this... If he gets up in his opening statement, and this is not so much a question, but an observation, and you say, I will present evidence that will show Officer Aide or Abby suffered this because you're going to have her testify. I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what we do in court all the time. I mean, you know, but you can't testify as to what that person felt. You've got to have them testify to that. I mean, in your opening statement, just so this is clear. And you guys both have an open statement. That makes total sense to me, so that way you can give us this case theory. And if you look at what our hearing should be, it is the second thing, the reading of the charges by the president, president, and then opening statements by the parties. Yeah, I read that. Yeah.  Here we go. Thank you. All right. So you want to know where you are right now? Yeah, I don't. So I have no objection to opening statements. Again, opening statements are meant to tell you what we are going to show you throughout the trial. They're not meant to be an argument about why you should side with us. I will show you this. I will tell you this. You will hear from this person, right? That is an opening statement. I have no objection to both of us making open statements at all. That is very common. However, object to Mr. Daniels being able to get on a stage and talk about his accolades and his accomplishments without that being done under oath and with the opportunity to cross-examine. It would be his credit, his credentials don't matter if he has no first hand knowledge and is only going to be asking witnesses, much like my credentials don't matter if I'm just asking witnesses. You don't need to know my backstory and all the great things I've done in my life because I'm not providing any substantive information. I'm only asking questions. If Mr. Daniels would like to let the commission and the public know about his background and his accommodations, I am fine with that if he's sworn in as a witness and has the ability to be cross-examined. I think who I am is entirely important to this, especially to the public who hasn't heard from me at all yet. Bringing this case forward as a former police officer. I wasn't asked from the profession. I left in good standing. I'm not out here to get somebody.  I think my background is relevant, even if I'm just asking questions because people may wonder how do you know that information? How does this guy know any of this? How does he know how to get this information? How does he provide the information? So those are my thoughts on that. Can I just make a point here? Yes, go ahead. You have the room for 27 more minutes. Okay, let me cut the Gordian's knot here if I can. Let me be Alexander. Though I'll never be that great. How about we get an affidavit with a CV from you or a resume so that we can check it out? So again, my objection, I go ahead, is that I could, if I could come in and say yes, I won the Nobel Prize in Literature and I'm an astrophysicist and I've never been disciplined for misconduct and without the ability to be cross-examined or have those statements be verified. That's a document that's going to be placed in it if you think you need to cross-examined. I think I could. But only if he goes under oath. Okay, that's fine. That's my point. I'm fine. I've already agreed to be under oath. Then I have no objection to this motion at all. I'm trying to simplify this so we can now move on to our 26 minutes. All right. Do we have any other motions that we need to do? Yes, sir. They're nine total. These are pretty easy. So number, so motion five, I think we basically discussed this several times already. So I don't think we have to touch on that one again. Again, there's no objection to you understanding the burden that you need to be. Okay. Number six, PowerPoint presentation. No objection. Okay. Seven. We don't have to do it today, but I don't know. What if I miss type there or what, but at some point before the hearing, if we can have preponderance and evidence clearly written and everyone agrees on the. So there's a jury. Okay. That's a jury instruction. It's 200. It's under Wisconsin. J. Okay. And that's what we're going to be doing. Excellent. No objection to you knowing the rules that you need to. Yeah. Yeah. We're going to like work with these rules. Can we have it sent to everybody including. Yeah. I think typically the way you would do it is with, with jury instructions is the parties work them out. Yep. So we would do it. Yeah. I would suggest the same thing. Even though we're not a jury. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Question. Sure. Yes. And we can be totally out of work. My court request would be because of the interest of time. Should we skip the number nine just so we can see if we agree on that one. Because I think that's. Yeah. Nine is also nine. It's no objection. Okay. Yeah. Bar subject to the rules of hearsay and all the other things. Correct. The fact that evidence is digital. I don't have the one thing. The one thing I'll mention it, but you can handle this as it comes is there may be some issues with depending on what the digital evidence is, what you are required to do this and open and record the hearing. If there's a clash in system between recording the hearing and the digital evidence, but that can be worked. That's not your way of preventing it. It's just making sure that it's worked out. Right. They can marry up. Okay. Great. That brings us back to number eight. Number eight. I know I brought this up last time. I didn't seem to make much ground, but I'll just bring up some more, some more information that I didn't get on last time. So I have several concerns with attorney Adams, the council to the PFC. I think first and foremost, he's been involved in the process with this internal investigation for the last few years. So he's already got deep seated thoughts and beliefs on whether or not this was handled appropriately and what he believed should happen with this. So then I go to obviously the city is also made a determination evidently, which he's, which attorney Westbrook has related to the Schwoigen press that apparently the police chief has acted appropriately. So the fact that the city has already made a decision to tie them without hearing this complaint or investigating it and the fact that attorney Adams and attorney Westbrook work in the same building and have the ability at any time to discuss this matter. Certainly gives me the impression of a potential conflict of interest. I'll be presenting multiple witnesses, some that will testify to attorney Adams knowledge of the initial outside investigation that began and then for unknown reasons was called off. I'll be presenting to you witnesses that'll say that attorney Adams was more interested in varying this issue than dealing with it appropriately. Then I think I just have here to explore these. I may call attorney Adams is a little bit, but after reviewing everything I have, I'm not going to call him anymore, but I still think he should be removed based on all the other issues. And then here I was trying to figure out my next page here. So one final example about his conflict with this. So as was brought up earlier in this hearing, I submitted this complaint to you guys and he would help it from you for more than 30 days or almost 30 days. His stated intention was to prevent you guys from reading the complaint and forming an opinion or bias, which I disagree with. And obviously that is your job as the PFC to read a complaint. When I asked attorney Adams to provide me anything showing that he was allowed to do so, he has still not responded to me or told me any law, policy or procedure that allows him to withhold complaints unilaterally from the PFC. Sorry I talked fast, but in the effort of time. I'm just the secretary. Oh, I'm sorry. We're good. Attorney Westbrook. So as I said in my thing, it doesn't necessarily matter to me who the commission or boards attorney is because again, the attorney of the board does not have any say in the termination you make. They are exclusively there to help answer those legal questions. However, I would say two things related to the removal of attorney Adams. One, I don't think it is proper or appropriate. His examples of why attorney Adams and I both yes, work in this building both our attorneys and both have oaths and ethics that we are required to follow. And I can assure you that attorney Adams and I have never spoken to each other about this matter other than the initial conversation of, hey, are we going to be able to put up a, it was called to Chinese while I don't actually know what the appropriate term is now, but put up a wall between us. Yep, we can. Great. That was the only conversation and it was before any substantive things even happened. Otherwise, all of our communication has been via email and has CC the appropriate party. So that's the first thing. The second thing, even if attorney Adams has been, had been involved in the underlying complaints for the past two years, again, his job, his role with all of you is only to answer your questions about legal process. What does this mean? The fact that you have an additional attorney on your panel, I also think negates the need to remove him because if attorney Adams had a bias and was giving you bad information in an attempt to cover this up again, there is an expert on your board who could be like, I don't know if that's right. There's a crucial role in having an attorney advise the board from a city standpoint to ensure that laws are being followed and it's not just the Wild West out there. And I don't think attorney Adams has shown any bias or indicated anything. I would also say that Mr. Daniels says he's going to bring people in to testify about all these things that attorney Adams has done. The appropriate time for that information would have been before this hearing. I don't know how you can possibly make a decision to remove him before you've heard evidence. If Mr. Daniels has evidence that he is unethical and biased, I agree he should be removed, but without hearing that evidence, I don't think it's proper for you just to take the I'm going to tell you that someone's going to come and tell you this and move on that. The last thing would be the additional cost. Cost is not important, right? I mean, it is important, but because Mr. Attorney Adams hasn't indicated any bias and hasn't shown any reason that he should be removed. If you were to make that determination, I would ask that the cost be assessed to Mr. Daniels who's making that request because it's not necessary in the interest of justice or to have this commission properly proceed. Thank you, Attorney Westbrook. Attorney Adams, how much time do we have? We have 18 minutes. 18 minutes. All right. I would like to give each one of you have anything else, Mr. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, I got a clarifying question too. Of Attorney Westbrook? Right. Go ahead. So can and maybe it's of you, Chuck. What I want to understand is I believe that Attorney Adams would not be present when we do deliberate. Is that correct? You would not be like that because like right now we'll go into closed session. We're going to have to make a decision about these motions. So he can answer, but it normally, in my experience, both as city attorney and in my current role, the attorney representing the commission is. Is present. Okay. Is not participating. Right. They're only there if you say, hold on, what's that? I just want you to understand like what, just so you get an idea. And I get an idea what the role is. Okay. Right. He's not in your, he just cannot, he's not participating in making the decisions around this. It's a clarification. And in fact, he shouldn't, he shouldn't properly even be commenting. He shouldn't say, oh yeah, I agree with this. Right. It's really answering your legal question. Right. Okay. That was, that does answer it. I just, I wanted to make sure I understood. The last time, the first time I was here, and that's the first time I think I met you. I, I, I tried to be helpful and informing you what kind of evidence you would need. To present, to disqualify attorney Adams. Do you remember that? I do recall asking if I had audio or video. But I obviously have no way of. Or, or, or statements that you would get after David's son, you could have presented those with your motion and we could have determined that. But now you're, I guess the problem I'm having here, Justin is you're saying you need more time to get these guys to come forward. The whole point of doing a motion, and this is like a, a motion to disqualify. It's a pretrial or a, you hear the motion. That's why I asked for that back then, was to help you know what you had to do. I, maybe you, maybe you thought I was adversarial. I wasn't trying to be adversarial. No, I didn't think that I appreciated what she said. I guess two quick things and then. Yeah, go ahead. We could even let this drop. So I will concede. I do feel better that there's another attorney on the board. So if there is any bad legal advice given, obviously it'll be caught. Um, and secondly, um, knowing that he's not involved, I guess in the process at the end, does help a little bit. I still feel he should be removed. But if he's not, I understand. Okay. Fair enough. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Daniels and attorney Westbrook. How about like one or two minute closing statement or argument please. Yeah. We'll entertain a motion to go with the closed session. Room for us to go into closed session outside of here. Yeah. We have many. The only issue will be going back into open session. That's to be on video. This will be. This will not be available. Unless can you, can you do a written order? So, so this is going to be my suggestion. First of all, you have the closed session on the agenda. And you can choose to go into closed session. We had some discussion with the president about exactly what language need to be in the closed session. Because you're not deliberating today. You're not deliberating on any facts. You're making legal decisions. So in my opinion, you cannot go into closed session to deliberate. You can, if you choose go into closed session to confer with me. If you have questions for me. Where my advice to you needs to be in closed session because it needs to be outside the presence of the parties. I'm not convinced that that's necessary. Although you can, you can choose to do that. My thought would be, don't go into closed session. Finish this an open session. What I, the comment was, would there need to be some kind of a written order? I think that would be entirely appropriate here, but what we would need to have is your determination on, on these matters so that I can draft something up. I'm going to, I'm going to suggest given both the timeframe and the need for a written order. I don't know whether you have an opportunity to meet again. No, we don't. I'm sorry. Absolutely not. So, so, so because you really have two options when it comes to a written order. One is to authorize me basically to draft something based on sort of your general, general ideas. The other is for me to draft something based on your general ideas and then have you approve it. Because of the nature of some of the allegations against me, I would prefer to have you approve it, not have me just unilaterally draft it based on my understanding of what you're saying. But you, I think it's also important to remember that you act as a commission, not as individuals. And so to just simply say, oh, I appreciate, I want this. I want this. I want this. That's not appropriate. That'd be a violation of public meeting loss. So you only act as a commission as a, as an entity, not as individuals. And my, but I appreciate the clarification. My issue is in 12 minutes, you're asking us an open session to delivery 18 different, right? I think you need to have, you can't do it. I think you have to have another meeting. I can't. Clearly before July 11th, that is not going to happen. I'm going for one full week. This can move into a different, you, you can, you can reschedule. The July 11th, they just, so we can reschedule. And I can't, what is there a problem with this meeting continuing in a different location in city hall if it's properly posted? Like, if it just says this has moved to room. You're really getting into here. We're getting to open me. Yeah. Once we posted one of six, I mean, it's pretty, pretty much half of the same year. And that has also been, I understand that there are some communities where the practice has been put a sign up saying we've moved to other places. My consistent advice over the years has been, can't do that. And the city has never done that.   Who has the room after that? Can we not add a bunch of them? Well, it's a public meeting. Let's just see if we can ask them. Yeah. They have a public meeting. If they did, it would be difficult for them. See, I had, I had the schedule all the way to five. So did I, which is, no, but we couldn't get, we couldn't get any room. Although it is now staying till eight. So I wonder if they canceled. Previous meeting. That would be good. Cause Carly informed me that she could only, she could not get a single room anywhere in the city. Past four o'clock. Just because of all the other meetings. But it does now, it does now say on there till eight o'clock. So it may be. Darn bureaucrats. Doesn't say we had it. It doesn't. We're here. It doesn't. It's still eight. So I'm wondering whether another meeting got canceled. So far, nobody else is here. I'm trying to pull up the. It's taking, it'll take time. Yeah, because realistically, just so we're all clear, this is going to take 10 minutes. No. I think we should all understand that. If it's not working, it's not working. You have to go up with a different solution. I don't want to run through this. And just to get it done. It looks like the meeting that was scheduled here is canceled. Okay. So you've got the room. Let's go. Let's move. Nice. Let's go. All right. I was. Sorry. Sure. So I've presented you seven motions, two of them asking for the entire complaint to be dismissed. The five on the individual charges. I think the two motions for the entire complaint are probably the most important because they set precedence that you will need to follow moving forward for any other claims that come to you. So I'm going to focus on those because I think the other five are very fax specific to this case. So first, that Mr. Daniels is not an agreed person. I think that's a good point. Again, everything in this hearing is related to Abigail Hernandez and the mistreatment, alleged mistreatment of her. And I think the fact that Mr. Daniels has now indicated that he doesn't even plan on calling her as a witness makes even more confusing how, how he can possibly provide testimony as an aggrieved person when all of a sudden, when all of a sudden, when all of a sudden, when all of a sudden, when all of a sudden he can possibly provide testimony as an agree person when all of the information is related to that. I hear his arguments that, you know, it's the profession of law enforcement. So that's how he has a right. I hear the arguments that, you know, he had to support Abigail through the whole process and he was there and saw her every day, but Abigail is the person who should be bringing the charges forward that are alleged here in this complaint. He doesn't allege the open records violation in this that he had to wait six months or I don't even remember what he said, that's not alleged in this complaint. So that him having standing there is not pertinent to the facts. So I would strongly encourage the board to dismiss on the fact that he does not have standing. In addition to that, I think time limits are put in place for reasons. More than just, oopsie, I didn't see it. In this case, especially given the fact that Mr. Daniels filed a completely different complaint, the process set up by this commission was not followed. The police department did not have the ability to review the complaint by Mr. Daniels because he did not file the complaint that he has filed here with the PFC. The reason that the complaint came 52 days later is because he needed that time to compile all the evidence. Well, all of that evidence should have been compiled when he filed the original complaint. That is how you have set up this process. 10 days is the window that people are allowed to appeal the decision of the chief or their designee. In this case myself, 10 days is what they have to appeal it to the police and fire commission, not 52 days, not 10 days unless you want to add more information to it. That's that's not how the policies set up. And both of those decisions, how you rule on both of those decisions will be presidential for any other complaint that you have. And I think it's important that you remember that if and if that's the case, then great, I would suggest you change your policy and get rid of any time limits and get rid of any standing requirement, even though the statute is the thing that requires that you can define a grieve person in a better way. But the decision you make on those two will affect every other complaint that comes to the PS. Thank you. Mr. Daniels? Yeah, thank you. Okay, so a grieve person. I feel I've made an argument here. I know, again, as we've talked, much of the testimony and much of the evidence brought in by what decisions can be revolved around Abby, but we need to remember this complaint is not about Abby. It's about the actions of the chief. It's not about Abby. It's not what Brian Pray did to her. It's about the chief and his decisions he made as the head of this police department and not putting somebody on leave violating all these policies. He kept the guy employed. There were further issues. The chief lied to the district attorney of whether or not Brian Pray lied. He stole the release of the reports. These are all things that come in. And then to say I'm not an angry person because I didn't bring up the the release of the reports that goes into the criminal charge that I'm alleging of misconduct in public office. So misconduct in public office, if you're abusing your discretion, not releasing reports, not releasing reports to the DA that all ties into that.  In my opinion, multiple ways. Number one, I had to deal with the turmoil and the aftermath of all this with my girlfriend. Secondly, you know, again, I had to go through this process hire an attorney. I don't need to rehash all of this. I think of touchdown. So I'll just move on real quick. So timeframe again, we've discussed this at length as well. I think I've made my points. And I just hope that you guys will see the excusable neglect or the 806 seven statute and realize I did not do this in bad faith. Nothing, nothing I did helped me in any way. So there's no reason for me to intentionally delay sending in this complaint. And I will surmise to you that the complaint has changed. And I apologize if I didn't have a lot of faith submitting a complaint to the chief of himself. When I watched this entire thing get covered up. And I can confidently say it was covered up because Brian Bray has been issued a Brady letter. Since I said this was covered up. So I've already got that going for me. That's corroborative evidence going towards what my complaint says. So the timeframe again, in my opinion, it was an oversight. I didn't do it intentionally. I'll again, quickly argue that even after I supplied the complaint, the attorney for the city kept it for 30 more days, I understand that it goes by once filed. And then I guess, lastly, I just really hope I get a chance to present these witnesses to you. And you guys actually get to hear what happened here. I think it's important. Number one for the city to know what their police chief is up to. Number two, if and when Brian Bray is criminally charged. It's just going to prove even more that this man covered up a felony crime. And lied about the fact that he had lied about it. And I just, you know, I think, I think it's really important. I think Abby's story is it's in official police documents. It's in DWD official documents. And you'll see if this is allowed to go on that the police department investigators even agree with her that this was taken without her consent, and therefore violated criminal statute. So I just ask you hear this complaint and not dismiss on a technicality. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to have to take a five minute break. That's fine. And then we'll come back in and we're going to discuss whether or not we're going into close. Yeah. Sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir. Sorry, one thing I was asked to bring in my list of witnesses at today's hearing. So I shot I wrote on it. So I don't know if I can just tell you names. So my witness list depends on the motions that you depends on how you decide on the motion. I would depends on his witness list. I would suggest that you don't demand the witness list until you've made your determinations. Okay, and then what you said is that it has to file with the commission. So and and that would be you can file you can give a paper copy but make sure that you do file a copy as well. But you can do that today. So I just want to be clear. Do you want me to email you and attorney Westbrook my witness list today then or do you want me to wait until after the motion? It would be today, but not until after the motions have been decided. So it would be unfair to you to ask you because the motions may go different ways. And that made it clear. Right. And, and once the president is back, we're going to decide if we're in closed session or if we're staying in open session, but all the motions will be set in open session just so you're aware. So even if we have to deliberate for some clarification or whatever legal whatever, we will come back in the open session and make those go through each motion. Okay. So somebody will contact me then and let me know if I have to leave. So if they go into close, if they go into closed session, well, there'll be a motion going closed session will vote will call vote, meaning one at a time, you'll be able to sit outside somewhere that room is in use and they'll come get you when they go back into open session. Don't leave. Don't leave the building. Don't leave the building. Got it. Got it. That's what I was going to be invited in. You can leave. You know, more testimony that we are right. No, but if you want to hear what he wants to hear, you will be able to hear them in live set in open session. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yeah. It's super confusing. It's super confusing to me. I don't know. Surprise, surprise, right? Okay, so right right now, right? Yeah. Okay. What was the unit? I always asked. I was in I've been doing that. All that was a 1930. We're not first capital. Yeah. Well, I was private. I went into Floyd, Benny, George George was trading and then I was up in North Carolina for a crack. Okay. Sure. Yeah. That's where the 18 door doesn't really like that. I want to be at the pool, Jerry. Adam is complaining. It's hot. He's talking about cool. You want to be at the pool. Oh, wouldn't you rather be at the pool? Yesterday, yesterday, I was in a house inspection. It was 89 degrees out. We're all standing and this is like a six and a half hour inspection. We're outside most of the day. It was like uncomfortable. So check. Your opinion is that deciding on these motions is not does not meet the definition of deliberations for a person. Yeah, I've never been a little bit of digging into the case law after title area. So I'm just going to sit and stare all you down. They can go into closed sessions with me. Their discussion has to be like, Oh, I think they're just one is yes, one is no. I mean, and we can't afford Buster Camley because they're sorry. I mean, I guess is so but if we're probably while we're we're on open session, let's wait till we come back. You're calling me an expert. Actually, I didn't call you an expert and then I clarified to make sure you didn't take offense. See, that's the thing about being a lawyer.  There's another lawyer telling me I'm wrong and how I'm reading the law, my interpretation, my reading of the case law, my argument. That's all right. We need just an aquifer when we got you. Yeah, you can't read my notes. It's not because I know sure. Another question that we should probably talk about once everyone's back is the process for the hearing. Like, are we going to be a sonographer? Will they just be video recorded? Those types of things. That's what my that's what my request will be. Are you cold? No, I'm tired. It's a little chilly. I just turned it down to the 73. 73 is fine. Oh, maybe it's a jacket. Are you taking another trip, Kristen? What? Are you taking another trip? Yeah, I'm going to California. So my husband leaves on Sunday to Anaheim for work. And we're not going to Disneyland. And we have his side of the family lives up in Roseville near Sacramento. So we're I'm flat. So he's there for a week. I'm going to fly into Sacramento and meet him. And then we're spending the week of 4th of July at I call him the Greek month. It's his Greek family, the Greek mafia at their at their cabin in Tahoe. Oh, so it's definitely a cabin then. Yeah, it's five bedroom. Do you like the Greek life? I know you come from the Italian side. Wow, that is racial profiling just because he's Italian. I did not say that. I said I thought you'd appreciate it. Yeah, so so we have a lot of like small little so this is a week I'm gone with him. But then I come back so they got I come back in the week of the hearing this hearing schedule. The end of the week I have residency for my doctorate the last two days and then the next then then I'm back. Then I think of our free that next week and then we had to Texas for four days to see the kids of the grandkids. And then I'm here for the month of August. However, my sister from England is coming in with her three kids and family. It's my dad's 80th birthday at the end of August and so we're doing. Yeah, so all my all my PTO will be used up except for a week between Christmas and New Year's. That's what I usually take most of my pain time on. Yeah, so I do Christmas New Year's. We go down to see the kids and grandkids but yeah, I mean, um, you know, I didn't take in fairly I mean, like we got like for the for all of covid I didn't take a dang vacation if it's like I just I couldn't. So it's nice to be able to do this except Australia I got back from Australia and I flew in with and I still like this little cloth is driving me nuts yet. I can't I can't seem to you know, I can't seem to just shake it. So yeah, do you guys have something like you don't do anything in store? You don't go anywhere? I used to do it, but my girlfriend is somewhat disabled. So we were talking mafia. That is to real mafia guys or B. That's my brother in law and Tom Malacata. I think it's B. Do you love that? I think it's easy. I want to know who's at the pool, Jerry. Why I'm not there with them. Is there with 14 kids?  I don't want to be there. If you're with you know, Justin's not there. I think he was on the close. Should I call? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, with the bear. Yeah. Where's that? Oh my god. I don't want to go anywhere where bears. Well, they're fine as long as you don't mess with them. Right. Yeah. That's a good one. This is an acute attack. Brown you lay down for sure. White take flight. White take flight? Yeah, bears. I was just going to say excuse me. What are you talking about? Those are the rules. If it's a black bear, you attack. He said, here's what he said. He said, black you attack. Brown nothing. What? Thank you. That's a good life lesson. That's a good 6700. I guess the left side of the room gets to sit back and commissioners, this is time for us to have a discussion whether we need to go at the corner. So. Either retain emotion right away and then move to discussion. I'll ask for a motion to go into closed session. As stated on our agenda. Motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in the Wisconsin State Statutes 19.85. We're conferring with legal counsel with a PFC who is rendering moral advice concerning potential strategy to be adopted by the PFC with respect to litigation in which it is involved to wit the matter of the complaint of Justin Daniels versus Chief Christopher. I make I make a motion to go into closed session. I second. All right. Now for discussion. Is there anyone on the commission who's opposed to going into open closed session? You do have to take a roll call. I understand that, but I'm just trying to. It'll have to take a long time to discuss. So hearing none, I would have a roll call. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. I'll see you guys later. Yeah. Dolly. I don't, I guess I'm not sure. Somewhere in between. We are handling a whole bunch. Hoping less than, I'm hoping. If I go to my office. We'll hang out until you guys get back. Okay. Yeah, I'll stop it once everybody's. Just call her text. If you. Sounds good. Thank you. Thanks. They're out. So let me. Pause the recording. This conference will now be recorded. Okay. I'm making sure that it's green. So you're good to go. Motion to go. Okay. Sure. I can do that. So I think. I think the way that would be the best. Do this. Would be to go. Motion by motion. Have somebody make a motion on. Each of them. So let's start with the timeliness. Motion. That was made in which. Attorney West were filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint. Due to lack of time like this. The argument has been made that. The complaint that was filed. In this matter, it was not timely. According to our policy was supposed to be taught. It was supposed to be filed within 10 days after the initial. Report. It was filed 52 days afterwards. It was not timely. There has been an argument that there was excusable neglect made by one party and argument that excusable neglect. It's not applicable here. This is a difficult case. Let me put that for here right now. None of the. Facts that were alleged in the complaint are comfortable to deal with. But at the same time. And the statute of limitations on this matter in deciding. This matter. But let me say what happened to Abby Hoffman was horrible. Let me say that right now. That was wrong. Hernandez I apologize. I'm somewhat emotional at this time. So. And in many ways I can understand. Mr. Daniels position here. But this is statute of limitations are shall. They are not discretionary. And based on that. We. At least I. Find the that I grant the motion that was. Filed on behalf of chief chief. And I would I would grant that motion on this issue. Second. All in favor. You have to do it real color. And you probably should see if there's discussion. Okay. Is there any discussion on this? Yeah, let's discuss. Now do it. We'll call out. Well, I since I've said what I said. See I but. If anybody wants to discuss this, that's fine. I didn't hear any discussion. I. Hi. Hi. Hi. Next is the motion on lack of standing filed by. Attorney Westbrook. I'll take lead on this one. The issue is whether or not Justin Daniels. Is an agreed party. This is difficult again. I'll take lead on this one. Mr. Daniels is the boyfriend of. Officer Abby Hernandez and. He's indicated what he suffered as a result. Having to take time off work. And having to, you know. Deal with how this has affected his girlfriend, Abby. Reading from the handbook on. Wisconsin police and fire commissioners. And this is the case. Is included is construed broadly to include any agree. Individual. Partnership. Association. Or body politic or corporate. A commission rule that defines an agree. Person to narrowly may be challenged. And this comes from the case. That was earlier cited. I don't know if I've seen a minority here, but I do believe that Justin Daniels is an agreed party here. And I would vote that he is an agreed party. Is there a second. I'll second. Any discussion. So to be clear, then that would be a motion to deny. Attorney Westbrook's motion on lack of standing. That is correct. Kristen, you've seconded. Correct. All right. Any discussion. Okay. I'm going to do a roll call. Next would be the motion. We're going to take these one at a time. The motion to dismiss. The specific charge on. We're leading to administrative. I'm like, I'm trying to find my things now. I'm like, super sorry. I thought that was. Right. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. So there's. So I think at the end of this. So a motion to grant or deny a motion. Is it done without this? But at the end. I thought that was my fear. Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. So the special limitations. Dismissal was granted. With or without prejudice. And then I would ask the same question of any future ones that are decided. In either of our favors. So I think at the end of this. But at the end. We will. There will have to be an action taken on the motion. And that would be to thank you. Yeah. Like just like. Were you going to take this one? I was, but I don't know it in front of me. So I'm sorry. I'm like trying to. All right. No, I was going to take the next one. You want to take this one. Since me. Sorry. That's right. If you want to, I'll go. I don't think we talked about this on there. I'm there. Go for it. Thank you. Thank you. The charges that. That's PD policy 1010.18. Administrative move was violated by Chief. Tom. And not temporarily assigning an accused employee to administrative. The problem we have here is this is a discretionary. Chief. Tom. Has discretion whether or not. To reassign or put on administrative leave any of his employees. And that discretion. Is granted not only through the policies, but also there are state statutes that relate to this also. Because he exercised discretion that does not. In a way that someone disagrees with or finds that even a person does not. That does not mean that he abused his discretion. Accordingly, in my opinion. The motion to dismiss for failure state of claim. For which relief can be granted should be. And in my opinion, what is granted. Second. Second. Okay. Right. I. I. Next is a specific charge related to criminal investigation. Yeah. So I'm happy to take this one. Now I'm now I'm back to where I should be. Sorry about that. And so this is the related to the SPD policy. 1010.9 criminal investigation. And so, um, so we believe that at the initial point in time, that, um, that, that nobody within the department. Uh, believe there was a, there was a criminal conduct. However, um, we would. Um, like to give me the language. Yeah. The language that you, you talked about was this, that while, uh, Thank you. There, it does. It does not appear that at the, at the initiation of the complaint, there was an allegation. Of a criminal violation. Right. That you found that there was. Sufficient. Uh, reason to continue the hearing. The factual hearing on whether there may have been. Uh, as a result of the investigation, there may have been a need to conduct further criminal investigation. And so I move to. Um, I move this to. I can't. That's the other issue. You can, you can either. Deny the motion if you can deny the motion. And then the next step would be. So I moved to deny the motion and place it in. So then what you talked about is deny the motion, but hold the matter in a band and not, not deal with it until such time as the John Doe proceeding. Correct. Thank you. Thank you for that. I second the motion. Any discussion. And the practical reason here, once again, is so that there's no recent middle required. Correct. Right. Correct. Nothing that has to be resubmitted. It's all though. Right. You're not for it. You're not dismissing without prejudice and then forcing him to come back. Cause then there's questions about the process there. Right. So you're basically denying the motion and then holding it until it comes back. If it ever does. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion. Okay. Very none. Roll call. Aye. Very. Aye. Aye. Aye. The next charge has to do with the specific count related to supervisory responsibility. Yeah. So I, um, I move to dismiss. The charge. Um, I think you're moving to deny the motion to grant the motion. Yeah. Grant. I'm sorry. This is like, I shouldn't be doing this. This is, I grant, I grant the motion to dismiss. Thank you. Did you want to provide a basis for that? Yeah.  And it's the expectation that the chief. Wouldn't, wouldn't be aware of situations until they arise to the level of, of when a, when the chief is informed. Second. Okay. Thank you. That was quite a discussion, please. All right. All call vote. I. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Okay. Next is the specific charge. Uh, the motion to dismiss the specific charge is related to retaliation. Um, do you want to take that one? Credo. Do you want me to, if you want to, you can have it. So. And I'm going to need your help again. Check. So, so we. Um, that we, um, I believe that there is a, a case. Um, that one part of. This charge should be, um, should be moved forward. Um, and that has to do with, um, the, the, um, I don't know how what it's called because I don't have information. Yeah. What you talked about was, um, was, uh, granting the motion or so, sorry, denying, uh, the motion as it relates to the issue of whether. There is a factual basis to find that constructive termination, uh, was retaliation. Uh, and then, and to dismiss the remainder of the allegations in the complaint. So correct. To limit that issue to solely the issue around constructive termination and whether or not there's a factual basis to find that that was retaliation. I move for that. Thank you. Second. Any discussion? I read nothing. I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. No, I'm not going to say anything. That was. Are you roll call? Yes. Hi. Very. Hi. Hi. Gene. Hi. Uh, next is the motion related to, uh, just, uh, the motion to dismiss the counts related to the criminal violations. Are you minding it? Well, let me take this. Okay. Yeah. There is an, I've got allegation as to criminal violations, um, against chief Domigalski. Currently, there is a matter in the circuit court. And there is also a John dole investigation against the chief. At this point, because there is a John dole investigation going in because this commission does not have the authority at this time to review an ongoing criminal investigation or John dole investigation at least, we can neither grant nor deny this, but hold this in abeyance until after the John dole investigation is concluded. Second. Second. Second. Any discussion? Please read that. We'll have a roll call. Please. Hi. Jerry. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. So, uh, we'll get back to sort of what all this means, but let's go through, uh, emotions made by Mr. Daniels. Uh, first of all, uh, so the first one is, uh, I think we determined that, uh, the motion related to zoom in closed session that Mr. Daniels has abandoned the closed session portion of that. And so, um, all that you need to actually consider is his motion to allow testimony by zoom. So, um, I move. I'm going to say this wrong again to allow testimony by zoom on a case by case basis. Second. Second. I think what you had talked about is basically, you're not granting or denying the motion, but you're agreeing to consider the motion on a case by case basis. You're okay with it? Second. Yes. Thank you for clarifying that. Any discussion? Any discussion? None? None. Aye. All right. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. the person that was at issue of having her name identified although her name has been identified in the various records. Therefore I move that we use the initials A-H to refer to the person we are speaking of from here on and for the purpose to protect her identity. And I think to direct the parties to do the same. Correct. Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Can we learn a little bit? I'll start with Gene. Hi. Hi. Hi. You're not on? Save me the best for last time. Hi. Next was the motion regarding media or hearsay. So we're not going to allow or deny this but look at and look at media evidence on a case-by-case basis. And I think you said using the rules of hearsay. Using the rules of hearsay. Correct. Thank you. Second. Good discussion. Can we none? All in favor? Aye. Gene, did you have discussion? No. No, I threw you out of the way. Yes. I just I think we're doing roll call for all of them. Yes, we are. Yes. So Corrado is an aye. Jerry? Yes. Aye. Aye. Crystal? Gene? Hi. I vote aye. Next was the motion regarding open statements. It's been modified at the time of the hearing. I think you accepted that by Mr. Daniels that it's to allow the parties to make opening statements. I think what you talked about was- Oh, I'll do it. You want to do it? No, Corrado's got it. I'll take this. Open statements will be made by both parties. However, if there is any testimony from one of the parties they must be sworn under oath before talking about their credentials, their backgrounds, or things of that nature. But opening statements will be able to be made by both parties with that exception. Second. Any discussion? You're not Corrado? Roll call? Aye. There is a question here, it looks like. Does that mean with the possibility for cross-examination of that testimony? What they talked about doing is that opening statements will be opening statements, not under oath. If things are wanting to be talked about that are evidentiary in matter, they'll be done through the evidentiary process. So Mr. Daniels can call himself as a witness. Mr. Daniels can call himself for a witness. He can talk about his background, his expertise that he has, or anything else. And you can cross-examine on that under oath. You're clarifying. I think we need a roll call. We do. We had a first and a second. Correct. Roll call. Aye. Hearing? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, then there was a motion related to sort of the probability of defects. And that one, again, there seem to be not a lot of disagreement between the parties on it, just sort of the request, I think, was made by Mr. Westbrook that however that's done, that the rules of procedure just need to be followed and the rules of hearsay need to be followed. I think what you talked about is basically granting the motion with conditions that Mr. Westbrook requested. Correct. Correct. So I moved to grant that motion with the utilizing the rules of procedure as well as hearsay. Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. Aye. Hearing? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. PowerPoint, there was no objection, but you should probably just grant it. Right. Motion to approve. Make a motion to grant the approval of the PowerPoint presentation request. Second. Any discussion? None. All in favor? Excuse me. Roll call. Aye. Hearing? Aye. Aye. Aye. Next was the motion to remove me as council for the police and fire commission. No, I see number seven residues. Oh, I missed that one. Yep. Oh yeah, you're right. I missed that one. So to list to have the parties, I think that what you came up with was to have the parties agree on what the, to use a jury instruction to define the preponderance of evidence and then the agreed upon statement will be read by the chair at the beginning of the hearing. Yeah. Yeah. So moved. It's jury instruction, civil jury instruction number 200. Proof if there has to be any other jury instructions beyond that to give to the commission. We would want the parties to agree to exchange proposed jury instructions that are to be given to the commission that we will know exactly what we're looking at and that would be read back at the time of the hearing. Second. Second. I move. I move. Okay. Second. Okay. It's clear to everyone what that motion is. Okay. Any discussion? During none. All in favor. Corrado. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Now the one to remove me as council for the PSC. There's been motion by Mr. Daniels to remove Chuck Adams for being biased and to have him replaced as our attorney. It was explained to Mr. Daniels during the motion hearing that he could bring evidence in the form of after David videos, recordings, none were provided. There's no evidence that we could see that was presented along with the motion to support any reason to remove Chuck Adams as council to the police and fire commission. So I move that that motion be denied. Second. Any discussion? I move. Fury. Aye. Aye. Kristen. Aye. Aye. Last one is to permit digital evidence and that one appears there was an agreement by the parties so long as you would consider matters on a case-by-case basis as far as the rules of evidence and the facilities. Move to a route. Allow that request. Second. Discussion. Okay. Roll call roll. Aye. Fury. Aye. Aye. Oh. Aye. Kristen. Jean. Now I think there's two other things that you need to deal with. So first of all, there is the fact that you've made decisions on all of these motions. That said, your decision on the timeliness motion and your decision on those individual charges does, would lead you to dismiss the charge. What I would suggest that you do is that because the timeliness is sort of the broadest one and the result of your granting the motion is requires the matter to be dismissed and because it's not one of those things like we talked about with some of the issues being held in advance, it's not something that could be brought back. Now would be the time I think to make a motion to dismiss the matter with prejudice based on the timeliness issues. And then the way that that will happen then is, you know, there's the potential for appeals, but at least now you do need to make that final decision to allow for an appeal. So that would be the suggestion based on your decisions here. I have two clarifying questions about the individual motions that you made. So with testimony via Zoom, you said case by case at the time of the hearing. I assume that means prior to the day of the hearing, but like once a witness list is established, is that correct? We're going to get the witness list and it identifies which ones have to be done by Zoom and we have to approve it. Okay. And then secondly with the redacted identifiers referring to AH as AH, how would we let other witnesses who are testifying know who AH is? It would be your duty, each of your duties to inform those persons that you are calling as witnesses that they are to refer to her. Outside of the hearing. Okay. Thank you. So now would be your motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the results of the decision to grant the motion on time in this. I make a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the time witness issue. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All right. Roll call vote. I agree. I I think there's one last issue that you have to deal with, which is you've dismissed it with prejudice. There is always the possibility that this is going to come back if a court would disagree with that if there is an appeal. I think it would be sort of unfair to both parties to require them to provide that witness list today. Given that we don't even know what's going to happen. So my suggestion would be is that you lift the requirement to provide the witness list today and that and to indicate that should you need to revisit that at some later date you will do so. You can do it. I've talked too much. I moved that we delay the provision of witness list until a later date. Should we need to do so? I second. Any discussion? Roll call vote. Come on. I agree. All right. One last thing just so I so I will be creating a written document that has these things on there. I will send it out to the members of the commission. Probably my paralegal will let you know when it's ready because we'll have a single single one with everybody's on there. It's probably not going to be until next week. I know you said Christian, you're going to be gone. 30th. I'll make a note of that. Yeah, next Friday. Yeah, so so we've got time. So I'll have that. I'll have that done in advance of that. I'm out tomorrow. But I will get that all to you for your signatures and for you to look at and make sure that it matches. But like you said, and then we'll get that out to them. Sounds good. All right. Any comments before we make a comment? Yes, definitely. Well, obviously, I'm pretty disappointed. I kind of thought from the beginning, this was going to be heard on technicalities and not the merits because the merits are what they've been hiding from this entire time. So I guess we'll just wait and see how the Jondo plays out and then maybe I can have and I told you so moments like this. I don't know. So if this is the type of guy you want as your police chief, I wish you luck. I wish you luck in future lawsuits with Vicky and everyone else that was affected by this matter and good luck. I just want to inform you you can appeal our decision. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. And I think thank you all for your time and careful consideration. I know you all, most of you also have jobs outside of this. So I appreciate the time that you've spent bringing the documents and your thoughtful consideration. We have a job to do, but we have certain parameters that we have to operate. Okay, we can adjourn. The agenda has been exhausted. I'm sorry? The agenda has been exhausted. The agenda has been exhausted for adjourn. Thank you very much, everyone.


From Hollywood, it's time now for Johnny dollar Oh, hi, Tom. How are you doing lousy write $1,000 headache?  Oh, that's the understatement of the week Tonight and every weekday night Bob Bailey in the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed expense account America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator yours truly Johnny dollar Expense account submitted by special investigator Johnny dollar to the home office global casualty Hartford, Connecticut Following is an account of expenditure is during my investigation of the picture postcard matter Expense account item one a dollar and a quarter taxi to the office of global casualty where Tom Wilkins was waiting for me Looks like we're bucking a pretty well organized outfit in this deal Johnny the way they pulled the job shows They'd plant it out pretty well. How did that happen Tom and where the diamonds were being taken by a special courier from Zurich, Switzerland To Amsterdam they got lifted at the Zurich Airport How the airport was crowded the courier was carrying the diamonds in a leather briefcase strapped to his wrist a fight broke out Suddenly in the confusion the courier was slugged in the case cut loose from it after which the fight suddenly stopped huh? Yeah It was obviously a rigged brawl by the time the police arrived the people involved had disappeared with the uncut diamonds Sounds like their timing was pretty good too good. How about the courier? You got a look at the guy who slugged him. No it happened from behind Anybody in the airport crowd able to describe the guys who'd rigged the brawl Well, no clear description somebody mentioned that one of the men involved was stocky sort of a bull neck. Oh great Probably only a couple of million people answering that description true Zurich police turn up anything not a thing Well look Tom. I'm an insurance investigator not a magician. You better get yourself another boy Well Johnny we got one lead and it could be enough if it's on the level. Oh, well, let's have it The robbery was day before yesterday this morning. I got an airmail special delivery letter from Zurich. You take a look Regarding the recent diamond matter I have information which may enable you to recover them for a reward. So I see And he wants to talk to somebody about it. Yeah, and I nominate you. It's signed Sebastian Any idea who he is none at all as you see I was to reply to general delivery in Zurich I did told him you were the one how do I find him read on you're to register at the Polo Hotel in Zurich He or she will contact you there You think it's on the level. I don't know Could be a phony somebody trying to ace in and promote a fast buckets happened before sure and this could be another one But right now it's the only lead. We've got we got to take a chance and go along with it I can't say I care for the post script here extreme caution Necessary leads me to think there's one thing you'd better be real sure about Johnny. What's that? That you don't get contacted by the wrong guy And so with the Sun sinking slowly in the West and my morale slowly following suit I said goodbye to my cheerful friend and set sail for distant shores Item two six hundred and twenty two dollars plane fare and incidentals to Zurich, Switzerland It was a quiet uneventful flight and I had a lot of time to think but I didn't much like what I was thinking Whoever had lifted the uncut stones wouldn't exactly like the idea of an informant spilling the beans to me And I had a slight hunch I'd be lucky if beans were the only thing that got spilled My plane landed at Zurich in the late afternoon I hired a cab that's item three one dollar to take me to the Polo Hotel The city looked bright fresh and clean it gave me a lift and Decide of a very pretty girl walking quickly to my cab as we were ready to pull away from the airport didn't hurt either I'm so sorry. I made a mistake turn it. I thought you were somebody else Yeah, that's the trouble with having an ordinary looking face Well, I wouldn't call it ordinary but but please well, please I wonder could I share your cab into the city? Oh by all means I guess my friend was not on that plane after all that's rough. Okay, driver Very good of you. Well, I'm a real prince when you get to know me miss Schaefer Ilsa Schaefer Johnny dollar and speaking of getting to know me driver. Please pull up Hey, how come? Oh, I am so sorry. Mr. Dollar. I just remembered something I have to do We were just beginning to get acquainted Look, wait, perhaps this will make up for it All-fant I can't think of a better start now if you'll only goodbye hey Ilsa wait Well, if this is the customary Swiss hospitality driver sign me up Then I realized that Ilsa had forgotten her purse I had the driver cruise around a few minutes, but we didn't see her anywhere So I dropped her purse off at the lost and found office of the taxi cab company then went on to the Polo Hotel It was in the newer quarter of Zurich on the lower slopes of the Zurich bird I went inside and started for the desk in the lobby, but I didn't quite make it Turn here, please. Sorry. I'm heading for the desk.  That wouldn't be a gun What it? Yes, it would now if you will please come with me. Okay, mr Where to do the side entrance? I'll say one thing I sure didn't expect all the reception committees the first one. I like much better. Huh? Outside That car over there. Hey, look, isn't it about time you tell me what this is all about? There's no use pretending you do not know the diamonds oh You think I've got them maybe I do not think I'm sure of it Well, this may come as a nasty surprise to you, mr But I have no time to waste she entered your cab with a purse see and Ilsa and left without it And she was sure we say very friendly to you. Oh that I remember and I have no complaints believe me But she didn't give me any diamonds. I want you they weren't in a purse either They check the contents had lost and found get into the car. Hey, look this routine won't get you anywhere into the car Take it easy friend. They're trying to poke a hole in my ribs. No, okay, okay? I jerked the door open suddenly and knock him off balance I saw him but he ducked and lunged at me. I went sprawling into the street in front of an oncoming Defenders hit me a glance and blow and I bounced against the curb By the time I could get to my feet again my friend with a gun and disappeared and so at his car I wasn't hurt, but it took several minutes to convince the very scared cab driver who'd accidentally hit me He should be scared Expense the count item for twelve dollars and seventy five cents telephone call to Tom Wilkins a global casually back in the States I'm glad you called Johnny any luck so far no luck, but sure a lot of action Well, what do you mean? Well first off an attractive little doll shares my cab for a few blocks plants a kiss on me and Scrambles out leaving her purse behind what then a strong arm collars me and tells me the girl must have passed the diamonds to me in the Cab but that doesn't make sense. Well, anyway, that's what happened so far plus my almost getting run over in the process Look Johnny, I knew this wouldn't be an easy assignment, but yeah, I know yeah, don't worry Tom I'm still all in one piece But I'm beginning to realize what Sebastian Minton is letter about extreme caution being necessary Has anyone contacted you yet? No only the aforementioned pair no sign of this Sebastian whoever he or she is Neither do I Either the boys who stole the diamonds have lost them or there's another outfit trying to get their hands on them in which case I'm right in the middle Johnny Sebastian still our only lead you've got to give him plenty of chance to contact Yeah, I know we'll do but be careful look. I'm with you. Believe me. I Went up to my Roman stretched out on the bed to wait To always went by nothing happened Finally I went down to the lobby expense account item five thirty cents to English language newspapers Settle down on the most conspicuous chair. I could find and waited some more still nothing I Worked my way through the newspapers slowly Then finally somebody came over to the chair that was back to back with mine. I took a quick look He was well dressed dark wavy hair medium height But he paid no attention to me and started reading his newspaper Looked like a wrong guess Maybe I'd have to wait until tomorrow So I started to get out mr. Dollar, huh, please put your newspaper in front of your face and do not turn around Okay, why Sebastian who wrote the letter to your company in the United States? Oh, it must not appear. We are talking to each other Somebody watching I would not doubt it So you want to talk about the robbery of those uncut diamonds? How do I know you have any real information? I will give you proof presently, but first let us talk about the reward. What is the amount? Depends on how good the information is Sebastian. I am talking about the diamonds Suppose I were to tell you that I was in a position to guarantee their return come on for 25 thousand dollars and no further investigation. I will arrange for the return of the diamonds I'd have their proof that you know what you're talking about, of course Let me see My back is to you. Is it your right hand which is closest to the wall and shielded from the lobby?  Yes Addressed to me as you see the writings in German. What does it mean? It is the equivalent of your American expression Having wonderful time wish you were here signed by F. Gruner. Who's he or she a friend? Look at the picture on the other side The Clibach in yes and in in the town of Clibach in the Alps several hours from here Wait a minute are the diamonds at the Clibach in no But this postcard is part of the key to their location part of the car now look Sebastian this just isn't good enough I can't someone is coming. I cannot talk further with you here. It is not safe Oh, look, don't worry. I will furnish all the proof you need one tonight. Now listen carefully. I am going I Will leave my newspaper on the floor beside my chair wait a few minutes then get up Drop your paper and when you pick it up pick up mine also then what on an inner page of my paper I have written my address Come there in two hours if I am not there wait for me. Just a minute. How can I please? There is no time for further questions two hours, mr. Donner in my room Two hours later. I went to the address you give me a small apartment in another part of the city Now answer he hadn't arrived yet. I Went inside and waited 15 minutes went by no sign of Sebastian And then something started picking away at my brain a faint sound I Finally pegged it a dripping faucet. It came from the bathroom the bathtub was full In it floating face down Was Sebastian now here's our start to tell you about tomorrow's episode of this week's story tomorrow a perfect stranger Wants to get acquainted and a beautiful girl asked me to go skiing Trouble is either or both of them could be trying to kill me Join us won't you yours truly Johnny dollar or is truly Johnny dollar starring Bob Bailey is Transcribed in Hollywood written by Robert Reich. It is produced and directed by Jack Johnstone Be sure to join us tomorrow night same time and station for the next exciting episode of yours truly Johnny dollar Roy Rowan speaking


This article presents a hyperspectral image deconvolution method that utilizes spectral spatial total variation prior, an explicit non-negative constraint, and spectral correlation between adjacent bands to preserve edges in the spatial domain and maintain discontinuity along the spectral dimension. The alternating direction method of multipliers, ADMM, is employed to efficiently optimize the proposed model, and a regularization parameter is updated adaptively for stability. Numerical experiments are conducted on simulated and real data to verify the performance of the proposed method. This article was authored by Hu Zhongfang, Chun Anluo, Gang Zhu, and others.


Livestock production is a significant source of methane and greenhouse gas emissions globally. Sustainable livestock systems can contribute to climate action in several ways. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve resource efficiencies, enhancing carbon sequestration, and minimizing environmental impacts. FAO is working closely with member nations to enhance livestock sustainability framework while ensuring food security and nutrition for our growing population. The global demand for animal source food, animal food products, meat, eggs, dairy products will increase by 20% by 2050. Sustainability is imperative. It is equally essential to recognize the role of livestock in meeting our dietary needs. For many communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, livestock represents a crucial source of livelihood and driving force behind economic development. COP meetings are a unique forum for global collaboration and accretiation on climate issues, which is critical for addressing the trans-boundary nature of climate change and its impact on the livestock sector.


What's good Josh boros back again with another video, so we're gonna check out when WWE fans made superstars cry I love when the crowd gets involved and you know They they able to get the wrestler emotional caused them a great character We've seen some videos of where the crowd can maybe get under the wrestler's skin there and cause them to you know Respond to them in a negative way, but I also love when they're able to pull out that emotion man And if you're a wrestler to have 15 plus thousand people saying thank you or you deserve it You know for whatever the situation is or you know really embracing you that shows the love that shows the love and It's there's no price that you can put on that man These people they put their bodies on the line to entertain us I will always say this because we always got to be able to at least show them that type of respect that they deserve They deserve to be admired and appreciated. So we're gonna check out some of these moments, man Appreciate all the love and support you guys are shown on the channel. In fact, I think that's a nice size I mean make it just a little bit bigger for you guys. We need this rock live This is by vibrant incarnate show linked to the original video will be down below. Let's get right into this one, man. Oh Man just getting the undertaker emotional Is it's a feat in itself? I wish that He could be here with us and I miss him dearly Yeah This is not from other wrestlers This is from his other brother Oh Just off side bro, it's just all this whole knowing what happened been while he wasn't obviously definitely Wasn't the same after Eddie passed, you know, he he he was spiraling out You know I'm saying like Eddie was kind of that anchor for him And it just you know, once he passed he lost that anchor and it just it got bad, you know I'm saying and Doesn't I'm not just using what he did But you know at the same time I also know, you know saying we sometimes people they lose someone You'd be surprised how much that person helped them and then they go they spiral out and it's never good You know I'm saying there's never a good thing, you know cuz you end up in situations Unfortunately like what happened with him. It's just this all of this is just sad, bro But now I'm gonna have to go find something else This was a good this I Just it didn't pan out like we wanted it to but when he first came back Now ain't gonna lie to you. It was good to see that you can see the real emotion on him. That was that was a beautiful moment Being me genuine me for the first time I Lost my I lost two people who are very very close to me Nothing I ever did has mattered to anyone. I was wrong This is this is really good Very good, thank you You all saved my life. I just hope they're able to do something when when he comes back Well, I hope this was not not always.  Thank you very much This is The feels right now, bro This is just family. Oh I know upstairs in heaven somewhere.  It gets overwhelming, bro.  Look at that helping pay the road for me in my career And I miss you every damn day I've been hearing some stuff been going on on Twitter with Chavo basically saying he wants Ray to stop I guess riding the Guerrero coattail like the Guerrero name or whatnot.  What's real? What's a word? but If it is real I don't know about that man. I don't know how I feel about that I don't think Ray's just trying to ride the Eddie Guerrero train You know, it's not like he goes out there every week talking about Eddie He don't you know, he showed he gave his nod to Eddie at WrestleMania's and it was a cool moment I don't he doesn't go out there. Just you know talking about Eddie granted the LWO thing You could say that maybe but I don't know. I don't get that sense that he's doing it to ride the coattails I'm that's just my personal opinion on it. I know you're always watching over me. Thank you, Eddie Incredible friend above Rest in peace These are some heartfelt moments, man, you know what these three letters mean to me heartfelt moments Thank you for letting me play the game. I forgot exactly what What this was it was like kind of like a fake fake out kind of retirement situation Because I know he really had to let it go Like I wouldn't say fake out, but it was like I don't I think this was a part of a storyline. Oh What not I don't think you I'm not sure Correct me if I'm wrong I'm not sure I remember this. I just don't remember why he actually was saying, you know, like, you know He's stepping away He was my hero he started getting choked up Living with leukemia for 11 years and I'm gonna have to relinquish this was one of the We got the real The guy behind Roman and when people found this out because they were born and when he came out there Now there was fans booing them when they found out. Oh, this is real everything changed everything Completely changed his Everybody's like, oh shit like they're panning into the crowd like people are like Yo, this is not a storyline this is real and At that point you couldn't boo him Who's gonna boost someone that's dealing with something that's here is like that Now when he came back, they didn't really change his character up too much So he was getting babyface reactions, but then the boo started coming in. All right We getting the same thing we got before but when this is a moment initially happened It wasn't about Hating the Roman Reigns character. It was about caring about the man himself dealing with something.   He goes he gets a face reaction now It took it took him not being around as much for fans to really appreciate him That's the crazy thing our wrestling fans is when he was on television weekly He was getting the gays and he was getting the booze now. He only gets cheers Love a you deserve a chance if you think that millions of people Yep, this was another bro, this is so good one and oh my god in my opinion one of this promos from Mark Henry I Legit thought he was retired and it was all a swerve This is so good Rhonda was emotional Let him run it Wanted to thank all of you what you gave me. I will never ever forget.  I'd say you can't do this anymore at the time. It's just oh that was so emotional Getting that kind of reaction from all of you people. Oh, this is getting me. This is getting me I am grateful The go that's all I got to say Listen to that man. Oh Beautiful beautiful beautiful beautiful beautiful If you didn't get goosebumps in this entire video, you can't have a soul and that's all I'm saying I've had nothing but goosebumps this entire video because it was just that impactful and that powerful man Comment down below. Let me know. What are some of the Moments that made you tear up from like the crowd showing love to a particular wrestler If they weren't in this video, let me know down below But I appreciate all the love is what you guys shown on channel road to 158 I'm still here in this video you two wrestling champion world. Appreciate y'all kicking me see on next one


So this week, Bernie Sanders came out with two sweeping reform plans, one for criminal justice, one for democracy in the workplace, and I can't cover them in the way that I regularly will just cover things by reading an article because these plans are so comprehensive that I actually want to just go over the plans themselves I just have this up on the screen as a resource because I think that would probably be the best way to educate you about this because it's just it's so thorough and I'll link to these down below so you can read them for yourself Now, of course, I can't go over everything, but these plans are absolutely solid, you know, there's some areas for improvement with regard to the criminal justice plan, but overall, this is still fantastic Now, basically, his overall goal is to end profiteering in our criminal justice system. I think that he has made this clear from the beginning, but here's what he wants to do. Ban for-profit prisons that absolutely is a no-brainer. He wants to make prison phone calls and other communications such as video chats free of charge. Again, this is a no-brainer. I don't know how this would even be controversial or if it is.  This is huge. Audit the practices of commissaries and use regulatory authority to end price gouging and exorbitant fees, remove the profit motto from our reentry system and diversion, community supervision, or treatment programs and ensure people leaving incarceration or participating in diversion, community supervision, or treatment programs can do so free of charge. This is so important here because one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that the recidivism rate in the United States is absolutely astronomical and it's because you serve your time, you get out, and maybe you lose contact with a bunch of people and you don't have the resources needed to get off of your feet and, you know, different types of programs and whatnot that could help you treatment programs and educational programs. You just, you don't have access to them. So a lot of times people have to resort to crime again or feel the need to resort to crime and they end up back in prison. So trying to tackle recidivism is incredibly important and I'm glad that Bernie Sanders included that here. Now, he also wants to end cash bail. This is another no brainer. It's a system that I don't even know why we have it. It just favors the rich because, of course, being free when you are arrested will entirely hinge on if you have the money to get out. Of course, rich people will pay their bail and poor people won't be able to do that. So this disproportionately favors the rich. Of course, we should end cash bail. He wants to end the use of secured bonds in federal criminal proceedings, provide grants to states to reduce their pre-trial detention populations, which are particularly high at the county level, and require states to report on outcomes as a condition of renewing their funding, withhold funding from states that continue the use of cash bail systems. So this is something that he basically has to do because these prison systems, they're run at the state level. So at the federal level, I don't believe that he can compel them to end cash bail. So basically what he's doing is, you know, this carrot stick approach. And in this instance, he's using the stick to say, look, we'll withhold funding if you still use this antiquated cash bail program that just favors the rich. That's important. Ensure that alternatives to cash bail are not leading to disparities in the prison system. Again, very forward-thinking. So far, everything about this is absolutely amazing. And now here's where we get to a really important part. Ensure law enforcement accountability and robust oversight. So rescind former Attorney General Jeff Sessions' guidance on consent decrees, revitalize the use of Department of Justice investigations consent decrees, and federal lawsuits to address systemic constitutional violations by police departments. Ensure accountability-strict guidelines and independent oversight for all federal funds used by police departments and federal programs that use military equipment to local police forces. Of course, demilitarizing the police is important. Create a federally mandated database of police use of deadly force. Provide grants for states and cities to establish civilian oversight agencies with enforceable accountability mechanisms. Establish federal standards for the use of body cameras, including establishing third-party agencies to oversee the storage and release of police videos. Very, very important. Mandate criminal liability for civil rights violations resulting from police conduct. Limit the use of qualified immunity to address the lack of criminal liability for civil rights violations resulting from police misconduct. Conduct a U.S. Attorney General's investigation whenever someone is killed in police custody. Very, very important. Because I don't expect someone who is investigating someone that they know on a personal level to be objective.  I couldn't investigate my friend and be fair, right? So this is important. Band the use of facial recognition software for policing. I would like him to take this a step further and just ban the use of facial recognition software, period. Ron Placone has done a number of videos about this. Fight for the Future has kind of taken this up as an initiative.  So taking it a step further would be great, but this is a new issue and I would imagine that Bernie Sanders would evolve with new information. Now, I'm not going to go through all of this because this is really long, but I wanted to get to the bulk of it. Provide more support to police officers and create a robust non-law enforcement alternative response system. And this force would emphasize de-escalation. Now, every single police officer should be trained to de-escalate and not further escalate, but I see what he's doing here. And I like this. Rights of Council. Very, very important. Triple national spending. Review current salaries and workloads at a minimum starting salary for public defenders. Create a national formula to assure populations have a minimum number of public defenders. Establish federal guidelines and goals for a rights of council, including policies that reduce the number of cases overall. Create a federal agency to provide support and oversight for state public defense services. Okay, going down, rescind former Attorney General Jeff Sessions' orders on prosecutorial discretion and low-level offenses. You know, rescinding these guidelines from Jeff Sessions, that will be easy. You don't have to pass that with a bill. So I would imagine that a lot of this he'll be able to check off before this even gets passed, you know, when it becomes a bill. Limit absolute immunity for prosecutors, which is used to shield wrongdoers from liability, and the practice of jailing material witnesses. Place a moratorium on the use of the algorithmic risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system until an audit is completed. As president, he will also abolish the death penalty. Reverse the Trump administration's guidance on the use of death penalty drugs with the goal of ending the death penalty at the state level. Stop excessive sentencing with the goal of cutting the incarcerated population in half and mandatory sentencing minimums. Bring in state of federal parole system and end truth in sentencing. People serving long sentences will undergo a second look process to make sure their sentence is still appropriate. End three strikes laws. Invigorate and expand the compassionate release process. Expand the use of sentencing alternatives. Revitalize the executive clemency process by creating an independent clemency board. Stop the criminalization of homelessness and spend more than 25 billion over five years to end homelessness. And with regard to the war on drugs, legalize cannabis, expunge past marijuana convictions, provide people struggling with addiction, the health care they need. Decriminalize possession of the drug that treats opioid addiction. Not even going to try to pronounce that word, that is a doozy right there. Legalize safe injection sites and needle exchanges around the country and support pilot programs for supervised injection sites, which have shown to substantially reduce drug overdose deaths. This is so important, so forward thinking. This is going to be, you know, something that he'll be attacked for, but this is crucial and it does work. I'll raise the threshold for when drug charges are federalized. Work with states to fund and pursue innovative overdose prevention techniques. Institute a full review of the current sentencing guidelines and end the sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine. Okay, so this is very long. Let me just go through the cliff notes version here. Treat children like children. That means we ban the prosecution of children under the age of 18. I feel like this is a no-brainer. Reform our decrepit prison system to make jails and prisons more humane. Who would be against this? You know, and solitary confinement. This is so important because that is torture. That is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment. He wants living wages for prison labor. No more slave labor. The right to vote. All voting age Americans must have the right and meaningful access to vote. This is going to be controversial because as you will know, he was attacked on a debate stage when he was asked should the Boston bomber have the right to vote. Now, of course, the way that that's framed is absolutely disgusting. And I don't like that. But really what you have to make the case for is if we are Democrats, small D Democrats, we have to be radically committed to the idea of universal suffrage. That means every single person in this country has the right to vote. It doesn't matter if they did something that's atrocious. It doesn't matter if we personally disagree with them. Every person has the right to vote. It's a matter of principle. So he will get attacked for this as well. Doesn't matter. This is the right policy prescription. We have to allow people the right to vote. Okay. Ensure a just transition post release. So let's see here. Reversing the criminalization of disability, investing in our communities, federal jobs guarantee $15 minimum wage. This is all so important, so comprehensive. And I look forward to seeing criminal justice organizations vet this if they haven't already. But this seems incredibly, incredibly in depth, comprehensive. This would change so many people's lives for the better. Like this, really, it can't be overstated. This would be a game changer. This would be amazing. This is the criminal justice reform that we need.  Now, previously he stated that he was open to that. In fact, I have a quote because he was asked about this not too long ago. So Eris Foley of the Hill reports, Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would consider decriminalizing sex work if elected in 2020. Bernie believes that decriminalization is certainly something that should be considered. Sanders deputy communications director, Sarah Ford told Vice News in a statement on Thursday. Other countries have done this and it has shown to make the lives of sex workers safer. So the fact that he's open to it is important, but he didn't include that here. So that's disappointing. Don't just be open to it. Embrace it, Bernie. I'm not too worried that he'd be against it because, again, he already showed his willingness to consider it, but he should have included that here in this bill. But Bernie Sanders, he does evolve. I mean, in 2016 he did not support student loan debt cancellation and that was basically my main criticism of him. Look, you have this great plan to make colleges tuition-free. But what about those of us who already have all of this student loan debt? So you've got to do something for them. And he listened. So I believe that this is something that he would embrace. I just wish that he included that here, but I don't want to be too picky because this is still good, but just some area for improvement. Now getting to his workplace democracy plan. So basically this is a very pro-union plan. Union workers, they earn 22% more than the average workers. So this is really important. Bernie's pro-union plan would provide unions the ability to organize through a majority sign-up process, allowing the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union if it receives the consent of the majority of eligible workers. Under Bernie's plan, when a majority of workers in a bargaining unit sign valid authorization cards to join a union, they will have a union. If employers refuse to negotiate in good faith, we will impose strong penalties on those companies. Enact first contract provisions to ensure companies cannot prevent a union from forming by denying first contract. Eliminate the right to work for less. Bernie's plan would repeal section 14b of the Taft-Harley Act, which has allowed 28 states to pass legislation that eliminates the ability of unions to collect dues from those who benefit from union contracts and activities, undermining the union's representation of workers. This right here has decimated unions, so this is absolutely crucial, and I don't think this would be too controversial with regard to Democratic Party politics. I think that even corporate Democrats would get on board with this, but still it's important. Under Bernie's plan, companies will no longer be able to ruthlessly exploit workers by misclassifying them as independent contractors or deny them over time by falsely calling them a supervisor. Looking at you, Uber, this would directly affect those companies. Make sure that employers can no longer use franchisee or contractor arrangements to avoid responsibility and liability for workers. Give federal workers the right to strike. Make sure every public sector union in America has the freedom to negotiate. Require companies that merge to honor existing union contracts. Deny federal contracts to employers that pay poverty wages, outsource jobs overseas, engage in union busting. Deny good benefits and pay CEOs outrageous compensation packages. Ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Protect the pensions of workers. This is also very important. We've kind of transitioned to a 401k system in lieu of pensions and guess what's happening. People can't really retire. People have to work until they die, essentially. So, you know, protecting pensions is very, very important. Stop corporations from forcing workers to attend mandatory anti-union meetings as a condition of continued employment. Establish federal protections against the firing of workers for any reason other than just cause. Create a sectoral collective bargaining system with wage boards to set minimum standards across industries. Guarantee the right to unionize for all workers. Allow for secondary boycotts. Expand and update the persuader rule. This plan would require companies to disclose anti-union information. They disseminate to workers and provide for equal time for organizing agents. Now, I really like this because, you know, if you apply for a new job and you're going through training and orientation, you may be shown an anti-union video. When I worked at Walmart, we were shown this brazenly anti-union video. It was just pure propaganda and I was like shocked by it.   It's fed to them so they don't know what to think. So they're told it's bad. So they just say, all right, it must be bad. So this is good. And probably my favorite part here is this, a fair transition to Medicare for All. This kneecaps one of the main critiques that we're seeing from corporate Democrats about Medicare for All. Bernie will require that resulting healthcare savings from union negotiated plans result in wage increases and additional benefits for workers during the transition to Medicare for All. When Medicare for All is signed into law, companies with union negotiated healthcare plans would be required to enter into new contract negotiations overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Under this plan, all company savings that result from reduced healthcare contributions from Medicare for All will accrue equitably to workers in the form of increased wages or other benefits. Furthermore, the plan will ensure that union-sponsored clinics and other providers are integrated within the Medicare for All system and kept available for members. Unions will still be able to negotiate for and provide wraparound services and other coverage not duplicative of the benefits established under Medicare for All. And this is really important because when you hear people like Michael Bennett say, well, look, unions fought hard for these healthcare plans and now you're just going to take that away from them. So all that work was for nothing. What Bernie Sanders is saying is no, that's not all going to be for nothing. You still want to fight to provide some type of wraparound services, you know, so long as it's not duplicative, then that's fine. You can fight for something that maybe is left out of Medicare for All. It doesn't really leave out anything.  So if you have someone that wants to get a facelift, I mean, I guess you could do that.  But it's still, you know, it's important that he's making that clear so they can't attack him. So look, by and large, both of these plans, let me go back up to the top. These are phenomenal. These are absolutely fantastic. One area for improvement here. This is mostly union centered, but I would like mandatory worker co-ops. But still, unions are incredibly important to the health of the middle class, right? Because when unions and union membership increases, then everyone else does better. The middle class thrives. People from the lower class are more able to easily move into the middle class. So these are fantastic. And Bernie Sanders is just coming out with policy after policy. This is innovation. This is fresh. And I absolutely love what he's doing. So kudos to Bernie Sanders here, because this is what you have to do when you have other competitors in the race who are trying to, you know, portray themselves as having a plan for everything. Actually, Bernie Sanders is kind of the person who now has the plan for everything. So this is great.  I want to see everyone compete to be the best. And Bernie Sanders is winning by a mile and a half so far, as far as I'm concerned.