SEVENTY ONE
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. I WAS IN THE HOUSE I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
US FOR IT- AND I THINK YOUR
BROTHER HAS IT RIGHT IT'S- AN
ATTITUDINAL CHANGE I MEAN TO
EVEN THINK THROUGH. THE WORST
CASE SCENARIO OF MISPLACING A
SCOOTER RIGHT- AND I HAVE TO
ADMIT. I'VE BEEN YOUR TAINTED
KIND OF YOU KNOW HAVING TO WALK
AROUND BUT I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT
THE- TRUE AFFECTED IT HAS ON
THOSE WITH SIGHT CHALLENGES
HEALTH THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND I WANT TO
NOTE. YOU KNOW THE COMPANIES
THAT SAY WELL NOBODY'S EVER
TREAT US LIKE THIS WELL YOU
KNOW I QUITE HONESTLY. THESE
THESE NEW COMPANIES THEY'RE
COMING ONLINE DON'T WANT TO
FOLLOW ANY RULES AND SO YOU
KNOW WE'RE GOING TO SET THE
RULES AS WE GO ALONG WITH THEM.
AND THEY'VE BEEN SUCCESS ONE OF
EIGHTEEN. MOST ARE OUR NORMAL
KIND OF WAYS WE OPERATE SO YOU
KNOW THEY MOVE FAST AND BREAK-THINGS AND SOMETIMES THOSE
BROKEN THINGS ARE PEOPLE AND WE
NEED TO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US
FORWARD. THIS GOVERNOR. THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND YET AND
WE THIS BILL IN PRIVACY- AND- I
SUPPORTED THE LEGISLATION. MAKE
THE AUTHOR- I THINK- YOU KNOW
CERTAINLY THE PORTION OF THIS
BILL IS DEALING WITH HAVING
THE- THE BRAILLE IDENTIFIER SO
THAT- YOUR BLIND PERSON WOULD
BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHO OWNS
THIS THIS DEVICE THANK
IMPROPERLY REPORT WE TALKED
ABOUT THAT I THINK THAT IS- YOU
KNOW A GREAT PORTION OF THIS
BILL- THE INSURANCE SEEMS TO BE
THE THING WE'RE STILL TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT RIGHT AND- AND
PEOPLE BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF-
AND I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
YOU KNOW JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING
IS NEW DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU
KNOW. AND WE'RE WOULD THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HEY
WHAT'S THE PROPER. RULE TO
REGULATE THIS NOW THAT THIS NEW
THING IS HERE IT. IT IS A GOOD
THING IT'S A POSITIVE THING FOR
OUR COMMUNITIES AND A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE USING THESE TO GET
AROUND- BUT- WHEN NEW THINGS
COME UP WHAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT HOW DOES OUR LAW. AND OUR
BODY OF LAW. APPLY TO THIS THIS
NEW THING I MEAN I THINK THAT'S
A REALLY COMMON THEME- ON THE
INSURANCE SIDE I DIDN'T HEAR
OPPOSITION SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
HOW WITH CARS STILL LIMIT IS.
IS FIFTY THOUSAND OR SOMETHING
PER PER USER WHERE THIS WOULD
BE. REQUIRED TO BE AT A MILLION.
BUT- YOU MAY COULD YOU RESPOND
TO THAT LIKE ARE YOU GUYS
RESULT POINT THERE WERE WOULD
BE ANOTHER LIKE A GENERAL
AGGREGATE YEAH THIS IS JANET
HOW TO COVER BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PER.
VEHICLE ARE PER USER. IT
WOULDN'T HAVE A I BELIEVE IN IT
BUT I'LL DOUBLE CHECK BUT I
BELIEVE THAT THAT MILLION
DOLLAR HALF MILLION. IS WHEN
THEY GOING TO CITIES ANYONE TO
SET UP. THEIR WHOLE- THE WHOLE
INDUSTRY WITHIN THE CITY AND
THE CITY REQUIRE THAT MILLION
DOLLARS. THIS IS A USING THAT
AS WORST CASE SCENARIO. WHAT I
OFFERED TO- THE-
REPRESENTATIVES. FOR THE- THE
INDUSTRY YESTERDAY. IS I DON'T
BELIEVE IF YOU RENT. WANTED THE
SCOOTERS. FOR FIVE DOLLARS YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE A FIFTEEN
DOLLARS. INSURANCE PAYMENT AND
SO THAT I WILL WORK WITH THEM
TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT OUT OF
WAY OUT OF WHACK. THAT WE WORK
TOGETHER WE WORK TOGETHER WE
COME UP WITH A- A PRODUCT. THAT
WORKS FOR THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T
BANKRUPT THEM BUT IT ALSO MAKES
SENSE FOR THAT ONE TIME USER.
OKAY AND THEN TO THE OPPOSITION
YOU MAY RESPOND. AS TO WHAT DO
YOU WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT
DIFFERENCE IN INSURANCE
COVERAGE. AND THEN ALSO IN
RESPONDING TO THAT. I KNOW THEY
BROUGHT UP THAT- WILL. YOU'RE
PUTTING US IN A POSITION WHERE
WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
NEGLIGENCE OF OUR USERS.
HOWEVER WOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO
CYBERGATE. YOU KNOW AS AN
INSURANCE COMPANY CYBERGATE
AGAINST A NEGLIGENT. USER PASS
AS THEY DO IN THE AUTOMOBILES
AND OTHER- INDUSTRIES. THANKS
THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTIONS TO
YOUR TO YOUR FIRST POINT THE
MINIMUM SUMMER BRING TO IS IN
THE BILL THERE'S A ONE MILLION
DOLLAR MINIMUM FOR SCOOTER AND
BIKE COMPANIES PER INCIDENT- OF
HARM TO A PEDESTRIAN BURKE IS A
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAR MINIMUM
WHEN IT COMES TO LIABILITY
COVER FOR CARS. AND UP AT SIXTY
SEVEN TIMES HIGHER IN TERMS OF
THE TYPE OF INSURANCE ARE
ASKING US FOR AND TO YOUR
SECOND POINT ABOUT NEGLIGENCE.
AND OUR ABILITY TO CONGREGATE.
WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK. ON THE
FRONT END ANY ANY CLAIMS
AGAINST US MEANING WE WOULD
THEN HAVE TO GO TO COURT. AND
PROVED THAT THE USER WAS
NEGLIGENT IN THIS CASE TO GET
ANY OF OUR MONEY BACK THERE'S
NO MODEL FOR THAT EXISTING
INSURANCE WHERE THE COMPANIES
WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME ALL
LIABILITY ON THE FRONT END
WITHOUT. WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION.
RIGHT I MEAN LIKE IN THE
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IF THE
PEOPLE DO CYBERGATE AGAINST THE
NEGLIGENT DRIVER ALL THE TIME.
RIGHT. YEAH WELL WHEN IT COMES
TO THE RENTAL CAR INDUSTRY
THERE IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENT
RIGHT THAT PROTECT RENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM CLAIMS
AGAINST THEM WHEN A DRIVER
RENTS A VEHICLE AND
ACCIDENTALLY HIT- PEDESTRIAN OR
A THIRD PARTY- AND WHEN YOU'RE
RENTING A CAR. THE INDIVIDUAL
TAKES THE INSURANCE TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES AGAINST LIABILITY
COVERAGE THE RENTAL COMPANY
DOESN'T FRONT THAT INSURANCE ON
THE FRONT END AND THEN PROPER
GATE TO GET MONEY BACK- AFTER
PROVING IN COURT THAT IT WAS
ACTUALLY THE DRIVER WHO WAS AT
FAULT THE ASSUMPTION FROM THE
BEGINNING AT THAT THE DRIVER
WAS AT FAULT AND THAT PERSON IS
THE ONE WHO GETS. HIT THIS
PEDESTRIAN. THE RENTAL CAR
COMPANY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
THAT INCIDENT. RIGHT BUT IT IS
STILL IN EFFECT CHANGES THE
MODEL BY YOU KNOW ALL REQUIRING
US TO PAY ALL OF THESE DAMAGES
UP FRONT AND THEN. ON THE BACK
END GOING AND TRYING TO PROVE
THAT THE USER WITH THAT THOUGHT
AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF
COURSE THAT THE USER WILL BE
ABLE TO PAY THAT. RIGHT RIGHT.
WHY YEAH SO THERE ARE A LOT OF
IN PRACTICAL TERMS THE
DIFFERENCE OKAY WAIT TO THE
QUESTIONS IN HIS HOUSE BEFORE
YOU RAMBLE ON SO I THINK IT'S A
GOOD POINT THAT- I THINK IT IS
A GOOD POINT TO MAY WE MAYBE
WHAT WE COULD CONSIDER- MISTER
JONES SAWYER IS HAVING THE
REQUIRE. YOU KNOW THE PURCHASE
OF SOME INSURANCE FOR THE USER
READ THE MAYBE AS PART OF THEIR
FEE THAT THEY PAY YEAH IT LOOKS
LIKE MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THAT
BUT IF YOU JUST WANT TO REMIND
YOU AND PRIVACY COMMITTEE- WE
TOOK. AMENDMENTS TO PERSUADE
ALL OF THAT THEY MAY NOT AGREE
WITH IT BUT WE DID MAKE IT- I
AFTER. WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE
THAT EFFORT BECAUSE THIS. THIS
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT A DRUNK
DRIVER WHO WOULD BE NEGLIGENT.
BUT IT BUT IDENTIFIED IN
LANGUAGE INCLUDING THIS BILL
WOULD MEAN TO COMPANIES WOULD
NOT BE LIABLE FOR AN
INTOXICATED. DRIVER SIDE AND
TALKED AT KßT RABBIT SO
THAT'S THAT'S A BLACK POINTER
WORST CASE SCENARIOS. SO WE ARE
GOING TO WORK REAL HARD TO MAKE
SURE. WHOEVER IS LIABLE IT
STAYS HERE. BUT AS YOU KNOW- IT
REALLY CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM
CORPORATE DEPARTMENTS WHICH IS
WHY I THINK HE'S THINKING OF A
WITH THE WITH THE LAWYERS
AGAIN. I'M NOT A LAWYER SO.
PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A
LICENSE- A LOT OF. THESE
LAWSUITS THEY GO AFTER THE- DIP
WITH A TAKE A DEEP POCKETS. AND
THEY MAY STILL. YOU KNOW THAT
YOU CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM
SUING WOULD PUT THE INTENDED
THIS BILL. IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PERSONS LIABLE WHO WHO
ACTUALLY DID THE INJURY.
ACTUALLY PACE. AND PROVIDES THE
INSURANCE TO THE AGGRIEVED.
RIGHT WELL I MEAN. MY POINT IS
I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO MAKE
THIS. WE ASSUME AS POSSIBLE TO
WHAT OTHER INDUSTRIES ARE DOING
SO RENTAL CARS AS MAY BE A GOOD
ONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN
RENTAL CARS THOUGH RIGHT THANK
YOU WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET A
RENTAL CAR YOU GOT TO SHOW
LICENSE. THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENT THINGS INVOLVED THAT
WITH THESE MOBILE DEVICES LIKE
ANYBODY COULD JUST WALK UP. YOU
KNOW YOU USE YOUR CARD IN YOUR
HAND. AND YOU'RE AND YOU'RE ALL
RIGHT I MEAN SO IT'S A LITTLE
BIT THE SAFEGUARDS AREN'T
REALLY THE SAME. BUT BUT SENATE
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO. HAVE
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS BE
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. INTO YOUR
POINTS I THINK THAT SHE USED TO
HOMEOWNERS ARE. THERE TO LIVE
BILLION SHARES A DAY EXISTING
HALF. TO COVER THEMSELVES SO.
THEIR THEIR WORK AROUNDS WE
JUST NEED COOPERATION. FROM THE
OTHER SIDE TO GET TO THAT
BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE CAN COME
WATER REALLY EQUITABLE.
SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK FOR ALL
PARKS. OKAY THANK YOU FOR. YOUR
OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMENTS FROM.
THE COMMITTEE. THE STATUS THANK
YOU AND I JUST WANTED. ON
ENOUGH MR GALLAGHER'S COMMENTS
FIRST OF ALL I UNDERSTAND THIS
LAW AND BEING- OF. VOLUNTEER
FOR THE LIONS CLUB IN AND
VOLUNTEERING FOR THE SEEING
IMPAIRED I COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND THIS AND IT'S
PROBABLY MISSING I WAS WALKING
THE OTHER DAY JUST SEEING THESE
SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF ROADS.
I MEAN AND HOW DANGEROUS THEY
ARE- I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND
THIS THAT IS MY CONCERN THOUGH
BECAUSE I MEAN I WANT TO MAKE
THIS BILL SO IT'S FAIR ON BOTH
SIDES. AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO
SEE YOU GUYS WORK. WITH
INSURANCE COMPANIES AGAIN THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEW- BUT I
THINK THAT IF WE COULD BE A
LITTLE BIT MORE- EQUAL TO WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE-
REYNOLDS YOU KNOW. THE RENTAL
CAR AND WHAT THEIR POLICY IS
AND PUTTING THE RESPONSIBILITY
ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND I WOULD
APPRECIATE THE INTOXICATION.
BUT ALSO- RECKLESS RIDING I
THINK SHOULD BE IN THERE AS
WELL IF IT'S NOT ALREADY-
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENT METHODS THAT YOU CAN
DO THAT ARE DANGEROUS OUT
THERE. SO AT THIS POINT RIGHT
NOW- I WOULD SUPPORT IT BUT
WOULD ASK THAT SHE WOULD HAVE
AMENDMENTS ARE MADE THAT WE CAN
MAKE THIS- FAIR ACROSS THE
TABLE. AT NIGHT I COMMIT TO
THAT FIND ANY COOPERATION FROM
THE OTHER SIDE THEIR THEIR-
THEIR LOBBYISTS HAVE BEEN VERY
UNDERSTANDING HAVE COME MADE
THAT COMMITMENT TO. TO GIVE
THAT INFORMATION TO THE OTHER
SIDE- BUT THEY'VE BEEN. REAL'S
CANNOT STUCK IN NOT WANTING TO
WORK WITH US IT'S NOT THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES TO THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES. WILL MAKE
MONEY AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT
A WAY- TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. I
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S
EQUITABLE I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WE
PROBABLY COULD COME UP WITH
SOME ANSWER WITH THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES- IT'S JUST A WEEK WE
NEED TO HELP FROM THE INDUSTRY.
TO MAKE THIS SO THAT THEY FEEL
COMFORTABLE. AND. WE NEED TO
GET THEM THERE BUT- THAT THEY
DON'T WANT THIS AT ALL. WELCOME
EVERYONE CAN COME THE TABLE. M.
AND MAKE THIS A- POLICY. THANK
YOU THE- ANOTHER COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. MR JONES SAWYER
I APPRECIATE THIS AND I THINK.
FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN YOU'VE
TAKEN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS. BUT THOSE CONCERNS
ARE STILL ARTICULATED BUT
WITHOUT ANY HELP. FROM THE
INDUSTRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES
AND FRANKLY WE WE'VE HEARD THIS
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE SCENARIO
BEFORE NUMBER YEARS AGO WHEN WE
DEALT WITH LIFT AND UBER WHO
ARE SAYING OH MY GOSH YOU CAN'T
MAKE US RESPONSIBLE. FOR OUR
DRIVERS AND THEY THEY CONTINUED
TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE
DRIVER'S. AND WHAT ENDED UP
HAPPENING WAS IT WAS AN
INSURANCE. POLICY QUESTION IN
THE END IN THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY WAS VERY HAPPY TO
START TO WRITE POLICIES FOR
THAT SO THIS IS GOING TO
RESOLVE IN THAT WAY ANYWAY
WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING AT.
BUT THESE. DEVICES ARE VERY
VERY DIFFERENT THAN CARS ME NOT
JUST THE RESPONSIBILITY THE
TRAINING THE DRIVER'S LICENSE
ISSUES AT ALL BUT WALK AROUND
TOWN HERE. I'M NOT WORRIED
ABOUT CARS DRIVING THE WRONG
WAY IN BIKE LANES IS I'M TRYING
TO CROSS A ONE WAY STREET. BUT
YOU SEE SCOOTERS DOING THAT.
ALL THE TIME THERE'S NO SENSE
OF ACCOUNTABILITY THESE ARE FUN
THEY'RE INTERESTING. THEY'RE
WRITTEN. MORE FOR THE JOY OF
THEM THEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OR
JUST AS A TRANSPORTATION VOTE
AND YOU SEE FOLKS ON IDEWALKS
AND BIKE LANES. GOING AGAINST
TRAFFIC. AND THEN LEADING THEM
WHEREVER THEY WANT TO. SO THE
ANSWER HAS TO BE THE COMPANY'S
HOLDING THEIR- CUSTOMERS
ACCOUNTABLE. AND SO YOU'RE
APPROACH HERE IS REALLY TRYING
TO DO THAT AND I'VE- APPLIED
YOUR EFFORT. THE REASONS THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS YES
IT'S AN IRRITATION FOR THOSE OF
US WHO ARE CITED. BUT THOSE WHO
ARE UNDECIDED IN WHEEL CHAIRS
AND STRUGGLING TO GET ALONG. ON
SIDEWALKS. WHERE EVER AND JUST
WALKING HERE THE THREE BLOCKS
AHEAD OF THE CAPITAL THERE WERE
ANY NUMBER OF THEM ALL OVER THE
PLACE IS AN INAPPROPRIATELY.
ALL OVER THE PLACE SO I THINK
THE INDUSTRY REALLY NEEDS TO
STEP UP HERE AND NOT JUST
COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS BUT IF THEY
WANT A DIFFERENT SOLUTION
PROPOSED A DIFFERENT SOLUTION.
AND HELP YOU OUT SO THAT YOUR
NAME CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AND
NOT JUST BY THEM SAYING WE'LL
DO OUR BEST AND LOOK AT WHAT
WE'RE WORKING ON. BUT ACTUALLY
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL IS SO I APPRECIATE
YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I
WOULD HOPE THAT YOU DON'T.
COMPROMISE THIS TOO MUCH THE
END. TO ACCOMMODATE THE
INDUSTRY I WANT TO MAKE SURE
YOUR ACCOMMODATING TO PEOPLE
WHO NEED THE RELIEF FROM THE
PROLIFERATION OF THESE DEVICES.
BEING LEFT EVERYWHERE BEING
DRIVEN EVERYWHERE THAT ARE
INAPPROPRIATE SO I THINK YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
AND I KNOW YOU AND I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND DEAL
WITH THE INDUSTRY. AS
APPROPRIATE I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS STILL CARRIES THE
TEETH NECESSARY TO CHANGE THOSE
BEHAVIORS IN YOUR BROTHER PUT
IT VERY WELL THAT ATTITUDE THAT
THEIR CUSTOMERS HAVE THAT WE
DON'T SEE IN THE RENTAL CAR
INDUSTRY SO I THINK YOU'VE HIT
ON SOME OF THOSE SPECIFIC
DIFFERENCES ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU WITH THAT. YOU MAY CLOSE IT
AND THANK YOU YOU SAID IT ALL
AND WHAT. I WHAT I WOULD SAY TO
THE INDUSTRY IS- THEIR MEMBERS
AND THE ASSEMBLY AND SOME IN
THE SENATE. THIS IS FOR THE
FIRST TIME THAT I SAID IN
PRIVACY WHERE. I WAS ASKED TO
MAKE THE LAW STRICTER. I AM
YOUR HONEST BURKE RIGHT HERE. I
AM THAT I'M THE ONE THAT CAN
BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER AND
PLEASE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT
BECAUSE I'M BEING PUSHED. CLOSE
THE TWO. PLACES THAT YOU DON'T
WANT TO GO SO- IT WOULD BE
GREAT TO COME IN AND MEET WITH
ME BUT MOST IMPORTANT- I TELL
EVERYONE. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE YOU NEED
TO CLOSE YOUR EYES TO BE ABLE
TO SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU MISS JONES
SAWYER SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND SECOND THAT MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED CALDERON PLEASE
STONE HI STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE CHAU. CHIU DAVIES
DAVEY SECOND SALAS CONSULTS AYE
HOLDEN KALRA KILEY KILEY AYE
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN AYE
REYES. THAT BILLS OUT THANK YOU
DICKEY COMMITTEE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ALL RIGHT SO WE WILL MOVE
TO ITEM NUMBER ONE AB ELEVEN
FORTY THREE MR BERMAN AND AS
HE'S COMING UP I'LL TAKE A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THANK YOU DO YOU HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
STONE HI STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE CHAU CHIU DAVIES.
DAVIES I GONZALEZ CONSULT AYE
HOLDEN KALRA KILEY. KILEY AYE
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN IRIS.
THOSE ARE OUT AND THAT IS AB
FIFTEEN EIGHTY WHICH IS A
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILL A. B.
FIVE FORTY SIX MAIENSCHEIN SB
SIX SEVENTY FOUR BENNETT AB
SEVENTY EIGHTY EIGHT CALDERONE
A. B. EIGHT ONE EIGHT BLOOM AB
EIGHT FORTY ONE CUNNINGHAM AB
TEN OF SEVEN CARILLOA. B.
ELEVEN FORTY. AB ELEVEN FORTY
ROBERT RIVAS. AND THEN AB IS
ELEVEN FIFTY SIX. I'M SORRY AB
IS FIFTEEN SEVENTY SIX FIFTEEN
SEVENTY SEVEN AND FIFTEEN
SEVENTY NINE ALL OF WHICH ARE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILLS THOSE
ARE ALL OUT ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA. THANK YOU MR BERMAN FOR
YOUR INDULGENCE PLEASE A. B.
ELEVEN FORTY THREE. THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN COLLEAGUES-
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND I'D
LIKE TO START BY THINKING
COMMITTEE STAFFER THE EARLY
ENGAGEMENT ON THIS BILL AND
INTRIGUING SUGGESTION OUTLINED
IN THE ANALYSIS SHOULD THIS
BILL MOVE FORWARD I'LL BE VERY
BRIEF THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION
SECOND NO VICTIM OF HARASSMENT
SHOULD BE DENIED. PROTECTION
ORDER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
PERPETRATOR CANNOT BE FOUND BUT
IN THE CASE OF CIVIL HARASSMENT
THE LAW EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THE
PERPETRATORS BE PERSONALLY
SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE
PETITION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IF
ANY IN NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE
PETITION WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
THIS DEFICIENCY IN THE ALWAYS
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE RECENT
APPELLATE CASE IN RESPONSE AB
ELEVEN FORTY THREE WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE COURT ORDER
ALTERNATE MEANS OF SERVICE THE
ABOUT REMOVING UNNECESSARY
BARRIERS FOR VICTIMS OF
HARASSMENT TO SEEK PROTECTION I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU. I DO
NOT HAVE ANY WITNESSES LISTED
FOR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR A BI
ELEVEN FORTY THREE. YOUR
INDICATING SUPPORT FOR A BI
ELEVEN FORTY THREE PRESS ONE
THEN ZERO ON YOUR TOUCHTONE
PHONE AT THIS TIME. MISTER
CHAIRMAN WE HAVE KNOWN IN QUEUE
AT THIS TIME I THANK YOU WILL
MOVE TO OPPOSITION OPERATOR
WOULD YOU APPLYING FOR ANYONE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF AB ELEVEN FORTY
THREE. AND ERIC YOU ARE
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THIS
MEASURE PRESS ONE THEN ZERO AT
THIS TIME. DO YOU MISTER CHAIR
WE HAVE KNOWN QUEUING UP. ALL
RIGHT THANK YOU YOU MAY CLOSE
THE LINES THEN FOR AB ELEVEN
FORTY THREE IS THERE ANYONE. IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK ON IT I DON'T SEE
ANYONE ANYONE IN THE- VIDEO
WRITTEN THIS ROOM. NO ONE THERE
ARE BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE THEN. QUESTIONS
COMMENTS MR GALLAGHER. YEAH SO-
I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE ISSUE-
ACTUALLY HAD SOME EXPERIENCE
WITH MYSELF I HAD I HAD A GUY
WHO'S ARE ASKING ME- LITERALLY
I MEAN TRYING TO DO MY JOB. HE
OF- TAKE MY JOB- SO I BROUGHT
SUIT AGAINST HIM- YOU KNOW TO.
GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER- TO STOP IT FROM TRYING
TO DO MY JOB AND I HIS NAME IS
GAVIN NEWSOM- AND I YOU KNOW I
DON'T KNOW HIS ADDRESS. I DON'T
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE SO
YOU KNOW I YOU KNOW WE
ATTEMPTED TO SERVE HIM- YOU
KNOW DROPPED OFF COPIES OF THE
DOCUMENTS AT THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE HERE IN. BILLION INFORM
HIS ATTORNEY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL- INFORMED THEM THAT WE
WILL BE SEEKING THAT T. R. O.
AND- NO FORCING ON APPEAL YOU
KNOW THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEALS DIDN'T THINK THAT
WAS REASONABLE ENOUGH- NOTICE
pABOUT HIS ATTORNEY. AND
DROPPING OFF DOCUMENTS AT HIS
MAIN OFFICE- SO I DEFINITELY
SYMPATHIZE I'M NOT EXPECTING
YOU TO COMMENT TO THAT- MISTER
BYRD. BUT BUT I SYMPATHIZE WITH
THE ISSUE- ONE THING THOUGH I
MEAN. THAT THAT I HAVE ON THIS-
SPECIFIC ISSUES WE PASSED MR
LEVINE'S BILL LAST YEAR.
DEALING WITH- I THINK WAS LAST
YEAR. INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS.
AND I THINK WHAT WE HAD IN
THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT
THEIR LEASE BE LIKE REASONABLE
DILIGENCE TO TRY AND SERVE- IN
THIS IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE
SAYING HEY WE'RE WE JUST HAVE
TO REPRESENT THAT WE DON'T KNOW
WHERE THE ADDRESSES. I MEAN IF
YOU CONSIDER MAYBE ADDING THAT
IN IN THIS PROOF IN THIS BILL
TO SAY AT LEAST SOME KIND OF
REASONABLE DILIGENCE I TRIED TO
SERVE THE PERSON. BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY WITH RESTRAINT ORDERS.
YOU WANT TO TRY AND GIVE THAT
PERSON SOME CHANCE TO RESPOND-
I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE
SITUATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW
OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU'RE BEING
HARASSED YOU DON'T WANT
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PERSON
RIGHT- BUT AT THE SAME TIME.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PEOPLE'S RIGHTS WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE. HAVING AND YOU
KNOW- BUT ENFORCEABLE ORDER
AGAINST THEM WE WANT TO ENSURE
THAT THEY AT LEAST HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY- TO RESPOND SO
MAYBE JUST YOU KNOW WAS THAT
SOMETHING THAT YOU CONSIDER
MAYBE. PUT AN END TO THIS BILL
AS YOU MOVE FORWARD OR- YEAH I
KNOW APPRECIATE THEM AS VICE
CHAIR AND I'M GLAD THAT THAT
THAT YOU'RE VERY SYMPATHETIC TO
THIS BECAUSE HOPEFULLY YOU'LL
SUPPORT. THE BILL I'LL TAKE A
LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED WITH MR
LEVINE'S BILL WILL REALLY TRY
TO DO IS JUST A LINE HARASSMENT
WITH THINGS LIKE. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE- AND SOME OF THE OTHER
STATUTES THAT ALLOW FOR MORE
FLEXIBILITY FOR THE COURT- SO
pAT LEAST BE. YEAR OVER YEAR OLD
REAL REASON THAT THAT'S
NECESSARY- CAN'T SPEAK TO MR
LEVINE'S BILL- WITHOUT TAKING
A- CLOSE LOOK AT IT BUT I'M
OPEN TO YOU KNOW MAKING SURE
THAT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING
THAT'S USED. FOR LESLIE BUT IS
REALLY JUST USED WHEN THE
NECESSITY ARISES. OKAY MAYBE
JUST MAKE IT STAFF AT ALL
COMMENT ON THAT MAYBE LIKE IS
IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT WE DID WITH LEVIN'S
BILL. A FEW YEARS AGO DO YOU
KNOW. WILL GET AN ANSWER FOR
YOU RIGHT NOW YEAH I JUST I
MEAN WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH
THIS BILL I THINK THIS TIME
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND THE BILL JUST
REQUIRES THEM TO SAY HEY WE
FIGHT I DON'T KNOW THE LOCATION
OF THIS PERSON I DON'T KNOW
THEIR ADDRESS- MAYBE JUST
MAKING IT AGAIN THE SAME AS
WHAT WE DO A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDERS WHERE YOU
LEAST HAVE TO SHOW SOME
REASONABLE DILIGENCE- TO SERVE
THE PERSON. THIS IS KIND OF
WHAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FORWARD
TO- I'LL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK TO
MAKE SURE- MY WITHHOLD MY
JUDGEMENT TODAY COMMITTEE BUT
LIKE THAT BE SOME LIKE FOR THE
FLOOR IF THAT'S A PROVISION
THAT YOU CAN INSERT AND LATER
YEAH HAVE A TAKE A LOOK AT YOU
KNOW I THINK YOU- I DON'T THINK
THIS IS BEEN ABUSED IN OTHER
CASES YOU KNOW WITH OTHER. IS
NOT. THE PARTICULAR STATUTES
SO. I DON'T THINK THE COURT
WOULD ALLOW IT IF THEY FELT
LIKE IT WAS BEING KIND OF ABUSE
BUT WILL MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
SOMETHING IN THERE TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT. IT IS REALLY ONLY USE
ONE. WHEN IT'S SHOWN TO BE
NECESSARY. I REQUEST COMMENTS
FOR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. RIGHT
SEEING NONE OF THE MISTER
BERMAN THIS BILL MEETS OF THIS
CAN BE AT THIS SO YOU'RE GONNA
BE LOOKING TO TAKE OF THEM AND
SO I HOPE THAT YOU. WE'RE BACK
WITH US TO MAKE SURE. THE WERE
NOT ON. THE GOOD WORK THAT WE
THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE DOING IN
THIS COMMITTEE ABSOLUTELY HAVE.
THAT RIGHT THANK YOU. SO THE
SERVER YOU MAY CLOSE- RESPECT
ABOUT. THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A
MOTION TO SECOND THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS KALRA PLEASE STONE HI
STONE AYE GALLAGHER. NOVELTY
CHILD CHIU DAVIES DAVIES I
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ I HOLDEN
KALRA KILEY MAIENSCHEIN MENTION
I AGREE IS. THE BILL NEEDS TO
MORE. SO WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT
BELONG CALL FAMOUS GENTLE WE
GET MORE MEMBERS IF WE CAN GET
MORE MEMBERS HE UP AND WE HAVE
AN AUTHOR MISS GARCIA SO ITEM
NUMBER TWO A. B. FOUR FIFTY
THREE. OKAY HE SAID. RIGHT NO
BETTER ENOUGH SO OUR ITEM
NUMBER TWO AB FOUR FIFTY THREE.
WELCOME. THANK YOU AT TRAINED
MEMBERS. AB FOUR FIFTY THREE
WOULD AMEND THE CIVIL CODE LAW
UNDER SEXUAL BATTERY TO INCLUDE
NON CONSENSUAL REMOVAL CONDOM
REMOVAL. THE SLAVIC THEM TO THE
SECRETIVE ACT- WOULD BE ABLE
THINK DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE
RELIEF FROM OTHER PARTIES.
SORRY I WAS RUNNING OVER HERE-
IT'S HARD TO BE WITH THE MASK
IN WRITING. I FELL THE MENU
NAME FOR AN AGENT THANK YOU
PRACTICES THE NONCONSENSUAL AND
INTEND TO REMOVAL OR TAMPERING
WITH THE CONDOM DURING SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE. IN ITS OCCURRENCE
HAS BEEN ON THE RISE OVER THE
YEARS- YOU WILL AS YOU WILL
HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES THEY
COULD PRESENT DOESN'T JUST
EXPOSE INDIVIDUALS TO STDS AND
UNWANTED PREGNANCY POLICE
SELECTOR I'M A TRAUMA. IF A
CONDOM IS YOU THEIR SEX WITH A
SILICON THE ROLE REMAIN REMAIN
ON ELLIS THIS EXPLICIT CONSENT
TO TAKE IT OFF. THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF DISCUSSION OF CONSENT IN
SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. MOST
RECENTLY THE HBO DRAMA I MAY
DESTROY YOU DETAIL TO
COMPELLING THE FICTION OF THE
HORRORS AND TRAUMA. THE SEXUAL
ABUSE INCLUDING STEALTH THING.
AB FOUR FIFTY WOULD PASS THAT
WOULD MAKE HEALTH AND MAKE
CALIFORNIA THE FIRST STATE IN
THE US TO THE FINE.
NONCONSENSUAL CONDOM REMOVAL
MOVEMENT REMOVAL JOINING
NATIONS LIKE THE U. K. AB FOUR
FIFTY THREE TAKES ANOTHER STEP
SOURCE AND IN EVERY CULTURE BY
ALLOWING VICTIMS TO SEEK
DAMAGES FOR THEIR- SEXUAL- FROM
THEIR SEXUAL PARTNERS. HAVING
THIS LAW ON THE BOOKS MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT THIS ACTION IS WRONG
IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL WHICH IS
ALSO KEY IN PREVENTION
EDUCATION I RESPECTFULLY ASK
RELIABLE. THANK YOU MS GARCIA I
HAVE TO. SUPPORT LISTED ON THE
BOTH ON THE TELEPHONE KATHY
RUIZ AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD A
SHEPHERD FROM SEX BIRDS AND THE
UCLA STUDENT WELLNESS
COMMISSION. ARE EITHER MS RUIZ
ARE SEPARATE ALIVE. YEAH OKAY
PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR
THE RECORD. I HAVE SEVERAL AND
MY FEET FEEL EFFECTS BURKE
UNDER THE STUDENT WELLNESS
COMMISSION. THANK REPORT. GOOD
MORNING- I'M A RESIDENT OF YOUR
CHOICE BACK BIRTH- WE'RE AN
ORGANIZATION THAT EDUCATES
STUDENTS ABOUT SEXUAL HEALTH-
AN ORGANIZATION NOT ONLY EXIST
BECAUSE THERE IS A DEEP DEFICIT
AND SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THAT
STATE. AS WELL AS THE DEMAND
FOR STRONGER POLICIES THAT
PREVENT SEXUAL ASSAULT BEFORE
THE TRAUMA OCCURS IN THE FOR
PREDATORS HAVE A CHANCE DANGER
MORE LIVES. THE FACT THAT WE
ARE THE QUALITIES GOES TO SHOW
HOW MUCH THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO
IN THE STATE I HAVE BEEN
STRONGLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN
CRISTINA GARCIA BECAUSE EIGHTY
FOUR FIFTY THREE. WELCOME FELL
CALIFORNIA FORD. AND THE FIGHT
AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE. BUT
PERSONALLY BUT THERE ARE
SUPPORT KEY PILLARS THAT FORM
SATISFYING IN FACEBOOK'S
EXPERIENCES. BUT A PLEASURE
COMMUNICATION CONTENT AND
RESOURCES. I THOUGHT BRIEFLY
ONLY TO SPEAK ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FELT BANG
AND CONSENT BUT FOR THE BIG
SOME SOMETHING INTACT ALL OF
THOSE ASPECTS BECAUSE IT IS
SEXUAL ASSAULT. AND SEXUAL
INVOLVEMENT DEVASTATING
RESIDUAL EFFECT. ON A PERSON'S
PHYSICAL MENTAL HEALTH.
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
ROMANTIC OR NOT. AND THEIR SELF
IMAGE. CONSENT IS REVOKED FOR
AN ONGOING. MEANING IT CAN BE
TAKEN AWAY AT ANY TIME AND AS
NECESSARY EVERY STEP F THE WAY
DURING SEX. EXPERTS TEACHERS
STUDENTS HOW TO COMMUNICATE
THEIR BOUNDARIES WITH THEIR
PARTNERS AND ASSURED THEM THE
ONLY THEY HAVE THE POWER. TO
CHANGE THOSE BOUNDARIES NO ONE
ELSE. SUTTER TO USE BY THE- AND
EXPOSE BECOMES AT THE AYE ON
PARDON. AND THE OBJECT OF THE
THEM AS A MEANS TO AN END.
OTHER ONE OBJECTIVIST THE
NARRATIVE I AM ALL TOO FAMILIAR
WITH AND IF YOU TOLERATE.
ANOTHER MEMBER OF SECTORS STOP
GOES AGAIN OUR CORE PURPOSE AN
ORGAN. THERE FOR YEP TO BE
TOUGH IN. OF THE BILL LIKE AB.
FOUR FIFTY. NO ONE SHOULD FEAR
THE COUNTY OVER THERE BY WILL
BE SO AWAY DESPITE THEIR
EFFORTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.
EIGHTY FOUR THIRTY THREE WORKS
TOWARDS ENSURING THAT THAT
WON'T HAPPEN BY DETERRING
PREDATORS FROM VIOLATING
DEPARTMENT. THIS BILL WILL HELP
COMBAT THE MOUNTING AS THE
IRATE IN CALIFORNIA IN THE PAST
SEVEN YEARS AND IT ASSURE
SEXUALLY ACTIVE ADULTS THE
BODIES MATTER AND THAT POSITION
WILL NOT BE ENTERED IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PLEASE
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY WOMAN GARCIA
AND STOPPING PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS BY PASSING
ITSELF THANK YOU. THANK YOU THE
NEXT WITNESSES KATHY RUIZ ARE
YOU ALIVE. HI YEAH THIS
REGIONAL AHEAD PLEASE AND I
READ THANK YOU. IN TWENTY
NINETEEN I COME FROM THE TOP
INTERCOASTAL WITH MY PARTNER
UNDER MY TERMS OF SHE NEEDED
FOR PROTECTION I'M INTERESTED
ON IT MULTIPLE TIMES I TRUSTED
HIM WHEN I REALIZED SHE
DELIBERATELY DID NOT WEAR
PROTECTION IT WAS TOO LATE HE
GOT ME PREGNANT AND WILLFULLY
ABANDONED ME WHEN I REFUSED TO
GO ON ABORTION. YES WEBER
TURNING TO TOUCH AND WHEN IT
COME FROM HIM TO BE THE FATHER
HE BLOCKED ALL CONTACT. REFUSAL
BUT- YEAH A SECOND TEST AND THE
YOUNG DOCTOR TO ABUSE OF THE
LAW. HE FORCED ME TO GO INTO
LABOR ALONE AT THE PEAK OF THE
PANDEMIC IN EUROPE CITY. IN THE
PARKING OF ANY PEACE OF MIND A
DETERRENT CASE SOMETHING
HAPPENED TO ME. THE UNWANTED
PREGNANCY IMPOSED UPON ME THE
ABANDONMENT AND EXTORTION I
ENTERED FROM MANTRALAYA LET MY
TRUMP CONFRONTED WITH PHYSICAL
INTIMACY. IN ADDITION TO GIVING
BIRTH AT THE EPICENTER OF
ECONOMIC WITH NO ONE BY MY
SIDE. DYSTOPIC INCREDIBLY
TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE BOTH
DURING AND AFTER MY PREGNANCY.
THE PUSH ME TO SUICIDE. NO
PERSON IS ASSIGNED TO ANGER THE
LEVEL STANISLAUS FRANK
INFLICTED UPON ME. NO PERSON
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SUCH
HARM TO SOMEONE WITHOUT
REPERCUSSIONS. I HAD A LONG AND
DIFFICULT RECOVERY AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON
WHO WAS THERE FOR ME. AND I'M
HERE TODAY TO SHARE MY FAITH
WILL HELP PREVENT THIS FROM
HAPPENING TO ANYONE ELSE. IT'S
MEDICAL NONCONSENSUAL ACTIONS
DURING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
INCLUDING REMOVING OR REFUSAL
TO OUR PROTECTION DURING
INTERCOURSE WITHOUT HIS
PARTNER'S CONSENT. IT IS A
VIOLATION TO THAT PERSON'S
BODY. AS SUCH IT IS A VIOLATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS. MEN WHO ENGAGE
IN THIS BEHAVIOR MUST BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE AT LEAST BY LAW AT
THE TURN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN
TO VICTIMS COME A BILL WOULD
LIKE TO MORE PRECAUTIONS. WHILE
THEY CONTINUE THEIR LIVES WITH
ZERO CONSEQUENCES. IT IS NINE A
FLOCK OF ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN
NEARLY HALF OF U. S.
PREGNANCIES ARE UNINTENDED.
PORTION NEARLY THREE MILLION
WOMEN EACH YEAR TO TERMINATE
FOR CARRY TO TERM A PREGNANCY
THEY WERE NOT READY FOR.
DISMISSAL ACCOUNTABILITY WITH
THOUSANDS OF WOMEN ARE FORCED
TO BE SINGLE MOTHERS WHEN THEY
REFUSED TO HAVE AN ABORTION. IF
NETWORK ACCOUNTABILITY WITH
THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ARE
RAISED WITHOUT FATHERS. IT
MEANT A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
WHY ABORTION IS STILL A TOPIC
BEING DISCUSSED. IT IS MY BLOCK
ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THOUSANDS
OF WOMEN AND THEIR PREGNANCIES
AND THE NETWORK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY ONE THOUSANDTH
OF ONE AND A LOT. I THINK THE
NEXT SIX I'M EXPECTING MY
BEHALF. THE HELP MYSELF MY
DAUGHTER AND A WOMAN. AND
NOBODY ELSE HAVE YOU THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. OPERATOR
THAT WOULD YOU OPEN THE VISOR
WELL IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB. FOUR
FIFTY THREE. SEEING NONE AND
THE WITNESS VIDEO ROOM. SEE NON
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO. INDICATE SUPPORT FOR AB
FOUR FIFTY THREE WE'RE TAKING
NAME AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT.
IF YOU'RE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT
OF THIS MEASURE PLEASE PRESS
ONE THEN ZERO AT THIS TIME. IN
EIGHTEEN T. SPECIALIST WILL
PROVIDE YOU WITH YOUR LINE
NUMBER AND WE WILL CALL ON YOU
BY YOUR LINE NUMBER WHEN WE
OPEN UP CAN LIVE. CAN IF THERE
ARE ANY YEAR AT ANY SPEAKERS AT
THIS POINT THE PRESS ONE THEN
ZERO. WE HAVE NO ONE IN QUEUE
AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT THANK
YOU WE'LL MOVED OPPOSITION I DO
NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION. LISTED
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION FOR FIFTY THREE.
SEEING NONE I DON'T SEE ANYONE
IN THE WORLD WITNESS VIDEO
ROOM. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF
AB FOUR FIFTY THREE. SPEAKING
IN OPPOSITION OF AB FOUR FIFTY
THREE PLEASE PRESS ONE THEN
ZERO AT THIS TIME. MISTER
CHAIRMAN WE HAVE NO ONE QUEUING
UP TO THIS POINT ALL RIGHT
THANK YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
THAT'LL BRING IT BACK. MISS
GONZALEZ. SIMONET SUPPORT THIS
BILL- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
BUT ACTUALLY THE WITNESS KIND
OF WORRIES ME- SO IF THE
CONSEQUENCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO
ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUE FOR IS
CHILDBIRTH OR PREGNANCY. THEN
IT SEEMS THAT- THAT WE WOULD
ALSO NEED TO- BUT TAKING
CONSIDERATION CASES THAT DO
HAPPEN WHERE WOMEN CLAIM TO BE
ON BIRTH CONTROL AND- AND MEN
ARE CONSENTING TO SEX UNDER
THOSE CONDITIONS AND THEN A
WOMAN GETS PREGNANT. THERE'S NO
CONSEQUENCE FOR THAT THE
PREGNANCY AS A CONSEQUENCE
MAKES JUST MAKES ME NERVOUS I
DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT- BUT
YOU KNOW THERE ARE. IT AND I'M
NOT SUGGESTING WOMEN TRY TO GET
BUT YOU KNOW. WE KNOW THAT
HAPPENS AND SO- I'M I'M JUST
I'M JUST BRINGING UP I DON'T
KNOW IF THERE'S A FIX TO THIS
IT'S JUST THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT
YEAH IF WORK COMPENSATING
PEOPLE FOR. AN AN INTENDED
PREGNANCY- WELL THAT THAT MAKES
ME NERVOUS. I THINK- THE FRAUD
THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING IS
IMPORTANT TO BE DISCUSSED AND
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT SOME
POINT ANOTHER SOLUTION HERE AT
THIS POINT BUT I DO THINK THAT.
THIS DISCUSSION WORKS BOTH WAYS
AND CONSENT WORKS BOTH WAYS
IT'S NOT JUST ONE OR THE OTHER-
AND- BUT THERE'S PREGNANCY OR
STDS. I DO THINK YOU BEING A
VALID POINT TO THE DISCUSSION
THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT AROUND
CONSENT. AND NEEDS TO BE
EXPANDED OUT TO BOTH SIDES AND
SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH SOME
OF THAT AND I THINK I THINK IT
SPEAKS TO THE WORK WE HAVE TO
BE DOING ON THE EDUCATION OUT
THERE ON BOTH SIDES. HOW MANY
WITH THE BILL I JUST. THINK WE
NEED TO DISCUSS RIGHT I'M
UNCOMFORTABLE EVEN TALKING
ABOUT IT BUT IT'S- YOU KNOW
THEN YOU START THINKING LIKE.
WELL IS A MAN LIABLE IF HE-
PLACES THE CONDOM ON
INCORRECTLY- YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY
HE'S HE'S LIABLE UNDER OTHER
FORMS OF LIABILITY FOR
PRODUCING A CHILD. YOU KNOW WE
DO HAVE LAWS THAT THAT HOLD MEN
ACCOUNTABLE NOT SENSE FOR CHILD
SUPPORT. BUT AS A- AS A CIVIL
MATTER- CAUSING A PREGNANCY I
DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER I'M SORRY
I'M JUST KIND OF. LETTING YOU
KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING I'D LIKE
YOU O CONTINUE TO WORK ON I
DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD
APOLOGIZE I THINK THAT THIS
COMFORT YOU FILL SPEAKS TO THE
CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO BE
HAPPY ABOUT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE BEEN
DISTILLATION SHIPS ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE- OF. OF THE OF THE
DIET A RELATIONSHIP SO ACTUALLY
WOULD ASK NOT TO PARTS THEY
THINK THE CONVERSATION YOU ARE-
ASK MISSING EIGHTEEN IS
IMPORTANT. AS A RESULT OF
MOTION. I MEAN. OKAY THAT'S
MOST WILL. A SECOND OF THIS
WHICH I JUST READ SECOND RIGHT
THANK YOU SEE GALA. YEAH I MEAN
THE ACT THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE IS SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE ACTIONABLE I MEAN
ABSOLUTELY LIKE IF YOU KNOW THE-
THAT TO USE DECEPTION IN THAT
WAY- I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES
WHAT I'M WONDERING ABOUT IS
CURRENT LAW DOES CURRENT LAW
ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE- I'M GOING BACK TO MY-
MY TOWARDS- AND LAW SCHOOL. YOU
KNOW AND IT'S AN INTENTIONAL
ACT- AND THERE WAS SEXUAL
BATTERY- CONSENT CAN BE IN FACT
LIMITED YOU KNOW YOU HEY I'M
ONLY GIVING CONSENT TO THIS.
TYPE OF THING I THINK THERE WAS
THAT CASE AND LAW SCHOOL WAS A
I CONSENT TO USING MY- YEAH-
ORGANS OR WHATEVER FOR RESEARCH
BUT NOT FOR OTHER THINGS TO BE
PROFITEERING OFF OF AND THEY
WERE FOUND THE HEY THAT'S
LIMITED CONSENT THERE'S LIMITED
CONSENT HERE YOU KNOW DOES NOT
FALL INTO. I MEAN CAN'T PEOPLE
ALWAYS ALREADY BRING A CASE FOR
SEXUAL BATTERY UNDER THIS
PRESENT LOOK I DIDN'T CONSENT
TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX WITH
YOU. YEAH I CONSENTED TO
PROTECTED SEX RIGHT SO IS THAT
ALREADY ACTIONABLE UNDER
CURRENT LAW WITH WITH YOU KNOW
THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF SEXUAL
BATTERY- AND THEN IT I MEAN TO
THE ISSUE OF AND THEN IF
THERE'S PARITY I MEAN IF
THERE'S A CHILD INVOLVED HERE
AND YOU CAN PROVE PARENTAGE
THAN. ART OUR CHILD SUPPORT
SYSTEM COMES IN LIKE A WILL YOU
ARE YOU ARE THE FATHER OF THIS
CHILD YOU ARE GOING TO BE
RESPONSIBLE NOW FOR. THE CARE
OF THIS CHILD THAT YOU FATHERED
RIGHT SO I MEAN. MAYBE JUST
RESPOND THAT LIKE IS THE
CURRENT SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW
FOR PEOPLE TO ALREADY TAKE
ACTION IN THIS WAY AND DEAL
WITH THE ISSUES THAT WERE
RAISED. AT THANK YOU MR
GALLAGHER I REMEMBER HOW MUCH I
MISS BEING ON THIS COMMITTEE
THAT'S THAT I'M ATTORNEY I WE
HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS QUESTION
FOR MULTIPLE YEARS AND ASKING
FOR A LEGAL EXPERT ADVICE FROM
THE ATTORNEYS IN THE BUILDING
AND- THEY DO AGREE THAT HAVING
CLARIFICATION MAKES IT EASIER.
FOR VICTIMS TO KNOW THAT THEY
CAN PURSUE DAMAGES- AND THIS
CASE AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN
FOCUSING ON YOU KNOW THE-
PREGNANCY SETTING AND INCLUDE
AS TO DECENT INCLUDES A THEIR
ABILITY TO BE COMPENSATED FOR
BOTH MEDICAL EXPENSES THAT ARE
PHYSICAL BUT ALSO MENTAL. AS
WELL THAT THAT GO WITH THAT
ALONG THE WAY AND I THINK
CALLING IT SOMETHING MAKES
EDUCATION PIECE A LITTLE BIT
EASIER WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO.
PREVENT THIS I THINK IT'S YOU
KNOW I THINK THAT THE OTHER DAY
IT'S ABOUT HOW DO WE PREVENT
THIS OR. NOT YOU KNOW AND THE
SITUATIONS. RIGHT- AND THEN
LAST YEAR WE HAD. HOW DOES THIS
SQUARE OF WHEN THE LAST READY
WE HAVEN'T MR WIENER'S BILL
SENATOR WIENER'S BILL THAT WAS
ABOUT LIKE IF SOMEBODY. I DON'T
KNOW IF I'M REMEMBERING
CORRECTLY HAS SOMEBODY
INTENTIONALLY OR- OR KNEW THAT
THEY HAD BEEN S. HIV OR AN STD
AND THEN. WE TOOK AWAY SOME OF
THE CRIMINALITY ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT. THIS BILL IS NOT
AVAILABLE BUSINESSES IN A CIVIL
SENSE RIGHT DOES IT DOES IT
AFFECT. THAT LEGISLATION. THIS
BILL IS ONLY IN THE CIVIL PART
OF OUR CODE AND NOT AT ALL ON
THE PEEL SET OF A PHOTO FOR-
YOU DID HAVE LEGISLATION
PREVIOUSLY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE
THIS MORE IN THE CRIMINAL
ELEMENT I WONDER IS THAT IS
THAT MAYBE THE MORE APPROPRIATE
THING BECAUSE THIS THIS DOES
SEEM CRIMINAL I MEAN IT SEEMS
IS. A MORE FEELS LIKE A
CRIMINAL ACT WHEN SOMEONE DOES-
WHEN SOMEBODY DOES THIS RIGHT-
I MEAN MIGHT BE MORE
APPROPRIATE TO BE IN THE
CRIMINAL. STANDPOINT I THINK
THE DISCUSSION OF SHOULD BE AN
HONOR THE OTHER ARM BOTH ASKING
CONTINUE I THINK AT THE END
THEY HAVE UNIT AT A MINIMUM AND
OUR CIVIL CODE GIVES THE
SOMETHING THAT I GUESS THAT
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE- A
RIGHT. TO PURSUE- FOR DAMAGES
BUT ALSO TO HAVE A DISCUSSION
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS.
WHAT THE MORAL ANY LEGAL. TEN
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU MISS GARCIA.
THE QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THIS
BILL AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE
SOME QUESTIONS AROUND THIS BUT
THERE'S SOME DEEP QUESTIONS
ABOUT CONSENT AND WE AS A
SOCIETY OR SO SQUEAMISH WHEN IT
COMES TO THE- EVEN TALKING
ABOUT. SACHS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
IN SOME OF THOSE INTERACTIONS
THAT THE CLARITY THAT YOU'RE
PROVIDING HERE. IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AND THE- WE'RE NOT.
CRIMINALIZING WERE MAKING A
SELECTION REALLY RUN THE
PREGNANCY IT'S ABOUT THE
CREATING A BATTERY FOR THIS
ACTION OF STEALTH THING OF.
GOING BEYOND THE CONSENT AND
MAKING THAT CLEAR AND I THINK
THAT'S WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT
BILL ANSEM IS VERY APPROPRIATE
FOR COMMITTEE SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS AND YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU FOR THAT I'LL
TAKE THAT AS MICHAEL THING I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FRIEND AYE
VOTE THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND THAT MOTION
IS TO PASS CALL THE ROLL PLEASE
STONE AYE STONE AYE GALLAGHER
AYE GALLAGHER AYE CHAU CHIU
DAVIES. DAVEY SECOND SALAS AYE
CONSULT AYE HOLDEN KALRA KILEY
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN AYE
REYES. THE NEW ONE MORE. SO WE
WILL PUT THE BILL ON CALL.
GREAT OUR ITEM NUMBER THREE AB
FIVE FORTY NINE MISTER GIPSON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL FIVE FOUR NINE WHICH-
WHICH WILL SUPPORT VOTE- BARBEL
MINERS WHO ARE AT RISK FOR
TIMING OUT OF CRITICAL SUPPORT
SERVICES. THIS PANDEMIC HAS
IMPACTED ALL OF US. BUT
EXPRESSLY THE OLDER FOSTER
YOUTH WHO ARE NEARING THE AGE
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND ARE
UNABLE TO ATTEND THE JUDICIAL
HEARING DUE TO COURT CLOSURES
AND ALSO HEARING DELAYS
ASSEMBLY BILL FIVE FOUR NINE
WILL ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO
ENSURE THAT OLDER FOSTER YOUTH
IN NEED OF TRANSITIONAL
SERVICES ARE ABLE TO ENTER
FOSTER CARE. THIS BILL WILL
ALSO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BENEFIT FROM SUPPORTER OF-
AND EXTENDED FOSTER CARE
SERVICES THIS BILL IS A
CONTINUUM OF THE WORK THAT I'VE
BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST FOUR
YEARS TO REDUCE BARRIERSFOR
OLDER FOSTER YOUTH EXTENDED
FOSTER CARE BENEFITS ARE
CRITICAL TO YOUTH.
TRANSITIONING INTO ADULTHOOD
AND BECOMING AND FACING
INCREASING- ISSUES AROUND THE
PLUMBER STABILIZATION HOUSING
STABILIZATION AND ALSO MEETING
EDUCATIONAL GOALS. THIS CALL
VIC RELATED A TO COURTROOM
CLOSERS HEARINGS NOT TAKING
PLACE BEING DELAYED CASE
WORKERS INVESTIGATIONS BEING
DELAYED SHOULD NOT PREVENT
NARAL GROUPS OF OLDER YOUTH
FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS THEY
OTHERWISE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
AND DESERVE. THE COURT PROCESS
LEAVES OLDER MINORS VULNERABLE
OF TIMING OUT BECAUSE OF THE
AGE OF PROCEEDING. BECAUSE THEY
ARE EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND
ALSO THE BEARS AGAIN COURT
CLOSURES AB FIVE FOUR NINE
OFFENSE AND IT OFFERS AN
EXEMPTION. FOR OLDER YOUTH
GIVING ACCESS TO EXTENDED
FOSTER CARE SUPPORT AND
SERVICES WHEN THEY ARE REMOVED
FROM HOME AND THE COURT MAKES
THIS BEST INTEREST BINDING FOR
THEM TWO WEEKS TO RECEIVE
EXTENDED FOSTER CARE. THIS BILL
IS NARROWLY NARROWLY AND VERY
SPECIFIC TO OLDER MINERS THAT
HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE
PENNED THIS PANDEMIC RELATED TO
A FURTHER DELAYS IN TERMS OF
COURT. INVESTIGATION XTERRA
WE'RE ASKING THIS BILL TO BE
SUNSET BY JANUARY ONE TWO
THOUSAND TWENTY THREE HERE WITH
ME TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
TESTIMONIES WILL BE A
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING
THE- BAY AREA LEGAL AID AS WELL
AS THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
YOUTH THERE WAS SELF INTRODUCED
AND ALSO BE STANDING BY FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. IF NEED BE.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND IN IN THIS FOR THE
SUPPORT WITNESSES I HAVE TO
LISTED. JIM LEWIS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF YOUTH
AND MAKE THE CHANGE FROM THE
BAY AREA LEGAL AID. ARE EITHER
OF YOU ON THE LINE. MAKE NO
CHANGE GOOD MORNING MORNING- MY
NAME IS MATT GOOD MORNING MY
NAME IS MIKE NINETEEN I'M A
MANAGING ATTORNEY AT BAY AREA
LEGAL AID AND I AM SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THE COSPONSORS OF
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS GIPSON EIGHTY
FIVE FORTY NINE ON EXTENDED
FOSTER CARE. AND VERY NARROW
TECHNICAL SPECS OF THE NORMAIS
IMPORTANCE CHIANTI PEOPLE WHO
ARE BARRED FROM ACCESSING
EXTENDED FOSTER CARE SERVICES
DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE. HURDLES
BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. BY WAY OF
BACK SPACE LEGAL SOME PROVIDER
OF THREE CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
TO SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
RESIDENTS LIVING IN POVERTY.
MANY DALY BOTH CLIENTS HAVE
BEEN NON MINOR DEPENDENTS
RECEIVING EXTENDED FOSTER CARE
SERVICES. THANKS TO THE PASSAGE
OF CALIFORNIANS FACTORY
CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS IN TWO
THOUSAND TEN YOUNG PEOPLE WHO
TURNED EIGHTEEN A FOSTER CARE
ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ONGOING
SUPPORT AT AGE. TWENTY ONE TO
PUT BETTER PREPARE THEM FOR
ADULTHOOD. THE REPORTS PROVIDED
BY EIGHTY TWELVE REPRESENTS A
CRITICAL FIFTY NOT TO HELP
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED ABUSE ABANDONMENT
AND NEGLECT. AVOID THE POOR
LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
ASSOCIATED WITH ADVERSE
CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES. HOWEVER
OUR DEPENDENCY COURT AND COURT
OF APPEALS COURTS OF APPEAL
HAVE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC
POPULATIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE
THAT WERE MADE AND ELIGIBLE FOR
THESE CRITICAL SUPPORT. THAT WE
APPRECIATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
DEFENDS BURKE OVER. THE LAST
FEW YEARS MEDICAID. ILLUSTRATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS BILL AND
A YOUNG PERSON'S LIFE AND THE
CHALLENGES THAT CAN BAR ACCESS
I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU ABOUT
MY CLIENT HI. I WOULD THE
PASTOR YOU TWENTY WITH A MUCH
YOUNGER CHILD. ALTHOUGH HE WAS
EVENTUALLY REUNIFIED WITH HIS
PARENTS AND SIBLINGS THE VIEWS
CONTINUED ON A FREQUENT BASIS.
AND DESPITE HIGH SCHOOL
COUNSELOR MAKING CPS REPORT
AFTER WITNESSING BRUISES AND
MARKS ON TYLER'S BODY FROM THE
PARENT. I WAS NOT REMOVED FROM
THE HOME OF THIS ABUSIVE
PARENTS. LIKE TIED TO LEAVE THE
HOUSE WHEN HE WAS A TEENAGER TO
SEEK. REFUGE AT A YOUTH SHELTER.
THANK HEALTHCARE AGAIN CON CPS
BUT AGAIN CPFL TO REMOVE TYPE
FROM THE HOME OF PARENTS. HI
WITH TERRIFIED RETURN TO THE
HOME OF THE PARENTS HE STAYED
AT THE YOUTH SHELTER AND TELL
HIM THAT AN ATTORNEY FROM BAY
AREA LEGAL EIGHT. WE REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE INVESTIGATED THE FAX
AND CONCLUDED THAT TIME SHOULD
BE ENTERED INTO FOSTER CARE.
AND THAT IT SHOULD HAPPEN
IMMEDIATELY. DUE TO HIS AGE OF
SEVENTY. SINCE THE COUNTY
REFUSE TO FILE A PETITION TO
REMOVE TIE. THE ONLY OPTION BUT
WESTECK PETITIONED THE COUNTY
TO ONCE AGAIN ENTERTAINED THE
PASTOR CARE PURSUANT TO WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE. SECTION
THREE TWENTY NINE. ONE TIME HE
REFUSED WE PETITIONED THE COURT
PURSUANT TO WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION THREE
THIRTY ONE. THE JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY COURT AGREED TO HEAR
THIS CASE. BUT THE COUNTY DAHLE
THE STENCILING OF THE HEARING
TO THE COUNTY SOCIAL WORKERS
LACK OF AVAILABILITY. BETWEEN
THE JUVENILE COURT LIMITED
AVAILABILITY TO COMBAT AND THE
SOCIAL WORKERS AND AVAILABILITY
HIGHEST HEARING DID NOT TAKE
PLACE UNTIL THE WEEK. PRIOR TO
HIS BIRTHDAY. HOWEVER THE GYM
COURT JUDGE TYPE TESTIMONY AND
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON
BEHALF OF HIM AND ORDERED THE
COUNTY TO FILE A PETITION
WITHIN FORTY EIGHT HOURS. A
COUNTY FILED THE PETITION THE
FOLLOWING WEEK. A DETENTION
HEARING TOOK PLACE THE DAY
AFTER. HI WITH PROVISIONALLY
DETAINED AND THE CASE WAS
CONTINUED FOR TUESDAY. WHEN THE
SECOND DEPENDENCY HEARING TOOK
PLACE ONE DAY PRIOR TO TIED
EIGHTEENTH BIRTHDAY. HIS MOTHER
SHOWED UP TO THE HEARING AND
OBJECTED TO ANY FURTHER
DETENTION OF THAI. THE COUNTY
MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE AND
THE COURT AGREED STATING IT
COULDN'T POSSIBLY MAKE
DISPOSITIONAL BYNUM'S PRIOR TO
TYPE EIGHTEEN POINT. I WAS
TAKEN TO A HUGE. THAT SAME DAY
WHILE HE WAS STILL SEVENTEEN
YEARS OF AGE. AND HOW MUCH OF A
SENSE. FALLEN INTO DEPRESSION
STATING THAT NO ONE BELIEVED
WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM HE DROPPED
OUT OF SCHOOL AND WEBER
UNFORTUNATELY THE VICTIM OF A
FERRY PILOT PROPERTY ALL
DIRECTLY FOLLOWING THE COURT'S
DECISION. FOR THIS STATE HI HAS
DIFFICULTY SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED AND CONTINUE TO FEEL
COMPLETELY LEFT BEHIND BY A
SYSTEM THAT WAS INTENDED. TO
PROTECT YOU I CAN'T. WE CAN
PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING TO
OTHERS YOU BUT THAT. IS TO BE A
PROBLEM FOR MANY ANSWER YOU
HAVE A AND RIGHT ACROSS. YOU
NEED TO WRAP UP PLEASE. SURE.
IT CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM
FOR MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT AND
DEMOCRATS IN BAY AREA LEGAL AID
FOR THE CONFLICT THAT MANY
STATE THAT DESPITE SEVERAL TPS
REPORTS DURING THE PANDEMIC
YEAH I'M SORRY YOU CAN. NOW I
DO NEED YOU TO WRAP UP PLEASE.
COMING UPON A THOSE KNOW THAT
THE CONTINUES TO HAPPEN TO OUR
CALIFORNIA FUTURE PRODUCTIVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION THANK YOU. THANK
YOU NEXT WITNESS PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING SHARON MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND MY NAME IS KEN
LEWIS REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR YOUTH
ONE OF THE PAST MONTH AND AT
EIGHTY FIVE FORTY NINE I WANT
TO THANK YOUR STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH US IN THE BILL BEFORE YOU
TODAY AND IT HARD TO FOLLOW THE
TESTIMONY THAT MAGNA PROVIDED
ENSURING TYPE STORY HIS LIFE
BUT HAS BEEN NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED BY THE SYSTEM'S
FAILURE. TO PROTECT THEM I
DURING THE UNPRECEDENTED TIMES
NEVER ACCOUNTABILITY ANYTHING
I'M GOING TO GIVE THE GOLDEN
YEARS AND WE BELIEVE AB FIVE
FORTY NINE AT CONSENT THE
LEGISLATURE LEADERSHIP AND
ACTIONS IN THE CURRENT AND PAST
YEAR TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL.
RESOURCES TO COUNTY AT THE
CONTINUE SUPPORTING THAT MINOR
DEPENDENTS YOU COULD NOT BE
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND AS HE
TURNED TWENTY ONE TO REMAIN IN
FOSTER CARE. AND AS NOTED IN
THE ANALYSIS THE BILL PRESENTS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT DATA
AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS THAT
EXISTS FOR OLDER YOU SOMETHING
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND IN WHICH THE L. A.
O. NOTED IN A REPORT FOR MARCH
OF TWENTY NINETEEN THAT BETTER
DATA WOULD NEED ON THE TOPIC I.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION THAT MORNING.
THEY YOU. OPERATOR LIKE TO YOU
TO- OPEN THE LINE FOR A BI.
FOUR NINE FOR THOSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE. FOR A FIVE
FORTY NINE WILL TAKE THE NAME
AFFILIATION. AND THAT THEY
SUPPORT. AT THIS TIME LINE
FORTY ONE PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING- THIS IS JIMMY FAN ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA COURT
APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
ASSOCIATION FOR CALIFORNIA
COSTA IN SUPPORT THANK YOU
THANK YOU. THE NEXT TIME WE GO
TO THIS LINE TWENTY FIVE PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING THIS IS
REBECCA GONZALEZ WITH THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN
SUPPORT. NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE
FORTY THREE PLEASE GO AHEAD.
CHRISTIAN POWER WITH THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
ONE OF THE CO SPONSORS AND
SUPPORT THE MEASURE. GOOD AND
WE HAVE NO FOR THE RESPONSE
THIS TIME. THANK YOU WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION IS THERE
ANYONE ON THE LINE. WHO WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION I
HAVE ONLY ONE POTENTIAL FOR THE
LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY LAWYERS
BUT- ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION OF EIGHT AB FIVE
FORTY NINE. IN OPPOSITION OF AB
FIVE FORTY NINE PLEASE PRESS
ONE THEN ZERO AT THIS TIME. WE
HAVE NO ONE IN QUEUE AT THIS
TIME. RIGHT THANK YOU OPERATOR
YOU MAY CLOSE ALLIANCE AND I'M
GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MISTER GIBSON I SAW
THIS AND MADE SOME COMMENTS IN
HUMAN SERVICES I APPRECIATE
THIS BILL. THE PART THAT. I'M
ACTUALLY SAD TO SEE IS THAT
YOUR SON SETTING THIS BECAUSE
EVEN THOUGH AND I KNOW YOU'RE
TRYING TO DEAL WITH. KIDS WERE
CAUGHT UP IN THIS WITH COVE IT
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS.
IS THERE. ARE SITUATIONS THAT
HAPPENED FAR TOO OFTEN WHERE A
CHILD IS APPROACHING.
EIGHTEENTH BIRTHDAY AND JUST
DOESN'T GET IT JUDICATA BUT THE
FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN REMOVED
FROM THE HOME THE FACT THAT
THEY'VE- THEY HAVE. REALLY
TOUCH THE SYSTEM AT ALL MEANS
WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM AND WE
NEED TO SUPPORT THEM BEYOND
EIGHTEEN AND THAT I AND I THINK
THE- OPPOSITION SUCH AS IT WAS.
TO THIS BILL WAS MISPLACED
BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS NOT
SHOULD WE SUPPORT THESE KIDS
ABSOLUTELY WE SHOULD SUPPORT
THESE KIDS. THE ISSUE IS WE
NEED TO FUND THAT WE NEED TO
ADEQUATELY FUND THAT PROGRAM SO
THAT. ALL KIDS WHO HAVE TOUCHED
THE JUVENILE. THE DEPENDENCY
SYSTEM WELL ACTUALLY DEPENDENCY
OR DELINQUENCY SYSTEM WHEREVER
THEY ARE THAT NEED THE SUPPORT
AND THE HELP. THAT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE BEYOND THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN AND SO YOU'RE TAKING A
STEP I APPRECIATE THAT STEP AND
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN
THIS CONTEXT. BUT WE HAVE
CALIFORNIANS NEED TO BE SMARTER
ABOUT THIS AND RECOGNIZE THE
NEEDS OF THESE KIDS EVEN BEYOND
EIGHTEEN AND THOSE WHO HAVE
GONE THROUGH THE TRAUMAS AND
GONE THROUGH. THE FAMILY
SITUATIONS THAT THEY HAVE. OR
DESERVES A LITTLE BIT BETTER
SUPPORT ULTIMATELY THAT WE GIVE
THEM THAT'S WHAT AB TWELVE WITH
ABOUT. FOR DEALING WITH NON
MINOR DEPENDENTS. BUT I WOULD
SUBMIT THAT WE NEED TO DO
BETTER FOR ALL OF THOSE KIDS
WHO HAVE NEEDED HELP IN
SERVICES ALONG THE WAY. THAT WE
HAVE THOSE. SERVICES AVAILABLE
TO THEM. SO I APPRECIATE THE
BILL HERE AND. I HOPE IT PASSES
THAT I'M SURE TO PASS THIS
COMMITTEE BUT OVERALL THAN AND
THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO
THESE KIDS THANKS FOR THEIR
CUSTOMERS DAVIS THANK YOU
MISTER GIPSON THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS AYE- YOU KNOW HAD
THIS BROUGHT IN AND HUMAN
SERVICES AS WELL AND I THINK
YOU FOR BEING THE VOICE OF
THOSE THAT HAVE NO VOICE. THIS
IS- THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
BILL AND YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT IF
I DIDN'T ASK TO CO AUTHOR I'D
LIKE TO THANK YOU THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SIGNAL MISTER GIBSON YOU MAY
CLOSE THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR HIS-
COMMENTS AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE
TAKEN THOSE COMMENTS THE HEARTS
AND- WE WILL LOOK AT HOW WE-
WORK ON THIS AND MOVING
FORWARD- AS THE- ONE OTHERS
SPEAKERS WHO TESTIFIED IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL TALKED
ABOUT TIED. I BELIEVE THAT-
THIS BILL ASSEMBLY BILL FIVE
FOUR NINE ABSOLUTELY STANDS UP
FOR TIES. OF LIKE HIM AND OTHER
PEOPLE- THAT ARE DEALING WITH
THIS SITUATION- I ALSO WANT TO
MAKE MENTION OF THE LETTER AND
THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND
CERTAINLY- THAT THE SPIRIT OF
LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T
BE IN THIS PLACE WHERE WE ARE
TODAY. AND SO WE WANT TO
CORRECT THE LOSS THE WEEKEND.
ACCURATE ADEQUATELY MAKING SURE
THAT THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW
PEOPLE LIKE TIßN OTHERS TO
FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS- WE
BELIEVE THIS IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. DURING THIS
PANDEMIC WHICH IS UNUSUAL TIMES
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOUNG PEOPLE. ARE NOT PENALIZED
BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE FOSTER
CARE SYSTEM AND THEY DON'T FALL
THROUGH THE CRACKS BECAUSE THEY
TURN. THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS
OF AGE AND SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK THAT I BOUGHT FROM THIS
COMMITTEES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU MISTER GIPSON. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND THAT
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE. STONE. HI STONE AYE
THANK GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER I'D-
CHIU. DAVIES DAVEY SECOND SALAS.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN KALRA KALRA
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN FRENCH AND
IRIS. THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH THANK YOU MISTER
GIPSON. RIGHT WE SEEM TO HAVE.
A LACK OF AUTHORS MR LEVINE OR
MR MCCARTY. ALL RIGHT SEEING
NONE OF THIS GALLAGHER YOU
READY PERCENT. MISTER MISTER AT.
OKAY RIGHT RIGHT ON.
THERE YEAH
YOU CAN COME UP AFTER.
I THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT TO YOU AB ONE ONE ONE
FOUR- WHICH TENDS TO DEAL WITH-
YOU KNOW I THINK A VERY
DIFFICULT ISSUE- THAT WE ARE
ALL- GRAPPLING WITH- IN THESOCIAL MEDIA AROUND- AND- THIS
IS THE FIRST ATTEMPT- IN
CALIFORNIA OF US TRYING TO
APPLY. FIRST AMENDMENT
PRINCIPLES TO SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A NEW
CONTEXT THERE IS ACTUALLY A LOT
OF CALIFORNIA CASE LAW ON THIS
POINT- REALLY FIRST OF ITS KIND
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW ON THIS
POINT WHERE WE HAVE IN FACT
APPLIED FIRST AMENDMENT
PRINCIPLES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
AND NOT JUST AGAINST GOVERNMENT
ACTORS- AND THEN INTO
RESEARCHING THIS MYSELF- I
ACTUALLY HAD NOT READ.
CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION WHEN IT COMES TO
FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS
SPEECH RIGHTS WE ALL KNOW THE
U. S. CONSTITUTION'S- PROVISION
THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
RIGHT THIS IS ESTABLISHING- YOU
KNOW THAT THAT WOULD ABRIDGE
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BUT
CALIFORNIA'S- REVISION ACTUALLY
SAYS EVERY PERSON IT DOESN'T
SAY LEGISLATURE SHALL MAKE NO
LAW. IT SAYS EVERY PERSON MAY
FREELY SPEAK WRITE AND PUBLISH
HIS OR HER SENTIMENTS ON ALL
SUBJECTS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ABUSE OF THIS RIGHT. AND
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS PIECE%
OF LEGISLATION ATTEMPTS TO DO.
IN THAT CALIFORNIA SPIRIT WE
SEEK TO PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL
SPEECH RIGHTS THE RIGHT OF
EVERY PERSON TO FREELY SPEAK
WRITE AND PUBLISH WHILE ALSO
ENSURING RESPONSIBILITY. FOR
ITS ABUSE. AND SO AB ONE ONE
FIVE ONE FOUR PROVIDES THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. TWITTER
FACEBOOK- WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT PRUNE YARD- DECISION. AND
ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE A POLICY
MANDATES THAT THEY HAVE A
POLICY TO ADDRESS ON PROTECTED
FORMS OF SPEECH- WE KNOW MANY
OF THESE INCITEMENT TO
VIOLENCE. TRUE THREATS.
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS- SO WOULD
ENSURE THAT THE PAUL THEY WOULD
HAVE. A POLICY IN PLACE TO
ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF
STATEMENTS OF THE UNPROTECTED.
SPEECH SHOULD IT SEEK TO DO
BOTH THINGS WE DO HAVE A LOT OF
BILLS. WE HAVE SEVERAL BILLS
THIS YEAR THAT ARE TRYING TO
ADDRESS A POLICY THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE. AND I'M
WORKING WITH THOSE AUTHORS AS
WELL MR GABRIEL AND MR CHOW-
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO DO THE SIDE
OF PROTECTING SPEECH RIGHTS-
GETTING TO THE PRUNE YARD CASE
BECAUSE THAT THAT YOU KNOW AND
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE. STAFF
DID AN EXCELLENT JOB I THINK OF
A REALLY SHOWING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW ON THIS
POINT- THE PRUNE YARD CASE.
DEALT WITH A GROUP OF HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS. WHO HAD GONE
TO A PRIVATE SHOPPING CENTER.
AND SET UP A CARD TABLE TO PUT
TO CIRCULATE- A PETITION.
AGAINST A U. N. THE UNITED
NATIONS RESOLUTION- CONDEMNING
ZIONISM. ON THESE HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS SET UP THEIR TABLE
THEY'RE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THE
SECURITY CARD CAME OVER AND
SAID HEY YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF
OUR PROTOCOLS. FOR THE SHOPPING
CENTER AND TOLD THEM TO LEAVE
THE PREMISES AND GO OUT. ON TO
THE PUBLIC STREET- THE SUPERIOR
COURT. THE FIRST COURT HEAR THE
CASE SAID YEP THIS PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS. GOVERNMENT'S
NOT INVOLVED HERE- YOU DON'T
THERE'S NO FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTION AS AGAINST A PRIVATE
ACTORS. I WIN THAT ONE UP TO
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
THIS CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
SAID ACTUALLY NO- THE
CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS. REGARDING SPEECH
ARE ACTUALLY STRONGER THAN.
ACTUALLY GO FURTHER THAN THE U.
S. CONSTITUTION'S. FIRST
AMENDMENT. AND IN FACT LOOKING
AT PREVIOUS CASE LAW WE'RE
DEALING WITH FOR EXAMPLE ANTI
WAR DEMONSTRATORS WHO SHOWED UP
AT A PRIVATE RAIL YARD RAIL
STATION- THAT WAS A PRECEDENT
WHERE A CALIFORNIA COURT SAID
YES THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THERE
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PRIVATE
PROPERTY- AND THEY FALL THROUGH
IN THIS CASE. ALL THE
PRECEDENTS AND ESTABLISH THAT
NO YES THE STUDENTS. HAD A
RIGHT TO SPEAK. ON THIS PRIVATE
PROPERTY BECAUSE AND HERE'S THE
KEY CRITERIA THAT WE AS A
COMMITTEE I THINK SHOULD REALLY
BE THINKING ABOUT- THE KEY
CRITERIA WAS THIS WAS A PLACE
THAT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
COMPLETELY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC-
ENTERED ACTUALLY X. SORT OF
DISPLACED. WHAT USED TO BE. THE
PUBLIC SQUARE YOU KNOW IN IN
TRADITIONALLY YOU'D HAVE THE
PUBLIC SQUARE LIKE KIND OF IN
THE TOWN CENTER. YOU KNOW AND
PEOPLE WOULD GATHER THERE AND
THEY WOULD SPEAK THEIR PEACE
THEY WOULD YOU KNOW- TALK ABOUT
DIFFERENT ISSUES OF THE DAY.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'D SEE A
LOT OF THAT EXPRESSION WELL. BY
THE TIME THIS CASE ROLLED
ROLLED AROUND IN THE SEVENTIES.
WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THAT BE
DISPLACED AND NOW YOU KNOW
SHOPPING MALLS HAVE BECOME MUCH
MORE PREVALENT AND THAT'S WHERE
PEOPLE. WERE DOING THAT WELL
NOW WE'RE IN TWENTY TWENTY ONE.
AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE
THERE'S NOT LESS PEOPLE BEING
AT SHOPPING MALLS. A LOT OF
SHOPPING MALLS GOING OUT OF
BUSINESS ACTUALLY- AND CLEARLY
MUCH OF OUR POLITICAL DIALOGUE.
IN OUR DISCOURSE IS NOW
HAPPENING ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR
BETTER OR FOR WORSE. THAT'S
WHERE IT'S HAPPENING. SO THE
NEW PUBLIC SQUARE AND I THINK
WE COULD ALL REALLY AGREE ON
THIS THE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE IS
IN FACT IN FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
WE ALL HAVE ACCOUNTS. RIGHT AND
IN FACT WE'RE TOLD AS PUBLIC
OFFICIALS. IF WE HAVE AN
ACCOUNT. AND WE'RE AND WE
COMMENT AND PEOPLE ARE
COMMENTING ON OURS WE CANNOT
ACTUALLY EXCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE
FROM COMMENTING BECAUSE WE HAVE
CREATED A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM.
SUPREME COURT JUST ACTUALLY
RULED THAT THAT IS THE CASE- SO
CLEARLY WE NOW HAVE IN SOCIAL
MEDIA THE NEW TOWNSQUARE VERY
SIMILAR TO WHAT THE PRUNE YARD
CASE HAD A SAID ABOUT SHOPPING
MALLS. IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
ANYBODY CAN GET IT FACEBOOK OR
TWITTER ACCOUNT YOU GO ON THERE
YOU SIGN UP AND YOU GET GOING
RIGHT I MEAN NO ONE IS ACTUALLY
EXCLUDED. FROM GOING ON THERE
AND CERTAINLY PEOPLE SAY ALL
KINDS OF THINGS- ON THOSE
ACCOUNTS- AND THEN THE OTHER
IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS THAT ALSO
THAT NO ONE COULD REASONABLY
ATTRIBUTE THE SPEECH TO THE
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SO THEY
SAID IN THIS CASE WILL LOOK NO
ONE'S REASONABLY GOING TO
ATTRIBUTE THAT THIS PETITION
ABOUT ZIONISM IS WHAT THE-
OWNERS OF THE SHOPPING MALL
THINK. THEY KNOW THAT IT'S THIS
GROUP THAT HAS A CARD TABLE
THAT'S THEIR SPEECH RIGHT. SO
TO ON SOCIAL MEDIA I THINK IT'S
PRETTY CLEAR SOMEONE COMMENTING
OR SOMEONE POSTING IT'S THEIR
VIEW POINT NO ONE WOULD
HONESTLY SAY OH THAT'S MARK
ZUCKERBERG'S. VIEWPOINT YOU
KNOW IT'S VERY CLEAR THIS IS
JUST A PLATFORM. THEY'RE NOT
THE YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE-
THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY
SPEAKING AND SO THESE
PRINCIPLES FIT RIGHT IN LINE
WITH CALIFORNIA CASE LAW. THAT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD
APPLY TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA.
PLATFORMS. NOW I KNOW THERE IS
A HESITATION WITH THAT BECAUSE
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS IS
NEW BUT I HAD WERE IN THIS
THEME I THINK IN THIS COMMITTEE
OF HOW WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO APPLY LEGAL PRINCIPLES
TO NEW THINGS. NEW INNOVATIONS
THAT HAVE COME IN- AND SO
THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IT IS
NOT APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT
JUST AS IT WAS THE CASE IN THE
SHOPPING MALL CASE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM SHOULD BE SUBJECT. TO
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREE
SPEECH. PROTECTIONS GET INTO
THE SECOND PART. I THINK WE ALL
KNOW THAT HEY THERE ARE ABUSES
AND WE SEEN THOSE ABUSES. SO
THAT IS WHY WE OUT INTO THIS
BILL A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES.
PROTECTED FOUR FORMS OF SPEECH
OBSCENITY. INCITEMENT TO
VIOLENCE- IT DOES GET SOMEWHAT
STICKY AND ALSO I'LL BE THE
FIRST TO ADMIT THIS IS HARD TO
FIGURE OUT BECAUSE EVERYBODY
WANTS TO TALK ABOUT
MISINFORMATION HOW DO WE DEAL
WITH MISINFORMATION. AND THE
PROBLEM FOR FIRST AMENDMENT.
CASE LAWS LOOK. TO SAY QUITE
SIMPLY PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO
BE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE
SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG.
IS NOT REALLY A BASIS FOR
SOMEONE TO SUPPRESS THAT SPEECH.
TRADITIONALLY THE WAY THAT
WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT IS BY THE
IS BY FREE SPEECH ITSELF BY
PEOPLE CALLING OUT. THE
FALSENESS ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT
TRUE WHEN YOU HAVE A TRUE FREE
MARKET OF SPEECH. IS ALLOWED TO
CALL THAT CALL THAT OUT IT'S
HARD TO GET AT MISINFORMATION
THE BEST WE HAVE REALLY IN THE
COMMERCIAL CONTEST FOR FALSE
ADVERTISING. YOU KNOW THAT IS
UNPROTECTED SPEECH WHEN YOU'RE
TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING. AND
YOU SAY THAT IT DOES SOMETHING
IT IN ACTUALLY DOES NOT. YOU
KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN
BE REGULATED AND ACTED UPON-
AND THAT BUT THAT'S- THE WINDOW
WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH IS
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH ABUSES. OF
SPEECH THIS DOES ENSURE THAT
THOSE THOSE JUST SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
HAVE. SUCH A POLICY SO I THINK
IT STRIKES THE BALANCE. AND IT
DOES SO CONSISTENT WITH
CALIFORNIA'S- UNIQUE AND I
THINK VERY IMPORTANT FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS IN ITS
CONSTITUTION- AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS I ASKED YOU KNOW FOR
YOUR SUPPORT I KNOW THIS IS
THIS IS A NEW. NEW FRONTIER
THAT WE'RE DELVING INTO- BUT AS
WE MOVE FORWARD I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET
THIS RIGHT AND CALIFORNIA
SHOULD BE THE LEADER ON THIS WE
ARE THE HOME. TO THESE LARGE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. AND WE
HAVE CERTAINLY ALWAYS BEEN THE
BASTION. OF INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTIES AND FREE SPEECH THE
FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT WAS BORN.
OUT AT- OF UC BERKELEY. SO I
THINK WE HAVE A YOU KNOW OF THE
KEY ROLE TO PLAY HERE AND I
WOULD ASK. MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION OF
THIS MEASURE THAT I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO MY JOINT AUTHORS. I
DO NOT HAVE THE JOINT AUTHORS
LISTED SO I'M NOT GONNA ALLOW
ANOTHER SPEAKER ON THIS IS A
KILEY WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK IN
DUE COURSE BUT WE DON'T
TYPICALLY ALLOWED CO AUTHORS TO
CO PRESENT UNLESS THEY'RE
LISTED AS JOINT AUTHORS. A
BUBBLY IS A JOINT AUTHORS. NOT
ACCORDING TO THE BILL AND
PRINT. OKAY WELL. I'LL HAVE HIM
MAYBE CLOSE THEN IF THAT WOULD
BE ALRIGHT MISTER MISTER
CHAIRMAN- I DO HAVE ONE WITNESS
HERE IN SUPPORT. PERHAPS YOU
COULD DO THAT. WHEN IT COMES
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. BUT I'M
I'M SERIOUS YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT I
DON'T HAVE YOU INDICATED AND
NOBODY TOLD ME THAT THIS IS
GOING TO BE A JOINT
PRESENTATION. NOT THAT. I WANT
THE DISCOURSE. BUT I'M ALSO
VERY SENSITIVE TO THE NEXT.
BILL AUTHOR WHO COMES IN AND
WANTS CO AUTHORS TO PRESENT.
YEAH OKAY IS JUST AS CO AUTHOR
SO I DID HAVE AN INDICATION SO
I'D I'D RECOMMEND EITHER BEING
A JOINT AUTHORS WERE CLEARING
UP WITH ME NEXT TIME. AGAIN
IT'S PROCEDURAL PROBLEM I AM
NOT REALLY TRYING TO INTERFERE
MR KILEY WITH YOUR ABILITY TO
SPEAK ON THIS BILL BUT I'M
COGNIZANT OF SORT OF THE NEXT
BILL IN THE NEXT BILL IN THE
NEXT BILL AND IF WE HAVE THE
EXPECTATION THAT ANY NUMBER OF
CO AUTHORS BECAUSE LOTS OF
BILLS HAVE LOTS OF CO AUTHORS.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE
CONDUCIVE TO GETTING BUSINESS
DONE IN THE COMING YEAR
ALLOWANCE. TO DISCUSS THIS
ACTION. I LET'S LET'S. YEAH
LET'S DO THAT ONE BRING BACK TO
THE COMITTEE. BECAUSE THAT
STILL IS ON THE RECORD AND
STILL IS A PART OF IT. SO WE'LL
MOVE AND MISTER CALDERON I WAS
A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT THE
BILL BEFORE US TODAY. IS THE IS
THE TWO SECTIONS BECAUSE WHEN
YOU AND I SPOKE ON THE PHONE.
AS I INDICATED MY CONCERN FOR.
BRING THESE PLATFORMS UNDER THE
AMBIT OF. THE PRINTER DECISION
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A I
DON'T AGREE WITH THAT I THINK
THERE ARE SOME VERY IMPORTANT
DISTINCTIONS. THAT THERE YES WE
HAVE YET TO SOLVE. SO I WAS
EXPECTING. THE BILL TO BE
MODIFIED THAT WAS WITH OUR
DISCUSSION WAS TO REALLY WHAT
IS NOW THE SECOND SECTION SO
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE BILL BE
MODIFIED THAT THAT YOU TAKE THE
AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE FIRST
SECTION SECTION AND A AND THEN
ALLOW SECTION BE. AND THE
DEFINITIONS TO BE THE BILL AND
MOVE FORWARD. SO AT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE NOT
TAKING THAT AS AN ADMIN. I'M
NOT AND I MAY PERHAPS I WAS A
MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN YOU
AND I WE TALKED ON THE PHONE.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT
CONVERSATION IS THAT I WAS
GOING TO ATTEMPT TO. TALK TO
ADD THE SECOND PART WHICH IS
WHY I MADE THE AMENDMENT. TO
ADD THE SECOND PART TO ENSURE
THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS HAD
A POLICY. AND THAT WITH THOSE
TWO COMBINED. WOULD THAT BE
SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT. BE
SUPPORTIVE OF MY ENTITLED. TO
DISCUSS THE DISCUSSION WAS WHAT
WOULD BE WHAT WOULD I BE
SUPPORTIVE OF. AND I WAS VERY
CLEAR ABOUT THAT SO I WAS
EXPECTING. THE BILL. TO BE
AMENDED TO BE SOMETHING THAT
YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT. I
JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT AND I
AND I AM NOTICING THAT MEN.
MISTER CHAIRMAN IS JUST IT
WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN SAY
MISTER CHAO'S BILL WHICH WE
WHICH WE HAD. ADDRESS LAST WEEK
OR OR MR GABRIEL'S BILL WHICH
IS TRYING TO ADJUST. THE
pCOMPANIES SHOULD HAVE. OR NOT.
REALLY THE SPIRIT OF THIS IS TO
SAY LOOK THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
SHOULD APPLY I GET THAT THAT
YOU DON'T THINK IN THIS CONCERT
GREATER THAT'S THAT'S WHY I WAS
A LITTLE SURPRISED. TO SEE THE
IMMENSE BUT JUST CLARIFY. OKAY
SO WILL MOVE TO YOUR- YOU HAVE
A WITNESS IN SUPPORT WHO HAS IN
THE- I DO HAVE A WITNESS INTO
THE ROOM HERE TODAY MATT NICK
REYNOLDS FROM FROM THE VISITORS
JUSTICE INSTITUTE. RIGHT GOOD
MORNING TWO CAN YOU HEAR ME.
THAT GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS MATTHEW
MCREYNOLDS OF THE PACIFIC
JUSTICE INSTITUTE'S CENTER FOR
PUBLIC POLICY HERE IN SUPPORT
OF ASSEMBLY BILL ELEVEN
FOURTEEN. AND IT'S HARD IMPROVE
ON- MR GALLAGHER'S PRESENTATION
MEMBER GALLAGHER- BUT THERE'S A
LOT THERE THAT WOULD STRONGLY
AGREE WITH YEAH I JUST WANT TO.
TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS
THEY WERE RAISED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS- FIRST OF
ALL THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE
HAVE LITIGATED- SUCCESSFULLY
AND QUITE A BIT THE LIMITS AN
EXTENSION OF THE PERSON YARD
LINE OF CASES- UNDER ARTICLE
ONE SECTION TO THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. SO I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT FORTY
YEARS AFTER THE US SUPREME
COURT IT BEGAN ITS TRADITIONAL
SPEECH- FOR ANALYSIS IN HEY
VERSUS CHAU- THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT EXTENDED THAT TO.
YOU IN PRONE YARD TO THE
SHOPPING MALL CONTEXT BECAUSE
PUBLIC FORUMS TO CHANGE SO MUCH
AND SO HERE WE STAND JUST OVER
FORTY YEARS BEYOND PRUNING YARD
WITH AGAIN. MAJOR SHIFTS IN
WHAT PUBLIC FORUMS ARE AND HOW
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY
COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER
AND SO. I WOULD JUST-
RESPECTFULLY THAT DISAGREE WITH
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
INTERPRETATION OF WHERE WE
STAND AFTER THE GOLDEN GATE
WAYS DECISION- GOLDEN GATE WAYS
BEING THE PLURALITY DECISION IN
TWO THOUSAND ONE CAN BY JUSTICE
JANICE ROGERS BROWN- WITH GREAT
RESPECT FOR JUSTICE BROWN
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN OUR
STATE COURTS IN A VASTLY
DIFFERENT PLACE. TODAY THAN
THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO AND
WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE POISED.
TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION THAT
MISTER BILL WOULD. ADVANCE TO
BRING GREATER- REALITY REALLY
TO PUBLIC FORUM DR THE ONE
OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO
MENTION IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS. OFFICE FOR THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS IS CONCERNED IT WAS
VERY CONCERNED TO. SEE THE GO
THE ADDITION OF THE POLICY
ASPECT OF THE BILL THAT WOULD
GO THE DIRECTION OF ATTEMPTING
TO SUGGEST DEMONSTRABLY FALSE
SPEECH ISN'T PROTECTED SPEECH
THAT IS OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS HELD
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THE
STOLEN VALOR CASE COMES TO
MIND- AS WELL AS THE IN A CASE
INVOLVING THE SUSAN B. ANTHONY
LIST AND IT WITHIN THE
SPECIALLY THE LAST FIVE TO
SEVEN YEARS YES THE PRINT CORD
IS MADE IT. CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT
THEY'RE NOT INTERCHANGING.
EXPANSIONS OF UNPROTECTED
SPEECH AND THEREFORE AT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULDN'T- I'VE SO-
WITH THAT I KNOW TIME IS
LIMITED HERE SO JUST WAT TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK- FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE ON ASSEMBLY BILL ELEVEN
FOURTEEN THANK YOU THANK YOU
OPERATOR IF YOU WOULD NOW OPEN
THE LINES FOR OTHERS WHO WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT WILL
TAKE NAME AND AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. FOR THE BILL FOR A. B.
ELEVEN FOURTEEN. OKAY TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF AB ONE ONE ONE
FOUR PLEASE PRESS ONE AND ZERO
AT THIS TIME ONE. THEN ZERO.
AND ONCE AGAIN TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF AB ONE ONE ONE FOUR.
THIS PRESS ONE THEN ZERO AT
THIS TIME. AND WE HAVE NO
RESPONSE IN QUEUE WITH THIS
TIME. THANK YOU OPERATOR SO WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION I
HAVE TWO WITNESSES. LISTED
DYLAN HOFFMAN FROM THE INTERNET
ASSOCIATION ON THE TELEPHONE
AND CAMERON TO METER FROM
TECHNET ALSO ON THE TELEPHONE.
ARE EITHER OF YOU HERE. YOUR
CARE- DON'T OFTEN ON BEHALF OF
INTERNET SENSATION REALLY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TODAY- WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE ELEVEN FOURTEEN- WHICH
ONE PR SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
ABILITY TO MODERATE THE LEGAL
CONTENT ON THEIR PLATFORMS. AND
EXPOSE USERS TO MANY FORMS OF
HARMFUL SPEECH- ARE COMPLETE
SHARE THE AUTHORS- INTERESTS
AND INTENT IN FOSTERING DIVERSE
ONLINE DISCOURSE- HOWEVER THE
BAT WE BELIEVE THAT INTEREST IS
NOT SERVED OF OUR COMPANIES ARE
REQUIRED TO HOST ALL
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
CONTENT- TODAY PLATFORMS
REGULARLY TAKE ACTION AGAINST
SPAM MALWARE AND VIRUSES CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL. SCAMS
THREATS AND HARASSMENT THE
PERSON ASIAN NON CONSENSUAL
INTIMATE IMAGES HE SPEECH FALSE
INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENT
THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED OR
NOT IS HARMFUL TO THE USERS OF
THEIR SERVICES AND THE PUBLIC
AT LARGE AB ELEVEN FOURTEEN
WITH A FIFTY MEASURES. ARE
TAKEN DAILY BASIS AT RISK BY
SEEKING TO LIMIT MODERATION
DECISIONS THAT CAN BE
UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT THE THREAT
OF LIABILITY WE BELIEVE
CONSUMERS WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM
US. AB ELEVEN FOURTEEN ALSO
RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
CONCERNS AND IS PREEMPTED BY
FEDERAL LAW IS WELL ESTABLISHED
THAT COMPANIES COVERED BY THE
SPELL HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS IN THE CONTROVERSIAL
DECISIONS THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE
AN INHERENT PART OF THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHT. IN ADDITION BUT
HE TO LIMIT THE ABILITY OF
INTERNET COMPANIES TO BLOCK
REMOVE CONTENTTHEY CONSIDER
OBJECTIONABLE THE BILL IS
CLEARLY INCONSISTENT PROTECTION
TO THIRTY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
DECENCY ACT. SECTION TWO THIRTY
BARS ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OUR
LIABILITY BE IMPOSED ON
INTERNET COMPANIES UNDER STATE
LAWS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THAT THOSE PROTECTIONS APPLY
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
CONTENT MANAGER IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. BY
US WE BELIEVE AB ELEVEN
FOURTEEN IS UNLIKELY TO SURVIVE
SCRUTINY IN THE COURTS IF IT
WERE. TO PASS AND BE SIGNED
INTO LAW. AT THE HEART OF THIS
A SIMPLE FACT OF MY CONT ON
SOCIAL PLATFORMS REALLY.
SOMETIMES DECISION REMOVE
OBJECTION CONTENT EASY I'M
CALLING. BUT OTHER TIMES THERE
DOES WERE AND- CAN DISAGREE. I
WHETHER A KEY OF CONTENT
DIRECTOR AT THE CATEGORY OR
RISES TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF
RISK FOR USERS FOR PUBLIC.
REGARDLESS OF THE DECISIONS ARE
MADE CONSTANTLY AND
CONSISTENTLY AS POSSIBLE AS
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PIECES
OF NEW CONTENT PER SHARED EVERY
SINGLE DAY. ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS EVERY DIVISION OF THE
PERFECT OUR COMPANIES ARE DOING
THEIR BEST TO BE A PLACE WHERE
IDEAS CAN FLOURISH WHILE ALSO
ENFORCING THESE BASIC COMMUNITY
STANDARDS- AT ELEVEN FOURTEEN
BUT SEVERELY IMPEDE OUR
COMPANY'S EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
SAFE. WELCOMING ONLINE
COMMITTEES TO THEIR USERS AND
FOR THESE REASONS WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE. PAID
ELEVEN FOURTEEN. THANK YOU.
NEXT BIGGER PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING SHARE MEMBERS MY NAME
IS KEVIN IMAGERY WITH TECH THAT
TECHNIP THE NATIONAL BIPARTISAN
NETWORK OF TEXIER CONTINUE
EXACTLY. PROMOTES THE GROWTH OF
INNOVATION ECONOMY. WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE AB ONE ONE
ONE FOR WHICH IS SUBJECT
CALIFORNIANS TO MORE OF CNN
LEGAL CONTENT ON THE INTERNET
BY CREATING LIABILITY RESTS FOR
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES THAT
MOVE OBJECTION ALL CONTENT ON
THEIR PLATFORMS. OUR MEMBERS
ARE COMMITTED TO KEEPING OUR
USERS SAFE ONLINE WHICH IS WHY
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES REVIEW
MILLIONS OF PIECES OF CONTENT
EVERY DAY. IN ORDER TO REMOVE
HARMFUL CONTENT THAT COMPLEXITY
POLICIES. CALIFORNIANS SHOULD
ENCOURAGE COMPANIES HAVE
CONTACT POLICIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT REMOVAL OF CONTENT
SHOWING THE EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN GLORIA HARASSMENT.
GORE WHEN AUGUSTINE STAFF. SO
MEDIA COMPANIES UNDER THAT THEY
HAVE ADOPTED. TO REMOVE THE
FACTIONAL CONTACT. OTHERWISE
THEIR USERS WILL BE SUBJECTED
TO DANGEROUS LIKE IMAGES OF
CHILD ENDANGERMENT FINANCIAL
SCAMS SPAM AND OTHER NEFARIOUS
LINKS. COMPANIES TAKE THIS
RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY
REMOVING HARMFUL CONTENT IN AN
UNBIASED MANNER WHILE KEEPING
THEIR SERVICES OPEN TO A BROAD
RANGE OF IDEAS. IN THE
OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF CASES
REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE CONTENT
IT'S ACCOMPLISH AS INTENDED.
HOWEVER THIS YEAR BOTTOM OF
CONTACT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS PER DAY SURE THAT BOTH
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND
HUMAN REVIEWERS ACT COMPANIES
CANNOT GET IT RIGHT A 100% OF
THE TIME. THANK YOU TRANSACTION
THAT FOR ALL WILL NEED TO BE
REPAIRS WILL BE FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFAIR TO APPLY POTENTIAL
DRACONIAN PENALTIES FOR
INSTANCES WHERE CUT. MISFIRED A
SIMPLE MISTAKE THIS MAY. IT THE
BILL RIGHT COUNTER TO THE
AMERICAN FREE SPEECH LOG CALL
RIGHT. ON THE- SECTION TWO OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION
DECENCY ACT. AS MY COLLEAGUE
OPERATE. IN AKRON IN NINETEEN
NINETY SIX SECTION TWO THIRDS
TO KEEP PROVISIONS OTHER POWER
ONLINE INTERMEDIARIES TO MOVE
HARM HARMFUL CONTENT WHILE
PROVIDING THEM WITH THE SAME.
CONDUIT UNITY THAT COMMONLY
EXISTENCE OTHER REAL WORLD
OFFLINE CONTACTS FOR EXAMPLE
NOT HOLDING A BOOKSELLER LIVE
AUCTION ALLOWED LIST. BUT
RATHER. THE INDIVIDUAL WHO
COMMITTED ARRIVAL. IT IS
ACTUALLY CHEAPER AMERICA
COMPANIES RIGHT INFORMATION THE
SERVICE TO MEET THE MEET THE
NEXT. OF THE CAR. THIS ACTION
HAS SUPPORTED INNOVATION ACROSS
THE INTERNET WHILE ALSO
ENCOURAGING COMPANIES TO
DECRYPT AMERICANS. HELLO MY
NAME TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO OUR
AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL THE
PROVIDER USERS YOUR TO GET
SMALL. BUT THEY'RE NOT SUCH
MATERIAL IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED. FOR THESE REASONS
ARE BECAUSE SATURDAY YOU FOR
YOUR AND- THANK YOU OPERATOR
WOULD YOU NOW OPEN THE LINES
FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION I DON'T SEE
ANYONE HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION BUT OPEN
THE PHONE LINES. FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US THEIR
NAME AND THEIR AFFILIATION AND
THAT THEY'RE OPPOSED. OKAY NOW
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF AB
ONE ONE ONE FOUR. PLEASE PRESS
ONE AND ZERO AT THIS TIME ONE
TEN ZERO. ONE MOMENT PLEASE.
PLEASE STAND BY WILL GO TO
WHILE LINE THIRTY FIVE. AND ONE
MOMENT PLEASE. ONE THIRTY FIVE
GO AHEAD PLEASE. HI THERE MY
NAME'S WHAT MUHAMMAD WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL THANKS. AND AT THIS TIME
WE HAVE NO FOR THE RESPONSE IN
Q. ALL RIGHT THERE THANK YOU
OPERATOR YOU CAN CLOSE THE
LINES ON A. B. ELEVEN FOURTEEN.
SO WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MR GALLAGHER AYE AYE
I DO HAVE AN ISSUE AND I DON'T
AGREE. THAT BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVERLY
SIMPLISTIC TO SUGGEST C. AS IN
PRUNING ARE THAT THESE ARE.
LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS BECAUSE
THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT
DISTINCTIONS HERE AND THAT IS
THE- ANYBODY INCLUDING THE KIDS
COULD WALK INTO THE PRISON YARD
AND SET UP A TABLE. BUT THAT'S
NOT TRUE ON SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS IN ORDER TO. EXPRESS
SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM
YOU NEED TO BE A MEMBER HAVE AN
ACCOUNT AND THOSE COUNTS. ARE
OFTEN VETTED AND WE'VE REALLY
STRUGGLED WITH WITH WITH THE
BOX AND THE OTHER SORT OF
ILLEGITIMATE. ACCOUNTS THAT
HAVE BEEN CREATED AND WE'VE
BEEN HAVE BEEN ASKING THE- AND
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO CLEAN
SOME OF THAT UP. ALSO THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS OVER THE
YEARS HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO
EVEN WEIGH IN ON ANY CONTENT
AND I THINK THE PRESSURE OVER
THE YEARS HAS FINALLY KIND OF
COME TO THE FORE WHERE THEY ARE
MORE SENSITIVE TO BEING AND
WILLING TO REMOVE HATE SPEECH
AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN
FACT OBJECTIONABLE. AND IF WE
CREATE A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
IN THIS CASE IT IN IN THAT CASE
WHICH WHICH I WHICH I STILL
THINK FUNDAMENTALLY IS. IS NOT
APPROPRIATE EVEN UNDER PRUNE
YARD AND THE JURISPRUDENCE
ALONG THE WAY BUT IF WE- DO.
CREATE A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
IT IS GOING TO HAVE A CHILLING
EFFECT ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
THE PLATFORMS TO DO AND THAT IS
REMOVED HATE SPEECH AND REMOVE
SPEECH THAT THAT IS
OBJECTIONABLE WHICH IS WHY I
THINK IT'S MORE PORT AT THIS
POINT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PLATFORMS ARE IDENTIFYING VERY
CLEAR. ABOUT THE KINDS OF
THINGS THAT THE REMOVING OR NOT
I THINK THAT IS UNCLEAR TO MOST
OF US AND HOW THEY FUNCTION AND
HOW THEY FUNCTION BEHIND THE
SCENES. ONE OF THE WITNESSES
MENTIONED THAT A. I. OKAY I
KNOW THAT'S BEING DONE THROUGH
A I'VE- BUT WHAT. WAS DEVELOP
WHAT ALGORITHMS ARE DRIVING
THAT A. I. AND HOW THAT'S BEING
PROCESSED OR THINGS THAT I
THIN WE ALL IN THE PUBLIC AND
THE USERS OF THESE PLATFORMS
REALLY NEED TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND. SO THAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE STEP I AM VERY
CAUTIOUS ABOUT TAKING THIS LEAP
TO SAYING THAT IT IS A LIMITED
PUBLIC FORUM BECAUSE OF THE
VERY CLEAR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
WHAT THESE FORMS ARE. AND
SOMETHING LIKE A SHOPPING MALL
TWITTER FACEBOOK ARE NOT LIKE
SHOPPING MALLS NOW AMAZON AND
OTHER COMPANIES THAT ARE
PROVIDING ELECTRONIC
MARKETPLACES ARE BECAUSE YOU
DON'T REALLY NEED TO. HAVE AN
pACTUALLY AND A LOT OF THOSE YOU
DON'T NEED TO HAVE AN ACCOUNT
IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE
SERVICES BUT TO PARTICIPATE IN
SOCIAL MEDIA YOU DO. AND SO THE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY HAS THE
ABILITY TO HAVE AN INTERACTION
WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AND WE WANT
TO FACILITATE THAT OTHERWISE IF
WE SAY THAT THESE ARE NOW
LIMITED PUBLIC FORUMS WE ARE
GOING TO BE OPENING UP. ALL
KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES FOR
SPEECH THAT WE ARE FINALLY IS A
SITE SOCIETY TRYING TO GRAPPLE
WITH THIS THING NOT APPROPRIATE
IN THE SETTINGS AND WE WOULD
DEFINITELY SORT OF CHILL FOR
THAT AND THAT'S WHY I HAD
THOUGHT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT.
TO TAKE OUT. LINES SIX THROUGH
NINE SUBSECTION HEY AND THEN RE
LETTER RIGHT AND THAT'S THE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS. THAT WAS
PROPOSED AND- INSURE THAT WE
HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT THESE PLATFORMS ARE DOING
RATHER THAN THROWING THEM IN
APPROPRIATE INTO THE CATEGORY
OF LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. WHICH
WOULD THEN FACILITATE THE OR OR
BLOCK THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE THE
PROGRESS WE HAVE WE HAVE SEEN
THEM MAKING IN GOING AFTER HATE
SPEECH INAPPROPRIATE SPEECH. WE
WOULD BE PUTTING THEM. IN A
VERY TOUGH POSITION I THINK NOT
MAKING DECISIONS BECAUSE IS
WHAT THEY'VE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT
BEFORE DECIDING WHAT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
SPEECH WHAT IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
SPEECH. AND I'LL- I THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO DOWN
THAT PATH. SO I AM IT IF. I'D
BE HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL WITH
THE AMENDMENT IF IT'S NOT GOING
TO BE AMENDED THAT I'M
RECOMMENDING AND I'M HOPING
THAT THIS COMMITTEE. WILL VOTE
NO ON THIS BILL SO I HAVE
MISTER MAIENSCHEIN AND MISTER
KILEY I'M GONNA GO TO MISTER
KILEY FIRST JUST BECAUSE OF
SORT OF THE INTERACTION HERE
WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE OF
THE TOPICS IN THE BILL AND THEN
I'LL GO TO MISTER MAIENSCHEIN
AND- DID ANYONE ELSE. THANK YOU
I APPRECIATE THE PRIVILEGE OF.
SPEAKING ON A BILL I'M CO
AUTHORING ABOUT FREE SPEECH- I
DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES.
RELATED TO SECTION TWO THIRTY-
THAT WERE. QUITE APPROPRIATELY
BROUGHT UP- IN THAT COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND- I'LL RAISE BY
OPPOSITION AND IN THE ANALYSIS
BY THE WAY I THOUGHT WAS REALLY
WELL DONE. AND THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY THE- THE MAJOR-
IMPEDIMENT TO ANY ATTEMPT TO
DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IS THAT-
SECTION TWO THIRTY DOES
PROVIDE- PRETTY SWEEPING
IMMUNITY- BOAST BOTH FOR WHAT
IS POSTED AND- FOR WHAT IS. A
REMOVED. HOWEVER I THINK THAT
THERE ARE A COUPLE ANSWERS TO
THAT- IN THIS CONTEXT THE FIRST
I HAVE A PRETTY. NARROW POINT-
WHICH IS BASED UPON THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE
OF HASSLE THE BIRD NOW THE
APPELLATE COURT IN THAT CASE-
HELD THAT IN. A PARTICULAR
CONTEXT- THE LIABILITY SHIELD
IS NOT A BAR TO INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF THAT MIGHT BE A BAR TO
MONETARY RELIEF. BUT NOT TO
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THAT DECISION
WAS REVERSED FOR THREE BY THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
HOWEVER IT WAS IN A SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT POSTURE WERE THERE
THEY WERE DEALING WITH
LIABILITY FOR POSTING AS
OPPOSED TO HEAR DEALING WITH
LIABILITY. AFTER REMOVING
THERE'S ALSO BEEN A PERHAPS
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SECTION-
TWO THIRTY JURISPRUDENCE SINCE
THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN THAT CASE
THE ARGUMENTS THERE PERHAPS
HAVE MORE FORCE. ABOUT MY
BROTHER ARGUMENT. IS THAT- I
THINK THAT. THE SECTION TWO
THIRTY- JURISPRUDENCE IS A VERY
A WIDE AREA OF WATER RIGHT NOW-
AND- AS- THIS GALLAGHER MENTION
IN HIS PRE. WE EVEN HAVE A
RECENT. DECISION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT'S SHOWING THAT IN. A
PARTICULAR CONTEXT A PUBLIC
FIGURE'S POSTS EVEN THOUGH
THERE ARE- THROUGH A PRIVATE
PLATFORM- CAN BE CONSIDERED
GOVERNMENT SPEECH. AND I THINK
THERE ARE MANY INDICATIONS
THAT- THAT THINGS WILL CONTINUE
TO DEVELOP- IN THAT WAY BECAUSE
IT'S A WELL ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT. THE QUOTE THE
GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INDUCE
ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE PRIVATE
PERSONS TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN.
TO ACCOMPLISH AND WHAT WE'VE
SEEN WITH SECTION TWO THIRTY.
IS THE GOVERNMENT HAS
ESSENTIALLY BY GRANTING
IMMUNITY. ALLOWED A HANDFUL OF
MAJOR COMPANIES- TO BECOME THE
MAJOR GATEKEEPERS AFTER PUBLIC
DISCOURSE IN OUR SOCIETY. AND I
THINK THAT AT THE POINT AT
WHICH- THE GOVERNMENT HAS
PROVIDED THE LATTER THROUGH
WHICH THEY ASSUME THEIR
DOMINANT MARKET SHARE. I THEN
ACCORDING TO WELL ESTABLISHED
PRINT- PRESIDENTS OF THE U. S.
SUPREME COURT. THEN THE
OBLIGATIONS OF GOVERNMENT NOT
TO INTERFERE WITH SPEAK
CONSCIOUSLY PROTECT PROTECTED
SPEECH- ATTACH AT THAT POINT AS
WELL. IN FACT YOU CAN EVEN GO A
STEP FURTHER. THERE ARE
MULTIPLE EXAMPLES AND I FEEL
LIKE THERE IS AN ALLUSION TO
THIS EVEN IN THE CHAIR'S
REMARKS THAT WE JUST HEARD-
REGULATORS AND OF GOVERNMENT.
GIVING THESE COMPANIES
DIRECTION ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY
SHOULD CENSOR AND WHAT HE
SHOULD REMOVE. AND AT THAT
POINT IT'S VERY CLEAR. THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN DEPUTIZED- BY
THE STATE OR ACTING. OUT OF
FEAR OF- YOU KNOW A PUNITIVE
RESPONSE ON THE PART OF THE
STATE. AND THERE'S ALSO A VERY
WELL ESTABLISHED LINE OF CASES
SHOWING THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS.
ATTACHED WHEN THAT IS THE CASE
SO I THINK THAT. YOU KNOW THIS
AREA IS THAT RIGHT. FOR A
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN CASE LAW
I THINK THE- CAL. PROVIDES A
IDEAL- YOU KNOW A SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THAT
DEVELOPMENT NOT ONLY BECAUSE
WE'RE DEALING HERE WITH A LOT
OF CALIFORNIA COMPANIES- BUT
ALSO FOR THE REASON. MR
GALLAGHER CITED IN HIS REMARKS
THE CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF I
THINK IT'S ONLY A FEW STATES
THAT GOES BEYOND THE U. S.
CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION OF
GOVERNMENT INTERFERE ON
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH
SPEECH BUT ACTUALLY HAS AN
INFORMATIVE GUARANTEE. OF THE
RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY WHICH IS
WHY WE HAVE A PRUNE YARD
PRINCIPLE IN CALIFORNIA- WHERE
IT DOESN'T EXIST UNDER THE US
CONSTITUTION IT DOESN'T EXIST.
IN MANY OTHER STATES AND I FIND
IT VERY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
WHEN THE DRAFTERS OF SECTION
TWO THIRTY CAME UP WITH THIS IN
NINETEEN NINETY SIX IT WAS
THEIR INTENTION. TO PREEMPT
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AS
FAR AS PRE FREE SPEECH IS
CONCERNED BECAUSE AT THAT POINT
IN TIME. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENVISIONED THAT. THESE
COMPANIES ARE JUST A FEW OF
THEM. WOULD BECOME SUCH
GATEKEEPERS A PUBLIC DISCOURSE
THAT THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS ARE IMPLICATED BUT
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED.
AND IT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE
ASSISTANCE THAT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THESE COMPANIES. BY
THE LIABILITY SHIELD OF SECTION
TWO THIRTY SO. I THAT'S WHY I
THINK THAT THOSE PARTICULAR
LEGAL CONCERNS OUGHT NOT TO
CARRY THE DAY HERE- AND JUST
BRIEFLY. YOU KNOW AS FAR AS AS
THE POLICY GOES I MEAN I THINK
THAT. MIGHT FAVORITE EXPRESSION
OF THIS IDEA COMES FROM JOHN
STUART MILL'S SORT OF CLASSICAL%
ENLIGHTENMENT LIBERAL THINKER
HE SAID THE PECULIAR EVIL OF
SILENCING THE EXPRESSION OF AN
OPINION IS IT IS ROBBING THOSE
WHO TO STAND FOR THE OPINION.
STILL MORE THAN THOSE WHO HOLD
IT. IF THE IDEA IS RIGHT THEY
ARE DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY
OF EXCHANGING ERROR FOR TRUTH
IF WRONG THEY LOSE WHAT IS
ALMOST AS GREAT A BENEFIT. THE
CLEARER PERCEPTION AND LIVELIER
IMPRESSION OF TRUTH. PRODUCED
BY ITS COLLISION WITH AIR.
THERE ARE SOME TRULY ODIOUS ID.
HEY SPEECH. TERRIBLE THINGS
THAT ARE BEING EXPRESSED ON THE
INTERNET BUT BY REMOVING THEM
FROM THE MOST POPULAR SITES
THEY DON'T GO AWAY THEY SIMPLY
BUBBLE OFTEN RESURFACE IN AREAS
WHERE THERE SN'T THE SAME
OPPORTUNITY FOR REASONS COUNTER
ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION WHICH
IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF
HISTORY. THE AS OUR SUPREME
COURT HAS PUT IT THE REMEDY HAS
ALWAYS BEEN MORE SPEECH NOT
ENFORCED SILENCE AND WHAT IS
BEING SUPPRESSED IS NOT JUST
THESE TRULY ODIOUS IDEAS BUT A
MUCH BROADER SWATH OF SPEECH
USED THE TERM STILL NOT SHOWING
AFFECTED SOMEHOW REFER TO YOU
KNOW- NOT ENOUGH CENSORSHIP BUT
THE ACTUAL CONCEPT OF CHILLING
FACT IS THAT- SOMEONE WILL
STEER FAR CLEAR OF THE UNLAWFUL
ZONE AND IT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE
WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THINGS
LIKE DEACTIVATING YOUR TWITTER
ACCOUNT. OR YOUR FACEBOOK
ACCOUNT MIGHT BE A BIG PART OF
SOMEONE'S LIFE AND YOU SAY WELL
IF YOU VIOLATE SOME NEBULOUS
TERMS WE'RE GOING TO DELETE
THAT ENTIRELY THEN PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT
WHAT THEY DO AND SAY AND IT'S
AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SPEECH.
IT IS SUPPRESSED AS A RESULT
I'LL GIVE YOU I JUST A FINAL
EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW RECENTLY
THAT A PUBLIC ROUNDTABLE HOSTED
BY FLORIDA GOVERNOR RON
DESANTIS WAS REMOVED FROM YOU
TOO THIS IS A ROUND TABLE WITH
PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS IN
EPIDEMIOLOGISTS FROM HARVARD
FROM STANFORD AND FROM OXFORD
AND IT WAS- PROVIDING INSIGHT.
INTO WHY GOVERNOR TO SANTOS HAS
PURSUED THE POLICIES THAT HE
HAS THAT BUT HE WAS REMOVED
SUPPOSEDLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A
BRIEF MENTION IN THAT VIDEO OF
HOW- ONE OF THE EXPERTS THERE
DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS ADVISABLE
TO HAVE KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF
FIVE- WEAR MASKS AND YOU TO
PROVE IT SAYING THIS RUNS
CONTRARY TO YOU KNOW PUBLIC
HEALTH OPINION ACROSS THE
GLOBE. THAT'S ACTUALLY WRONG
THAT WHAT THE EXPERTS SAID WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE WHO'S OWN
GUIDANCE BUT LET'S SAY THAT
YOU'RE A CRITIC OF GOVERNOR TO
SANTA'S IN HIS POLICIES WOULD
YOU WANT. TO HAVE ACCESS TO A
VIDEO THE HIDES INSIDE INTO WHY
PURSUED COURSE THE HE HAS ORDER
CAN YOU CAN HAVE AN ON. AND CAN
BE PREPARED TO MAKE COUNTER
ARGUMENTS THAT SPEAK TO THOSE
ISSUES. SO I THINK WE'RE
DEALING WITH SOMETHING MUCH
MORE IMPORTANT- HERE THAN. APPS
THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD-
THAT WOULD LEAD US TO BELIEVE I
THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
MEASURE AND IT'S A WAY TO
CALIFORNIA AND SORT OF BE
CLAIM. ITS ROLE AS A NATIONAL
LEADER IN THESE PRINCIPLES OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SO THANK YOU
MR GALLAGHER FOR BRINGING THIS
FORTRESS MEASURES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH MISTER MISTER
CHAIRMAN- MICHELLE YES ME TO
GIVE IT MY- THOUGHTFUL
CONSIDERATION I HAVE- THIS IS
LIKE A- COMPLICATED LAW SCHOOL
THE FINAL QUESTION FINAL EXAM
QUESTION BY THE WAY RIGHT- LET
ME ADDRESS. WHAT I LIKE TO
DRESS IS KIND OF BREAKING INTO
TWO PARTS. I'M AN ADDRESS WHAT
AT LEAST I FEEL IS YOUR LACK
LESS COMPELLING. AT ISSUE HERE
I THINK IT'S- JUST KIND OF THE
NOBODY LIKES I THINK IT'S YOU
IF YOU AGREE. TO WHICH IS SORT
OF THIS POLICY. ISSUE PART OF
IT IS. EVEN SO S. B. ASSUMING
THIS WOULD THAT A REQUIREMENT.
OF A PRIVATE COMPANY TO HAVE A
CERTAIN POLICY. IS A GOOD IDEA
OR SOMETHING WE SHOULD PURSUE
THE POLICY BUT I THINK WE WOULD
AGREE WOULD PROBABLY BE PRETTY
BROAD AND PRETTY BASIC RIGHT
WOULD BE ENOUGH WE WANT TO HAVE
FAIR AND HONEST OPEN
COMMUNICATION RIGHT OR
SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IT
WOULD PUT. THEN THE ONUS BACK
ON THE LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW
WHETHER. A POLICY OF A PRIVATE
COMPANY IS GOOD ENOUGH. AND
THEN FROM THERE HOW IS IT IN
FOUR STRAIGHT BECAUSE THE
COMPANY WOULD SAY WE ARE WE'RE
FORCING IT WE WERE EVERYTHING
WE FOUND HERE IS TRYING TO BE
FAIR AND HONEST AND OPEN
WHATEVER KIND OF. SO CALLED
VERY BROAD. HOW HOW AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER OR- WOULD YOU
GET AT A EVEN. WHY WOULD BE A
GOOD IDEA TO TELL A PRIVATE
COMPANY TO DEVELOP A POLICY
RIGHT WE ALL GET AWAY WITH ME.
YOU MIGHT EVEN REMEMBER BACK IN
WORKING FOR A LAW FIRM MY FIRST
DAY THERE I GOT OUR FIRM'S
POLICY RIGHT POLICY MA'AM
MOSTLY WHEN HE STARTED JOB
RIGHT THERE'S A LOT OF POLICIES
HUGE BOOK OF POLICIES VERY
BROADLY WRITTEN BY AN HR.
CONSULTANT RIGHT. HOW WOULD YOU
GET OUT EVEN SO EVEN A WHY YOU
THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO
HAVE PRIVATE COMPANIES DO THAT
AND THEN BE EVEN IF THEY DID
HOW THE LEGISLATURE REVIEW. WE
HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE-
EIGHT TRILLION SOCIAL MEDIA
POSTINGS AND SALE YOU SHOULD
HAVE GRABBED THIS ONE MAGICIAN
AND GRAB THAT ONE. YEAH I KNOW
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND I AND-
IT'S SOMETHING I'VE BY STRUGGLE
WITH I MEAN THAT'S WHY I SORT
OF BROUGHT IN THE POLICY
SECONDARILY THIS STARTED OFF AS
A BILL JUST APPLYING FIRST
AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES TO THE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. BUT I
GET YOU KNOW WHY A LOT OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE ABUSES THAT WERE SEEN
RIGHT- THEN IF YOU TALK TO THAT
THE TECH COMPANY THE SOCIAL
MEDIA COMES A SAY WHAT WE HAVE
POLICIES THE PROBLEM IS NOBODY
REALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE. I
MEAN THEY CAN READ A MINUTE I
DON'T THINK THEY REALLY
UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE EVEN
APPLIED OR ENFORCED RIGHT. AND
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE I TRIED
TO GET YEAH I'M TRYING TO.
THREAD THE NEEDLE HERE. IF YOU
WILL BY SAYING LOOK I THINK WE
NEED FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS.
WE NEED TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK FREELY- ON THESE
PLATFORMS WHICH I THINK HAVE
BECOME THE PUBLIC SQUARE RIGHT
THE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE. WELL
THEN ALSO LIKE HAVING. YOU KNOW
SOMETHING AND I TO ME THE BEST
WAY TO MAYBE DO HAS A SAY IN
THE REALM OF UNPROTECTED SPEECH
WHERE THE WHERE THE COURTS HAVE
ALREADY RULED THESE THINGS ARE
UNPROTECTED OBSCENITY.
INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE TRUE
THREATS THE DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS. THAT THEN PUT THE
ONUS ON THE BUSINESSES SAY HEY
HAVE A POLICY THAT ADDRESSES.
THOSE THINGS THAT. I THINK
THAT'S WHERE MOST PEOPLE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THERE ISN'T ONE
RIGHT. YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT
THEN HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT
RIGHT AND WHO WHO AND FORCES
THAT HE SAYS YOUR POLICY IS
GOOD ENOUGH. THE I THINK THOSE
ARE THE CHALLENGES MISTER CHOW
HAS A BILL. TRYING TO DO THE
SAME THING. THE OTHER WE
PASSED. LAST WEEK- ED. MEMBER
GABRIEL I THINK ALSO HAS A BILL
WHERE HE'S TRYING TO DELPH THIS
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT IS THAT RIGHT POLICY
IT'S TOUGH. ON THE FLIP SIDE.
BUMPERS AMENDMENT. WE MIGHT WE
MIGHT. WE MIGHT HAVE A FEELING
THAT WE I DON'T THINK IT'S A
GOOD POLICY FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
TO APPLY I THINK THAT'S WHAT
THE CHAIRMAN IS SAYING HE
DOESN'T THINK IT'LL ULTIMATELY
BE GOOD POLICY FOR FIRST
AMENDMENT TO APPLY TO SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS. I DON'T THINK
IT REALLY MATTERS WHETHER NOT
YOU AGREE WITH THAT TO GET
POLICY OR NOT IT'S REALLY ABOUT
DOES THE LAW REQUIRE IT AND IT
SURE IT SURE LOOKS TO ME LIKE
IT IS GOING TO ULTIMATELY
THAT'S WHERE THIS IS GOING.
BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES IN PRUNE
YARD ARE VERY MUCH OF THE
PLUGGABLE YOU KNOW TO SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS I DON'T HAVE
BEEN LABOR THE POLICY PART IN
ANYTHING EXCEPT I FIND THAT THE
LESSER OF THE COMPELLING RIGHT.
I GUESS I'LL JUST SAY IS IT
WOULD END UP I THINK AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER IT WOULD END
UP WITH. I THINK THE GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPING A POLICY FOR PRIVATE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY AND SO
THEN IT WOULD BE A GOVERNMENT
HANDED DOWN POLICY TO BE IN.
SECONDARILY I JUST DON'T SEE
HOW THAT WOULD EVER BE ENFORCED
BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE
BROAD ENOUGH AND WHAT YOU KNOW
PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS
OF WHAT'S FAIR AND WHAT'S NOT
FAIR WHAT'S UP ON AS MUCH NOT
OPEN AND NOT OPEN. SO I WOULD I
WOULD JUST SAY IS A PRIME I
JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD
EVER BOTH FROM A SORT OF
PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT REALLY
MORE SO FROM A PRACTICAL
STANDPOINT HOW THAT COULD WORK
BUT I WANT TO GET INTO THE WHAT
I THINK IS MORE COMPELLING
ABOUT THIS OKAY. BECAUSE THERE
THERE HAS BEEN SUCH AS- BAD
CHANGE IN OUR LIFETIMES AS TO
HOW WORK HOW THE PUBLIC IS
COMMUNICATED WITH BOTH BY THE.
GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE PARTIES-
AND TYPICALLY. IN FIRST. CASES
RIGHT THE LEVEL OF REVIEW IS
SORT OF WHAT. DETERMINES THE
OUTCOME FOR EXAMPLE TIME PLACE
AND MANNER. WE HAVE A VERY LOW
LEVEL REVIEW BECAUSE WE AGREE
OF THE GOVERNMENT. AT THE-
CAMP. REQUIRE PEOPLE TO HAVE A
PERMIT FOR PARADE THANK WE-
REGRET THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO
PARADES THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. SO
YOU DO THAT IF THEY HAVE PARKS
YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FOR A
PART. AGAIN BECAUSE WE
UNDERSTAND THERE'S- WE CAN
DISCRIMINATE HOW TO HAND OUT
THE PERMITS. WHEN WE- LET IT
GET THAT WEEK WE AGREE WE
COLLECTIVELY AGREE THAT YOU CAN
HAVE YOU HAVE TO PROTEST FOR A
PROPOSAL PART. OF A PARTY AT A
PARK OR SOMETHING OF THAT
NATURE. IN SORT OF IN THE
MIDDLE. IS IN A CONTACT WE
AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME
REGULATION HAS ON. CAN'T YELL
FIRE IN A CROWDED ELEVATOR YOU
CAN'T INCITE VIOLENCE. IN THE.
MOST RESTRICTIVE IS OPINION.
GOVERNMENT WE DON'T WANT WE
COLLECT WE DON'T THE GOVERNMENT
TO EXPRESS AN OPINION WHETHER
SOME OF. FAVOR SIR RELIGIOUS. A
SPECIFIC IN. OUTCOME AND SO
ALMOST IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT ENDS UP EXPRESSING
OPINIONS. HE GETS IT AND GOES
COURT CORNER OR WHERE THEY
EXCLUDE SOMEONE'S APPARENT
RACISM IS BEING RIGHT BECAUSE
IT'S- IT'S THE IDEA BEHIND IT
IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULDN'T. HAVE A PREFERRED
OPINION WE- TYPICALLY.
OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVELY
FORMALLY PUSHED BACK ON- SOCIAL
MEDIA. COMPANIES ARE PRIVATE
RIGHT THEY HAVE THEY CAN KIND
OF INCLUDE AND EXCLUDE. IF AND
THEN WE AS THE PUBLIC HAVE THE
RIGHT TO TURN IT OFF. OR NOT
YOU HAVE AN ACCOUNT. EVERYBODY
CHOOSES HAVE AN ACCOUNT. RIGHT
OR THEY CAN CHOOSE HOW MUCH
TIME THEY SPEND THE DAY YOU
KNOW. SCROLLING THROUGH THAT'S
UP TO ALL OF US WOULD BE ZERO
MINUTES TODAY COULD BE SOME
PEOPLE ON IT EIGHT TEN HOURS WE
KNOW THAT- BUT I DO THINK
THAT'S A- WHY. NOT THE FIRST
MINUTE GETS A GOVERNMENT
CONTACT CONTACT. WHEREAS
PRIVATE PARTY CONTACT WITH. IS
DIFFERENT IN MANY MANY WAYS NOT
LEAST OF WHICH IS WE CAN GET
AWAY FROM IT AND WHEN YOU CAN'T
GET AWAY FROM GOVERNMENT ACTION.
GOVERNMENT IS PERFORMING
CERTAIN CERTAIN FUNCTIONS ONLY
GOVERNMENT. DOES AS OPPOSED TO
WHAT THIS PRIVATE COMPANIES
DOING WHICH IS IT'S IN SOME WAY
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION. BUT
BECAUSE IT'S BEING MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN SOME WAYS AND BY
SIX SEVEN FIVE I IS LOOKING.
DOES IT MEAN IN MY VIEW THAT MR
SHOULD BE HELD THAT THAT SHOULD
BE HELD TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS
AND- LET'S GO BACK FOR A TIME.
BACK BEFORE YOUR AND MY TIME.
THERE WERE THREE MAJOR NEWS
CHANNELS RIGHT WALTER CRONKITE
TO OTHERS AND PROBABLY 99% OF
AMERICANS GET THEIR NEWS FROM
ONE OF THOSE THREE CHANNELS.
BUT JUST BECAUSE THAT WAS THE
PREFERRED METHOD OF VIEWING
DIDN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAD
DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND THEY
HAVE TO HEAR TO. A GREAT. THAT
I DON'T BELIEVE SO I MEAN. AND
AGAIN I WAS BEFORE MY TIME
RIGHT DID YOU WE DID GO TO LAW
SCHOOL AFTER THAT THEY DIDN'T
HAVE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEY
DIDN'T HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS
EIGHT HERE TOO BECAUSE FOR
WHATEVER REASON EVERYBODY TURN
TO THEM FOR NEWS RIGHT ON THE
BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN
ISSUE OF THOSE NEWS COMPANIES
EXCLUDING VIEWERS AND SAYING.
YOU KNOW OR MAYBE WE ARE TAKING
THEM ARE SAYING YOU CAN'T WATCH
OUR SHOW. RIGHT I MEAN. SO A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT CONTACT
MAYBE BUT THEY ALSO. I MEAN
THEY HAD ON SOME OF MAKE A
DECISION WHAT'S GOING TO BE
INCLUDED OR- EXCLUDED ON A
THIRTY MINUTE BROADCAST. RIGHT
AND THEY WERE THEY WERE THEY
WERE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY
CREATED THE CONTENT AND SOCIAL
MEDIA IT'S ACTUALLY THE PEOPLE
WHO WATCHING OR PEOPLE USERS
WHO ARE CREATING THE CONTENT
ALL YES ALTHOUGH I GUESS A NEW
STORY THAT A CAMERA PERSON IS
GOING ON RECORDING WITH A FIRE
THE NEWS CHANNEL IS A GREAT.
FINALLY THE RECORDING THE
FIRING THREE LANE AT TASKRABBIT
THEY'RE THE ONES DECIDING TO.
VIDEO THAT FIRE AND THAT'S MY
DOES NOT LIKE THE PERSON THAT
STARTED THE FIRE THE FIRE WAS
LIKE HEY COME THAT IS I THINK
CONFINED ME THAT INFO IS RIGHT
IT'S NOT. THERE THERE REPLANT
THEIR MAKING A CHOICE AND WHAT
THEY COVER RIGHT RIGHT AND SAME
AND SAME IN THIS INSTANCE RIGHT
NOW PEOPLE CAN GET THEIR NEWS
FROM NEWSPAPERS AND GET FROM
TELEVISION STATIONS YOU KNOW
FROM SOCIAL MEDIA WE GET FROM
ALL DIFFERENT BLOG I MEAN
MILLIONS OF RESOURCES THAT GET
THEIR-NEWS FROM. BECAUSE
SOCIAL MEDIA- AND I HAVE HERE
YOU KNOW I'VE SPENT. LITTLE
TIME ON SOCIAL. WITH MY
DAUGHTERS I JUST JUST. I THINK
IT IS. IT'S A TREMENDOUS IN A
WASTE OF NOT GETTING ON AND
LIVING YOUR ACTUAL LIFE AS
OPPOSED TO LIFE LONG. SO I'M
I'M NOT HERE TO YOU KNOW SEE
WHAT IT BUT- BECAUSE A LOT OF
PEOPLE. DO IT I DON'T. I DON'T
SEE WHY THAT WOULD INCORPORATE
FIRST AMENDMENT STAND STANDARDS
AND A DIFFERENT. SORT OF WAY
SOME COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT.
I'D SAY IT IT IS B. OF THE CASE
LAW IN CALIFORNIA. THE LANDMARK
CASE BE IMPROVING YOUR SHOPPING
CENTER I DON'T SEE HOW. THESE
GUYS ARE ANY DIFFERENT THAN NOT
SHOPPING MALL THERE. AGAIN NOT
SHOPPING MALL IS COMPLETELY
PRIVATE. BUT THEY OPEN
THEMSELVES UP TO A ANYBODY CAN
COME ON COME IN HERE COMING
HERE FOR FREE. SAMPLE SOCIAL
MEDIA THERE I DON'T THINK
THERE'S A REAL HIGH BAR. YEAH I
THINK WE COULD TALK ALL
REASONABLY AGREE THERE'S NOT A
HIGH BAR TO GET A SOCIAL MEDIA
ACCOUNT OKAY LIKE. IT'S NOT
DIFFICULT IT'S NOT LIKE GETTING
A LICENSE OR SOMETHING THAT- I
MEAN ANYBODY CAN GET ON THERE
YOU SIGN UP. YOU AGREE TO THE
TERMS RIGHT WHEN NOT WHICH NO
ONE READS- BUT YOU AGREE AND-
ANYBODY IS VERY OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC. AND AGAIN LIKE THE
SPEECH IS REALLY NOT SOMETHING
THAT ANYBODY WOULD REASONABLY
ATTRIBUTE TO. THE COMPANY
ITSELF SO IT'S NOT A COMPELLED
SPEECH TYPE SITUATION WHERE.
WHERE SOMEBODY IS THINKING-
FACEBOOK IS SAYING THIS NO
IT'S- IS VERY CLEAR THERE'S A
USER. HIS NAME IS THEY'RE
THEY'RE COMMENTING THERE
POSTING IT'S THEIR SPEECH. SO
IT KNOWS TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW IN OUR IN
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL. FOR FREE
SPEECH AMEND YOU KNOW-
AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION-
PROVIDES THAT YES IN FACT
PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN BE. A
PLACE THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC
FORUM WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR
POINT THAT YOU RAISED ON THAT
EXACT POINT. YOU SAID LIKE FOR
EXAMPLE IN REYES MARK
ZUCKERBERG NO ONE IT SEEMS IS A
MARK ZUCKERBERG'S RIGHT RIGHT
OR FACEBOOK THE COMPANY. YEAH
YEAH BUT ALSO. MARK SEVERAL WAS.
HE THESE NO ONE ELSE CONFUSES
HIM WITH THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT EITHER. RIGHT HE'S A
PRIVATE PARTY. HE CREATED
SUCCESS SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANY AND YOU KNOW WHATEVER
HAS YOU PLAY LIKE HE'S JUST A
PRIVATE CITIZEN RIGHT WE CARE
ABOUT THAT FROM THE FIRST
MOMENT WAS THE GOVERNMENT
PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT PERFORMS FUNCTIONS
THAT MARK ZUCKERBERG DOESN'T
PERFORM HE'S JUST CREATED A
COMPANY. IT'S ALWAYS NOT HE
DOESN'T PICK UP THE TRASH HAVE
A POLICE FORCE HAVE A FAR HAVE
AN AMBULANCE ALL THESE THINGS
THAT A CITY OR A GOVERNMENT
DOES. DOES WHAT HAPPENS ON
FACEBOOK THE FACT PUBLIC
FUNCTIONS LIKE ELECTIONS FOR
EXAMPLE WHAT I WOULD SAY THOUGH
THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FIRST
MINUTES CAN AT YES I WOULD SAY
YES IT DOES. BUT IT'S STILL
PRIVATE COMPANY DOES A
POLITICAL CONSULTANT. FOR THE
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
YEAH. THEY AFFECT IT BUT THAT'S
NOT WITH THE FIRST MEMBERS
FIRST MEMBERS AGAIN AFTER THE
GOVERNMENT. SO JUST BECAUSE A
LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT 6 OR
TWO OR THREE OR FOUR FIVE SUCH
MAKE UP DOES NOT MEAN THEN THAT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE
PEOPLE AND THAT THE OTHER THING
WAS HE TOO IS. TALK ABOUT CABLE
NEWS CHANNEL FOR EXAMPLE THEY
ALL HAVE BIASES NOW IN A WAY
THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T EXIST
FIFTY YEARS AGO. MAYBE TEN
YEARS AGO. BUT THAT ALSO GOES
TO THEIR CREDIBILITY. PEOPLE
CAN SAY YOU KNOW WHAT. I'M
GOING TO GIVE THAT NEWS STORY
THE- I'M VIEWING THAT THROUGH
THE FACT THAT THIS CABLE NEWS
CHANNEL WHICH HAS A BIAS IN
THIS CERTAIN AREA. THEY WAY
OUT. SUPPOSED CREDIBILITY SAME
WITH SOCIAL MEDIA T. YOU SAID
WE ALL AGREE THE BAR IS VERY
LOW SO WE CAN GO ON THERE AND
SAY YOU KNOW WHAT. ANY PERSON
COMPOSED ANY CRAZY THING ON
HERE. AND HOW DO I KNOW IT'S
TRUE YOU KNOW WE'RE WE'RE- ALL
THAT OUT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOCIAL
MEDIA THE VERY LOW BAR. YEAH SO
I MEAN WHAT I WOULD SAY IN
RESPONSE THAT IS ONE THE
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW DISAGREES
WITH YOU THE YES IT DOES APPLY
NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT. BUT
ALSO IT DOES APPLY TO PRIVATE
ACTORS. AND THEN I WOULD SAY
THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
CABLE NEWS SHOWS. AND SOCIAL
MEDIA CABLE NEWS SHOWS HAVE
COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THEIR
CONTENT. THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE
GOING TO BROADCAST THIS SHOW.
ALL THESE THINGS WHEREAS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA IT'S COMPLETELY
GENERATED BY USERS USERS ARE
THE ONES WHO GENERATE THE
CONTENT. AND I THINK THAT IS A
PRETTY DIFFERENT DISTINCTION
OKAY SO I'M AND THEN IF YOU
START SAYING WELL NO YOU CAN'T
USE THAT YEAH I'M INVITING YOU
ON TO COME AND SPEAK IN. AND
CREATE THE CONTENT. BUT NOW I'M
GOING TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF
CONTENT AND SAY NO IF I CAN'T
HAVE YOU- YOU SPEAKING BECAUSE
I DON'T THIS DOESN'T MEET MY
POLICY RIGHT OR WHATEVER RIGHT.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT FROM LIKE THE- THIS
REGIONAL CABLE NEWS. AND I
AGREED TO MEND THE DEVOLUTION
OF MEDIA. OVER TIME IS WHAT IS
KIND OF LED US TO THIS POINT IN
THE FIRST PLACE NOBODY. SEE
SOMEONE AS AN OBJECT THERE IS
NO WALTER CRONKITE. YEAH THAT
YOUR PEOPLE. DO AS AN OBJECTIVE.
OBSERVER FACT YOU KNOW JUST
GIVING THE FACTS ANYMORE RIGHT
SO AND SO PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO.
OTHER AVENUES FOR OUR SON I
WOULD ALSO SAY. I DON'T KNOW
THE CALIFORNIA SPORTIST AND I
ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT SOME NOT
OPINING ON REALLY. RIGHT BUT
TOMORROW WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO
MY POINT ON ON SOCCER BURKE IS.
THE SO HE'S A PRIVATE ET TO
WHATEVER EXTENT HE'S GOT A
VIEWPOINT WOULD WOULDN'T YOU
AGREE IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN.
A. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. ACTIONS
WHO IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT. YEAH HE'S NOT A
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL RIGHT
YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT AGAIN I JUST
LIKE THIS CASE LAWS SAID IT
DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THIS CAN
APPLY WHEN CERTAIN PRINCIPLES
ARE MET AND I AND I AND IN SOME
RESPECT THEY ARE A VICTIM OF
THEIR OWN SUCCESS. IF YOU WILL
BECAUSE IT NOW HAS BECOME SO
INFLUENTIAL. AND I THINK WE
WOULD ALL AGREE THAT MAN STUFF
THAT IS SAID ON FACEBOOK AND
TWITTER AND- THAT'S WHERE A LOT
OF PEOPLE AGAIN INFORMATION IT
LITERALLY INFLUENCES OUTCOMES
IT LITERALLY INFLUENCES
ELECTIONS. BOARD ABOUT BOTS AND
INTERFERENCE BECAUSE PEOPLE
COULD PUT FAKE STUFF ON THERE
RIGHT AND- THAT RILES PEOPLE UP.
WE OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT IT HAS
BECOME SO INFLUENTIAL IN
AFFECTS PUBLIC LIFE SO MUCH
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT TUNE
YARDS SAYS IS ANOTHER FACTOR
THAT YOU. WHEN THIS IS
AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST
SO MUCH THAT YES IN FACT. THIS
CAN BECOME A PUBLIC FORUM- THAT
IS SUBJECT TO FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTIONS YEAH TAX DOLLARS
ARE CREATING. A SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANY NOT FUNDING THE SOCIAL
NO CAMPAIGN AGAIN IN A WAY THAT
THERE FOR ME THEY WERE THERE
FORMING THE NEW THEY DEVELOP A
SHOPPING CENTER EITHER. RIGHT
HOW MAY BE I DON'T KNOW FOR
SURE ABOUT THAT. I WOULD STILL
SUGGEST. KIND OF APPLES AND
ORANGES BUT LET'S TAKE AWAY
THAT SHOPPING CENTER EXAMPLES
IS JUST THAT THERE'S NOT.
THERE'S NO GOVERNMENT DOLLARS
GOING INTO FORM A BODY THAT'S
PERFORMING GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
THAT WOULD THEN BRING IN. THE
FIRST MINUTE AND ONE REASON BY
THE WAY ONE REASON WHY I THINK.
THEY'RE GOING AFTER FOR EXAMPLE
HEATH SPEECH HARPER OR SEEMS
LIKE A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT
FOR BOX IN A MORE CONCERTED
EFFORT. IS BECAUSE CONSUMERS
HAVE ASKED FOR THEY HAVE SAID
WERE CHALLENGING THE
CREDIBILITY. OF WHAT WERE YOU
SEEN ON HERE. AND WE DON'T WANT
TO KEEP USING THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM. IF THEY TURN A BLIND
EYE TO HATE SPEECH OR THEY TURN
A BLIND EYE TO BOTS SO IT'S
ACTUALLY BEING. LARGELY MARKET
DRIVEN THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE
GOING TO. QUIT CLICKING ON THIS
SITE IF THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THESE THINGS. ISN'T IT
IT'S NOT NICE TO THE GOVERNMENT
ST HAVE A POLICY ON IT. BECAUSE
THEY THEY A THEY PROBABLY
ALREADY DO AND BE I KNOW HOW
FACT THAT THAT THAT THAT THIS
IS IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN
EFFECT. IN AND OF ITSELF RIGHT.
BUT I MEAN. I JUST THINK IT'S
IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER I
MEAN ACCORDING TO THE CHAIRMAN.
THERE AND THEY ARE NOT
RESPONDING TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE
WANTING THEM TO DO RIGHT.
THIRTY NINE THEY ARE WILL NOT
GO THERE AND THEY ARE AND I
MEAN AND THEY KIND OF. IT
DEPENDS ON IT DEPENDS ON YOUR
PERSPECTIVE I THINK I THINK
THREE I GUESS WHAT I'D SAY IS I
THINK NOW WHY WOULD I AGREE
THAT THEY DISCUSSION ITS
CONSUMER FOR HIS REYES CONSUMER
DRIVEN IS WHAT'S BUSINESSES
RESPOND TO CONSUMERS. RIGHT NOW
SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE
HOW EFFECTIVE THEY'RE BEING OUT
IT IS DEBATABLE. BUT JUST THE
FACT THAT. THEY'RE STARTING TO
DO IT AND STARTING TO ADDRESS
IT. I THINK IN A MORE PHOTO
MOST PEOPLE PROBABLY KNOW MORE
FOCUSED AND DIRECT MANNER. IS
BECAUSE CONSUMERS- HAVE ASKED
FOR THAT. SO YOU KNOW. AND I
WOULD JUST REACH OUT IS AND
WITH THE SAME. AND FREE SPEECH
IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH MARKET
CONSUMERS- AND SUPPLY AND
DEMAND IT'S ACTUALLY FREE
SPEECH. IS COMPLETELY
CONSISTENT WITH THAT. ACT WHICH
IMPORTANT BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY
IS WHY I THINK. THIS WOULD END
UP NOT. THAT WOULD HAVE AGAINST
YOUR THIS. WHAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING BECAUSE THE MARKET IS.
HAVING A CHANGE IN A WAY THAT
IT'S TELLING THEM TO HAVE A
POLICY MANUAL FIRST FOR EXAMPLE.
THE WAY. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.
STILL HAVE REGULATION ON EITHER
SIDE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAID REALLY
TO TWO THIRTY IS. YEAH I MEAN
YOU'RE KIND OF SAYING THAT I
DON'T THINK THE POLICY WOULD BE
IT'S THE RIGHT SCOPE FOR. US AS
A LEGISLATORS TRYING TO
DETERMINE WHAT POLICY SHOULD BE
FOR A PRIVATE SOCIAL MEDIA. AND
THEN FROM THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH
FOR SOME. SO I THINK THAT THAT
THAT I CAN GET THEM I THINK
WHERE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
ISSUES I JUST I THINK EQUATING
A SOCIAL MEDIA. COMPANY WITH
THE GOVERNMENT. JUST BECAUSE A
LARGE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE
LOOKING AT. AND MY GUESS I
DON'T KNOW THIS MY GUESS
ACTUALLY IT'S PROBABLY EVEN IF
THE LATTER AND ACTUALLY IS
PROBABLY LESS THAN THE THREE
MAJOR NETWORKS BACK IN NINETEEN
THE FIFTIES OF THE FORTIES
ACTUALLY. JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE
THEY'RE REALLY ONLY THREE AND
NOW SYSTEM IS COMPETING WITH.
SMALLER BUT STILL NEWSPAPERS
STILL CABLE NEWS CHANNEL STILL.
SO THE PERCENTAGE OF WOULD
STILL PROBABLY BE LOVE
ACTUALLY. BUT ANY OF THAT I
JUST I DON'T SEE IT AS- THE
ANYBODY COULD CONFUSE MARK
ZUCKERBERG FOR EXAMPLE AS A
GOVERNMENT ACTORS- IS IT
BECAUSE SOMEBODY. WE SHOULD BE.
PUT RIGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY.
WE GET PUT ON THE CEO OF.
FACEBOOK KEEP TO THEMSELVES.
RIGHT WE PUT GOVERNMENT PEOPLE
THERE ARE WE- WE GO TO GET A
LICENSE ONLY WITH US AND WE- WE
EXPECT TO NOT HAVE. CERTAIN
THINGS ARE CURRENTLY WE DON'T
HAVE TO SIGN SOMETHING SENIR
CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR
POLITICAL BELIEFS OR OPINIONS
BELIEFS WHEN WE GET A DRIVER'S
LICENSE REALLY WOULD BE
OFFENDED BY THAT BECAUSE IT IS
THE GOVERNMENT SORT OF TELLING
US WELL WE'LL GIVE YOU DRIVERS
RIGHT. BUT IN EXCHANGE YOU GOT
TO DO THIS AND THAT'S WORKING
IN THAT IN SOME SMALL SENSE IS
WHY THE RATE IS BY THE FIRST
MINISTER AND I JUST DON'T SEE
THOSE SAME THINGS WHEN IT COMES
TO A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY THAT.
WOULD TO RACKED. JUST BECAUSE A
SOMEWHAT SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE
OF PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA WE'VE
NOW GOT TO MAKE THIS EQUATE
THEM WITH THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT. WHICH IS MUCH
BIGGER AND HAS MUCH BROADER
RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THINGS
THAT IT DOES TO INTERACT WITH
OUR EVERYDAY LIFE IN A WAY THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA WHICH WE CAN TURN
OFF ANYTIME YOU WANT. CAN
DELETE IT WE CANNOT GO ON THERE
WE HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY. WE
DON'T KNOW IT WOULD ALWAYS
UTILIZE OUR POWER WE AS A
SOCIETY ON THAT TO JUST SAY NO
I'M A QUIT LISTENING TO YOU.
RIGHT WHEN I DO THAT SO FOR ME
I DON'T GET THERE AND I WANT
EXPLAIN TO WHY YOU'RE ASKING BE
THOUGHTFUL I HOPE I HAVE BEEN-
AS TO WHY I JUST DON'T SEE THE
THAT A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY IS
THE EQUIVALENT OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FIRST
AMENDMENT. PROTECTIONS AS ARE
YOU ARE ALWAYS THOUGHTFUL THANK
YOU. ASSIGNOR MAIENSCHEIN SO I
APPRECIATE THE DIFFICULT
DISCUSSION RIGHT MISTER KALRA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND I
APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE I THINK
THAT- SUMMER GALLAGHER YOU
CERTAINLY ABOUT FOR THE BILL
THAT. REQUIRES I THINK A LOT OF
INSIGHT AND IN CONVERSATION AND
I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS IN A THOROUGH
ANALYSIS. THAT WAS DONE ON BOTH
OF THE TWO MAJOR ITEMS. OTHER
BEING BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THIS
BILL- I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS BUT I
ALSO DO THINK THAT. THE
PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT DOES
REQUIRE- THE DOCKING OF
POLICIES AND MECHANISMS FOR
ADDRESSING- THE MONTHLY PAAS
CONTENTS IN AN UNPROTECTED
SPEECH- IS SOMETHING THAT I
THINK THAT IS BORN OUT. IN IN
RECENT YEARS OR SOMETHING THAT
I THINK NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED-
AND SO- TO THAT END AND I I'M
I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT.
AT A MOTION HEARING OF COURSE.
THE PLAN WOULD HAVE WITH IT'S
ALWAYS A TO THE TUNE AUTHORED A-
THEY- HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED-
UPON EMOTIONALLY MADE BUT I'D
LIKE TO MAKE. THE MOST A MOTION
DO WITH MEN'S AS RECOMMENDED BY
COMMITTEE- AND TO BE CLEAR- AS
STATED IN THE ANALYSIS ON. THE
TOP OF PAGE TEND TO DELETE LINE
SIXTY NINE IN THE TEXT THE BILL
AND. I WAS FOR THIS SECTION OF
THE BILL THAT MOST SEEM TO BE
IN AGREEMENT WITH TO MOVE
FORWARD. WITH THE PARTY DEBATE
WE'VE HAD ON THE FIRST SECTION
AND YOU CAN ALWAYS AGREE ON
EVERY SPECIAL WHEN IT COMES TO
LEGAL MATTERS- BUT I DO THINK
THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN AGREE
THAT. OF THE PORTION OF THE
BILL THE THAT- THAT THE-
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS A
SUGGESTED. SUPPORT OF- CAN
CONTINUE AND WE CAN STILL HAVE-
CONTINUE DEBATE AND THE
MOVEMENT FORWARD ON THAT ITEM
SO THAT'S MY QUESTION THANK YOU
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND THAT
MOTION IS. TO PASS AS AMENDED
IN THE AMENDMENT IS LISTED AT
THE TOP OF PAGE TEN. WHICH
WOULD BE IN THE BILL TO DELETE
LINES SIX THROUGH NINE AND THEN
RE LETTER THE SUBDIVISIONS
ACCORDINGLY. TO HAVE A SECOND
AND WE HAVE A SECOND THANK YOU.
RIGHT. GONZALEZ- FIRST OF ALL
THANK YOU I ACTUALLY THINK THIS
IS IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS AND I
HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT-
YOU KNOW WE COULD ALL TALK
LEGAL THEORY IN CASE ON WE
DON'T KNOW RIGHT WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN BOTH IN IN A CALIFORNIA
A CHALLENGE TO THIS LIKE ANY OF
THE BILLS WE PASS WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN- IN THE STATE
OR FEDERALLY- IF WE CREATE
THIS. MY CONCERN IS THIS THESE
TWO PORTIONS ARE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH ANOTHER ONE ANOTHER I
BELIEVE BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE
WOULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
SELF REGULATION IF WE SAID
THERE ARE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS RIGHT NO I WOULD THINK
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE- THE
SOCIAL CLAPPED THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS WOULD WOULD
REALLY CARE ON THE SITE
ALLOWING ALL SPEECH- BECAUSE-
IT'S EASIER THAN TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT. WHAT EXACTLY-
SHOULD BE LIMITED AND I'LL GIVE
YOU AN EXAMPLE AND PERHAPS MY
OWN EXPERIENCES. IT IS NEARING
WHAT YOU KNOW I I'M WORRIED
ABOUT. IS THAT FREE SPEECH TO
WRITE MY ADDRESS ON A SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM. NOT ME FOR
SOMEBODY ELSE AFTER EVERYONE MY
POST TO POST MY PERSONAL
ADDRESS MAYBE YOU KNOW IS IT
FREE SPEECH AFTER MY PERSONAL
POST TO POST MY DAUGHTER'S
PICTURE WHERE SHE WORKS WHERE
SHE LIVES. MIGHT BE MIGHT BE
FREE SPEECH BUT RIGHT NOW LET'S
LEAVE- WE CAN TRY TO SOMETIMES
SUCCESSFULLY SOMETIMES NOT
SUCCESSFULLY GET THE MEDIA
PLATFORMS TO TAKE THESE AND
THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED TO ME NOT ONCE. IT IN
IN A ROUND OF NOT DIRECT
THREATS BUT TRACKING PEOPLE WHO
ARE CLEARLY UPSET IN IN RAGE
WITH ME TO HAVE INFORMATION
THAT COULD LEAD TO A THREAT. I
DON'T KNOW IF- GIVING YOU KNOW.
BILLS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON
A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM- WHICH
HAS BECOME KIND OF THIS UNIQUE
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO I TRULY
DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH
THIS BUT IT IT'S IT OTHERWISE
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE STARTING TO
FINALLY GET TO A SITUATION ON
SOCIAL MEDIA AND I'M TALKING AS
AN ADULT AND YOU LOOK AT SOME
OF THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS WITH
KIDS WITH ONE ANOTHER THAT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED ABSOLUTELY
FREE SPEECH- I WOULD PREFER
MORE REGULATION NOT LESS. AND
SO. IN THIS PLATFORM I THINK
IT'S HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE I THINK
IT IS- VERY DANGEROUS. AND WE
ARE IT'S BECOMING MORE
DANGEROUS NOT LESS SO. WITH
THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT- YOUR BILL
IN ITS ENTIRETY BUT AM
SUPPORTING OBVIOUSLY THE
AMENDED VERSION TO. PROVIDE
MORE CLARITY FOR CONSUMERS. NO
AND I APPRECIATE THAT I MEAN IT
IT THIS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE IT
IS YEAH MY I FACED A THREAT
MYSELF- THIS YEAR TO. YOU- FROM
AN ANGRY PERSON- AND YOU KNOW.
THE CURRENT STATUS OF FIRST
AMENDMENT LAWS IT INCITEMENT TO
VIOLENCE OR TRUE THREATS ARE
NOT PROTECTED SPEECH YOU KNOW
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING
TO LIKE I SAID THREAD THE
NEEDLE ON THIS BY SAYING LOOK
WE NEED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT
FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK WHAT THEY
BELIEVE IN WHAT THAT YOU KNOW
HOW AND THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK
AND PUBLISH WHILE ALSO HAVING
SOMETHING THAT'S WHY I'M-
ADDING THE SECOND COMPONENT
THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES
MY BILL DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
OTHERS ARE DOING IS I'M DOING.
BOTH THINGS. AND THAT'S WHY
PROBABLY IF YOU GUYS IF YOU
PASSAGE. YOU KNOW WITH THIS
AMENDMENT I PROBABLY WOULD MOVE
FOR WITH IT BECAUSE OTHERS ARE
ALREADY DOING THAT I MEAN. AS I
SAID- SOME MEMBER CHAO. IS
WORKING ON. YOU KNOW- COMPANIES
HAVING A POLICY I THINK SO AS
A- CIMBER GABRIEL'S SAID MR
GALLAGHER. THERE WASN'T REALLY
A QUESTION IN THERE AND WE HAD
LOTS OF KIND OF CALL I MEAN
BACK AND FORTH WHICH WHICH-
I'VE BEEN PAID I WAS THE- ONE
WE HAVE- AND AS OF YET. NO NO
NO I DO UNDERSTAND. IT ANY
OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS. OKAY
THIS MAJOR JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE
MOTION S. YES THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE BILL AS AMENDED AND
THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO
DELETE SECTION HEY SO STRIKE
LINE SIXTY NINE WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY SECTION HEY WHICH
IS THE PART THAT SAYS THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WILL
BECOME TRADITIONAL WILL BE
TREATED AS TRADITIONAL FIRST
AMENDMENT FORMS. AND IT LEAVES
THE SECOND PIECE WHICH IS
ASKING SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND BE
CLEAR. ABOUT WHAT THOSE
POLICIES ARE. AND THAT'S WHAT
MY RECOMMENDATION IS OR WAS AND
THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY AFTER MY
DISCUSSION WITH MR GALLAGHER
WHO WANTED THE BILL TO MOVE
FORWARD THAT THAT WOULD BE.
WOOD BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO JUST
ONE WITH THE AMENDMENT IS ONE
LITTLE CLARIFICATION IT WOULD
JUST LEAVE THE POLICY IN THE
BILL THAT MANDATES SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES TO HAVE A POLICY YES
ADDRESS SEEN ON PROTECTED FORMS
OF SPEECH- THAT I LISTED
EARLIER. OKAY THANK YOU SO OKAY.
WE CLEAR BUT A MEASURE CLEAR
BUT THE MOMENTS ARE. RIGHT JUST
FOR MY COMMENTS I WANT TO BE
CLEAR HERE AND SOMETHING THAT
MR KILEY SAID AND I'M SORRY
THAT THAT HE'S NOT HERE TO SEE
THIS WAS ATTRIBUTING SOMETHING
TO ME. AND I REALIZED THAT I
WAS. IN EXACT IN MY SPEECH WHEN
I WAS USING THE WORD WE I WAS
NOT MEANING WE AS GOVERNMENT I
WAS MEETING WE AS SOCIETY
CONTROLLING THESE BECAUSE I
FIND THAT IF WHAT WE DO IS MY
OBJECTION TO THIS IS. THE STATE
LEGISLATURE AFFIRMATIVELY SAYS
THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE
IN FACT FIRST AMENDMENT FOR.
THAT WE ARE NOW IS A GOVERNMENT
WEIGHING IN ON WHAT THEY WHAT
WE EXPECT ACTIONS WITH THOSE
PLATFORMS TO BE ABLE TO DO. I
THINK. I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S
A CHALLENGE WITH FREE SPEECH
FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THOSE FORMS
BUT FOR US. TO GO TO AND TO SAY
THAT A PRIVATE COMPANY A SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM IS NOW BY
DEFINITION. BY THE BY THE
LEGISLATURE GOING FORWARD
SAYING YOU ARE NOW YOU ARE A
REPLACEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC
FORUM. FOR THE PUBLIC SQUARE. I
THINK THAT'S NOT TRUE I THINK
THAT'S IT OVERSIMPLIFICATION I
THINK THERE ARE OTHER
COMPLICATING FACTORS THAT ARE
THERE. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT
THERE'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE
DOING WHICH IS WHY YOU ASK ME
WHAT WOULD I AGREE TO I WOULD
AGREE TO ENSURING THAT THEY
HAVE. POLICIES TRANSPARENT
POLICIES AND THAT THAT THE
PUBLIC CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE SO
THAT THE PUBLIC WE AS THE
PUBLIC CAN MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
HOW WE'RE INTERACTING. I DON'T
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR. US
IS THE LEGISLATURE TO BE
DICTATING YOU ARE NOW. A PUBLIC
FORUM YOU'RE NOT A PUBLIC FORUM.
THAT HAS TO BE AT THE END
INTERACTION BECAUSE THE POSTERS
ARE THE ONES WHO ARE ARE AND
THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE IN
FACT. PROTECTED HOURS IN FACT
WE AS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. WE CAN'T
BLOCK. POSTERS WERE PEOPLE WE
CAN'T BLOCK. THINGS THAT WE
FIND OFFENSIVE EVEN IF THEY ARE
TRULY OFFENSIVE. BECAUSE IF WE
HAVE AN OFFICIAL SITE THAT
CARRIES WITH IT THE EXPECTATION
THAT WE ARE A GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL AND ARE LIMITED THAN
IN WHAT WE CAN DO. THAT'S
DIFFERENT FROM THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM SO THE USERS
INDIVIDUALLY. INCLUDING ALL OF
US AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
HAVE PARTICULAR RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE
ABSENT FROM THE WITH THAT ARE
DIFFERENT. ACTUALLY FROM THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM SOURCE TO
IMPOSE UPON THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS THAT YOU ARE NOW A
FIRST AMENDMENT PUBLIC FORUM I
pTHAT'S WHY I COULD BE THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT I DID. ALL
RIGHT MISS GALLAGHER YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND LOOK AT I THINK
THIS IS BEEN A GOOD DISCUSSION-
I'LL I'LL JUST TAKE SOME PARTS
FROM THE ANALYSIS THAT I THINK
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO
THINK ABOUT RIGHT NOW UNDER TWO
THIRTY IN THE ANALYSIS POINTS
THIS OUT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
ENJOY THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
THURMOND FROM LIABILITY IF THEY
ALLOW AN OF OBJECTIONABLE AND
HARMFUL POSTING. AND THEIR
IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY IF THEY
REMOVE IT. SO RIGHT UNDER TWO
THIRTY THERE'S REALLY YOU KNOW.
WHAT I WANT TO DO AND I THINK
WHAT MAYBE YOU HEAR A LOT OF
CONSERVATIVES SAYING THAT HEY
THERE SHOULD BE CENSORSHIP.
THEY CAN'T DO RIGHT. AND THEN
ON THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT FOR A
LOT OF PEOPLE AND WE WANT YOU
TO DO MORE TO REGULATE
DIFFERENT THINGS RIGHT. YOU CAN
DO. THAT'S THE CURRENT STATUS
OF THE LAW I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE
OKAY. AND ALSO AS A GERMAN IS
POINTED OUT THIS IS I THINK A
OF GROSS INCONSISTENCY THAT
RIGHT NOW YOU WITH YOUR
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IT WILL NOT
IN YOUR GOVERNMENT OUT YOUR
PERSONAL FACEBOOK THE YOU HAVE.
YOU ARE LITERALLY NOT ALLOWED
TO DELETE ANY COMMENTS. UNDER
FIRST MET LAW BUT BUT THE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY COULD SHUT
DOWN YOUR ENTIRE ACCOUNT THEY
COULD BUT THEY COULD SHUT DOWN
THE ENTIRE PLATFORM AND THAT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY
PERMISSIBLE. YEAH I MEAN THAT
KIND OF INCONSISTENCY DOESN'T
MAKE ANY KIND OF SENSE RIGHT WE
EITHER ARE A PUBLIC FORM OR NOT
AND I AND AS I'VE ARGUED I
THINK WE VERY MUCH THESE
PLATFORMS HAVE BECOME PUBLIC
FORUMS AND SO I THINK WE NEED
TO HAVE TO DO WE NEED TO DO TWO
THINGS AND THAT'S- HENCE WHY
THIS BILL HAS TWO PARTS. IS YOU
NEED TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH. I
WOULD THINK ABOUT THINK ABOUT
IN THE SENSE OF THIS
LEGISLATURE. IF SOMEONE WERE TO
DETERMINE WILL LOOK. WHAT
YOU'RE GONNA SAY. ME A REALLY
DOESN'T MEET OUR CRITERIA I
DON'T WANT YOU TO SPEAK ON THE
FLOOR TODAY. AND SAY THAT.
THAT'S THE KIND OF POWER THAT
WE'VE LITERALLY GIVEN NOW. TO A
SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE
NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYBODY-
THEY GET TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT THAT SPEECH. MEETS THE
CRITERIA. IN A IN A IN A PLACE
WHERE IT REALLY HAS BECOME.
VERY INFLUENTIAL ON WHAT PEOPLE
THINK HOW PEOPLE VOTE. I DON'T
THINK ANYBODY CAN REALLY DENY
THAT THE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
HAVE REALLY BECOME THAT THAT
PUBLIC FORM AND IF WE'RE GONNA
LEAVE IT HOW IT IS. I THINK
THAT'S PROBLEMATIC BUT LOOK
THEY DON'T EVEN WANT YOU TO
READ THEY DON'T EVEN WANT THIS
IS ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY LIKE
IF WE DON'T WANT TO MANDATE
THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AND WEIGH IN IN
THAT RESPECT. WHY THEN WE WEIGH
IN ON WHAT POLICY THEY SHOULD
HAVE. TO ME THAT WOULD BE KIND
OF INCONSISTENT AS WELL. I'M
TRYING TO GET IT BOTH AT BOTH
ENDS OF THIS AND THAT'S- THAT'S
WHY I THINK THIS BILL IS UNIQUE
AND- YOU KNOW. IF YOU WERE TO
TAKE THAT PART OUT I PROBABLY
JUST WOULDN'T MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD. AND WOULD WORK WITH
OTHERS ON HEY WHAT'S THE BEST
POLICY. BUT I REALLY THINK WE
NEED TO DO BOTH BECAUSE OF THE
STATUS A LOT RIGHT NOW IS NOT A
GOOD ONE. AND I THINK WE ALL
AGREE ON THAT. THANK YOU IN
ORDER. FREESHEET YOUR AYE VOTE
ON THE BILL. AS A WHOLE I KNOW
THAT'S NOT THE MOTION ITSELF
RIGHT NOW. BUT AS AS A WHOLE I
WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND THE MOTION
IS TO PASS WITH YOU MEMINTA
STATED KALRA PLEASE. TO ARTS
COMMITTEE. TOO OKAY SO THAT
WOULD THEN GO TO THE ARTS
COMMITTEE STONE AYE STONE AYE
GALLAGHER. LOW GALLAGHER NO
CHAU. CHIU CHU AYE DAVIES.
DAVIES NO GONZALEZ FIVE
CONSOLES I HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE
KALRA. KALRA AYE KILEY
MAIENSCHEIN. REYES RECITAL. THE
BILLS OUT. THANK YOU MEMBERS I
THINK THAT'S A FIRST FOR ME TO
WORK VOTED AGAINST MY OWN BILL
AND IT PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
I THINK I'VE DONE THE FIRST
YEAR THAT YOU KNOW AND NOT
NECESSARILY THE FIRST I WANTED
BUT- ALL RIGHT WELL THANK YOU
GUYS APPRECIATE- THE
CONSIDERATION RIGHT COMMITTEE
NOW MOVES ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB
EIGHT TWENTY NINE MR LEVINE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AB EIGHT TWENTY NINE
WILL IMPROVE SERVICES TO
UNDOCUMENTED FOSTER YOUTH BY
BETTER IDENTIFYING AND
STANDARDIZING ACCESS TO
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES FOR
FOSTER YOUTH ACROSS THE STATE.
IN TWENTY FIFTEEN I AUTHORED AB
NINE HUNDRED. WHICH A LOT OF
GUARDIAN TO BE APPOINTED TO
UNDOCUMENTED YOUTH BY COURT IN
CONNECTION. WITH THE PETITION
REGARDING A FEDERAL SPECIAL
IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS
APPLICATION DECIDUOUS. I
SUGGEST WAS CREATED TO HELP
ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.
UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN. OBTAIN
LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN
UNITED STATES BUT IT'S
DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN WITHOUT
LEGAL REPRESENTATION. OR
SUPPORT. AB EIGHT TWENTY NINE
REQUIRES COUNTIES TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
REGARDING CURRENT PROCEDURES IN
PLACE. TO SUPPORT UNDOCUMENTED
MINOR AND NON MINOR DEPENDENTS
IN FOSTER CARE. UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE
COURT. AND THEIR PROCESSES TO
PROVIDE THESE YOUTH WITH
IMMIGRATION RESOURCES. EIGHTY
EIGHT TWENTY NINE ALSO REQUIRES
COUNTIES TO MAKE BEST EFFORTS
TO PROVIDE AN UNDOCUMENTED
MINOR OR NON MINOR DEPENDENT IN
FOSTER CARE UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE
COURT WITH ACCESS TO
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES.
MEMBERS WE ALL WANT OUR FOSTER
YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL FOR
UNDOCUMENTED FOSTER YOUTH THIS
MEASURE IS AN IMPORTANT STEP
TOWARDS HELPING THEM OBTAIN.
LAWFUL RESIDENCY PURSUE THEIR
GOALS CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUTURE.
OF CALIFORNIA AND QUITE FRANKLY
JUST BECOME ADULTS- I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR
LEVINE I HAVE ONE WITNESS
INDICATED IN SUPPORT KERRY
WHITE OF THE CHILDREN'S
LAWCENTER MS WHITE ARE YOU ON
THE LINE. M. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS KERRY WHITE AND I AM AN
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY WITH
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER OF
CALIFORNIA. CLT IS A NONPROFIT
LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
THAT SERVES AS THE VOICE OF THE
FOSTER CARE SYSTEM FOR
DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND GIVE.
OUR ATTORNEYS AND OTHER
PROFESSIONALS STAFF REPRESENT
OVER THIRTY THOUSAND ABUSED AND
NEGLECTED CHILDREN IN THE LOS
ANGELES SACRAMENTO AND PLASTER
COUNTY FOSTER CARE SYSTEM. IN
ADDITION TO APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF CLIENTS AND DATED A
DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS. GLC
PROVIDES REPRESENTATION AND A
HOST OF RELATED HEARING THAT
SEEKS TO ENSURE THE WELL BEING
AND FUTURE SUCCESS OF EACH
CHILD. WE THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LEVINE FOR OFFERING THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WHICH
WILL ENSURE THAT THERE ARE
PROCESSES IN PLACE TO PROTECT
UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN IN FOSTER
CARE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF
UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN WHO ENTER
THE DEPENDENCY SYSTEM ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR FORMS OF
IMMIGRATION RELIEF THAT WOULD
PUT THEM ON A PATH TOWARDS
OBTAINING LAWFUL PERMANENT
RESIDENTS ALSO KNOWN AS THE
GREEN CARD. NUMBERS RECOGNIZED
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
VULNERABILITIES OF UNDOCUMENTED
FOR THREE YEARS AND IN RESPONSE
CREATED A SPECIFIC FORM OF
IMMIGRATION RELIEF FOR THE FEW
WHO ARE UNABLE TO REUNIFY WITH
A PARENT. CALLED SPECIAL
IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS WHICH
IS ITSELF A PATH TO LAWFUL
PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
UNDOCUMENTED LEAVE THE
DEPENDENCY SYSTEM WITHOUT
OBTAINING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT
JUVENILE STATUS OR SOME OTHER
FORM OF IMMIGRATION RELIEF WILL
BE UNABLE TO LAWFULLY WORK OR
TRANSITION SUCCESSFULLY TO
ADULTHOOD. HOWEVER THERE ARE
CURRENTLY NO REQUIREMENTS IN
PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THESE
ISSUES ARE IDENTIFIED AND
LINKED WITH IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS. TO ASSIST
THEM IN OBTAINING THAT
IMMIGRATION RELIEF. OTHER
RESULT THE LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE
TO YOU TO RECEIVE ON THEIR
IMMIGRATION MATTER THEORY FROM
COUNTY TO COUNTY. FOR EXAMPLE
IN COUNTY SUCH AS SACRAMENTO
OUR LAWYERS ARE TYPICALLY THE
ONES SEARCHING FOR AN
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY OR
NONPROFIT. TO REPRESENT CLIENTS
IN COMPARISON AND WATCHING
ENDLESS THE CHILD WELFARE
AGENCY WORKS CLOSELY WITH OUR
ATTORNEY. TO IDENTIFY LOCAL
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND PRO
BONO ATTORNEYS WILL PROVIDE
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES FOR
OUR CLIENTS. WE'VE ALSO HEARD
OTHER ACCOUNTS OF OTHER
COUNTIES WHERE NO IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES ARE OBTAINED AND
AS A RESULT YOU DO NOT RECEIVE
THE IMMIGRATION RELIEF TO WHICH
THEY ARE ENTITLED. AND
EVENTUALLY LEAVE THE FOSTER
CARE. SYSTEM WITHOUT
IMMIGRATION STATUS.
UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN IN THE
DEPENDENCY SYSTEM ALL RIGHT
FACE A NUMBER OF HURDLES SB
FREQUENTLY ENTER THE SYSTEM OF
LITTLE TO NO INFORMATION OR
DOCUMENTATION ABOUT THEIR
IMMIGRATION STATUS. EVEN WHEN
THEY'RE AND REMOVAL OR
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS. A. B.
E. TWENTY NINE WILL REQUIRE THE
COUNTY CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES
HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO
IDENTIFY AND TRACK UNDOCUMENTED
FOSTER YOUTH IN THEIR COUNTIES.
IT WILL REQUIRE THAT THE
AGENCIES MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO
LINK THESE CHILDREN IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS. AND IF
NECESSARY IDENTIFY ANY GAPS IN
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. ALL OF
THESE MEASURES ARE AIMED AT
ENSURING THAT UNDOCUMENTED
FOSTER YOUTH DO NOT FALL
THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ARE ABLE
TO ACCESS THE IMMIGRATION
REMAINS. FOR WHICH THEY ARE SO
FREQUENTLY ELIGIBLE WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. AND THEN- MISTER
CHAIR I'D ALSO NOTE THAT OUR
FORMER CLIENT INTENDED TO
TESTIFY THIS MORNING IN SUPPORT
AS WELL- UNFORTUNATELY HE HAD
TO HEAD TO WORK HE ASKED ME TO
SHARE HIS TESTIMONY WITH THE
COMMITTEE- WITH THE CHURCH
PERMISSION. NO I DON'T HAVE
ANYBODY ELSE LISTED AND WE'VE
USED AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF
TIME FOR YOUR TESTIMONY IF THEY
WERE ON THE LINE THEY. WOULD BE
ABLE TO TESTIFY. ALL RIGHT IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
AB EIGHT TWENTY NINE. RIGHT
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE
ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM. BUT
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US
THEIR NAME AND THEIR
AFFILIATION AND THEIR SUPPORT
FOR A BI EIGHT TWENTY NINE.
THANK YOU AND IF YOU'RE
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF AB EIGHT
TWENTY NINE. PLEASE PRESS ONE
THEN ZERO AT THIS TIME. ONCE
AGAIN IN SUPPORT PRESS ONE THEN
ZERO THIS TIME. WE HAVE KNOWN
QUEUING UP FOR- FOR SUPPORT AT
THIS TIME THANK YOU I HAVE NO
OPPOSITION LISTED. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OF THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION OF AB. EIGHT
TWENTY NINE. AND AGAIN IF
YOU'RE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION
OF AB TWENTY EIGHT TWENTY NINE
PLEASE PRESS ONE THEN ZERO ON
YOUR TOUCHTONE PHONE AT THIS
TIME. ONCE AGAIN MISTER CHAIR
WE HAVE KNOWN QUEUING UP AT
THIS TIME RIGHT THANK YOU ARE
YOU SEE NOBODY IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WANTS TO. GO IN THE
HEARING ROOM SO NO ONE TWO TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION WHENEVER
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THE
AUTHOR. RIGHT SIGNAL THE
SOLUTION YOU MAY CLOSE YEAH I
THINK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIR AND I JUST WANT TO
RECOGNIZE- HENRY MANTAN NO WHO
WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY TO
PROVIDE HIS OWN TESTIMONY. HE
IS A FORMER SUGGEST RECIPIENT
AND HE DID CALL IN- IN IN THE
OF PRIOR COMMITTEE. AND AND
HE'S A SUCCESS STORY YOU KNOW
HE'S A CHILD. HE WAS ABUSED
NEGLECTED OR ABANDONED-
RECEIVED SUGGEST REPRESENTATION
OR GUARDIANSHIP IN- HE CAN BE
HERE TODAY BECAUSE HE'S GOING
TO WORK. THAT'S A FANTASTIC
SUCCESS STORY AND I'M JUST SO
PROUD OF HIM. AND I'M GLAD THAT
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WHAT
WE'VE DONE TO BE HELPFUL HIGHER
SUCCESS FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU MISTER LEE WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS KALRA PLEASE
STONE AYE STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
CHAU HI CHAU AYE CHIU. DAVIES
DAVIES I CONSOLIDATE THEMSELVES
AYE HOLDEN HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN REYES HI RES
I. THE BILLS OUT THANK YOU SO
MUCH THANK YOU THIS MCCARTY
ITEM NUMBER SIX AB. FOURTEEN
SIXTY SIX. WE LOST EVERYBODY
WITH. BUT YOU'RE HERE. YES CHAU
GOES WAY BACK YEP THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR IN YOUR- GREAT-
JUDICIARY STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH US- ON THIS MEASURE-
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS AND
BREAKING DOWN THE ISSUES- THE
SIMPLE QUESTIONS IS SHOULD WE
STILL HAVE THESE- RACIST
COVENANTS IN THESE HOMES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA THESE THESE VESTIGES
OF. THE JIM CROW ERA AND WHAT'S
THE BEST WAY TO GET RID OF
THEM- INDIVIDUALS WANT TO GET
RID OF THEM ON THEIR OWN OR
WITH THE HOUSE- CHANGES HANDS
AS FAR AS A SALE SO THOSE ARE
THE TWO ISSUES WERE TAKEN INTO
TODAY AND SO AGAIN THIS GOES
BACK TO THESE RACIALLY
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH AS
WE KNOW THROUGHOUT HISTORY WERE
PRIVATE AGREEMENTS. BARRING NON
WHITES FOR OCCUPYING OR OWNING
OWNING PROPERTY AND WERE A KEY
ELEMENT SADLY OF OUR
SEGREGATIONIST POLICIES OF THE
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY IN OUR
COUNTRY AND RIGHT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND- RIGHT DOWN THE
STREET WHEN I BOUGHT MY FIRST
HOME MY REALTOR TOLD ME LOOK I
KNOW THAT YOU ARE- BIRACIAL
YOUR YOUR FAMILY FOLLOWS AFTER
AMERICAN MONSTA CAJUN YOUR WIFE
IN THE HOUSE MEXICAN AMERICAN
YOU ARE TRULY A CALIFORNIA
MULTIRACIAL FAMILY AND BURIED
IN THESE COVENANTS ARE
LANGUAGES SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T
LEGALLY. BE IN THIS HOUSE AND
JUST IGNORE THOSE YOU CAN BUY
THIS HOUSE AND I WAS JUST
FLOORED AND I THOUGHT ONE DAY
THAT YOU KNOW WE SHOULD CHANGE
THE LAW TO LITERALLY TWENTY
FIVE YEARS LATER HERE WE ARE
TODAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TALK
ABOUT THIS AND- BUT CERTAINLY
THESE- COVENANTS WERE STRIKEN
BY THE SUPREME COURT THEY'RE
NOT LEGALLY BINDING THEY CAN'T
BE ENFORCED. BUT THERE ARE A
REMINDER A CRUEL REMINDER AND
SOMETIMES BRINGS ABOUT TRAUMA
INDIVIDUALS AND SOME WOULD SAY
WOULD THEY SHOULD THEY SHOULD
REMAIN SO WE CAN LEARN ABOUT
HISTORY WELL I WOULD SAY THAT
YOU KNOW SHOULD WE GO TO THE
SCHOOLS THAT HAVE THE- WATER
FOUND TO SAY WHITES ONLY- THE-
MOVIE THEATERS NOW WE TOOK
THOSE DOWN BECAUSE THERE WERE-
NOT ONLY RACIST BUT THEY'RE
INSENSITIVE AND THEY YOU KNOW
THEY TRIGGERED. UNNECESSARY-
THOUGHT IT'S FAR AS HOW. IS
USED TO TREAT- PEOPLE. AND SO
YEAH THIS WE ARE CURRENTLY
HAVING A- WRECKING ACROSS OUR
COUNTRY AS FAR AS- RACIAL
JUSTICE AND OUR POLICIES OF THE
PAST AND- AND SOME WOULD SAY
THAT THIS IS. TRULY SYMBOLIC
AND NOT REALLY GOING TO
INCREASE HOME OWNERSHIP FOR
PEOPLE OF COLOR WHEN HE'S GOING
TO WORK ON THAT. BUT
NONETHELESS THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT I THINK
THAT. THAT WE SHOULD BE
ADDRESSING SO AT THIS BILL THIS
MEASURE BEFORE S. TAKES- TO
PROACTIVE STEPS TO REMOVE
RACIAL COVENANTS. FROM DEEDS-
ONCE AND FOR ALL. IT WILL
SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR
PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO ON THEIR
OWN. GO INTO THEIR LOCAL
OFFICIALS. AND WORK TO REMOVE
THAT LANGUAGE AND REMOVE FEES
AND MAKE IT A- A MORE
STREAMLINED PROCESS. AND IT
ALSO CREATES A- PROCESS WHEN A
PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS. TO
SEARCH SEARCH THROUGH THE DEEDS
IDENTIFIED- POTENTIALLY RACIST
LANGUAGE AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE
IT REMOVED- THIS IS THE
STICKING POINT WE ARE WORKING
WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS
THERE ARE SOME. DIFFERENT
OPINIONS AND HOW WE GO ABOUT
GOING ABOUT THIS. WE'RE
COMMITTED TO- FINE TUNING THIS
PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THIS
WORKS- FOR IT FOR EVERYBODY IN
CALIFORNIA BY REMOVING. THESE
THESE RACIST WORDS IS- IS
MORALLY RIGHT. NOT JUST A JUST
CAUSE BUT WORTH THE TIME AND
EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT. RACIAL
JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA- I
BELIEVE ONE OF MY WITNESSES MAY
HAVE HAD TO- GO WITH THE LONG
HEARING TODAY BUT- WE HAD- TO
INDIVIDUALS ON THE LINE WHO
WERE. WITH US- THIS MORNING.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
RIVAL IN. NASCO THEY HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. THANK
YOU SO I HAVE. INDIVIDUALS
LISTED HE DIDN'T IN SUPPORT THE
SUPPORT WITNESSES IS JAMIE
LEWIS AND THEN EITHER TO MICAH
ROSS WERE CHEWING KORTCHMAR.
WHO'S WHO'S STILL ON THE LINE
WITH US. I CAN MAKE A MARKETS
HERE ON THE LINE GO AHEAD
PLEASE. WHAT THANK YOU SO MUCH
AND GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STONE
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
I'D LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCCARTY PROVIDING ME TO
SPEAK TODAY AND BRINGING
FORWARD AB FOURTEEN SIXTY SIX.
MY NAME IS TO MAKE A MARK AND
I'M THE FOUNDER AND CEO ALL
HOME ALL HOME IN THE BAY AREA
ORGANIZATIONS THAT FIRST
ADVANTAGE REGIONAL SOLUTIONS
THAT DISRUPT THE CYCLE OF
POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS.
ADDRESSES RACIAL DISPARITIES
THAT HAVE LED TO BLACK AND
BROWN AND INDIGENOUS FOLKS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AT A
DISPROPORTIONATE RATE. AS WELL
AS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PEOPLE WITH EXTREMELY LOW
INCOME IN THE BAY AREA. I
BELIEVE THAT AB FOURTEEN SIXTY
SIX OF THEM IT'S IMPORTANT
BECAUSE ALTHOUGH RACIAL
COVENANTS IN PROPERTY DOCUMENTS
ARE NO LONGER LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE. AT AS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCCARTY TALKED ABOUT
THEIR DISCRIMINATORY LEGACY
CONTINUES TO REVERBERATE TODAY
IN THE FORM OF DE FACTO
SEGREGATION IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT STILL
MARGINALIZED ARE COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. INTO HIGHER RATES OF
POVERTY. AND JUST ABOUT EVERY
OTHER FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE
ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN
OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S NO
COINCIDENCE THAT THE REDLINING
MAPS CREATED PUT. CREATED POPE-
DEPRESSION IN THE NINETEEN
THIRTIES BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WHEN OVERLAID WITH
PRESENT DAY MAPS OF HIGH RATES
OF POVERTY POOR HEALTH OUTCOMES
LOWER LIFE EXPECTANCY RATES AND
EVEN HIGHER COLD INFECTION
RATE. TURNED OUT TO BE
BASICALLY IDENTICAL. WHEN THE
HOME OWNERS LOAN CORPORATION
GRADED MORTGAGE SECURITY A
BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE SPEAK
OR READ LINE YEARS OF
SEGREGATION WILL REALLY
CEMENTED INTO OUR PUBLIC
POLICY. HISTORICALLY RACIST
PRACTICE PRACTICES SUCH AS
EXCLUSIONARY ZONING REDLINING
AN EVEN WORSE STATE FEDERAL AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DECIDED TO
BUILD FREE WEIGHT. THERE ARE
COMMUNITIES TRULY CONTRIBUTED
TO THE SEGREGATION AND
INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY. THAT
WE SEE IN OUR COMMUNITIES TODAY.
REYES AND ECONOMIC SEVEN PERSON
AS WELL YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE
AND CRISIS OF HOMELESSNESS. HOW
IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT WE HAVE
SO MANY OF OUR BLACK BROWN AND
INDIGENOUS BROTHERS AND SISTERS
EXPERIENCING THIS CRISIS
DISPROPORTIONATELY REALLY BASED
ON THESE COVENANTS THAT WERE
BAKED IN AND THE SYSTEMIC
RACISM THAT PROCESS. THE LAST
THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS YOU
KNOW TODAY ONE IN FOUR BLACK
AMERICANS ARE STUCK IN HIGH
POVERTY NEIGHBORHOODS WE HAVE
USED HOUSING AS THE WEALTH
GENERATION GENERATOR. AND ASK
THAT FOR SO MANY OF OUR
COMMUNITIES AND THIS
OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN EXCLUDED
FOR A BLACK BROWN AND
INDIGENOUS NEIGHBORS SO THE
PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND I'M
JUST REALLY GRATEFUL THAT WE'RE
NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT IT WE'RE
TAKING ACTION. AND IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE HOUSING JUSTICE WE HAVE
TO ACHIEVE RACIAL JUSTICE AND
SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO BE
WITH YOU ALL THIS MORNING AND
HAPPY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF AND-
OF THIS. LEGISLATION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU N. OR JAMIE LEWIS OR
TO ENCOURAGE MORE ON THE LINE.
JANUARY FIFTH HERE PLEASE GO
AHEAD. OKAY THANK YOU TEARS
DOWN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING ME TO
SPEAK TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB
FOURTEEN SIXTY SIX MY NAME IS
JAMIE LEWIS AND I'M A RESIDENT
FAMILIES OBISPO I MOVED INTO
THE IN HOME DISTRICT IN SAN
LUIS OBISPO IN TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN WHILE PURCHASING MY
HOME I WAS FILLING OUT A STACK
OF PAPERWORK IN MY REALTOR
SHARED WITH ME MY FUTURE HOME
COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS. READING THROUGH
THE THAT WAS APPALLED TO FIND A
PROVISION PROHIBITING ANYONE OF
A NON CAUCASIAN RACE FROM
OCCUPYING OR OWNING THE HOME I
KNEW I WANTED TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THIS EASY IN OUR BUT I
WASN'T SURE WHAT. THEN IN THE
WAKE OF GEORGE FLOYD'S MURDER I
HAD A MOMENT OF RECKONING WHERE
IT BECAME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT
THE RACIST LANGUAGE IN MY
THINKING IN OUR AND THE MURDER
OF BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE AT
THE HANDS OF POLICE ARE ALL
PART IN AMERICA'S MULTI FACETED
RACIST PAST AND PRESENT. THIS
IS WHEN I BEGAN THE PROCESS OF
HAVING THAT LANGUAGE REMOVED
AND STARTED SPEAKING TO
NEIGHBORS AND- THING THAT THESE
CABINETS WERE PERVASIVE
THROUGHOUT THE IN HOME DISTRICT
DESPITE KNOWING THESE
GOVERNMENTS ARE NO LONGER LEGAL
OR ENFORCEABLE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
TO UNSEAT SOMETHING OUTWARDLY
PREJUDICE. THE COMPOSITION OF
MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE DIRECT
PRODUCT OF THE CCN OURS IN FACT
2% OFFAMILIES BUT BOTH BLACK
AND MORE BLACK MEN ARE
INCARCERATED AT THE STATE
PRISON HERE THEN RESIDE IN
TOWN. FOURTEEN NEIGHBORHOODS
AND I WERE ABLE TO GET THE
LANGUAGE REMAINS ENGAGING AN
UNCOMFORTABLE BUT NECESSARY
CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE
COMPOUNDING IMPACTS IN OURS HOW
THEY BARRED BLACK FAMILIES FROM
ACCESSING WEALTH APPRECIATED
OVER GENERATIONS HOMEOWNERSHIP
FOR ME REMOTE THE REMOVAL OF
THE COVENANT IS A SMALL STEP IN
ADDRESSING THE MUCH LARGER
IMPACTS AT THIS DEMONSTRATE
THEM HOWEVER IT IS AN IMPORTANT
STEP IN ELEVATING THE MUCH
NEEDED CONVERSATION AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A SYSTEMIC
RACISM AND PRIVILEGE. AND IT
COULD ELEVATE THAT CONVERSATION
AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL OF
CALIFORNIA LEADS THE NATION IN
HOUSING UNITS BY 30% MARGIN THE
PRESENCE OF THE CCN OURS
UNDERSCORES HOW MUCH WORK STILL
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROVIDE
RACIAL EQUITY IN THE UNITED
STATES AND FOR THAT REASON I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT OF EIGHTY FOURTEEN
SIXTY SIX TO HELP CALIFORNIANS
LIKE. MYSELF TO FIRST LEARN
ABOUT AND COME TO TERMS THE
LEGACY OF THE- GOVERNMENT. AND
TO GET THE PLANE WHICH REMOVED
ONE AND FOR ALL THANK YOU THANK
YOU. RIGHT OPERATOR WHICH INTEL
THE LINE FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO US THEIR NAY AND THEIR-
AND THAT THEY SUPPORT AB
FOURTEEN SIXTY SIX. AND IF YOU
WERE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF AB
FOURTEEN SIXTY SIX PRESS ONE
THEN ZERO AT THIS TIME. YEP
SOMEONE QUEUING UP ONE MOMENT
PLEASE WHILE WE PROVIDE THEM
THEIR LINE NUMBER. YOU.
WE WILL
OPEN FIFTY SEVEN ONE MOMENT
PLEASE WHILE WE OPEN YOUR LINE.
GO AHEAD PLEASE. IN THE MORNING
AT MEDICARE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE- THIS IS ANNA BACK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS- WE
HAVE A SUPPORTING CONTACT ON
THE BILL I'D REALLY LIKE TO
THANK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER OR-
BEING BEING WILLING TO WORK
WITH THAT THIS SET INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE- THE ONLY- THE
ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE WITH THE
BILL CURRENTLY IN ITS CURRENT
FORM AS ITS POTENTIAL TO CAUSE
TRANSACTIONAL DELAYS AND WE
ARE. HOPEFUL TO WORK THAT OUT
OVER THE PHONE WE HAVE YOUR
IDOL TO CONTINUE MOVING BILL
FOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS IN
QUEUE AT THIS TIME OUR LINES IN
Q. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU WILL NOW
MOVED OPPOSITION I HAVE TO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES MICHAEL
LEVITT OF THE CALIFORNIA
REPRESENT CALIFORNIA'S CLOSEST
ASIAN AND CRAIG PAGE.
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION. MISTER CHAIRMAN
HEARING YES. THIS IS YOUR THIS
IS CRAIG PAGE- WITH WITH MISTER
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY
NAME IS CRAIG PAGE WITH EXACTLY
THE KIND OF VICE PRESIDENT AND
COUNSEL FOR THE CALIFORNIA LAND
TITLE ASSOCIATION WE REPRESENT
THE TITLE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN
CALIFORNIA AND WALDRON
LITERALLY MILLIONS OF HOME SALE
TRANSACTIONS EACH YEAR. FIRST I
WANT TO GIVE- COMPLEMENT THE
CHAIR ON THE COMMITTEE STAFFER
THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE
ANALYSIS. OF AND THE EFFORTS
AIMED AT THE UNDERTOOK TO TRY
TO FIX THE BILL BEFORE ITS
FIRST HEARING. THE ANALYSIS IS
VERY THOROUGH AND POINTS TO A
LOT OF COMPLEXITIES- THE WE
HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH DEALING
WITH WITH ILLEGAL RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS. NOW I WANT TO STATE
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT SEAL TEAM
THE TITLE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE AUTHORS
GOAL. OF ELIMINATING THESE
OFFENSIVE ILLEGAL COMPANY
RESTRICTIONS WHILE THEY AREN'T
ENFORCEABLE THEIR HIGHLY
OFFENSIVE IN THE INDUSTRY
SUPPORTS. THAT GOAL THE ISSUE
THAT WE HAVE LIKE WITH THE
REALTORS. IS THAT WE HAVE A
CONCERN ABOUT THE WAY OF
TRAFFIC CURRENTLY WHICH WOULD
PUT THE ONUS ON THE INTO THE
ESCROW PROCESS FOR THESE THINGS
TO BE. OF SADDAM OUT AND- AND
REMOVED THROUGH THERE. THE- RCM
PROCESS RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
PROCESS THE POINT OF SALE
REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY RIGHT
NOW FOR MANY OF YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH TIGHT- THROUGH A HOME
SALE. YOU'LL KNOW THE
PRELIMINARY REPORTS DRAFTED OUT
OF THE TITLE AFTER THE- REALTOR
OPENS THE- SALE IN IN THERE
WILL BE A PRELIMINARY REPORT
AND WE WILL HIGHLIGHT. THEY THE
INSURANCE WERE OFFERING HIM
THAN THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
NOT COVERED UNDER THE POLICY
COVERAGE AND WE ALSO- MANY
TIMES. PROVIDE THE CC IN OUR.
THE COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS- THE REAL STAGE
ARAMBULA THE BUYER OR LEE TO
THOSE. ALL LINKS TO OTHER
DOCUMENTS THAT AREN'T. COVERED
UNDER THE OF THE COVERAGE- WE
DO NOT READ THE- THE CCN OURS
THEY DON'T AFFECT HOW WE ENSURE
TITLED THE PROPERTY OFTENTIMES
THE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS WITH YOU CAN PARK.
NOT PARK WHICH WHICH YOU CAN DO
WITH YOUR REAL PROPERTY. AND
THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
USE SO THE FIRST TIME THAT
SOMEBODY READ THEM IS GOING TO
BE THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND
THE PYRO MANY CASES. SO WE
DON'T READ THROUGH THOSE
DOCUMENTS NOR DO WE READ
THROUGH ANTIQUATED. OLD THE
THAT MAY BE IN THE CHAIN OF
TITLE THAT GO BACK. YOU KNOW
LITERALLY SEND SOME CASES BACK
TO SPANISH MEXICAN LAND GRANTS.
WE WILL WIN CALIFORNIA FINALLY
CAME INTO STATEHOOD. THERE IS A
EXTENSIVE RECORDS OF THERE'S A
LOT OF ANTIQUATED DOCUMENTS
THAT WE DO NOT GO BACK AND READ
BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER
RELEVANT. IN SOME CASES YOU MAY
FIND SOME OF THESE RACIAL
COVENANTS WHICH ARE HIGHLY
OFFENSIVE BURIED IN THE
DOCUMENTS. OUT THERE WE DON'T
KNOW WHERE THEY ARE WE DON'T
LOOK FOR THEM WE DON'T
HIGHLIGHT THEM FOR CONSUMERS.
SO TO PUT IT INTO A INTO A-
ESCROW PROCESS WITH WE THINK IT
WILL TAKE WEEKS IF NOT LONGER
AND ALSO WILL DRAMATICALLY
INCREASE THE PRICE THE COST OF
THE- OF THE TITLE INSURANCE AND
ESCROW PROCESS. BECAUSE
REMEMBER THESE ARE NOT JUST
RACIAL KEVIN IS THE OLDEST
ILLEGAL COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS
THAT ARE THAT ARE COVERED IN
THE BILL. THE WORLD FOCUSING
MOSTLY ON. THE RACIAL COVENANTS
BECAUSE THE MOST OFFENSIVE. BUT
WE WOULD NEED TO A LEGAL. THE
READ THROUGH ALL THOSE
DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY
LITERALLY. CAN'T RECORD
DOCUMENTS PAPER DOCUMENTS THAT
ARE SCANNED INTO A DIG INTO A-
COMPUTER IT IS NOT A DATABASE
WE CANNOT DO- KEYWORD SEARCHES
WE CANNOT LOOK. THROUGH
DOCUMENTS LIKE THAT WE'D HAVE
TO PULL THE BUCK ONE BY ONE.
AND READ DOWN THROUGH THE MANY
OF THEM HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
BACK TO THE EARLY. LATE
EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS AND EARLY
NINETEEN. SO IT'S NOT A PROCESS
THAT'S EASY IT CAN BE VERY TIME
CONSUMING AND COSTLY. AND SEAL
TA HAS WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH
THE AUTHOR AND WITH THE
COMMITTEE IF YOU LOOK AT OUR
AMENDMENTS THAT WE PROVIDED
WE'RE LOOKING AT A MORE GLOBAL
APPROACH. THAT TAKES IT OUT OF
ESCROW SO THE CONSUMERS DO NOT
FACE THIS THESE COSTS AND DO
NOT FACE THESE DELAYS. AND
WOULD ALLOW EACH C. D. AND
OTHERS WE WERE NAY WE'RE GONNA
NEED TO GENERATE MONEY TO. TO
LOOK FOR THESE THINGS IT'S
GOING TO BE COSTLY TO DO IT.
AND THEN OUR PROPOSAL THAT THE
PAST YOUR LETTER. WE PROVIDE A
MINIMAL RECORDING FEE THAT
WOULD BE. SPREAD ACROSS ALL ALL
TRANSACTIONS SO THAT WE COULD
GENERATE REVENUE FOR H. D. D.
AND A LARGER GROUP TO. SEARCH
FOR THESE THINGS ONE OF THE
EARLIER- OF THE EARLIER
TESTIMONY TALK ABOUT HOW THE AS
A AS A AS HOMEOWNERS WHEN
OUTLOOK FOR THE THESE THINGS
WHAT WE LIKE TO DO THAN GAUGE.
ACD IN A LARGE GROUP OF FOLKS
TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE END
AND TO TRY TO TARGET THESE
THINGS IN MATH. DO A
SUBDIVISION AT A TIME WILL GO
OUT AND TRY TO FIND A WAY FOR
US TO DO USED. IN MASS SO THAT
WE'RE NOT DOING THEM ONCE ONE
OF THE TIME IN A REALISTIC
TRANCE. AND I THINK ONE THING
THE HIGHLIGHT BEFORE I CLOSED-
MISTER CHAIRMAN ON THIS. IS
THAT. PEOPLE OF COLOR BOTH A
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS UNDER
THIS NEW LAW. WOULD BE FACING
HIGHER COSTS AND FEES. IN THEIR
OWN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.
WHEN WE RATHER TAKE IT OUTSIDE
THE PROCESS. DO IT ALL ONCE AND
THEN ANY CREATE A PROCESS WHERE
THERE'S A MIRROR IMAGE
DOCUMENT. WITH THESE THINGS ARE
ACTUALLY STRUCK AND THEN THE
CONSUMER NEVER RECEIVE THEM.
BECAUSE THE FORWARD FACING
DOCUMENT THAT'S PUT INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD. NO LONGER HAS
THIS OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WE LIKE
TO WORK AS A PARTNER. WITH THE
AUTHOR AND WITH OTHER GROUPS
AND GOVERNMENTS YOU TO TRY TO.
FORGET THESE THINGS ONCE AND
FOR ALL- BUT WE THINK THROUGH
THE ESCROW PROCESS WITH THE
DELAYS AND INCREASED COSTS. IS
THE WRONG WAY TO APPROACH THIS.
THANK MAKE YOUR. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS- MIGHT BELOW TO
SPEAKING FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ESCROW ASSOCIATION- IT'S THE
FIRST SECONDING- MR PAGE'S
COMMENTS BUT- IN GENERAL MR
MCCARTY HAS IDENTIFIED AND IS
WORKING ON A COMPELLING ISSUE
AND I THINK THE ANALYSIS DID A
GREAT JOB OF ARTICULATING THE
COMPLEXITY OF IT SOME PEOPLE
RELATED PERSONAL ANECDOTES AND
I HAVE ONE. OF THE FIRST HOUS
I PURCHASED WAS IN THE LAND
PARK PRETTY DESIRABLE AREA OF
SACRAMENTO AND SPEND SOMEBODY
GAVE ME AN AD WHEN THEY WERE
SELLING LOTS AND LAND PARK IN
NINETEEN FORTY THAT VERY
PROMINENT ON THE AD WHERE THE
WORDS HEAVILY RESTRICTED WHICH
WAS OBVIOUSLY CODE FOR RACIAL
COVENANTS. SO IN NINETEEN FORTY
NOT ONLY WAS THIS NOT AN UGLY
STAIN AS REFLECTED IN THE
ANALYSIS IT WAS THE ACTUAL
SALES FEATURE THAT'S HOW
EMBEDDED RACISM HAS BEEN IN THE
REAL PROPERTY SYSTEM SO THE
ISSUE IS COMPELLING WHAT IT
WHAT IS THE BEEN THE STRUGGLE
FOR NOW FORTY YEARS I WAS FIRST
INVOLVED IN A BILL IN THE MID
NINETEEN EIGHTIES ON THIS
SUBJECT IS HOW TO EFFICIENTLY-
FIND THESE COVENANTS WHICH WERE
PROBABLY. RECORDED SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN THE EIGHTEEN EIGHTIES
AND ABOUT NINETEEN FIFTY AND
GET THEM REMOVED- I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT- DELEGATING THIS
TO TITLE INSURERS- WHO WOULD
HAVE TO GO BACK AND GO THROUGH
THE PROCESS THAT MR PAGE
OUTLINE IS QUITE THE RIGHT
ANSWER AND WE YOU KNOW WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR
DECADES WERE WE'D LOVE TO SEE
THIS RESOLVED IT IS AS MR CLARK
NOTED AN UGLY STAIN. ON OUR
SOCIETY AND- WE PLEDGE TO WORK
WITH MR MCCARTY AND YOUR
COMMITTEE AND THE LEGISLATURE
IN RESOLVING IT BUT I DON'T
THINK DELEGATING IT TO TITLE
INSURERS. IS QUITE THE RIGHT
ANSWER THANK YOU THANK YOU.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN UP THE
LINES ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO GIVE US THEIR NAME
THEIR AFFILIATION. AND THAT
THEY'RE OPPOSED TO AB. FOURTEEN
SIXTY SIX. AND THIS IS IN
OPPOSITION SIR ONCE AGAIN YES.
OKAY THANK YOU AND IF YOU'RE
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE PRESS ONE THEN ZERO AT
THIS TIME. MISTER CHAIRMAN WE
HAVE NO IN QUEUING UP AT THIS
TIME. I THANK YOU I'M GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
THIS MCCARTY WHEN I'VE TALKED
ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT. AND I
THINK THE FRUSTRATING THING IS
MR BELOW ALLUDED TO THIS HAS
BEEN. SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
TALKED ABOUT FOR OVER FORTY
YEARS FORTY YEARS WE'VE KNOWN
THIS PROBLEM AND THAT THE ISSUE
ULTIMATELY IS WHATEVER GETS
PROPOSED THERE SOMEBODY WHO
SAYS- WE AGREED BUT NOT US NOT
US NOT US NOT US. PERHAPS IT IS
BETTER TO DO A GLOBAL CHANGE
AND WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH IN
THIS BILL AND WHAT I'M
ECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE ON IS
A MECHANISM TO HAVE IT HAPPEN
IS IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO FUNDS AND PERHAPS IN
THE IN THE ANALYSIS RACES THIS
ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME. THAT THE
GOVERNMENT FIX THE PROBLEM THE
GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SOLVED OR
CREATED OVER THE YEARS YEAH
THAT'S THAT'S VERY TRUE. BUT
WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE
MECHANISM. AND I THINK THIS IS
A BILL THAT PROPOSES A
MECHANISM A VALID MECHANISM
ANYTHING THAT GETS PROPOSED IS
GOING TO HAVE SOME GROUP IN
OPPOSITION. BUT THERE COMES A
TIME WHEN WE JUST NEED TO PUT.
SOMETHING ON THE TABLE THAT.
THAT GETS THIS ACCOMPLISHED AND
GETS IT ACCOMPLISHED IN AN
EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. I THINK I
WOULD RATHER SEE US INVEST IN
JUST HAVE IT DONE GLOBALLY
THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST IN THE
AND THE QUICKEST WAY TO GET IT
DONE. BUT AGAIN THAT BRINGS
OPPOSITION AND WHETHER OR NOT
WE'D BE ABLE TO FUND THAT IS A
QUESTION. SO THIS BILL RIGHT
NOW IS PROPOSING TRANSACTION BY
TRANSACTION BASIS WHICH WILL
PROLONG THE SOLUTION BUT AT
LEAST IT IS. IF WE CAN PUT THIS
IN PLACE SOMETHING THAT WILL
GET. WILL WILL MOVE US TOWARDS
ACCOMPLISHING A SOLUTION HERE
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S PROPOSED THE
WAY IT IS. BUT FOR ME FRANKLY.
I'M A BIT AGNOSTIC AS TO WHAT
GETS. WHAT THE MECHANISM IS AS
LONG AS IT GETS DONE AND WE CAN
GET IT DONE AS QUICKLY AS WE
CAN AND WE STOP THIS DECADES
OF- WE WANT TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM BUT WE JUST CAN'T
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT
WAY WE CAN ALWAYS SAY THIS IS
NOT THE RIGHT WAY AND THAT JUST
MEANS IT WILL NEVER GET DONE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS UP MISSED MCCARTY AND I AM
VERY HOPEFUL THAT THIS
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO MOVE THIS
BILL FORWARD I KNOW YOU HAVE A
LOT OF WORK TO DO WHEN YOU'RE
COMMITTED THAT AND I APPRECIATE
THAT THAT COMMITMENT THIS IS.
THIS IS. AN EX. EXCELLENT
BECAUSE- RIGHT OTHER MISTER
GALLAGHER. YES- APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR AND CERTAINLY THESE
RESTRICTIONS ARE REPREHENSIBLE-
AND I THINK REPRESENT THE WORST
OF OUR HISTORY- AND NO DOUBT
PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN.
THE RELATIVE WEALTH AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS. AND LATINOS- SO I
TOTALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH WHAT
YOU ARE TRYING TO DO HERE- TO
THE POINT OF THE OPPOSITION. IS
THERE A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS I
MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE
PROPOSING MAY BE OTHER WAYS
THAT LIKE I KIND OF HEARD THAT
THE MERE MERE IMAGE- RECORDINGS
OR- OTHER WAYS OF DOING THIS IT.
OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE SAYING
THERE'S THEY'RE OPEN TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE
BUT MAYBE NOT MAKING IT PART OF
THE ESCROW PROCESS- AND THIS
WAY WHICH I THINK COULD END UP
BEING. MORE EXPENSIVE AND DRAG
OUT S. GROWS LONGER WHICH IS.
WE NOT WE WANT TO DO- IN TERMS
OF ENCOURAGING HOMEOWNERSHIP
AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS BUT.
I GET THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS I MEAN THE OTHER
PROBLEM IS EVEN IF YOU DO A
RECORDING IT DOESN'T REALLY
NECESSARILY GET RID OF THAT
RECORDING RIGHT IS JUST ANOTHER
RECORDING THAT. KIND OF. ON
PAPER EXTINGUISHES IT BUT IT'S
STILL. BUT IT'S STILL A
RECORDED DOCUMENT THAT'S ON
TITLE RIGHT. SO MAYBE I MEAN I
JUST MAYBE JUST FOR YOUR
RESPONSE LIKE HOW DO WE- DO
THINK THAT THERE'S ANOTHER WAY
OF ADDRESSING THIS ARE YOU OPEN
TO WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS
SAYING IN TERMS OF AN
ALTERNATIVE- AND THEN EXPLAINED
DOES I DON'T MY UNDERSTAND IS
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET RID OF
THE- OF THE OFFENSIVE CC IN
OUR- LIKE BECAUSE THAT'S
ALREADY RECORDED ON. TITLE LIKE
YOU'RE YOU'RE JUST RECORDING
ANOTHER DOCUMENT TODAY. THAT
ESSENTIALLY LIKE A MEN'S OR
CHANGES THAT RIGHT. WITH YEAH
HE'S OUT FOR A SPOT YOU CAN
YEAH LEVINE I CAN'T REALLY NOT
WITH THE MASSES YOU CAN'T SEE.
IS THAT WE ASK YOU A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS THERE- SO YEAH I
THINK IT WOULD BE EASIEST IF WE
JUST HAD A GLOBAL FAX BUT THE
ESTIMATES ARE BETWEEN FIVE
HUNDRED MILLION IN A BILLION
DOLLARS AND WOULD YOU RATHER
SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS TO
CHANGE THESE ARE TO IMPROVE
HOMEOWNERSHIP. FOR AFRICAN
AMERICANS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
ACROSS CALIFORNIA I THINK THAT
WE GOT TO DEBATE TO HAVE- THE
OTHER THING IS BY DOING THIS
THAT'S LIKE YEARS AGO WE WANTED
TO CHANGE THE TOILETS FOR THE
LOW FLUSH TOILETS NO IDEA WHAT
TO DO I'M AT THE POINT OF SALE
WELL WOULD TAKE THIRTY YEARS
FOR EVERY PROPERTY TO FLIP OVER
BEFORE YOU GOT TO EVERYBODY
ITSELF. THIS DOESN'T GET TO
EVERYBODY RIGHT AWAY POLICE IT
STARTS ON A CONTINUAL BASIS
LIKE WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOME
MISTER BELOW ABOUT HIS SONG IN
SOUTHWEST PARK AND OTHERS AND
SO- I THINK WE ALL INCLUDING
YOU AND THE PEOPLE TESTIFIED
REALIZE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM
AS THE CHAIR NOTED WE'VE BEEN
BACK AND FORTH FOR DECADES ON
THIS GOVERNOR SORTS **** VETOED
ON ALMOST IDENTICAL BILL. THAT
THE LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HAD
A BURDEN ON THEM AND THEY
OPPOSED ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS AGO
I THINK WE'RE TAKING A NEW LOOK
AT THIS ANYWAY IN SOCIETY
LOOKING AT THAT WHAT THESE
COVENANTS MEANING AND HAVE THE
LASTING IMPACT THEY'VE THEY'VE
HAD. TO GENERATIONAL WEALTH-
TEAM LED BY BY PEOPLE WHO ARE
SCARED INTO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
DIDN'T HAVE THE LAND PARK TYPE
OF PRE APPRECIATION HERE IN
SACRAMENTO SO I'M I'M WORKING
WITH THE YEAH WE ARE COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH A REALTOR IS
THAT. THE LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION THE ESCROW FOLKS
TO- TO WORK AS A GOOD FOR THE
PROCESSES YOU KNOW WILL HAVE
MANY OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH
DIFFERENT COMMITTEE SENT I
THINK THE WELL TO DO IT IS
THERE AND WE NEED JUST TO HAVE
THE DESIRE. TO FINALLY DO THIS.
RIGHT AND I DO KNOW THAT LIKE
RIGHT NOW ANYBODY CAN GO AND
RECORD WHAT'S CALLED A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MODIFICATION CORRECT TO DATE
WITH THAT THAT'S THE SECOND THE
BILL HAS TWO PARTS OF THE
SECOND WITNESS WE HAD WAS JUST
THAT SHE WAS- SHE WANTED THAT
SHE STARTED AT A CLUB IN HER
NEIGHBORHOOD OF CLUB AN
ORGANIZATION IN SAN LUIS
OBISPO. INTIMATE DOCUMENTARY
MOVIE ABOUT THIS AND THEY WENT
AROUND AND GOT NEIGHBORS THEY
HAD A BIG PARTY IN THE BLOCK
BROUGHT OUT THE FORMS IN THE
PAPER AND ITS REALLY BURDENSOME
AND LET'S SAY YOU'RE HERE IN
SACRAMENTO AND SOMEONE AND YOU
ALL ACROSS THE RIVER AS A
DIFFERENT PROCESS SO WE WANT TO
DO FOR THAT IS MAKE IT
STREAMLINED SO ALL COUNTIES HAD
THE SAME KIND OF PROCESS AND WE
WANT TO. REMOVE THE BURDEN SO
WE WORKED WITH THAT THE CLERK
RECORDS ASSOCIATIONS THEY'RE
GOING TO REMOVE THE FEES
CHARGED THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE
IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET IT
AT A NOTARIZED TO REAP REMOVES
THE BARRIERS SO PEOPLE LIKE US
WHO EVER CAN DO IT ON THEIR OWN
SO THAT'S A GIVEN BUT- THE
OTHER PIECE IS WHAT ABOUT THE
PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW ABOUT
THAT AND AS THESE PROPERTIES AS
THE- AS THE SOMEONE. TESTIFY IN
MILLION COUPLE MILLION
PROPERTIES A YEAR CHANGE HANDS.
IT WOULD BE EASIER TO AS THOSE
CHANGE HANDS TO CHANGE. THAT
THAT THAT RACIALLY HANDS THE
LANGUAGE. IN THOSE RECORDINGS.
AND YEAH I CAN CURRENT ALIKE
WHEN WE TO READ A BILL THAT'S
BEEN AMENDED. YOU STRIKE
THROUGH THE OTHER LANGUAGE AND
YOU KNOW THE GOAL IS TO REMOVE
THAT SO IT'S NOT THERE FOR
PEOPLE TO. TO SEE IN THE FIRST
PLACE. RIGHT BUT I THINK WHAT
OPPOSITION IS SAYING IS THAN
THAT. THEY DON'T KNOW EITHER.
NECESSARILY RIGHT THEY HAVE TO
GO AND DO THE SEARCH TO. FIND
IF THERE'S ANY OF THESE TYPES
OF DOCUMENTS IN THERE. THAT'S
GOING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
TIME. AND COST OF THE ACTUAL
MEAL HOME SALE TRANSACTION.
THAT'S RIGHT I MEAN I KIND OF
THING LIKE IS IT BETTER TO
CERTAINLY THE SECOND PART OF
YOUR BILL I THINK MAKES A WHOLE
LOT OF SENSE LIKE GIVE MAKING
UNIFORMS THE PEOPLE CAN DO THIS
ACROSS THE BOARD. BUT I'M
STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH
LIKE MAKING THAT PART OF. THE
ESCROW MAYBE OPPOSITION WHAT
WOULD BE THE ALTERNATIVE. THAT
YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING. THERE
WAS A QUESTION FOR OPPOSITION.
IF THEY'RE NOT THERE I CAN
SUMMARIZE WHAT THEY'VE LAID OUT
MISTER SMITH WELL IT IT GO
AHEAD CORRECT THIS IS CREEK
PAYS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAND
TITLE ASSOCIATION THE PROPOSAL
THAT WE HAVE IS TO CREATE
ESSENTIALLY A MERE DOCUMENTS AS
AS HIGHLIGHTED BY. A SMALL
GALLAGHER THERE'S CURRENTLY
RIGHT NOW THE RACIAL THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MODIFICATION PROCESS IS NOT
WORKING WHEN WE WERE IN
DIALOGUE WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. SERVER COMMITTEE FOR
WENT OUT AND FOUND SOME OF
THESE RCM DOCUMENTS THERE'S ONE
CASE THEY HAD TAKEN THE
DOCUMENT XEROX THAT GREW DRAWN
A LINE THROUGH THE OFFENSIVE-
LANGUAGE AND THEN RE RECORDED
THAT DOCUMENT SO IF YOU GO BACK
AND LOOK FOR THE RCM OF THE
RESTRICTIVE CALL KEVIN
MODIFICATION. YOU ACTUALLY
STILL SEE THE LANGUAGE SO
NOTHING WAS ACCOMPLISHED
ANOTHER SITUATION ANOTHER A
PERSON HAD RECORDER THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MODIFICATION DOCUMENT AND SAID
THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE
RECORDED ABSENT THIS LANGUAGE
SO THEY REPUBLISH THE LANGUAGE
THAT WAS OFFENSIVE IT WAS IN
THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE
DOCUMENT THAT WAS ATTACHED IT
WAS IN THE NEW VERSION OF THE
DOCUMENT ATTACHED. TO ALL THE
DETAILS REALLY CAN REPUBLISH
THE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE SO THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MODIFICATION APPROACH RIGHT NOW
IS JUST NOT WORKING IN MANY
CASES PEOPLE MAY THINK THEY'RE
ACCOMPLISHING WHAT THEY WHAT
THEY WANT WITH THE LOSS OF
SOUTH OF THERE BUT THEY'RE NOT.
AND WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE
HAVE IN OUR PROPOSAL THERE
WOULD BE A MIRROR IMAGE
DOCUMENT SO YOU WOULD LIKE THE
TRUNCATION RIGHT NOW THERE'S A
TRUNCATED SOCIAL SECURITY- OF-
PROVISIONAL LAW WE'RE WE HAVE
TAKEN DOCUMENTS CREATED MERE
IMAGES SO THE PUBLIC FACING
DOCUMENT HAS A TRUNCATED SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS CASE
THE PUBLIC FACING. ARE SO
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MODIFICATION DOCUMENTS WOULD BE
MINUS THAT LANGUAGE SO WHEN
PEOPLE GO INTO ESCROW TITLE
COMPANIES WOULD CATCH IT IS
THIS IS THIS PROCESS HAPPENS
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT'S
WERE HOPING FOR AND WE'D LIKE
TO DO IT YOU KNOW SUBDIVISIONS.
AT A TIME OR OF HOAS OF THE
TIME OR DO IT LIKE NAY. AND BUT
THE THRILLER PROCESS OF.
ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE TO
IS RIGHT NOW THE PROCESS UNDER
CURRENT LAW REQUIRES THAT THE-
COUNTY COUNCIL REVIEW EACH ONE
OF THIS. IF THIS IN FACT.
INCREASES SUBSTANTIALLY THERE
NEEDS TO BE MONEY PROVIDED TO
THOSE COUNTY COUNCIL TO REFUSE
TO REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS. AND
GIVE THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL-
IF OF A LOT OF THESE ARE
HAPPENING COUNTY RECOUNT
ACCOUNT ACCOUNTS ARE GONNA BE
OVERWHELMED. WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS REVIEW THESE IN
OUR PROPOSAL WITH THE RECORDING
FEE- WE HELP TO FUND THAT. SO
THAT'S KIND OF ARE CONCERNED AS
WELL. THIS HOLD. FIGURES SHARE
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD I
CONCUR WITH THE CHAIRS.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP AND THAT YOU KNOW
THE BILL NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD-
I THINK THAT YOU ALREADY
INDICATED AS THE AUTHOR A
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO SORT OF
FINE TUNE SOME OF THE CONCERNS
HAVE BEEN RAISED. AND I WOULD
ENCOURAGE THAT TO HAPPEN
BECAUSE I THINK THAT. THERE ARE
SOME MAYBE IMPLEMENTATION
ELEMENTS OF THIS MOVE MIGHT
HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES SO
THERE'S- THE OPPORTUNITY TO
IRON THAT OUT AS YOU GO FORWARD
BUT I THINK THAT. WHAT YOU'RE
ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE
IN IS NOT WORTHY AND- I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
THAT IS THEIR SECOND. AND THE
SECOND THANK YOU MISS DAVIS
THANK YOU- THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO QUESTION
THAT THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE IS
LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
MY CONCERN AGAIN IS WITH THEM
YOU MAKE GOOD POLICY YOU WANT
TO MAKE SURE IT'S BENEFICIAL ON
BOTH SIDES SO THAT THERE AREN'T
REPLICATIONS OF THE GONNA COME
BACK AT THE END. LET ME TO LOOK
AT- MONETARILY YOU KNOW THE
COST THAT IT COULD BE THE DELAY
OF GETTING ESCROW AND THEN IF
THIS COST COULD ACTUALLY BE PUT
ONTO THE- BUYER OR THE
HOMEOWNER- AGAIN WE'RE HAVING
PROBLEMS WITH HOUSING AND THE
COST OF HOUSING. I JUST WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THE A BETTER WAY
THAT WE COULD STREAMLINE THIS
AND MAKE IT FASTER AND NOT-
TAKE UP YOU KNOW MAKE IT BURDEN
AGAIN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
COUNTY IS HE SAID. WE DON'T YOU
KNOW COUNTIES- ARE INUNDATED
RIGHT NOW SPECIALLY COATED IN
HAVING INFORMATION LIKE THIS
BROUGHT ABOUT AND HE TO HAVE
ANYTHING HELD UP- AND THEN
HAVING CONCERNED THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE THE STAFFING SO. I
WOULD LOVE YOU TO WORK WITH
THE- OPPOSITION TO SEE HOW WE
CAN MAINSTREAM THIS AND. SO
THAT'S BENEFICIAL BOTH SIDES
THANK YOU. THANK YOU OTHER
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS THIS RARE.
I JUST APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S
COMMENTS HE SAID WE'RE GOING TO
PASS THIS OR WE SHOULD PASS
THIS DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE-
IT HAS TO BE CHANGED HAS TO BE
CORRECTED. AND YOU HAVE CLEARLY.
THAT YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS IT
AND IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE
SAYING. WE'LL FIND THE BEST WAY
TO DO THIS. YOU COULD YOU.
REITERATED YOUR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION THE OPPOSITION HAS
CONFIRMED THAT YOU'RE WORKING
WITH THEM SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE TO MOVING THIS BILL
FORWARD SO THAT. YOU CAN
CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND
COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT
THAT WE ALL ARE GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING ON THE FLOOR THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU
ALTHOUGH THE FRUSTRATION AND WE
TALKED ABOUT THIS IS EVERY TIME
WE TRY THIS SOMEBODY'S OPPOSE.
AND YES IT PROBABLY WOULD BE
BETTER TO TRY TO DO THIS ON A
GLOBAL BASIS IF WE CAN PULL
THAT OFF THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WHY THIS WORKS IS ULTIMATELY
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THROUGH
THE ESCROW PROCESS BUT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE DONE
BEFORE. SO THAT WOULDN'T DELAY
YES CHRIS WHO WAS SELLER WANTS
TO SELL THE HOUSE I WOULD HOPE.
THAT THE REALTOR WOULD BE
TELLING THIS IS A STEP THAT
NEEDS. TO BE TAKEN AND THAT CAN
THEN BE DONE. BEFOREHAND SO
THAT IT'S- SLOWING DOWN. THE S.
PROCESS THERE ARE NO. OF
DIFFERENT THAT CAN. THAT'S WHY
THE IS A- AND- BUT WHICH HAS.
WE NEED TO THIS ALL. AND NOT
KEEP THIS FORTY. FIFTY SIXTY.
THEY WERE OVER TO SOLVE THE-
BUT- NEXT YEAR. THAT HAS TO END
AND THAT'S WHY I'M HOPING THIS
WILL. MOVE AND YOU'LL BE ABLE
SOLVE THIS MYSTERY MCCARTY
THANK YOU AND WITH THAT. PLEASE
CLOSE. YET THANK YOU I. TWO
THE THIRTEENTH THIS WE HAVE A
LIFETIME THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS SO WE HAVE PLENTY F
OPPORTUNITY TO FIND. A BETTER
WHAT BETTER WAY I DON'T SEE
THAT THAT THAT THE PERFECT WAY
RIGHT NOW WE WORKED WITH YOU
AND YOUR- TEAM ESTHER CLARK AND
A GREAT JOB HELPING US. COME UP
WITH A- I THINK A PATH FOR
TODAY BUT YOU KNOW. THERE'S A
WILL TO CHANGE THIS AND BUT
SOMEBODY HAS TO DO THE WORK AND
SO- I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S GONNA
BE BORN ON PEOPLE TRYING TO BUY
A HOME AND HOME AND HOMES ARE
UNAFFORDABLE IT'S JUST SELLER
AS YOU KNOW WHEN THERE'S A
SCRIPT OUT SINCE IS THE PERSON
WHO'S- SELLING THE HOME AND-
MAKING SOMETHING OFFER THAT
SELL OF COURSE. WE DON'T A BIRD
ANYBODY I THINK IT'S A SUPPORT
REMINDER THERE IS NOT THE COST.
ON THE BUYER IT'S ON THE SELLER-
BUT- YOU KNOW IF THERE IS A
MORE SIMPLIFIED BETTER WAY. TO
GET TO GET THE MOST AMOUNT OF
THESE RACIST. WORDS STRICKEN
OFF THE UP OFF THESE-
PROPERTIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT'S
A THAT'S A WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND SOCKET IN YOU TO WORK WITH
WITH EVERYBODY AND- I
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.
AND WITHOUT ASKING RIVAL THANK
YOU. THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND AND TE
MOTION IS TO PASS. TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE HI STONE HI
GALLAGHER. CHAU CHAU I CHIU
DAVIES DAVIES I GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN HOLDEN AYE
KALRA HOWEVER I KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN REYES HI RES I.
THANK YOU THE BILLS OUT THANK
YOU ALL RIGHT MISTER KALRA AJ
ARE ONE ALL RIGHT OF NUMBER
EIGHT. THANK YOU MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. FIRST I WANT TO
COMMEND- THE THRONE AUS BY THE
COMMITTEE FOR THOSE NUMBERS
THAT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY- TO
LOOK THROUGH THE ANALYSIS
YOU'LL FIND WELL DOCUMENT
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AG ARE ONE
INCLUDING ISIS INHUMANE AND
LEGAL METHODS ISIS CONSISTENT
CONTROVERSY THROUGHOUT
DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS ICE'S
ROLE IN FAMILY SEPARATION ICE'S
INABILITY TO PROVIDE IMMIGRANTS
BASIC HEALTH CARE. I SEVERELY-
DURING THE PANDEMIC ICE'S IN
HUMANA SUBSTANDARD ATTENTIONS
ICE'S ROLE IN TERRORIZING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES AND I
SAYS BUDGET MISMANAGEMENT AND
ON ACCOUNTABILITY. GIVEN THESE
JUSTIFICATIONS AND MORE IS
COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR
CALIFORNIA SAY ICE IS BEYOND
REFORM AND NEEDS TO BE
ABOLISHED. SPECIFICALLY HR ONE
OF ICE AND CALLS FOR THE
ORDERLY AND JUST TRANSFER A
LEGALLY REQUIRED ESSENTIAL
FUNCTIONS INA MANNER THAT
UPHOLDS VALUES A DUE PROCESS.
THE QUALITY AND THE LAW AND
FAMILY UNITY. CALLING FOR ICE
TO BE ABOLISHED AS A MESSAGE
ALIGNS WITH THE MAJORITY OF
NATIONAL OPINION ONE SURVEY
RELEASED TWENTY NINETEEN. FOR
THAT 54% OF ADULTS HAVE AN
UNFAVORABLE VIEW OF ICE. MAKING
THE LEAST LIKED OF SIXTEEN
MAJOR FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THAT
NUMBER IS EVEN. HIGHER IN
CALIFORNIA. IT IS ALSO PROBABLY
THE CALIFORNIA STAND WITH THEIR
DIVERSE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES.
WHO HAVE BEEN AND ARE STILL
SUBJUGATED ISIS EXTREME AGENDA.
IN CALLING FOR ICE TO BE
ABOLISHED IN HR THEY'RE ALSO
CONVENE TO FEDERAL LEADERS THAT
ICE'S ROLE IN TERRORIZING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES. IS ON
WELCOMED AND HAS NOTHING TO
ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY. IT IS MY
STRONG BELIEF ON THAT IS SHARED
WITH MANY WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCES. OF ICE IS
DEHUMANIZING AND ABUSE ABUSIVE
TACTICS. THE ICE OPERATES AS A
ROGUE AGENCY IN FACT EVEN AFTER
PRESIDENT BIDEN. INSTITUTE
INSTEAD OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY
POOR TATIAN MORATORIUM ICE
DEFIED THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED
HIS DEPORTATION MACHINE.
ADDITIONALLY COUNTLESS FORMALLY
INCARCERATED IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES ARE SYSTEMATICALLY
BEING TRANSFERRED IS WITHOUT
REGARD TO CIRCUMSTANCE PASSWORD
TOWARD REHABILITATION OR FAMILY
CONNECTIONS. OF IN CALIFORNIA.
ULTIMATELY CONGRESS WHAT IS
WILL NEED TO DECIDE HOW
GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS ARE
TRANSFERRED AND HOW- AND HOW WE
CAN REIMAGINE ARE A COMPLEX AND
CONTROVERSIAL IMMIGRATION
SYSTEM. HOWEVER ASIA ONE AS
NECESSARY TO HELP INFLUENCE THE
DEBATE IN A MANNER THAT UPHOLDS
VALUES A DUE PROCESS EQUALITY
UNDER THE LAW. AND FAMILY UNITY.
IN THE WORDS OF CESAR CLAYTON
TOMORROW GARCIA HERNANDEZ
AUTHOR OF MIKE OF MIGRATING TO
PRISON. IN A RECENT OPINION FOR
THE NATION. THE PRISON GUARD
CAN BE RETRAINED TO REVIEW WORK
PERMIT PER CLASS AND A LAWYER
CURRENTLY PAINTED APART PEOPLE
CAN BE YOU CAN BE TOOL TO HELP
PEOPLE BECOME CITIZENS. IN A
WORLD WITHOUT ICE ALL THIS AND
MORE WOULD BE POSSIBLE. WITH ME
TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY
OVER THE PHONE I TRACY LAW WITH
IT RISE AND SANJA. NOT A DEALER
WITH CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO I HAVE TO WITNESSES
TRACY LOVE VIA. VIET RISE AND
SANDHYA NOT A DOOR OF
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY.
BOTH WITH ON THE TELEPHONE ARE
YOU ON THE LINE. GOOD MORNING.
OKAY. GO AHEAD HI GOOD MORNING
ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE SELLING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS
STRAIGHT ALONG AND I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THEIR
RIGHTS AND IMMIGRANTS AND
THOUSAND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION
BASED IN ORANGE COUNTY
CALIFORNIA. I'M HAPPY MY ORDER.
I AM HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF HR ONE. THE RESOLUTION
URGING CONGRESS TO ABOLISH I'D-
MATHIS ASTONISHMENT ALMOST
TWENTY YEARS AGO I THANK YOUR
TEAM ENGAGED IN HUMAN RIGHTS
ABUSES. EVEN DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES TORTURE AND OVER
EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS IN
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CORPORATE
AND DETAINING AND DEPORTING
IMMIGRANTS. I HAVE SEEN FIRST
HAND THE WAY THE ICE BREAKS
APART AND CARING THE SOUTHEAST
ASIAN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES.
TODAY I HAVE FINAL ORDERS
DEPORTATION OVER THE THOUSAND
PARKING. THIRTEEN OF WHICH ARE
BASED ON OLD CRIMINAL RECORD.
REFUGEES ARE THE LARGEST HOCKEY
TEAM EVER RICARDO IN THE
NINETEENTH. FIFTY SECOND THE
MORE BOMBINGS GENOCIDE AND
WITHOUT AN UNDERINVESTED
NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE US. NOW
THOUSANDS OF THEM ARE FACING
YOU CAME AND YOU PARTITION BY.
THIRTY FIVE PEOPLE DIED IN
COMPANY I THINK FOR CALLING.
COULD HAVE AN INCREDIBLE I CAN
COUNT ON. RECENTLY RANGE THE
CAN TO CON GOVERNOR GET SOME
CRACK AND CRIMINAL. IF ANY
CRAPPIE YOU FACE WITH THE THAT
ARE NOT. A COUNTRY OF IN THE
FIELD OF. SEVEN ONE THIRD OVER
TWENTY INTO DC ARE PRISON FOR
ROBBERY AND HE DID AS A YOUNG.
INSTEAD OF THE AND REUNITED
WITH HIS FAMILY PLANNING ONE
LONG AND AN ACTIVE TRY I THINK
TENSION BY. OUR. IMAGINE A ONE
STORY ALL TOO COMMON. THIS IS
AN EVERYDAY. HUNDRED THOUSANDS
IMMIGRANTS YOUR FAMILY IN THE
EYE. AFTER LEVEL COUNTY ALL THE
WAY. TO GET RID HIS LIFE FAMILY.
AND THE FRIEDMAN PETITION EYES.
THE COUNTRY SHOULD NOT CONTINUE
TO ALLOW. THE BILL HAS A
DOLLARS IN. AND TO PUNISH AND
NECK AND NECK THE- I RECKON
THINKING THE PART. IN THE LAST
QUARTER. I BE QUITE FOR ME.
PEOPLE. WOMEN AND WORKERS IN
THE AFFECT OF THE FIRST IMPACT.
AT FOUR MILLION FAMILY SEPARATE
AND MERRY MORE THE WATER LEVEL.
CALIFORNIA OFFICE NOT BE FUN
PEOPLE I THINK IN. WE'RE
CONDUCTING I TRANSFER. LIKE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER KALRA AND I THE
WORLD IN ARE EVEN THANK AND FOR
IT MOMENT OF ALL RIGHT WITH THE-
AND EXACT A PNISHMENT. AND THE
RIGHTS IMMIGRANTS EVERYONE. IT
IS TIME FOR I ALL. IN
CALIFORNIA UNLIKELY TO MAKE A
CALL TO. THAT IS WHY APPLE
SUPPORT YOU ARE ONE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THE SWISS PLEASE.
OKAY THERE NUMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS AMAN
MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE CAL AND
PAUL CENTER TESTIFYING IN OF
THE ONE WHICH CALLED ON YOUR
CON TO ABOLISH IN THE INCOME
AND FOR I. BUT MISSION OF AYE
IT'S FOURTH. LAW WE INDIAN OF
THE UNITED STATES. FOUNDED IN
TWO THOUSAND AND THREE AND
HOUSED UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY I THINKING
THE POLICE FORCE FOR THIS
COUNTRY ONGOING CAMPAIGN TO
CRIMINALIZE ENGAGE HUMANIZED
IMMIGRANTCOMMUNITIES IN THE
AFTERMATH OF NINE ELEVEN.
DESPITE THEIR RELATIVELY SHORT
HISTORY I DID A FEW BRUTALITY
LAWLESSNESS AND INEFFECTIVENESS
IS WELL DOCUMENTED. I SEPARATED
TOPIC FROM THE PARENTS CALL
THEM IN CAGES AND FORCED THEM
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COMPLEX
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
TRAINED GOVERNMENT LAWYERS. IN
IMMIGRATION DETENTION
IMMIGRANTS ARE REGULARLY
SUBJECT TO AGREED AS MEDICAL
NEGLECT AND MALPRACTICE EXTREME
TEMPERATURES ALONG SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT AND HOT TOPIC
WATER. TWENTY TWENTY WITH THE
DEADLIEST YEAR IMMIGRATION
DETENTION FROM TWO THOUSAND AND
FIVE. IN CONDUCTING INTERIOR
ENFORCEMENT I FIGURED
INTENTIONALLY ENGAGED IN
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES MISLI
COMMUNITY MEMBERS CLOSING OF
LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS
MISREPRESENTING ADMINISTRATIVE
WARRANTS AND JUDICIAL WARRANT
PRESSURING LOCAL- AND SAVE ON
FOURTH MAY TWENTY FOURTH TO
TRANSFER AND AGGRANDIZED
KATHLEEN. AND DEPRIVING
NONCITIZENS IN REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS FROM ANY SEMBLANCE
OF DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS
DESPITE THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES
OF HEARTBREAKING IMPACT THAT
DEPORTATION HAS ON AN
INDIVIDUAL THEIR FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY. I THANK BRUTALIZED
COMMUNITIES WASTED BILLIONS OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND FAILED TO
INCREASE COMPLIANCE WITH
IMMIGRATION LAW. AGENCY IS
QUITE SIMPLY A FAILURE BY EVERY
MEASURE. CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO
THE LARGEST AND MOST DIVERSE
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY IN THE
UNITED STATES. AND WHILE
ABOLISHING ICE IS ONE STEP OF
MANY DISMANTLING A LARGER
APPARATUS OF POLICING AND
SURVEILLANCE THAT TERRORIZED
THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IT
REMAINS AN IMPORTANT STEP. WE
CANNOT REMAIN SILENT AS I
CONTINUED TO TAKE HARMFUL AND
DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS. AGAINST
OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
FOR THE REASONS THANK. RECALL
CENTER URGES YOU TO THE EACH
ONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
OPERATOR IF YOU DEALT THE LINE
FOR MEMBERS THE PUBLIC WHO WITH
TO. GIVE US THEIR NAME IN THERE
FOR IN SUPPORT AGE R. ONE. IF
YOU'RE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
HR ONE PLEASE PRESS ONE THEN
ZERO AT THIS TIME. FOR OUR
FIRST LINE WE WILL GO TO LINE
FIFTY FOUR GO AHEAD PLEASE.
KUTTNER ENSURE MEMBERS BENJAMIN
TRANSPORTATION AMERICANS BETTY
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA- ARE SUPPORT
ISN'T REGISTERED ON THE-
COMMITTEE ANNOUNCES THAT WE
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE-
RECORD OUR SUPPORT FOR THE
RESOLUTION THANK YOU SO MUCH
THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE
IN QUEUE AT THIS TIME MISTER
CHAIR THANK YOU. WILL NOW MOVE
TO OPPOSITION I HAVE ONE
WITNESS LISTED GENE WUNDERLICH
OF THE SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ON THE
TELEPHONE MISTER WUNDERLICH ARE
YOU HERE. I AM. GO AHEAD PLEASE
GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING SURE
NUMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY MY NAME'S GENE
WUNDERLICH WITH SOUTHWEST
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
IN ADVOCACY COALITION OF
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
REPRESENTING SOME THIRTY FIVE
HUNDRED EMPLOYERS IN SOUTHWEST
RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A J. R. ONE
COLORADO. AT A TIME WHEN IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO OPEN A NEWSPAPER
OR LISTEN TO THE NEWS WITHOUT
BEING AWARE OF THE CRISIS OUR
SOUTHERN BORDER. AND THE
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS FACING OUR
NATION AS A RESULT OF
UNRESTRICTED ILLEGAL RUN DR
IMMIGRATION. MOSEL TO ABOLISH
ARAKANESE COUNTRIES FIRST WIDER
DEFENSE ENFORCEMENT. PLACES THE
SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR
MEMBER BUSINESSES. AND OUR
CITIZENS INCLUDING OUR
IMMIGRATION COMMUNITIES AT
SIGNIFICANT REST. TODAY WE SEE
ENTIRE CONVENTION CENTERS IN
SAN DIEGO LOS ANGELES AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES DEDICATED
HOUSING MIGRANT POPULATIONS
WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NO
DOUBT ABOVE REPROACH AND SIMPLY
HUNGERING FOR A BETTER LIFE OUR
COUNTRY AFFORDS. THERE ARE
OTHERS POTENTIAL TERRORISTS
FRONT RUNNERS AND THOSE
INFECTED WITH CODE NINETEEN OR
OTHER COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
THAT POSE A RISK THE GENERAL
WELFARE AND PUBLIC SAFETY OF
OUR STATE AND NATION.
IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOM
ENFORCEMENT ICE PROVIDES A
CONDUIT AND SAFETY NET NOT ONLY
TO OUR OWN CITIZENS BUT TO
THESE IMMIGRANTS AS WELL.
ABOLISHING ICE IS NOT OF THE
MOST EFFICACIOUS NOR EXPEDIENT
MANNER IN WHICH TO ADDRESS THE
SECURITY OF OUR NATION. THE
SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
RESPECTFULLY ASKS FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON EIGHTY OUR WATER GUY
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU. RIGHT OPERATOR WOULD
YOU NOW OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO. NOTE
THEIR OPPOSITION TO AJ ARE ONE.
AND IF YOU'RE SPEAKING IN
OPPOSITION OF A J. R. ONE PRESS
ONE THEN ZERO AT THIS TIME.
MISTER CHAIRMAN WE HAVE NO ONE
QUEUING UP AT THIS TIME THANK
YOU. WITH THAT I WILL SEE NO
ONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS OF
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. RIGHT
SIGNAL MISTER KALRA YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISS
CHAIR- JUST THE THREE POINTS IN
CLOSING IS AT THE CRITICISM-
PRICES BIPARTISAN IT REGARDING
THE CONDUCT DURING THE BUSH
OBAMA AND TRUMP
ADMINISTRATIONS- ICE IS ONLY
EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD THIS IS NOT
SOME. AGENCY THAT'S BEEN AROUND
SINCE THAT WAS THE START OF OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS AND IT WAS
ESTABLISH. A POST- NINE ELEVEN
HI AND I HAS BEEN INDICATED BY
OUR WITNESSES UP IN SUPPORT. OF
ITS REALLY. J. INTO AN AGE THAT
IS CAUSE FAR MORE HARM THAN
GOOD. AND FINALLY ON THAT POINT
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S PLANNED
WITHDRAWAL TROOPS OUT OF
AFGHANISTAN BY NINE ELEVEN OF
THIS YEAR. A TWENTY YEAR-
CHAPTER OF OUR HISTORY AND I
THINK IT WOULD BE THE TIMING
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ALSO FOR
US TO MOVE ON. FROM THIS
PARTICULAR AGENCY AND AS
MENTIONED HAVE THE LEGAL
REQUIRED ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS-
DONE IN A DIFFERENT WAY OF WITH
WITH A NEW. LOOK TOWARDS-
QUALITY ON THE ALL UNDER THE
LAW. AND FAMILY UNITY SO
WITHOUT RESPECTFULLY ASK WHEN I
BILL. THANK YOU MISTER KALRA.
SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
THANK YOU MOTION AND A SECOND
AND THE MOTION IS THAT AG ARE
ONE BE ADOPTED. ALL THE ROLE
PLEASE STONE HI STONE I
GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER NO CHAO
CHAO AYE CHIU. DAVIES DAVEY
SNOW GONZALEZ CONSOLES HI
HOLDEN HOLDEN AYE KALRA KALRA
AYE KILEY. HIGHLY NO
MAIENSCHEIN REYES HI RES I.
THAT A JURY IS ADOPTED BY THE
COMMITTEE ALL RIGHT I WORK LAST
ITEM ITEM NUMBER NINE AB EIGHT
FORTY NINE RAFE'S. SECOND THANK
YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. I'LL BE BRIEF. EIGHTY
EIGHT FORTY NINE IS GOING TO
ALLOW A WERE. SENIOR LIVING AND
SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES TO
RECOVER FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN
DAMAGES PER VIOLATION RATHER
THAN THE TOTAL WHICH WILL
CLARIFY A LAW THAT HAD HAD
PASSED WHICH WAS THEN
INTERPRETED BY THE CASE OF
JARMAN VERSUS H. C. R. AND WE
NEED TO CORRECT THIS. ON THE
LINE. HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL OR TOM TONY.
CHECK OUT A CHECK- TELL. FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES FOR
NURSING HOME REFORM AND JANICE
GERMAN THE PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLANT IN THE GERMAN CASE
WHOSE FATHER SUFFERED REPEATED
VIOLATIONS WHILE RESIDING AT A
SKILLED NURSING FACILITY. OKAY
THANK YOU I HAVE. I HAVE LISTED
JACQUI CERNER FROM THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA AND
JANICE GERMAN SO IS THERE
SOMEONE. ELSE WILL TAKE TO
WITNESSES COULD YOU PLEASE
IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR A RECORD.
HI THIS IS JANET SHERMAN ALL
RIGHT GO AHEAD. MY FATHER
WHAT'S JOHN GERMAN YEAH- AT
NINETY YEARS OF AGE HAVE AN
ACTIVE LIFE SWIMMING IN THE
POOL THREE TIMES A WEEK AND
LIVING IN HIS OWN HOME. MY
FATHER WAS SUPPOSED TO GET-
REHAB THERAPY AT MANOR CARE
NURSING HOME FOLLOWING A HIP
SURGERY. AND THEN COME HOME IN
A COUPLE OF MONTHS. THIS TIME
THERE BECAME A LIVING
NIGHTMARE. NO ONE RESPONDED TO
HIS CALL LIGHT AND CALLS FOR
HELP ONE TIME I VISITED HIM AND
I FOUND IN HALF NAKED AND
COVERED AND SHE SHE EACH.
NURSING HOME STAFF WOULD LEAVE
HIM SITTING ON A BED PAN
TELLING HIM TO PRESS THE CALL
LIFE WHEN HE WAS DONE. HE TOLD
ME THAT HIS BOTTOM HURT AND WE
DISCOVERED PRESSURE SORES ON
HIS BOTTOM. THIS LASTED FOR
THREE MONTHS I FELT HELPLESS
AND I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MY
FATHER MUST HAVE FELT. WE WANT
TO TRIAL AGAINST THE NURSING
HOME. THE JURY FOUND THAT
MANORCARE VIOLATED MY FATHER'S
RIGHTS THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
TWO TIMES. I FELT THAT THE JURY
HEARD MY FATHER THAT DAY BUT MY
FEELING THAT JUSTICE WAS
DELIVERED WAS SHORT LIVED. I
WAS SURPRISED AND SADDENED TO
LEARN THAT LAST YEAR THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WIPED
AWAY THE JURY'S VERDICT
REDUCING ALL THREE HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY TWO VIOLATIONS DOWN TO
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. IT PAINS
ME TO THINK THAT THE NURSING
HOME PROVIDE MY FATHER'S RIGHTS
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND GET
AWAY WITH IT FOR ONLY FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS. WHAT CHERISHES
THEY'RE IN NOW. ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING. IT ANGERS ME TO THINK
THAT THERE IS A KNOWN SO GET
AWAY WITH THIS BUT EVERYONE
ELSE WHO HAS TO STAY AND LIVE
IN ONE. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE
SPEAKING TODAY. AS MUCH AS I
WISH I CANNOT TAKE AWAY ALL OF
THE TIME MY FATHER WAS TREATED
WITH INDIGNITY AS IF HE WERE
LESS THAN HUMAN. I ALSO KNOW
THAT I HAVE TO ACCEPT THE
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION. BUT I
HOPE THAT YOU HEAR MY FATHER'S
STORY TODAY JUST LIKE THAT THE
JURY DID. SO THAT MANOR CARE
AND ALL OTHER NURSING HOMES YOU
KNOW THAT THEY CANNOT GET AWAY
WITH THE NIGHTMARISH BAIT
BECAUSE FOR THE SMALL PRICE OF
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH
RESIDENT. I URGE YOU JUST
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY BILL EIGHT OR
NINE SO THAT OTHER FAMILIES
DON'T LOSE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
SO THAT OTHERS DO NOT SUFFER
LIKE MY FATHER DID. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
YES HI GOOD AFTERNOON THANK YOU
CARE PERSONS DOWN COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN AB
EIGHT ONE NINE MY NAME IS TONY
TICKETS ON THE STAFF ATTORNEY
FOR CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES FOR
NURSING HOMES IN ON. I SPENT MY
WHOLE CAREER REPRESENTING OLDER
AND DISABLED ADULTS AND
FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS. WHEN I
BEGAN MY WORK IN NURSING HOMES
I WAS PRETTY ALL THAT THE
SIGNIFICANT RIGHT DECORATIONS
THAT ARE CRITICALLY CHAINLINK.
WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT TO
RESIDENTS WHO HAD SUCH LITTLE
POWER. AND A GOOD FRIEND OF
MINE TOLD ME ABOUT HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE SECTION THIRTEEN
THIRTY BE AND FRANKLY THAT'S
WHEN MY CAREER AND- PART OF MY
LIFE CHANGED. FOURTEEN THIRTY
BE IS A REMARKABLE STATUTE
EMPOWERS RESIDENTS TO ENFORCE
THEIR OWN RIGHTS. CANNOT BE
RELIANT ON THE STATE. THAT'S
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THE STATE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT
OUR RIGHTS HAS BEEN AT BEST
UNRELIABLE. FOURTEEN THIRTY BE
A GREAT DEAL TO RESIDENTS THAT
THEY'VE USED IT EVEN SURE
ADEQUATE STAFFING SO THAT THEY
CAN GET HELP TO THE TOILET IN
TIME. IF YOU TO GET
COMPENSATION ON THE BEEN DUMPED
IN THE HOSPITALS ARE HOMELESS
SHELTERS AND THEY USE THAT THE
STOP. ILLEGAL DRUG IN THE
PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS. IN ALL
THESE CASES THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH WAS DOING NOTHING
TOWARD LONGEST NO HELP. THE
GERMAN CASE BASICALLY BROKE
FOURTEEN THIRTY THREE. A FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLAR CAP FOR BURSTING
MAKES IT PROFITABLE WHICH ARE
NURSING HOME RESIDENT.
HISTORIES ARE OFF THE HOOK FOR
FIVE HUNDRED BUCKS. NO MATTER
HOW OFTEN HELD VICIOUSLY THEY
VIOLATED THAT THE RIGHT. THE
OPPONENTS OF EIGHTY EIGHT FORTY
NINE. SINCE THE ARGUE THE SKY
WILL FALL AT THE STATUTE IS
RESTORED TO GIVE PRESIDENT
DAMAGES THAT ARE PROPORTIONAL
TO THE HARM THAT STUFF FOR.
RESIDENTIAL BE CHEAPER
VIOLATION DAMAGES FOR OVER
THIRTY YEARS THIS GUY HELD UP
JUST FINE. THE POSITION IS
REALLY. QUITE UPSETTING. THE
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WANT THE
STATE TO CODIFY POLICY THEIR
RESIDENT RIGHT DON'T REALLY
COUNT. AND THAT RESIDENT
INTEREST DON'T REALLY MATTER.
THE READY TO RESPOND THE
NURSING HOMES THAT ARE FIGHTING
THE IDEA PROPORTIONAL DAMAGES.
IS HOW BOUT YOU JUST OUT BY
LEADING OUR RIGHTS. EIGHTY
EIGHT POINT NINE RESTORED
FOURTEEN THIRTY BE TO WHAT WAS
AND WHAT IT REALLY SHOULD BE AN
IMPORTANT TOOL IN THE FIGHT TO
PROTECT RESIDENTS IN THE WELL
BEING. PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS
BILL THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
RIGHT OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR OTHERS WHO WANT
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR A BI.
EIGHT FORTY NINE. YES IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS
BILL PLEASE PRESS ONE ZERO AT
THIS TIME. PLEASE PRESS ONE
ZERO AN OPERATOR WILL GIVE YOUR
MY NUMBER OFF LINE. THANK YOU.
A PLACE YOU BACKING CUSA ONE
ZERO AGAIN IF YOU'D LIKE TO
TESTIFY ON THIS BILL ONE MOMENT
MISTER CHAIR WILL BE RIGHT
THERE. AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH
WIND SIXTY SIX PLEASE GO AHEAD.
DANIEL GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. AND NEXT
TO LINE SIXTY THREE WHAT ONE
MOMENT PLEASE FOR SORT THE
OPERATOR SHOULD BE THERE ANY
SECOND. SIXTY THREE PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THE TERM NUMBERS JACQUI
TURN ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA IS
STRONG SUPPORTER OF EIGHTY FOUR
NINE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL
PLEASE PRESS ONE ZERO AT THIS
TIME. MISTER CHAIRS NOBODY ELSE
QUEUING UP. THANK YOU WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION I HAVE
TO OPPOSITION WITNESSES LISTED
CHENLA VENTURE OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HEALTH FACILITIES ON THE
TELEPHONE AND WEBER GLAZIER.
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
ALSO ON THE TELEPHONE. ARE YOU
AVAILABLE ARE YOU WITH US. I AM
GOOD AFTERNOON MR CHAIRMAN FOR
SHANE LEVINE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HEALTH FACILITIES. REGRETTABLY
WE MUST OPPOSE AB EIGHT FORTY
NINE. THERE'S NO QUESTION THE
PANDEMIC THIS PUT THE SKILLED
NURSING INDUSTRY UNDER
INCREDIBLE STRAIN AND NOT
ALWAYS IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE. IN THAT VEIN AB
EIGHT FORTY NINE SOUNDS WELL
INTENTIONED. SEASON IT SOUNDS
LIKE THE PANACEA IN FACT. YOU
WOULD THINK THAT WITHOUT THIS
BILL THERE'S LITTLE ENFORCEMENT
OF NURSING HOMES OR AN
INABILITY FOR A PATIENT TO BE
MADE WHOLE. WHEN THEY SUFFER
HARM. THAT'S FOX THERE ARE NO
LESS THAN THIRTY AGENCIES THAT
OVERSEE SKILLED NURSING
FACILITIES THERE ARE FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES FOR QUALITY CARE. IN
THERE ARE MULTIPLE AVENUES TO
SUIT FROM TRADITIONAL TORCH TO
A DAPPER. TO HELP THE SAFETY
CODE FOURTEEN THIRTY EIGHT AND
OTHERS. THIS BILL PORTRAYED THE
JUSTICE PORTRAYS THE JUSTICE
FOR PATIENTS AS IF IT RUN
SOLELY THROUGH FOURTEEN THIRTY
BE FOURTEEN THIRTY B. WAS
ESTABLISHED IN NINETEEN EIGHTY
TWO AS A CAPSULAR. TO ENFORCE A
PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PASSED A FEW YEARS
EARLIER. FOURTEEN THIRTY BE WAS
MEANT TO PROVIDE A QUICK
REMEDY. FOR RESIDENTS TO PURSUE
AWARDS FOR INTANGIBLE HARMS OF
NOMINAL VALUE. ARISING FROM
THESE RIGHT VIOLATIONS. THE
INTENT WAS TO PRODUCE A FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLAR CAP IN LIEU OF
ANY STANDARD OF PROOF OF ACTUAL
DAMAGES. YES THIS LAW HAS BEEN
ON THE BOOKS FOR A WHILE BUT IT
WASN'T UNTIL THE LAST FEW YEARS
THAT THE STATUTE WAS SO HEAVILY
ABUSED. FOR EXAMPLE IN TWENTY
TEN A HUMBLE COUNTY JURY
AWARDED SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY
SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS IN A
CLASS ACTION. THEY DID NOT
ALLEGE ONE SINGLE ALLEGATION OF
PHYSICAL HARM. AFTER THAT
DISABILITY FILE BANKRUPTCY THE
CASE SETTLED FOR FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS SPREAD OVER THIRTY TWO
THOUSAND PEOPLE AFTER FEES AND
COSTS ARE TAKEN OUT. THOSE
PATIENTS MAY BE A QUICK ACCRUED
A HUNDRED DOLLARS OR SO. THE
OTHER HALF OF THAT WENT TO
TRIAL LAWYERS. THAT'S JUST ONE
EXAMPLE THIS BILL WILL DO
NOTHING TO ADDRESS QUALITY
FACTS IN THIS WITH THE HIGHEST
QUALITY METRICS WILL HAVE A 40%
CHANCE OF GETTING SUIT. AB
FORTY NINE WILL SIMPLY BRING
ABOUT MORE BANKRUPTCIES HUGE
ATTORNEY AWARDS AND LITTLE
IMPACT ON QUALITY OF CARE. FOR
THESE REASONS WE MUST OPPOSE
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. N.
BARBARA GLAZER. HE SAID GOOD
AFTERNOON SHARE NUMBERS BARBARA
GLAZER WITH A CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION REGULAR
REGRETTABLY WE TOO ARE OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. APPROXIMATELY ONE
HUNDRED OF OUR HOSPITALS IN
CALIFORNIA OPERATE SKILLED
NURSING FACILITY AND IT IS ON
BEHALFOF THESE FACILITIES THAT
WE OPPOSE AB EIGHT FORTY NINE.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES ARE
LOCATED IN RURAL PARTS OF THE
STATE AND OPERATED BY WORLD
HOSPITAL. WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF AB EIGHT
FORTY NINE ON THE FINANCIALLY
FRAGILE BECAUSE PHILIPPINE.
POLICY THAT PLACES NO CAP ON AN
AWARD AND ALLOWS MONETARY
AWARDS PROVIDE LESION COULD
SIGNIFICANTLY HARM IN IN SOME
CASES EVEN CLOSE THE NET. THEY
ARE OFTEN THE SUCH THIS'LL IN
THEIR- FOR THESE CENTS AND THE
REASONS STATED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HEALTH FACILITIES WE OPPOSE AB
EIGHT FOUR NINE THANK YOU THANK
YOU OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
LINES FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO. INDICATE THEIR
OPPOSITION TO AB EIGHT FORTY
NINE. YES THANK YOU- IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO- TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL PLEASE
PRESS ONE ZERO AT THIS TIME
AND- MISTER CHAIR WILL FIRST GO
TO LINE SIXTY FIVE PLEASE GO
AHEAD. EACH UNIVERSE BRANDON
MARCHING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ALSO IN
OPPOSITION AND WOULD ALIGN OUR
COMICS WITH THE HELP. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND NEXT WE WILL GO
TO LINE SIXTY ONE PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU TERM MEMBERS
THERE READ ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS ALSO IN
OPPOSITION WITH A LINE ARE
COMMON BECAUSE OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU WE'LL
GO TO LINE SIXTY FOUR LINE IS
OFTEN. GOOD AFTERNOON PRESS TOO
YOUNG FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
AND MISTER CHAIR THERE NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS CUED UP THIS TIME
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REPURPOSE.
I'M SURE. OKAY GET LADIES AND
GENTLEMAN- COULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION PLEASE
PRESS ONE FOLLOWED BY ZERO.
NOBODY ELSE IS QUEUING UP THE
STRUCTURE. THANK YOU YOU MAY
NOW CLOSE THE LINE THEN I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. LIZ
DAVIES THANK YOU AND THIS
QUESTION IS THE FOR THE M.
OPPOSITION OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE
GOOD ACTORS AND BAD ACTORS- ALL
OVER SPECIALLY WE HAVE BAD
ACTORS WHEN IT COMES TO THE
NURSING HOME. FACILITIES WHAT
WOULD BE YOUR SUGGESTION I
UNDERSTAND- THAT FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLAR PER VIOLATION WOULD YOU
BE WILLING TO WORK WITH
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A
HIGHER AMOUNT CONSIDER THERE
ARE OTHER AVENUES THAT. THEY
CAN TAKE LEGALLY. SURE I COULD
SHAKE LEVINE SURE GO AHEAD- AND
SO ASSEMBLY MEMBER GOOD
QUESTION- I THINK AT THIS POINT
YOU KNOW I THE INDUSTRY IS NOT
DEFENDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
PER. CASE IN IN WITH THAT AND
DISCUSSION CERTAINLY WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE ABOUT THAT AND
THERE'S AN OPEN US FOR US TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. ABOUT
WHAT THE AUTHORS OFFICE MISTAKE
ALWAYS ABOUT WHAT THAT REMEDY
MAY LOOK LIKE- AND THAT MADE A
HIGHER FINE ABOUT- THE THING
FOR OUR INDUSTRY LIKE ANY
OTHERS IS CERTAINLY- YOU KNOW
WE NEED CERTAINTY- WE HAVE OUR
LIABILITY CARRIERS OBVIOUSLY
HAVE INSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS
WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
ANY OTHER THING THAT THAT IS
JUST CRIPPLING ABOUT THE
FOURTEENTH THIRTY B. STATUTE IS
THE MULTIPLIER FACT THIS THE
STACKING IF YOU WILL- WERE IT
JUST HAS THIS CASCADING EFFECT
THIS PERVASIVE EFFECT
THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY SO WE
SEE YOU KNOW THESE YOU KNOW
POTENTIALLY YOU KNOW ROUTINELY
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS IN FINES UPWARDS OF THE
CASE I CITED TWENTY CHANNEL
WHAT COUNTY CASE OF. SIX
HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN BILLION
DOLLARS. I'D BE WHAT ONE OF THE-
TO MISS IS OR SOMEONE ELSE
COULD. REDUCE RESPOND. MY
CONCERN IS WE YOU START ALL OF
THE VIOLATE- YOU KNOW WE'RE
SOMEONE GO TO. AND WITH THIS BE
INCREASING SOME AGAIN WE KNOW
THE COST OF HOUSING YOU KNOW
THE COST OF THE YOU KNOW CARE-
IS REALLY GOING HIGH I'M
CONCERNED IS WELL IF IT KEEPS
GOING UP LIKE THAT THAT'S JUST
GOING TO GO BACK TO- THOSE THAT
WANT TO BE STAKE IN ONE OF
THOSE PLACES. I WOULD REFER YOU
TO THE- THE NET THE ANALYSIS
WAS PRETTY GOOD WHEN IT CAME TO
TALKING ABOUT- THE EFFECT ON
THE NURSING HOMES AND WHETHER
THIS WAS GOING TO FORCE THEM
ALL TO GO TO BANKRUPTCY. FOR
YEARS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN- THIS
WAS THE LAW THIS IS IT WAS
INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY AND IT
WAS PER VIOLATION- I WOULD LIKE
TO ASK. MR TICKET TELL IF HE
WOULD ALSO RESPOND. MR TICKET
ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE.
RIGHT I GUESS NOT YESTERDAY I
HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE NEEDING.
GO AHEAD. BRIEF ANSWER PLEASE.
YEAH I MEAN REALLY FOURTEEN
THIRTY B. WE HAVE THAT THE
QUESTION OF IS IT TO PROTECT
RESIDENTS FROM HAVING A LIKE
VIOLATED OR TO PROTECT THE
FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF NURSING
HOMES THAT VIOLATE PRESIDENT
RIGHT. FOURTEEN THIRTY B. HAS.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY NO PANACEA-
THERE- RESIDENTS RIGHTS
VIOLATION MOSTLY A CURRENT I
NEVER ANSWERED THERE'S NO
LAWSUIT FILED- AND YOU KNOW
WORRIES PREVENTABLE TO A LOT OF
RESIDENTS BUT FOR THOSE WHO DO
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO GET
ATTACHMENT TURNING CAN BE BE
REALLY LIKE STATE IN TERMS OF
THE IMPACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL
RESIDENT AND THE RESIDENTS AND
THE ENTIRE STUDY THAT THAT
RESIDENTS REPRESENTATION AND
THE STOPPING OF THOSE
VIOLATIONS REPRESENT- YEAH JUST
SPEAKING TO THE HUMBLE COUNTY
CASE THAT CASE ENDED UP
SETTLING FOR FIFTY TWO MILLION
DOLLARS BUT THAT CASE WAS
ABOUT. WAS THIRTY TWO THOUSAND
RESIDENTS IN TWENTY TWO NURSING
HOMES THAT SUFFERED FROM ONE
POINT TWO MILLION DAYS OF THE
FACILITY BEING UNDERSTAFFED
THAT'S ONE POINT TWO MILLION A
CURRENTLY PER RESIDENT OF THE
FACILITY BEING CHRONICALLY
UNDERSTAFFED IN THE REASON WHY
IT WAS UNDERSTAFFED WAS TO
INCREASE PROFIT SO EVEN IN THIS
ONE OUT LIAR CASE IN THAT TRUST
ME THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT OUT
WHERE CAN I TOOK PROBABLY TWO
DOZEN. FOURTEEN THIRTY CHANGES
IN OUR AVERAGE CAN SETTLEMENT.
WAS PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS. BUT IN THAT
ONE OUT LOWER CASE- IT WAS A
SIGNAL. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
AND- LOTS AND LOTS OF FARM
SUFFERED BY RESIDENTS DUE TO
CHRONIC UNDERSTAFFING IN THE
NAME OF A CUTTING COST SAVINGS
AND MULTIPLYING PROFITS. THANK
THE QUESTIONS. BERMAN THIS TOO
MISTER CHAIRMAN- I AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH BOTH
SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND- AND-
IT JUST TOOK A COUPLE OF QUICK
THOUGHTS FIRST- HAVING READ THE
TWENTY TWENTY SUPREME COURT
CASE I THINK IT REALLY POINTS
AT THE PORTS OF OUR WORK HERE-
BECAUSE CLEARLY THAT CASE
TURNED ON- AN AMBIGUITY IN THE
LAW THAT THE COURT DECIDED ON
ONE WAY BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE
WERE DISSENTING OPINIONS AND I
THINK IF THERE ARE ONE OR TWO
WORDS INSERTED INTO THAT- WE
WOULDN'T BE HERE SAID SO THAT
WAS INTERESTING TO ME- BUT THE
OTHER THING- REMARK IS. HAVING
MET WITH BOTH SIDES I DO
UNDERSTAND THERE MIGHT BE OTHER
WAYS AND HOW WE RESOLVE THIS-
THAT WOULD. ESTABLISH THE
PROPER DISINCENTIVES FOR THE
BEHAVIOR WE DO NOT WANT TO
HAPPEN. THAT BEING SAID WE
DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PROPOSALS
INFRONT OF US WE HAVE A
PROPOSAL. TO CHANGE THE STATUS
QUO AND I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW
I DON'T I THINK IT'S
CHALLENGING FOR US. TO SAY THAT
THERE SHOULD ONLY BE. FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ACTION SO
WITH THAT. I DO PLAN TO BE
SUPPORTING THIS TODAY- HI I
WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE
CONVERSATIONS- TO SEE IF THERE.
ARE BETTER WAYS TO STRUCTURE
THIS- BUT BUT I THINK FOR NOW-
IT IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO
MOVE THIS FORWARD WE CERTAINLY
THIS IS BEHAVIOR THAT WE NEED
TO ADDRESS- WITH- WITH WITH
WHAT IS AND- WHAT IS. WHAT IS
IN THIS PROPOSAL AND- LOOK FOR
THE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS ON IT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT SEEN
ANOTHER YOU MAY CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I.
PHONE THANK YOU WITH REYES WE
DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND
MOTION IS DUE PERHAPS CALL THE
ROLL PLEASE STONE AYE STONE AYE
GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER NO CHAO.
CHAU AYE CHIU AYE CHIU AYE
DAVIES. DAVIES NO GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE
KALRA. KALRA AYE KILEY. KILEY
NO MAIENSCHEIN REYES. BRAESIDE
RIGHT THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU
LET'S GO BACK THROUGH OUR LIST
FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON
EVERYTHING. SO LET'S START WITH
THE CONSENT AGENDA. CHAU CHAU
AYE CHU CHU I. HOLDEN HI HOLDEN
AYE KALRA KALRA AYE RADIUS.
REYES AYE OKAY NOW LET'S MOVE
TO ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH IS ON
CALL SO THIS IS A B. ELEVEN
FORTY THREE BERMAN I'M GOING TO
LIFT THE CALL CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS PLEASE CHAO CHAO AYE
CHU CHU HI HOLDEN HI HOLDEN AYE
KALRA. KALRA AYE KILEY KILEY
AYE RADIUS RAYSIDE RIGHT THE
BILL IS OUT ITEM NUMBER TWO IS
ALSO ON CALL THIS IS A. B. FOUR
FIFTY THREE GARCIA I'M GONNA
LIFT THE CALL CHAU SHALL I CHU
CHU I. HOLDEN HI. HOLDEN AYE
KALRA. KALRA AYE KILEY KILEY
AYE RADIUS AYE REYES AYE THANK
YOU THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO
BILLS ON CALL SO I'M NOW GOING
TO ALLOW FOR ADD ONS TO THE
REST OF THEM WILL JUST GO
THROUGH IN ORDER ITEM NUMBER
THREE AB FIVE FORTY NINE
GIPSON. CHOW CHOW I CHU CHU I.
HOLDEN HI HOLDEN AYE KILEY.
KILEY AYE RADIUS REYES AT. I
HAVE NUMBER FOUR AB THREE
SEVENTY ONE JONES SAWYER CHAU
CHOW I CHIU. CHU I. HOLDEN HI
HOLDEN AYE KALRA KALRA I REYES
RESIDE. THANK YOU ITEM NUMBER
FIVE AB EIGHT NINE LEVINE. CHIU
CHU I KALRA COLORI KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIN CHINA. THANK
YOU ITEM NUMBER SIX FOURTEEN
SIXTY SIX MCCARTY CHIU. TWO HI
MAIENSCHEIN MAIN CHINA. ADAM
NUMBER SEVEN AB ELEVEN FOURTEEN
GALLAGHER. CHAU CHAU I KILEY
THIS IS AS AMENDED YES. KILEY
NOW. I REMEMBER EIGHT AJ ARE
ONE KALRA. CHIU CHUGAI
MAIENSCHEIN. AND THEN THE FINAL
ITEM ITEM NUMBER NINE AB EIGHT
FORTY NINE RATES. MAIENSCHEIN I
MEAN CHINA. RIGHT I BELIEVE
THAT COMPLETES OUR BUSINESS FOR
TODAY THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH
AND WE ARE A JERK.