So welcome. Good afternoon. This is House Judiciary and we are continuing our consideration of S 114 that we understand that the Senate Judiciary has voted on, but not yet. We are trying to get up to speed and understand, understand it and judge, welcome. Yeah, sure. And for those of you who are testifying today, representatives alone did send a memo with some of the committee's questions so if you haven't had a chance to review that I don't know if you can but but we do have a number of questions based on just going through the walk through so I will turn it over to you your honor right now. And thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the committee for inviting me for the record Brian Greerson Chief Superior Judge. I have on another screen. Draft 3.2 of S 114 is that when everyone's looking at. I did not see a representative of the lawns email. Did that just was that sent. Not long ago. About 1230 left 1230. Let me see if I can find it probably didn't have any questions for me right. Oh no not at all. Okay. So, um, how would, how would you like me to start by answering trying to answer the questions or going through the bill. Well, I think for some general background as to how my understanding is that that the language came from the judiciary. And so, so I think a just background background why why these provisions are are needed. What they would address. Thank you. Okay. So the bill, if you will, was probably started seems like a long time ago but it was. A long time ago. I think it was a long time ago when myself were invited to appear before I think it was joint rules on a Sunday afternoon. Not mistaken. And it wasn't clear what the committee, that committee was looking for, but what we attempted to do by way of memorandum to that committee was to outline some of the issues that we had seen developing very early on in the process. I'm sure all of you know, enacted administrative order 49, which essentially limited the types of hearings that the court could schedule essentially all emergency hearings and then listed those that fit in their opinion, fit that category. I also gave some leeway that would allow filings to come before the local judge. And if they did not appear to fit into the categories that the Supreme Court had listed they could refer them to me, and I would, I wouldn't be deciding the merits of the issue but I would decide whether the allegations rose to an emergency level that I could then direct the local judge to hear. So that's how we've been operating for the last few weeks and we're also operating with substantially reduced staff in every court every court is still operating but on a very limited basis, and the staffing. The staffing is really what's driving the ability to work, even when these emergency requests come in the first question to be asked, do we have staff available, or when do we have staff available to schedule these proceedings staff levels change in the courts from day to day. Terry Scott of Chief of trial court operation has a daily check in with all of the courts to determine what the staffing is and that that you know that's really driving a lot of what we're able to schedule or when we're able to schedule it. So first of things we're hearing of course are incarcerated individuals either by way of arraignment, all of which are being done via video. Now as far as I know. Bail reviews in juvenile proceedings that we're hearing emergency request for change of parent child contact, same applies in the domestic docket. We're still hearing RFAs, most of those are done remotely, if someone does not have remotely by telephone, if someone does not have access to phones, then they will still come into court to hear those. But essentially, the bill was what we were seeing in the courts and for instance, the issue, one of the early issues identified, or what do we do about evictions. And there is a bill as I'm sure you all know in legislature now to put a stay on evictions and foreclosure proceedings. So the piece that you see in this bill that came from the judiciary was essentially a recognition early on that at least the Supreme Court was not going to impose a stay of evictions. They did not see it as their function their role and believe that the legislature and or the executive branch should impose a stay if there's going to be one. So this was a very early piece, at least from us saying well if there's no stay. This is something that would allow the court some discretion on these rent escrow orders. For those of you that don't know when an eviction proceeding is filed and I'm talking a residential eviction. The earliest hearing is what's called a rent escrow hearing, meaning the landlord and tenant come to the courthouse. If the tenant is going to want to remain in the property, they have to pay the rent going forward. We defer the decision on any back rent that's accumulated. The rent escrow orders allow them to remain in the property. And so this first section of the bill was a recognition that under the current circumstances. Economic and public health individuals may not be able to pay the rent as ordered so it gave the courts and flexibility that otherwise didn't have and really the only change there you'll see is when it changed one word. In other words, instead of saying shall pay it said may so the court could entertain that that's essentially where that comes from. The other section to execution powers of attorney and section three relating to deeds really is a recognition of the fact that with the governor's order on stay at home stay safe. Getting notary publics or the availability of notary publics, the meeting of face to face in order to have a document signed before notary public, both those sections. In other words, they weren't in our original memo these came, some of this bill comes from other sources, but that's the reason those are there to address the issue of the, either the lack of notaries, people who are notaries not wanting to perform that role, or doing it in a way that would allow for social distancing. And for this part of the courts request judiciary quest, and that is driven by the fact that under the current rule 43. The presence of the defendant is required during certain or most proceedings, and this was a recognition. The judiciary that as this pandemic unfolded, we now have available video available in all of the Department of Corrections facilities, and through the major courts Wyndham Windsor. The Orleans, Washington, Bennington, Rutland, Chittenden and Franklin counties and we're already had the ability through rules to allow for rule five or the initial proceedings via video, which would lead to arrangements. But it quickly became apparent that attorneys in the courts saw an avenue of conducting other proceedings that we hadn't done before, for instance, plea changes via video sentencing. And these were all uncontested matters in other words we weren't going ahead with contested sentencing but the best example I can give you is someone who was incarcerated, who had a pending charge that by agreement of the parties. This individual was not necessarily going to be released, but the fact that they were still on a detention or detainee pretrial status. They weren't allowed to participate in certain program. And so by allowing a sentencing to go ahead via video. If a person could enter the plea be sentenced and not have to leave the facility. I'm sure you've heard testimony from Department of Corrections or will that one of their biggest risks is having individuals come out of the facility and then go back in right away. So this allowed us to do certain things but it required the defendant to wave personal appearance. And with the consent of the defense attorneys proceed this way, but it's not provided or that that's not provided for in the current rule. So this rule is to specifically say that the defendant that they're consulting with the attorney, their attorney, they can wave their personal appearance and personal appearance for purposes of the rule going forward would could be accomplished either by telephone or video. So this in my opinion is a very important part of this bill. And I believe it has the support and Marshall, I see is on and can speak to it but the defender general spoken favor of this piece and I'll obviously let them speak for themselves but I think everyone saw the value in allowing this. And I'll just keep going unless you want questions on specific sections I can come back. So section five is is really a broad based recognition that because of the reduced staffs because of the limited time and court the limited schedules that a lot of statutory guideline time frames timelines could not be met. And most part people recognize that they couldn't be met so this is just a relaxation of certain guidelines, for instance bail review, or review of conditions of release. It just expands them, I think it's up to 14 days. 14 days as opposed to 48 hours under bail review and I think it's 10 days Marshall on conditions of release. So just expanded them but it was more a recognition of we're not able to get to them in a timely fashion. And that was true of other other timelines in committee may be aware at one point there was provisions in here to relax the time frames on some mental health hearing. That was taken out of the bill. I don't know if it'll appear again but again, it was really from the judiciary's perspective. It was more of a practical recognition that we're not meeting those timelines. And so they're out. But the mental health hearing timelines are out of the bill. When you get into section two. This is section five but it's section two of that bill I'm reading on page five line eight. That again is a recognition of in this time frame, and particularly even when we come away from the so called AO 49 emergency provisions. We have a significant backlog in all of our dockets, and the court is in the process now of going through a process of trying to come up with a priority of cases in each of the dockets and that's going to take some time. And again, a recognition that request to seal an expunge can be time consuming with staff. We have limited staffs. And even when these emergency orders are lifted, we don't necessarily anticipate that with the switch, you know, changing the changing the date is all of a sudden going to mean we're going to have full staffs. So this again is a recognition. We're just not going to be able to get to those requests for expungement or ceiling. And that's why it's reflected in there for I think it's 100. 120 days. Selena. What is the status. Judge Gerson of the in the budget adjustment. You know there were additional positions temporary positions. And I believe that's in your current budget request to solely for the expungement work so what is what is the status of those positions and what are the workflows or those among the people who are not currently working. What can you just fill us in on on how those resources are being used. I will try to I mean the legislature, I don't know if it was the last session or the session before approved funding for I want to say it was five positions. Expungement and ceiling process and the the offenses that were included in that going back at least a session maybe two ago. So those folks have been hired, and they are part of the process that I'm saying now we are operating with reduced staffs in every court, every courthouse. But I think what you're referring to is we did have a request in this session because of increased increasing the types of offenses for expungement and or ceiling I think we had an additional request for staffing needs but you know that obviously hasn't happened. I think I meant to I'm asking more about the status of the current workers that the workers that are currently funded. Well, I guess I would say that the people that were hired in those positions are considered staff so it's not as if we've isolated them to do only expungements not in this emergency situation. Maybe if that was the case. I mean the staffs go from docket to docket sometimes court to court. So it's not as if those positions were isolated. And while everything else is struggling to schedule we would say, Okay, you are hired to do expungements and ceilings. You're going to do that. I don't know if that answers your question but they're part of the court staff. They're part of the reduced court staff. And these just can't be a priority, certainly under the current circumstances. I know that's difficult for folks that have worked long and hard on expungement and ceiling process but there's always we have to set some priorities within the within the court process and if you've had reference or had the chance to look at AO 49 it's clearly not identified as an emergency process that has to has to proceed. It's not on the list. Does that answer the question. I think it does. I just, I think we fun. Yeah, I mean, of course I understand that that is not on the emergency list of things that have to proceed right now and this very very clear down world I think I'm thinking more about the like what comes afterwards part of things and was just trying to understand how those positions were being utilized, you know, like especially in this time period but I think I was just a little confused about your answer where it sounded like you were saying like well those people were never just doing expungements but I think we know. Then I misspoke what I was trying to say was this understood extent that they were doing that before this emergency happened, they would now be devoted to whatever process whatever matters are being scheduled in the courts now. I mean they mean, you know an individual may not be there at all. I mean some staff members no longer come in so the staff members that do come in and are coming in in some places on a rotating schedule. They're going to have to do whatever that day's work calls for an expungement just isn't in that mix so. That's what I was trying to say when they're not isolated during the course of this emergency period to do only the work they were hired to do everybody's doing things that they may not have been hired to do. In other words, another example maybe that would help is the Wyndham civil court, for instance, got down to one staff member, and we didn't close the court but we've certainly suspended operations in that court to send that staff member over to assist in the family civil division where they're even on a reduced level that's where most of the cases that are being heard require staffing so even though that person was hired as a docket clerk if you will in the civil division, they're now over in another courthouse handling other matters and I'm sure that's what's happening with the people that were hired as to do the expungement and ceiling work. And it's just going to take a while to get back to whatever normal is on the other side of this. That's why we've asked for the extended time after the emergency is lifted. So I do see Barbara's hand but judge I'm going to ask you to go through the finish through the memo and then we'll get back to our section by section questions. Barbara first, just trying to see where I left off. So section three again I'm on still on page five beginning line 13. Again as a recognition what was happening was the DUI cases when they come in also carry with them what are referred to as civil suspension proceedings relating to the suspension of the driver's license, and they have again specific timelines that have to be heard 21 days from the time the person was stopped 42 days from the time the case comes into court, and we were just unable to to with any certainty, guaranteed those timelines could be met. So that again is a recognition that we're not able to schedule those cases. And therefore, those timelines have been suspended. And because they would otherwise call sometimes for an automatic license suspension. The Senate judiciary included the provision that licenses would not be suspended until we could schedule those civil suspension proceeding section six relates the statute of limitations in civil actions. And that's merely a recognition that for any number of reasons that have arisen during the emergency period. We have told the statute of limitations until this emergency is over and I believe it's 60 days. If, if a lawsuit had to be filed today during the emergency period, and not knowing if attorneys who are handling a particular case for a client were able to process that matter. Recognize the need to have a delay in the filing of that action 60 days after the emergency period so no one would lose the possibility of a claim being filed due to the emergency or due to the unavailability of the lawyer. Or any other number of issues. And finally, section seven was just added recently. And in my opinion, in addition to the provision relating to video appearances, this is probably the most important part of this bill. Because the longer this has gone on, the more we realize the the inability to have notarized documents filed and certainly in some cases timely filed. So this is an amendment to an existing for VSA 27 B. Again, I'm looking on page six section seven beginning online for the reference to online nine to title for section 27 B is a statute relating to electronic filing, which is not available in all of our courts. But it was a recognition again that if you're filing electronically, you would not have a notarized document. It allows for documents to be filed in lieu of a notary to use the statement of a sworn declaration that begins online 13. And so this statute if included in the bill would be a broad based would apply to any filings with court with the two notable exceptions on the bottom. The section would not apply to a search warrant or non testimonial identification order, meaning they would still require a notary public's and that is the same language that is in title for 27 B under existing law. So in some in substance that that's, that's the bill. Those are areas that we felt needed to be addressed. Thank you. So I'm actually going to go past the judges time because I think the committee does have some some questions and so, so Barbara, if you ask your concerns about section five or or if you had something else at the time but but Thank you. Hi, church girls. Oh, there. So, can you, I just want to back up for one second before I get into more specifics about section five. Was there any kind of decision matrix that was used I know the Chief Justice talked a little bit about courts and pandemic planning to sort of look at what are the most important actions that the court needs to take. You know if it's like physical harm harm to civil liberties so I guess I'm just wondering when you've had to make these tough choices about what things will go on sort of the back burner and what things won't. I don't think there was any kind of framework that that was used or was it more of a just discussion. Well, Well, certainly there was discussion but I'm not sure what you mean by a framework I mean there certainly wasn't a grid that was created that, you know, went through the myriads of cases that come into probate criminal family and civil. Certainly a recognition, I think in every docket that certain types of cases had to go forward. And as as the court has gone on, obviously, this whole process is evolving for everyone. I think I want to say they're up to at least five or maybe even six amendments since then so there has been recognition as we go along that they need to go back in and look at proceedings. So, you know, it was certainly a deliberative. Yeah, I, and it's not like as easy as like an ER decision making matrix but would you by chance know where we stand now in terms of how caught up we are in expungements and ceilings that have been requested but might have been, you know, pre emergency order like or do we have a backlog already, are we pretty caught up with expungements and ceilings. I really don't have any idea I can tell you that over the last few weeks, if any have come in, I can't tell you that they haven't been addressed but it's, it's, it's not a priority. It was the court staffs in no small part that were seeing the need to have this postponement if you will of processing those. But I kill I couldn't tell you if every request that came in before the emergency started had been addressed or what the backlog is. I don't know if there's any process that could be put in place or modified, where these could be done by folks off site I realized that the staff that representative Colburn was referring to are, I didn't think they're full time so I don't know how much they get paid when they don't work and so I'm thinking it's sort of a win-win if they can do the work and people who want to get expunged or able to get their records expunged. I don't know what the volume normally would be but I'm thinking as we're getting more people out of prison now we've heard that we're down like 200 people roughly I think. And I know a lot of people have lost their jobs temporarily or permanently. So I'm also concerned about people who are going to apply for jobs as the pandemic. As we come out on the other side and the obstacle of being able to get a job if expungement isn't occurring. I don't know when sealing will occur but it'll have to occur in a time frame that recognizes that other matters may take precedence over those particular issues. I can tell you without knowing every single person that came out of jail if they've come out of an incarcerated sentence, it'll be a little while before they're eligible for expungement or sealing. It's not that we're ignoring it but there has to be a recognition in every facet of the judicial system whether it's family or civil or criminal that we have, we're going to have to establish priorities of cases that are coming out. Whenever this emergency is over, there's going to be a significant backlog and the priority has to be on people who are incarcerated awaiting trial. We've had trials that have been scheduled that jury drawings had to be canceled. These are people that are being held without bail. We have juvenile proceedings that have been put on the board had to be deferred merit hearings, disposition hearings. So it's just, it's a matter of, and I will say that the biggest concern, one of the concerns I have is what will we have for staff. When we come out of this, how long is it going to take to get back to what we used to think as normal and there's probably going to be a new normal on the other side of this so I understand the concern but it's only one of many that we have. No, I, I know and I guess I just want to make sure that we're not in our decision making sort of will end up hearing from people who I don't want to say just have lobbyists but who are able to articulate the work that they're doing and how it's held up and I just want to not forget about the people who can't be here to talk about the impact on them. Your, your point a minute ago led me to my second worry which is the changing the 48 hours and the seven days on the conditions and bail review. Increasing the time so isn't that theoretically adding to the time that somebody would be incarcerated without getting a chance to have their bail reviewed or their conditions reviewed. Well I couldn't say that it doesn't extend the time because it extends, for instance from 48 hours to seven days. Right. But as I said earlier that's more of a recognition of what we're able to do with the resources we have in. I think on the, on the, if I can say the positive side of this. I think you're seeing for the first time in most people's memory the, the incarcerated population going down in the detainee number, going down below 300 I don't know what it is today but below 300 so I think you're finding that, and certainly my recommendations to the trial judges and considering bail requests. I would like to think that everyone is taking a closer look at what kinds of cases where bail is being set. So I think the majority of cases that I'm seeing and I'm sure Marshall has as much information as I do but what I'm seeing is more serious cases. That are coming in on bail reviews, and it's not as if we're going to use that timeframe to say okay we've got 14 days to do this, we're trying to get them in as quickly as possible. And we will still attempt to do that but this again is more of a recognition of the inability to meet those timeframes than anything else. And going from 48 to 14 days, you don't think there's any chance to kind of tighten that up so it's not really going to two full weeks. It's not all 14 days so the first section on page five on line for section a talks about conditions of release relating to the setting of bail cash bail goes from 48 hours to seven days conditions of release that are just conditions and not bail are the 14 days. So that's changing something from a curfew could be anything from changing the curfew to changing the residents changing a reporting requirement so it's the first one that goes from 48 hours, seven days. And that's a week. What I can't tell you is when someone files that bail review on a Wednesday of a given week. I cannot guarantee anyone at this point that we are able to have that hearing on Friday of that same week. So this gives us some flexibility and scheduling that we just don't have the ability to move as quickly on these matters. As we're used to do I do we like this. No, we understand the need to get these matters heard it doesn't mean because it's seven days that we're going to schedule it seven days out. It may mean that they will if we have the judge available and the time and the staffing that we will bring it in. Either the next day or within the original 48 hours. And then Martin do you want to put in on your concerns regarding a section was a five. Section five but it's the subsection three regarding the suspensions of driver's license for DUI. That was just that was just one area in this bill that gave me biggest pause and biggest concern if somebody who would otherwise have their driver's license suspended for six months or three years or whatever, all of a sudden has doesn't have it suspended until the delayed court hearing. And I noticed that in your judge in your recommendations in your memo you didn't, you did suggest suspending the hearings but didn't suggest allowing the individual to retain their driving privileges pending the hearing. I didn't for the simple reason that, and it's no excuse but the memo was prepared on relatively short notice to be able to present to that the rules committee, and it's kind of taken on a life of its own. So that as it went from my memo to a bill form and Senate judiciary, my original thinking I was only thinking of the DWIs that come in that don't have an automatic license suspension. And I think it was the defender general that in discussing this section of the bill with him pointed out that for subsequent offenses there is an automatic license suspension. So when the bill came into Senate judiciary. That's when the discussion took place about license suspension so that's why it's in there. Now, it's not that I. Yes, I understand maybe this is going to be a better better question for Marshall, as far as. Why do we have to allow the individual to continue with the driver's license I'll ask you first but that's going to be one for Marshall as well. Is there is there perhaps another route that one could go, for instance, and there's a question at the end of this for for these various offenses civil offenses, one of the opportunity options is to have a ignition interlock device. I could for this interim period to have a waiver of the application fee and the individual has to get an inter ignition interlock device if he or she wants to continue to drive. Otherwise the license is suspended until that hearing occurs. Are we not seeing the ability to do ignition interlock devices right now because of the coronavirus. Maybe there's another option I'm just very concerned about for some amount of period of time during the, the situation we're in now that individuals who have driven with a point one six blood alcohol level and may have had a previous DUI can continue to have a license in those privileges. Let me go back to the beginning of your question. It from our from the judiciary's perspective, the reason I originally proposed the waiver of those initial timelines, I will be quite honest with you I didn't consider the license suspension consequences because I wasn't thinking of subsequent offenses. It was driven by the fact that we would have difficulty in scheduling the civil suspension hearings in a timely fashion during this period. And so that was what drove my original request, and I had not considered the consequences of subsequent offenses and that's why I'm saying that came in later as more people became involved in a discussion of the, the area that I was pointing to, and I hadn't considered it so are there other alternatives. There may be but to the extent that they require processing in court through through civil suspension proceedings, or even the prosecution of the DUI offenses. The problem isn't finding the time in the, the ability to process those cases, DUIs in and of themselves are not considered a priority and not considered an emergency hearing, other than that, we were bringing in DUIs for permanent purposes in other words asking people who otherwise would be released on conditions of release to come into court where our goal has been to minimize people coming into court they were coming into court solely to set these timelines for civil suspension hearing. And so that's what drove the original request on my part was to really avoid having people to come in and come into court. Because they, that's the only way the process worked. That process can't be done remotely. The what that process can't be done remotely. Well, if they're cited in, they, they need to have an attorney assigned, and we have to set those deadlines, there's not. I guess to some extent you could do it remotely but we do not have the time to schedule these matters for hearing. Is it possible to just carve out subsequent offenses, not have the situation where the, where there's a delay of the hearing or suspension of the hearing, or is that still a large number. I do not have the numbers for you today and I don't know if Marshall does. He might have a better handle on the numbers of cases, his office sees. But part of the problem also is when you come to the civil suspension piece is that they since they are civil proceedings. Attorneys are not always assigned to those they're not assigned to those cases, some defenders choose to represent individuals in those civil suspension proceedings, because they are so aligned with the DUI processing but that does not happen in every In some counties, I would see the public defender there for a DUI case, but they would not be representing the individual in a civil suspension because it is not a criminal offense. And so that varies from county to county as to how that happens so it's not as simple as saying can you have a remote proceeding. Because it may be a remote proceeding with a pro se self represented litigant, and that creates other other issues. So what I thought was a rather straightforward request is obviously much more complex than I appreciated when I put that in that memo. You were speaking to some of those issues and and the defender general did as well when it went in front of Senate judiciary. And that's why the bill appears as it does. There is an evolution here that particular piece. Right. I kind of hear from the defenders on that particular issue as well. But I'm still troubled that the subsequent offenses that could be some number of months when there doesn't seem to be any consequences for for that particular individual. The only other thing I would say is that, you know, these cases don't necessarily resolve themselves in the same timeframe we're talking about this emergency anyway. Because a DWI comes in during the emergency period. Let's assume this emergency period ends. Let's just say for the sake of argument the first of June. It's unlikely anything would have happened between March 17 when the administrative order went into effect. And in June 1, just because of the nature of the docket in the scheduling matters. So, I don't think it's a question of obviously how long this process goes on and how long it takes us to get back to normal. Am I not, am I mistaken? I thought that the driver's license is automatically suspended. So during that period of time, the driver's license would be suspended for Zoom. It is for subsequent offenses, not, not the. Yeah, that's what that's the realm I've been concerned about. And that's what I've been talking about. All right. All right, thanks. I don't know if you're done with me or not, but I had heard through other folks that you've had other witnesses testifying not necessarily on this bill yet, but on other issues that may pertain to the judiciary, including RFAs. And I don't know if you want me to get into that now, or if that's coming at a later time today or some other day, but Yeah, no, let's, let's wait on that. The question was, are there other things that, for instance, since your memo, you know, that are coming to light that might need work on it. So, or behind on this, so let's, let's stick to this. Okay. But I'm available if you need me on other matters. Yeah, that would be, that'd be helpful. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So we're going to take Marshall now. Okay. Can you hear me? Are people able to hear me? Yes. Yes. I've seen some knowledge. Okay. So I will pick up where the judge and representative along left off in talking about DUIs and sort of work my way backwards just for the sake of convenience. I think that the DUI question, I totally understand the concern, but I think that in this case, there's really no other option. The only option is to either schedule the hearings and have the hearings take place, which I think would be very difficult given the current level of staffing, not just in the judiciary, but in defense offices, prosecutors offices, frankly at DMV is also involved in those hearings. And I think that the real issue is that there's no way that you, what you cannot do is you can't say, we're going to impose the suspension, but with no timeframe for the hearing. And that's because it's a due process issue that if the government's going to take something away, even if it is something just a driver's license, and even if it's just temporary, there has to be some sort of a hearing on that. And the Constitution definitely favors what they call a pre deprivation hearing, meaning that you get a hearing about whether or not it's okay to take that driver's license away before the driver's license is actually taken away. And the Constitution also recognizes that there's some circumstances where the government has such a strong interest that they can take something away from somebody, deprive something from somebody and have the hearing afterwards. But if they're going to do that, there's very strict guidance out there about how fast that what they call a post deprivation hearing has to take place. And in this case, it's been recognized that this 42 days isn't is a acceptable timeframe that if you take somebody's driver's license away for a second or subsequent DUI that that's okay as long as you have a hearing on that deprivation within 42 days. Now the problem is that if you were to just simply say, we're going to keep the suspensions in place, but we're not going to schedule the hearings, you would essentially be saying that you're getting the government's taking your license away. And there is no time frame for a post deprivation hearing. And that's where you would run into constitutional issues that would be a Matthews v eldritch problem. And so, what I would say is that there's really two ways this can be handled one is the way that it is handled in the bill currently which is to simply say, we're going to treat second and subsequent DUI is the same way we treat first time DUI's, which is you don't have your license taken away until you've had your civil suspension here. Or we could say, we're going to do whatever it takes to make sure that we have that hearing within the 42 days, whether or not that's something that all the players in the system could accommodate I don't know, but just legally speaking I think those are the only two options. Any other questions about that or move on to other things. So, Marshall, I, I haven't done the deep legal analysis on this but but I don't think that this is the only legal way that this could be done, just for example, I mean, the 42 days is not something that. Yes, that's that's enough for post deprivation timeframe but in other situations longer periods and that are have also been considered fine for the promptness of a post deprivation hearing. So I can understand that there could be an extension of those timeframes I agree having no date at all is problematic but if you said, it's going to be 120 days. Yeah, maybe that's going to be litigated but I know that there's other situations where that has been found to be a sufficiently prompt. Or another alternative also could be that yeah it's going to be picking number 90 days. And if the hearing is not held within the 90 days of the license will be reinstated. And so that's there are a couple other ways to get at this where somebody with a second or subsequent loses their driver's license and still has the sufficiently prompt post deprivation hearing. And if it's not done in that prompt manner then then again it's reinstated so it would seem to me that that's like something like that could work. I don't have an answer because the nature of Matthews is that there's no way to predict what Matthews analysis results in because it is one of, you know, in my opinion one of the least useful Supreme Court cases out there in terms of providing you with any guidance or any ability to sort of look at a situation and try to figure out how the court would resolve it. I don't have an answer for you in terms of what 180 days be okay what would 90 days be okay. You know that's something that would simply have to be put to litigation. And frankly I don't think that's, you know, I don't think that it's current I don't think that this is the right time for that kind of uncertainty. The other position on it would be to either maintain the status quo and just make the hearings take place, which would not be ideal because these are often contested hearings. They are often joined with other hearings in a DUI so for example often a civil suspension hearing will be joined with a suppression hearing for the criminal case. And to wind up in weird situations where you have the criminal cases being completely halted by executive order or administrative order 49, but then, you know, the civil proceedings still going on or something would get complex. So it wouldn't be our preference but I do think that if you know if you have the hearings if you make the hearings take place even during the pandemic and even during administrative order 49. That could work, or just simply leave it as we're going to treat the UI to the same way we treat the UI once, which is to say, no deprivation until you've had your here. I mean, I don't think that's an option as far as having the hearings but maybe I'll turn back around to get the judges input on the concept of a, I'll pick a number 120 days and you lose your license and they are unable to get the hearing in that 120 day period. The license would be reinstated. If I should ask the judge that right now or wait until Marshall is done with the rest of the vaccine. Well, I mean I'll just jump in with my concern about that 120 day and then if there's no hearing then it's just a suspension. I mean I guess my concern with that is just, you know, in addition to the constitutional concerns and the litigation that would necessarily ensue is just sort of the fundamental unfairness we actually see fairly regularly by defendants being successful at civil suspension hearings and having your licenses reinstate, you know, winning the civil suspension hearing it's not at all uncommon. So really what we would be saying then is just on the basis of an arrest alone with no with never, you know, never getting to the point of going into court and proving your case you're going to be denied your ability to drive at a really crucial time. Honestly, when there's a lot of services that have shut down, there's a lot of, you know, it's really difficult to get access to public transportation right now. You'd be saying we're going to take everybody and say, for four months you're not going to have a hearing and then you may never have a hearing at all, maybe that the hearing never predicts place and you just had a four month license suspension without any ever having an ability to go to college and just as a matter of fundamental fairness, I think that's something that would be problematic. Selena go ahead. I think you're still muted representative Cobra and I couldn't hear anything. Sorry, I'm always like simultaneously trying to lower my hand and unmute my mic and forgetting to do one. Yeah, and it's not really a question at just like more, unless you want to add more detail but just, I think, like, I hear your concerns representative alone and but I also think we have this balancing test of like the public safety implications of not doing the suspensions and then the public safety implications of taking potentially vulnerable people and like further isolating them for long periods of time right now with the world the way it is right now and I don't know how we solve that balancing test but that seems to be a critical part of the question we have to weigh here you know. Isn't that what we're trying to do is isolate people. So let's get let's let's get through testimony because we're behind time which and I think it's important to have taken the time but also want to make sure that Marshall gets to the and and the conditions of release in those other sections. So addressing the expungement and conditions of release on the expungements, we've always supported some sort of automation of the expungement system, I don't think that's actually a remedy here though. The reason for that is that they're not going to be able to do any of the judiciary wouldn't be able to implement any sort of automatic expungement system that didn't require staff time and staff work. Anytime, hopefully, within the duration of this pandemic I'm hoping it doesn't last until we have, you know, finally a fully functional electronic system that can do those kinds of things. Really, honestly, from our perspective expungements just are not a priority right now our focus has been on getting people out of facilities and when we, you know, in the last few weeks since I've been on the phone constantly dealing with clients dealing with attorneys. I haven't had anybody asked me about expungement it's been the first like two week period and months maybe even years where nobody's asked me about expungement so we just don't see it as a priority. And we don't have a problem with the sort of suspension of expungements right now with the 120 day extension, so that there's not a huge backlog that hits the judiciary as soon as as far as the extensions of time for bail review and conditions of release review. We don't oppose what's in the bill, which is not to say that we are super supportive of it. You know, we don't love the idea of extending the timeframes for those reviews, but honestly, this bill is more of a reflection of what's actually happening that it is a reflection of sort of what we all desire. And, frankly, we're not seeing too much of a problem. People who want to be heard quickly are being heard quickly, and there's actually really good work going on on the judiciary's part that we support that really requires this, you know, these timeline extensions so for example, bail reviews that are all raising the same issues regarding the existence of coronavirus in facilities and the transmission of coronavirus around facilities are all being transferred and heard in front of the same judge all at one time, which we think is a positive and that's going to lead to more consistent and more accurate results on these on these bail reviews that are all raising the same issues. And that's something you know that sort of consolidation of cases is something that would be impossible if the normal 48 hour I'm sorry timeline was in place. So, we're not opposed at the same time will say that we, you know, are concerned that there will be cases where people will not get access to avail review when they need. So, that's a provision that we're mixed on, but we don't oppose it because really, frankly, we're not sure how else it would work out. I just given the resources that are available to the judiciary, and we do see some benefit in this time. And where things are moving so quickly in giving the judiciary the latitude they need to be able to consolidate these cases and hear these cases in a way that ensures some consistency. So that it's not that people are getting you know, raising the very same issues and getting very disparate results from county to county, and that sort of thing. So, while, you know, the idea of extending the time frames for bail reviews certainly makes me as a defense attorney a little queasy. I think that in this situation for these purposes. It's not at all inappropriate. And I think that actually addresses all of the questions that were in the email. I'm happy to also speak to any questions that were not in the email. Thank you. Committee. Okay, great. I'm not seeing any hands. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. So, David, if you are still available, and we'll take we'll hear from john at the end if we have time. And if not, we do have extra time tomorrow. If folks are available. Okay. Thanks for having me. I actually don't think I have a huge amount to add to what's been discussed. I, and I'll go through just a couple of the points here that affect our office in particular. One is with respect to the extension of the civil timelines the civil case timelines and with that one, you know, theoretically our office could be impacted in the state of Vermont. Theoretically could be impacted with respect to extending the time to file on those. But we do think it is a fair and reasonable thing to do, even if it means that there are some cases might end up getting filed that wouldn't have otherwise because the people who would not be able to sort of navigate this unusual world are most likely the pro se individuals who may have a valid claim to make, and we wouldn't want to see them be treated differently or in effect be treated differently than more sophisticated parties who retain law firm So we think it's a fair thing to do, despite the fact that it may be exposing are the state to a few more cases, although we really don't imagine it would be a dramatic difference. With respect to the DUI timeline issue that's come up a few times on this call as I've testified before our office really doesn't do too many DUIs and so I think I would largely stay out of that thicket. I do think that there are interests on both sides here that are important both the public safety interest in terms of keeping the roads safe from potentially unsafe drivers, but also a very real due process interest that's reflected in the current timelines. And, you know, they may be that there's a solution that can be arrived at with respect to a sort of longer time period after which if there's no hearing a license comes back on a temporary basis I think that's something that is a reasonable but this legislation the proposed legislation is really recognizing the realities that the courts are operating under. And there's a lot of issues out there that are being delayed that have a really great impact on people's lives and I think it's important to, as the judge alluded to. There's a lot of really pressing matters that the courts are trying to balance in a very difficult time so I think just keeping that context in mind is important and as I know the committee knows. With respect to the various reviews and so forth again I think I don't have that much to add to a Judge Greerson and and Attorney Paul had to say it is a reflection of what's happening now as opposed to really like a new policy that's being decided. The courts are doing the best they can and the voters are doing the best they can very difficult circumstances to get to important hearings as quickly as they can. And this legislation is a reasonable reflection of the best efforts that are being made. Thank you David. Any questions for David. I'm not seeing any. Okay, great. Thank you. So John are you are you available I don't see pepper so I understand he's with another committee still perhaps. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, sorry yes I was trying to find my unmute button pepper I believe he's still over there with corrections. I'm going to offer a couple things if you'd like. And some of them. If you don't have time we can certainly be available tomorrow but I actually on the DUI question that you just had. One of the things I think you know that can be pointed out is that the statute actually says that the hearing should be added in certain amount of time, unless good cause, or some other issue comes up and other statute for me but I would think that the pandemic and situation we're in right now would certainly qualifies that but I think the biggest concern and representable long pointed this out are the subsequent DUIs. And you have your the second or anything after the second it's and it's actually not the court that does a suspension it's it's really the DMV that does the automatic suspension so you may. I don't believe that the Senate had anyone in DMV but you may want to ask them, you know what the process is, and how they would, what this would mean for them, going forward. Are you still here? Yeah, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. It was like it was dead dump going. This is like dead air back on the radio days. Keep going. Okay. Okay, so that's that's just with the with the DUI and right now I'm just trying to go down to get those questions that were being posed because I have about 30 documents open in front of me on my computer so if you just give me a second here. I'll get those. Okay. So we're dealing obviously with just section section five, you know the judge handled and explaining extremely well about the 48 hours and the need for that that's that's all as far as right now resources are very difficult. They're being taxed and it would be difficult to have those. And so I think that he's addressed out those issues regarding the timing and the expungement issue again I think I agree 100% it's they're not as Marshall pointed out, I don't believe that there is a huge push for expungements at this point in time. And I my concern is always that when I think somebody suggested it might just making or we should make make expungements automatic. I think it would be not any it would not be a good idea to to make a change like this and haste, especially during this time period, and one in which it's really not as as critical as some of the other matters we're facing. You know, to me and to say to turnies what what our concern is we've been working very closely with do see and with the defense bar and trying to get the detainees that we feel it could be would be able to be sent back into the community. To so that they're not held during the time that they're being detained, and we've been very successful and as you as you've seen we've also has been extremely large dip in the population of incarcerated in that's a lot and having to do with. I think our work with the DOC and with the defense bar so we're continuing to do that and the states turnies are. We have our guidelines actually we've had guidelines up for internally for three, three to four weeks or three weeks now. And those are directive to, especially in dealing with law enforcement and explaining that we do not want you to make it be making a rest where you're going to be detaining people, unless it is something that's absolutely critical. Otherwise they should be cited out which is what has been happening. And so we are trying to do what we can to contribute to the lesson of the population that is currently and the other people that are being held by do see. And we see the driver's license that I think I just explained that, and I will just take questions because I don't see anything else here on these questions that has not already been addressed completely by the previous witnesses. Thank you john committee questions. I am not seeing hands yet. Nope. Okay. Great. So, right, so committee actually we still have more time. Any questions for for judge Gerson, in terms of this bill. Yes. Yeah, yeah, I'll go back to that question or what I raised with Marshall, as far as whether they're, if I could have the judges input on a concept of having a timeframe extended for second or subsequent of 90 days. This is the automatic suspension of licenses, but if there's not a hearing held within 90 days. It would be reinstated automatically. If that's if you could just comment on that kind of concept, Judge Gerson, that'd be helpful. And you're on mute still. Sorry. They gave me time to think. I think it's, I think it's complicating an issue that is complicated enough. And my concern is that not everyone involved in these, and I mentioned it earlier not everyone involved in these process has the benefit of advice from from attorneys. And I think, I think we can still get to these matters in a timely fashion obviously as we go through the dockets. When we come out on the other side of this, I would expect that these kinds of proceedings would have at least the civil suspension would have some level of priority in the criminal docket not necessarily relying DUI because they invariably end up with with can end up with jury trials so that they have a whole separate course. But these are preliminary hearings that I expect would be heard within a reasonable time once that's over. I'm concerned about automatic suspensions. And if I knew better when this was going to end and how long we'll be back to normal. I think I could answer the question more definitively. I'm just concerned. Thank you. Okay, anything else on s 114. Judge Gerson. Oh, yeah, go ahead. It's not it's not a question actually for judge Gerson it was just more committee discussion on that, just some more folks I think it would be helpful to hear from on the DUI piece if right. No, yeah, I'll get to that towards the end because I'm making a list list to certainly. Okay. So since we do a little bit more time. Just Gerson you had started to say that they're maybe some other areas that need attention or at the very least bringing to our attention and possible possible legislation. Yeah, they were actually they're not part of this bill because they were brought to my attention by other folks and primarily this involves the issue of RFA proceedings and issues related to that subject. I've communicated with Sarah Robinson and also to some extent legal aid. And I guess I would start by saying that we are still RFA's are a procedure that is still ongoing. We have not asked to change the timeframes related to those proceedings otherwise they would have been in this bill. We recognize the necessity of getting these types of cases in as early as we can. And so the courts have maintained their regular schedules for these cases. The most part, my understanding is that they are being heard remotely. And that is by telephone. I cannot tell you whether some attempts have not been made to do these by video, I can tell you that the court, in addition to the video systems that are in place. They're continuing to explore ways of having hearings remotely in other words allowing people to appear via Skype or zoom or any other excellent but that's still a work in progress so to a great extent these hearings that are going forward either the individuals are in court, or maybe one individual is in court one party, and the others are calling in. I've had discussion with not only Sarah Robinson but Heather Holter from the Domestic Violence Council about the question of making telephone appearances mandatory and my own opinion and I believe it's reinforced by the domestic rights of these people is that that could be a mistake because not everyone has access to phones, and we don't want to preclude the possibility of someone not having access to a phone so if people want to the courts are still having them appear in court if they want to appear by phone, we're doing it that way so the two issues that came up where if the committee will recall in six H, I think it's H 610 language about once a temporary order is issued when served, the language in the bill I believe calls for the temporary order to continue in force until it is dismissed, or until a final order is served on the defendant. The language that we supported in 610, and we would certainly support it being included, whether it's in this bill or if you're working on some other bill where it would apply. I think it's important, perhaps even more important now than it was originally for this reason that if we get service on the defendant of a temporary order, whether or not they appear in court for that final hearing is more difficult during these times for the reasons I've stated. Somebody may attempt to to call into court and maybe their phone runs out of battery so they're not able to any number of things could happen why someone doesn't appear, but at least these orders would continue in full force and effect. Unless they're dismissed or until the final order is served so we think that that provision is important. Your honor excuse me is, is there any concern about service or I've heard, I've heard mixed things that law enforcement might be concerned about actually serving orders. Yeah. I have heard those comments I've spoken with, I think, John Campbell and I were on the phone, probably a week or seems longer ago than that to talk about that shoe, Roger Mark who. And I think that there are concerns they have been expressed, but my understanding is, and at least what I'm gathering from domestic violence. They're still serving these orders. Now, maybe there will come a point in time when they say no we can't. There's certainly less civil process being served these days and if the stay on foreclosures and eviction goes through there would it be even less civil process so it would still leave. It would be a limited number of orders, and because we've reduced the types of orders that are the issues that hearings that can be scheduled. I would like to think that there always be enough sheriffs and process servers out there to serve these orders but it is it think it's an ongoing concern. Discussed. Right and I, I heard of it as a concern for the officer's safety and contact and. Yeah, right. Yeah, it's not just a matter of numbers being able to do it but it's the, again, it comes right down to the very basic issues we're all discussing and that is social distancing and stay home and going into areas where they don't have any knowledge or understanding and knock on the door, what the circumstances are so there's certainly that but as far as I know this. These orders are still being served. So the issue one of the issues that came up. And I could be wrong but I had understood that you may have heard testimony last week from someone I believe from legal aid who was suggesting that one. Because of issues they had been seeing I don't know what the issues were because I didn't hear the testimony but they were proposing that temporary orders, once granted, would extend throughout the life of this emergency period. I don't know if that is an accurate reflection of the testimony you heard. I'm going to be hearing from legal aid tomorrow I think there was reference but but the person who testified didn't have the exact information so we are going to ask about that tomorrow. And yeah, in my concern would be, as the committee may remember from other hearings other testimony, these temporary orders are granted exparte, in other words without the opportunity for the defendant to respond. In the only way they can respond is to schedule the final hearing so extending an order temporary order and exparte order without opportunity to be heard is not not anything that the judiciary would certainly support. And the second piece, and I'll let obviously Sarah will be testifying and other folks. These cases are still coming in. And I think my sense is from from talking with the judges that they are able to handle these proceedings in other words. I don't want to say in every case but I think every attempt is made when parties come in whether one's on the phone or one in court and they're both there. There is an attempt made to get an agreement to see if the parties can agree on an order. And that will continue in my my sense from talking with the judges about some of these changes is that they at this point feel that they're able to process these cases in a timely fashion and haven't encountered difficulties other than the difficulty sometimes of having one party on the phone and one party in court that presents all kinds of issues with as far as presenting documents exhibits is made more difficult cross examination of witnesses if one party is on the phone and one isn't is extremely difficult so I don't want you the committee to think that it's doesn't have its problems but the judges, I would almost say uniformly you're saying we're able to process these. We're certainly encouraging folks if they don't want to come to court don't want to take a risk to call in and we're not asking for formal written motions to be filed. Someone calls the court that morning and says, I'm afraid to come in, or for whatever reason, can I appear by phone we're granting those requests as liberally as we can so I would just be concerned about trying to change that process. It seems to be working from from our perspective. And I'm glad to come back when, whenever the committee is hearing other witnesses if I can be of assistance but with that other change, as I said to extending temporary orders or at least their validity consistent with 610 we would favor. I would just be very careful about tweaking the system right now, because it seems to be working. Sorry, Selena. I think we, it's cool it's really good to hear that this is working in a timely way and that that these proceedings can continue and I deeply appreciate the other ways it sounds like the judiciary is adapting and prioritizing these hearings we did hear testimony and it might have been from legal and I'm trying to recall. I think it was in this committee about some instances and perhaps this was earlier on where some folks had tried to participate remotely and we're told they had to present in person for these hearings. Is it is it true that at each courthouse now the that option to participate remotely is, has that is that consistent across all 14 counties at this point. Let me just say that at the beginning of this emergency period. Everybody was finding their own way. There is no question that the preference for any judge would be to have the parties in court for some of the reasons I've just explained that cross examination, seeing exhibits admission admission of exhibits is extremely difficult. So I'm certainly not going to say that initially. Some judges may have said look, there are rules for a telephone participation and so you've got to file a motion and to the extent that I think that I've been able to convey the message it is, look, these are different times, different circumstances. We have to accept the fact that some people just are afraid to come to court. They may be except exhibiting symptoms that they don't want to come to court and potentially expose other people. There may be any number of reasons and so we've tried to, as I said be extremely liberal in accommodating those requests, knowing that it is not, you know, perhaps the most. The best way for these proceedings to run but I think with everything going on. There seem to be able to get through these and people get heard and and decisions are made in. So, certainly at the beginning it's a struggle I'm not going to tell you that there might be hiccups now and then, but I think it's working. I would say that I didn't hear the other testimony. You know, folks on the other side may have seen things that I'm not aware of. And that's why I'm glad to come back and address those issues if necessary but I'm sure there were problems at the beginning and we're getting better at it let's put it that way. I like to think. I appreciate that. Thank you. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you very much, Judge Gerson. So, to get back to more what testimony we need on S 114 committee so far on my list, I have a DMV on section five subsection three. Perhaps the ACLU. I don't think they, I'm pretty sure they did not testify on this and then send it to just very but regardless I think it would be helpful on this on the sections that especially section five subsection two. Anybody else in terms of other witnesses. I mean, if we really are considering amending that section, I think, like I said earlier to me it would be a public safety balancing test of like, okay, how, how, what is the danger of having people on the road versus the danger of cutting people off from say food and healthcare at this time because they have no transportation. I think I would want to hear, like, from DPS about just highway safety, how they're handling DUIs right now and, and to be able to make that balancing test but I think it depends how like I also recognize it. I would only want to hear that if we're really quite serious about thinking that we might go this, because I think they're pretty. Their time is pretty precious right now. Okay. Anybody else. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Barbara. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a different square spot probably than you are. So I'm wondering about, I know we're hearing from legal aid about domestic violence stuff, but I'm wondering about hearing about them about any of the. Drivers license or driver suspension issues and the expungement issues since they've been quite involved with that. Okay. Does it make sense to hear from Tom at all at Vermont criminal justice reformers. Like, I don't know if they've been involved in any of this, but. I don't think they happen because I think I'm, we're really have been working off of the witnesses that Senate judiciary had. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And I look into Tom pretty recently and, you know, I'm sure he would welcome the opportunity to weigh in. I think a lot of their focus is on what's happening inside of corrections right now. They're doing a lot of work there. And we already talked about Terry, right? Related to. The other section. Right. And so I know you're in contact with her. I'm sure you're interested in the details of some of the other issues. And then we do have, I'm not sure everybody was on at the time, but we do have somebody coming in. Peering tomorrow on a section one and the landlord concerns. So Terry provided a name for us. So I think that will be helpful. And then we can reassess that section, whether or not. We want to keep it in or whether or not we should see if, if we can. So, okay. So, Madam chair. In relation to section one. I put a request out to. The agency of. Commerce and community development since they do the housing. And the financial supports for that. Regarding Tom and Ken's question. So, I don't know. For the, what supports or what eligibility. Might the. Be within the funding structure. For landlords. Since that. Was a question that had come up before. So hopefully we'll have that, you know, shortly. Because I would imagine we'll all be asked that question at some point. You know, or another. Because there are constituents as well. And then thanks, Selena and Martin. For the DUI question. Because that. Is a very broad. You know, topics. So I think. Even though there are pressures on. DPS, it would be a good idea to hear. Their perspective on that as well. Because it is what it is. Thanks. Right. Thank you. And I'll work with Mike to, to get folks on, even though we have a little bit of time tomorrow, I'm not sure we can get people on such short notice when we would have otherwise been able to, but. It's certainly more challenging right now. So, but, but if not. I think we'll be able to get people on. Certainly next week. So we are. Meeting tomorrow at 1230. So thank you. Thank you, everybody. And.


Hey, how you doing? This is Rich from Rich to Be Live and we are at the resource conference here in Vancouver 2020. I'm here with my very special guest. It's Greg Safrenski. How you doing, Greg? I'm quite fine. Thank you, Richard. Hello to all your viewing public out there. How you doing? We're doing really good. We're really excited to speak with you today. A very nice conference happening, lots of people attending. What do you think about the conference so far? We've been in a ten-year, maybe double bear market for the resource sector and this show I was here yesterday and today. The turnout's spectacular. The energy's come back into this industry. Friday's close and the pressure metals market was like Platinum was up 6%. Platinum was up another $164 today. Silver's over 18 bucks. Gold's building a base at $1556. I mean, this is it. This is the beginning of a bull market for the resource sector. Because you predicted that. You predicted the crash of the cannabis sector correctly and you correctly predicted the resurrection of the resource sector. So you believe that this market will continue to melt up for resources? It's really a delayed response. Usually the longest bear market we had up until this one was seven years long. I think the cannabis and the Bitcoin thing had a little bit to do with it. But what you've done is orphaned a key industry in the world. So by not investing in these stocks and we are at the bottom still, it's an excellent time to enter this market. If you're just even a newbie, you can catch some fine wins. It's bent up demand. A ten-year bear market is unprecedented. And then all of a sudden boom, Platinum goes up like, I guess it's up like 10% since Friday. And Copper is very strong. Nickel's very strong at $630. Looks like it's building a base there. This is the opportunity you can wait your whole lifetime for and it's happening right now. Let's talk a little bit about Montoro Resources. Any news on Montoro Resources? Anything happening? Anything exciting coming around the corner? Yes, well right now we're doing a financing, a three and a half cents with a five-cent two-year warrant for those people who are already shareholders or sophisticated investors. They can participate that. But we've got a special clause now that if you're an existing shareholder, you don't have to be a sophisticated investor, you can join in in this financing. It's a delightful financing because you've got a three and a half-cent common and a warrant that's at five cents for two years. So you got yourself a wide open option there. Two ways to score. So if there's anything that you wanted investors to know about Montoro Resources that are either at the conference or watching all over the world before we say goodbye, what would it be? Look folks, it takes a long time for a truth to be accepted as fact. And the facts are the Montoro's Peacore's Lake Anomaly is going to be the biggest massive magnetic sulfide discovery in our lifetime. It's all the data shows that can show you quite clearly on our data and I've showed you at previous shows that the biggest discovery in Canada in the last 50 years was the discovery of Dubai Diamond Fields of Boise Bay Jeepers that stock went from 30 cents to 156 dollars a share. Recently we had Garibaldi, they hit massive magnetic sulfides. The stock went from eight cents to five bucks. This one, the size of this magnetic and conductive anomaly, it's five kilometers long, two kilometers across, four kilometers deep.  And like I said, it takes a long time for a truth to be accepted as fact. And the fact is Montoro's got it. The biggest score you'll ever see. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Greg. Have yourself a great conference. I appreciate seeing you once again. Guys, Greg Zafrenski, Montoro Resources, have yourselves a nice day.


Of the Music and Enlightenment Festival, really what is it for or what is it all about? Well, I think like a lot of conferences and festivals that are based in spirituality, there's just a huge opening and a huge opportunity and a very strong synergy of everyone coming together with a single purpose and then letting everything be orchestrated through that, given through that. So I say the ideal, the top types of these experiences are, you could call them peak experiences where there's a total let go and there's giving over to the spirit and saying, here is your festival, you guide the festival, you orchestrate the festival. And so when I've been to these kind of festivals, the spontaneity, the lightness, the laughter, the presence and the spaciousness, they're all there and everything just flows so beautifully and everybody's just got big smiles on their faces, smiling for no reason and have this look like, oh my gosh, this is so wonderful. I'm so grateful that I'm here, I'm so grateful I'm a part of it and there's a lot of flow and flexibility in that because it's really guided by the spirit, it's not always extremely structured and if there is some life structure, then there's always an openness for something to pop through that really needs to come through. So that's what I enjoy about these festivals and I think pretty much these are the only kind of festivals I go to anymore because it's more of an extension of how I feel in my heart and it's an extension of how my life is.


Hey guys, it's Nate, A.K. The Foot Accountant. Welcome back to the channel. We are here today to talk about team of the season LaLiga and icon swaps confirmed for Monday. Both of those two things. I wanna talk about these Tots cards that came out yesterday. I think EA did the juice on a decent amount of these. I was a little negative looking at the cards before, but now when I'm looking back at them, there are some cards that EA really juiced up really well and I wanna give credit where credit is due because I think EA did a good job on some of these LaLiga Tots cards. But also I wanna talk about the SBC content being just kind of average again. Objectives looking really good and also focus on today, what could happen with these Tots card prices? What's gonna happen with the rest of the market? Because I think that we could be entering in an area where there might be a bit of drop off on the market with brand new Tots cards coming out. Of course, people are kind of finishing their weekend leagues later in today on Saturday into Sunday. Just talk about where this market could be going because a lot of stuff is sort of high. Some stuff dropped off yesterday and I wanna talk about all of that. But first things first, let's take a look at this new Tots squad. I think EA did a decent job with these upgrades. Now the main man himself, the young, is the one that we have to talk about today because they gave this man a huge, huge stat boost. 94 rated team in the season's card, getting a plus, what is that? A plus seven overall, plus 10 pace, 10 defense, 17 shooting, four passing, six dribbling, and 12 physical. Now that, EA Sports, is a team of the season boost right there on that card. He has extinct the 2.1 million coins. You know, Ben's the most extinct as well. I don't think it's gonna stay that way that long. We'll talk about that a little bit too, but I mean, some of these prices today were very interesting to follow on the market. They all started pretty high and they all kind of went back down. There were a couple fluctuations in the first hour, but for the most part, a lot of these cards started high, kind of kept going low even after lightning rounds. We didn't even see a really a rise between the second and third and then fourth hour of these cards being in packs. They just kind of kept going downwards in price. Now some of them have started to bounce back. Vasquez was down at 415K, he's back to 445. I watched Alba go from 450 to like 500. Now he's back down to 465. Eurente was like 370, he went back to 400. Now he's 398, so he's still chilling there. These cards are fluctuating a decent amount, but I think a lot of people this weekend were just so set with their Premier League teams that there really wasn't a huge amount of demand for these cards and that's why you kept seeing them drop off. Now I think they're all gonna go lower into this weekend and as we go through the next couple of days into the week of course, but I think the rest of the market could be in for a sell-off today as well. I mean, you look at some of the Tots Premier League cards. Sun was 2.35 mil before LaLiga Tots was released. He is now down to 2.19. Bruno was 2.8 at one point, he's 2.67. De Bruyne was down some today. I really think that a lot of this Tots card market and some of your out of pack special cards that got really high this weekend, I think you're gonna see a decent market drop off. I still think this market has a lot of coins and is gonna be able to sustain itself. I don't think we're gonna really see a market crash, but since the SBC content has just been average and okay, I do think people will be selling some cards off because they wanna get their coins to participate in stuff. We have icon swaps coming up on Monday. That's gonna be a focus for a lot of people too. Last year we had a full-blown crash, but that was because the upgrade packs they were releasing were like 30,000 coins apiece and EA didn't drain as many coins off the market last week. Last year, as they did last week, this year during Prem Tots. So I still think this market is pretty supplied, pretty plentiful. There are coins on this game, but I just think you're gonna see the market drop off because again, all these new Tots cards that came onto the market that are basically substitute items for the Prem Tots that we had last week. So Rodrigo and DeYoung today in the SBCs, I don't understand the showdown stuff happening right now. I mean, okay, it's kind of cool. These are both decent cards, a little overpriced though in my opinion, right? Rodrigo looks decent. He's got that three-star. Is it skill moves or three-star? Week foot is what it is. I mean, his record breaker, of course, objective card has that four-star, four-star, so that's kind of an L. And then Marcelo is just overpriced. The SBCs for the past week have just been bad. They really have been. Telemans, like, whatever. Marcelo is overpriced in my opinion. For the card that you get, it is kind of a good card. And if you think about how much would this be on the market, this card would probably still be like 650 to 700,000 coins if you had a Tots card on the market. But this card in itself, it seems like it's just purely based on a lot of hype. And you saw a lot of movements today with other left-backs like Ferlan Mendi. I want to talk about that as well. One place where EA is still doing good is the objective section, man. The Esau card looks interesting. Really good stats, of course. The body type in game, he's six foot four, I believe. So that's kind of an interesting one. And then Calvario had a huge, like plus 40-something pace, I believe, to get this guy up to 84 pace. That card actually looks pretty decent if you're really going to grind, I mean, it's squad battles. So if you really want to grind it in squad battles, or maybe this upcoming week with icon swaps coming out, whatever sort of squad battles grind they have you do, you might be able to combine some of this stuff with icon swaps and maybe get both those cards done. So that'll be something we'll look at later on today. But again, these Tots cards are very, very interesting to follow. It was easy to make coins yesterday on Friday. There was a lot of buyback on stuff that was Panic sold. I bought a Davies at 1.05, sold it at 1.18. I bought a Vieira at one, I bought two Vieiras, one at 9.80, one at 9.75, sold one of those at 1.09. I bought a Juan Bessaca at 822,000 coins, sold it at 8.97. This freeze money was bought at 1.09. Now I did kind of break even slash lose a little bit on these Vasquez. I bought two of them at like 4.35, 4.37, sold one at 4.60, sold one at 4.26 as he has been bouncing around. And then that was all the flips from technically yesterday. Some of this stuff was from like Thursday flips. So I'm just gonna clear that all out and restart fresh. I got this Vieira still. You know, that's not gonna be a huge flip but maybe like 20, 30 K coins on that. Yeah, your LaLiga cards had a lot of fluctuation as well. And I wanna talk about that like this Ansu Fati, that was a good bid price right there. You know, the market is kind of like dead in a sense too that you can get a lot of great bid prices to be completely honest with you on some of these cards. Now we saw a lot of supply, one, two, five. They're just sitting there for swires. Okay, I got bought. You're seeing a lot of, some of these cards had insane supply. Suarez had pages upon pages today. One interesting thing that I noted was the Suarez Tots card was actually more supplied on the market than the Jordy Alba Tots card which was very interesting watching the Suarez. Now I know this Suarez has a lot of hype. And now that we are in the evening he has obviously gotten pretty rare, chilling at like 1.34 it looks like, 1.33 on this market. So, you know, I think things could go a couple different ways today. I think there are some interesting cards that people wanna try out and you might see them bounce back up into the morning. I'm kinda keeping an eye on this Messi just in case he goes somewhere. If I see this Messi a couple undercuts, you know, I might get interested because this card is very interesting for people and the fact that Messi finally has a card with good stamina, 91 stamina on this Messi. They dropped the pace. They added one shooting from his team of the year. They dropped one passing but they added, what is it like, seven physical I think they added and 91 stamina. So this is, it's very interesting how EA did this with Tots cards. I think we wanted more pace on this Messi but the stamina boost makes it very interesting. Also him being central. So, that's kind of an interesting one of the boosts that we saw today. Again, look at the rest of this team. Benzema and Suarez are very, very similar cards. Benzema is extinct at 1.1 mil. I was looking back at a video from last year and looking at some of these cards' prices and I really think that Benzema and Suarez are so close in price. It's really almost identical to how it was last year. Last year the cards had better stats but Benzema was right around 1.1 mil first day and Suarez is about 1.4 to 1.5 and then they, like Benzema day two on Saturday night was like 900,000 coins. So I do think that you will see a drop off on these cards a decent amount. I mean, this is the example that I was using today. How is this card with a plus two overall rating and then plus five, plus six is, this card is 195,000 coins and this one is extinct at 1.1 mil. Basically a million coin difference almost between these two versions. It doesn't make sense to me. I think that Benzema Tots card is gonna drop. I think Suarez is gonna drop. So I do think almost all of these cards are gonna drop and it's gonna make them really, really affordable which is probably gonna bring some of the Prem Tots down with it. So again, if you sold these guys either earlier tonight on Friday night or on Friday morning was honestly like the peak for a lot of these cards. Now they're still up and I think they have room to drop more today but that was kind of the peak for a lot of this stuff. Now out of pack specials that were La Liga kind of bounced around today a lot because one specific thing we saw was there was a EA live stream. If you were watching live on my Twitch stream EA was doing on their Spanish YouTube channel.  So Furland Mendy Foot Birthday was a card that moved around a lot today. Same with Ansu Fati. Furland Mendy was about 800 and I think he was like eight, maybe 20 or 830 Friday morning heading into the content, right? That's where this card was at. He was right around, yeah, 850. Okay, maybe a little higher than 820. It was like 850 to 860. He spiked to a million coins. When people saw Varan released in the game and Kunde, they went out and they bought this guy to a mill and then all of a sudden we had the Marcello SBC. This guy dropped all the way back down to 800,000 coins which in my opinion was kind of a buy but I think he's gonna hang around this 800K range since Marcello is out. That's really kind of hurting his demand and his hype I guess you could say is because people could just go out and do Marcello and then we also have a Jordy Abelkarten team that's not bad. So that Furland Mendy moved around a lot today. Some of your specials are still pretty high. Inaki Williams was 175, he's 200K. Lucas is 900,000 coins. So if you have out of pack specials in your team, I would consider getting him out because again, this is what happens every single year during the season is that we get more and more Tots cards coming out in this game and people use those, pack those and end up putting those in their team over the older cards and some of these older out of pack specials and you just see a lot of the market continue to kind of drop off. So like this Ansu Fati cards, 1.25 million coins right now. He was like 1.19, 1.2 just a little under that. He boomed right up to 1.5 when DeYoung was released, when the Messi was released. People saw those links to the Barcelona in a squad and they just, they bought that card up. Now, Des was an interesting one today. He kind of got bought up and then he's been sold back down again. So I think the market as a whole is really gonna get sold off this weekend. Now, does Icon Swaps coming on Monday affect this market at all? Does that really make people wanna sell cards? I really don't know if Icon Swaps itself makes people want to sell cards, but I do think that what Icon Swaps doing if it's released is that polls, I guess people away from doing SBCs for maybe doing upgrade packs and for maybe trying cards out that are on the market and kind of puts their mindset in a gameplay mode and objective mode. So we will see what comes out with Swaps. Nothing's really added to the code yet. You might wanna watch your Icon Moments cards this weekend. You might see a little bit of extra selling on those potentially, just a little bit because people might be worried that their Icon they have in their team might be one that gets in to the Icon Swaps set three, which hopefully EA Sports is pretty juiced up and pretty rocking because that would be something that we all wanna see. But again, today on Content for Saturday, I think EA has a big decision to make. Are they gonna keep Lolliga team of the season just like they did for Prem Tots?  I don't know. Last week, I believe we had the showdown. Was it on day two? And we had a flashback on day one as well. So it almost looks like we're starting the same way. Maybe they're doing a flashback on day one every single Friday. I don't know. I hope not. I kind of want more Tots player SBCs. So we will see if they do something along those lines today or maybe like a Tots moments SBC. Last year on Saturday, the day after we got a Anzhu Fati card. That was a card that a lot of people wanted a version of Anzhu Fati in the game and that was a big SBC. So we could get some sort of SBC today that would make the market move a little bit. But as it sits right now, I don't really know what to expect in that department today. The SBCs have been very underwhelming. If you do want to do upgrade packs for this team of cards, that is in packs. I will say 100% stock up on those gold rares because as we look at them right now, I believe gold rares are still around discard. You could basically get these guys right now at discard. So if you want to go full ham, you want to go unassigned, 700 coins are below for a lot of these cards. Looks like you can win them on bid. And that could be either an investment for you because I think these cards will rise back up a little bit into the week as we have the upgrade packs out. I'm expecting the exact same schedule of upgrades probably on Sunday, right? Today's Saturday, tomorrow and Sunday we'll get those upgrade packs. They'll be pushed out. We'll have the same ones that we had for Prem and that will be just fine at Dandy. So that's my opinion on what I see there. And again, also today on Saturday, not really content-wise, we are expecting more lightning rounds and we've seen that, we've seen this trend both of the last two weeks with Community and with the EPL team this season is that some cards get sold off into 6 p.m. on Saturday because people are afraid of them getting packed. They're afraid of that supply. And if it's a hype card that people are wanting to use and try out, a lot of times it gets bought back up because people, they see that there's no supply coming on the market with lightning rounds. I mean, what a crazy thing to have on day one of your promo for a new team in the season squad and you're on PlayStation, the 100K and the 125K lightning rounds didn't even sell out. Crazy, crazy that those did not sell out today. I mean, I thought they would. I know the team isn't like that incredible. Like it's a solid team. There are some juiced cards in here, but the fact that we didn't have lightning rounds sell out twice, not just once, but twice earlier today on Friday was kind of crazy. So I think that is just a testament to maybe where people are at in this game right now not wanting to really spend coins. And you know, you can get great cards from just doing objectives, right? So maybe people are just saying, hey, I don't actually want to put money on this game. It's not really worth it for me when I can just go grind some pretty dope cards through objectives and maybe spam upgrade packs during the week and pack some of these guys then. But yeah, I know a lot of you guys may have questions like when to sell stuff. I really think that this weekend is gonna be kind of a high point. I know this market still has coins and I think it's gonna be a great opportunity to trade today, but I do think you are gonna see some dips and prices even on these cards, right? I mean, I was watching this Gerente card today and I was like, he was 580K. I was like, yeah, maybe he'll go down to 500,000 coins. And then he kept getting undercut. He kept getting undercut, he went all the way down to 370K. It's just, it's a mixture of like these cards are maybe, I think one thing also why you saw these cards drop today is because people were just, they're content. They just got, you know, from their prem tots guaranteed or from their weak and legal rewards or from opening upgrade packs in the last couple days. They just got used to having prem tots cards on their teams, right? They just got the Rubendias, they just got their Cancelo. So there wasn't as much, you know, I guess, advantage or they didn't have a chance to play with some of their brand new cards yet from the Premier League team this season, which is maybe why you didn't see these Laodiga cards really bounce around that much. Cause you know, people are just waiting and say, let me play my weak only with my brand new cards before I move on to something different. That could be sort of the situation that we saw or that we are seeing right now in this game too. But these tots cards are going to be cheap. I know the stats are pretty good, but these cards, as it always is, they're going to drop off into the week. Your rent is probably going to be in the 300s. Kunde is going to be low 200s. Like these Laodiga tots cards are going to be cheaper than the prem for sure. And it's going to be interesting, right? Because it's going to bring the whole market down with it, in my opinion, because these cards have really good stats and they're going to be pretty cheap. So that's kind of how I'm feeling right now about the market in this game today. SBC fodder will always do a check on this. It's still low, right? It honestly hasn't moved that much, in all honesty. I mean, 84s are still cheap, 85s are still cheap, 86s are still pretty low, 89s are low. Where's my boy Kula Bali? I always check him on the 88 rated situation. He's not even showing up here, but 88 to like 28,000 coins. So yes, low, not insanely low. Illicit is the cheapest 91 rated card. That's kind of a situation, actually. That's pretty weird. And Jared Brenno is the cheapest 90 rated card as well. That's kind of crazy that these TOTS cards are also impacting the SBC fodder market in the way that they are, some of the cheapest players by rating. But I really don't know if I would invest in fodder this week, unless I was to do like an 83 or an 84 squad investment, put some of those in my club, because maybe 85s too, because those are really the ones that did well last week, you know, with some of the small packs that we had like the guaranteed secondary league TOTS squad, which we saw the Saudi league in packs. You know, you saw guys like Ro Moreno, take a hit in price today. So if I was gonna do any sort of fodder investing, I would probably focus on that lower tier, the 83s, the 84s, the 85s. By the way, this guy's card is really, really good. I packed him red and he's insane. So yeah, good luck with your week in league, boys. I know that you guys are, you may be grinding week in league right now in hopes of packing that red Messi next week. That's gonna be on a lot of people's minds. 439 for Messi. Yeah, I think people are gonna have a lot of this Messi on their minds. Diyoung, it's gonna be Diyoung, Messi, maybe the Varan, and that Vasquez card, right? I wanna talk about this card for a moment. People are comparing this guy to Atal. They're comparing him to Atal, a really nice boost. He looks so well-rounded. Four star, four star, high, high work rates. I subbed this guy on his center mid and he was fantastic. 99 attack positioning, really good agility balance. 99 stamina, 92 aggression with a decent amount, actually not a lot of trades, but just the stats, man, 99 shop power as well. This card is gonna make some waves this week on the market as well. So that's gonna be an interesting one to watch. You know, Llorente is kind of a cheat beast too. The card looks really good and people are gonna remember how he was earlier on in the year. So definitely some cool cards in here. Carrasco looks really cracked as well. Again, people remember him from earlier on this year with his Informs, stuff like that. So a pretty popular card there. So I know this squad for some people was not as hype and this team in general is not as hype, but I think it's still pretty cool, right? Some of the stat boosts that we had in here work kind of nice. They work kind of nice. And I think EA could have done better in some areas, but like this Messi card with the stamina, I would have loved to see him get more pace obviously, but that stamina boost in the central position is interesting. They finally did some skill moving week foot upgrades like on the Suarez card who has just gotten so rare tonight, man. It's crazy. To see how rare some of these guys get at night, but I think you will see some people start listing cards up and these prices will drop over the weekend. So if there's any of these LaLiga Tots cards that you want for your team, I'll be holding off on those for sure until like that Tuesday, Wednesday timeframe later on this week. But I'm really hoping that EA drops us banger SPC content today and that we have a good Saturday in this game, man. I'll be live on Twitch of course, right around the content drop, talking about all the stuff, playing some Week in League and making some coins as well and getting prepared for a big day on Sunday with the upgrade pack. So that's kind of my plan for today on Saturday. If you wanna get involved, link down is down below in the description. Let me know what you did yesterday. Did you open packs? Did you trade? Did you play Week in League? Let me know what your guys' thought process is right now. Is it FIFA? Are you content with the Premier League Tots cards you just got? Do you wanna try out any of these LaLiga Tots cards? I just wanna kind of feel where the vibe is. So let me know down in the comments what your motivating factors are right now in this game. If you did enjoy it, smash a thumbs up. Already said comment down below. I always do that, man. I say comment down below, just cause it's my normal thing. And I already said it beforehand. Anyways, subscribe to the channel if you are new. It's been Nate The Photo Count. Have your guys a great weekend. I'll see you tomorrow. Peace out.