So Charmaine if you could mention that we're gonna do comment first. Oh yours isn't out? Oh, thank goodness. Don't forget the mic is live. I'm doing okay. It would definitely not be work. No, I just thought you two, they know about it. What? Our event assembly. Yeah, no, I just wanted you to know. This is one I won't make this time. I know it's too much in a row. Yeah, I suppose we're working on a book. So thank you. All right, two full days. Thank you so much. We had our fall break last week. Oh, I appreciate it. Is that Dominique and stuff? Is that Stephanie? Yes, good. So we definitely have to, oh, I don't feel too bad. Maybe Eliza didn't follow it. If you want to make public comment or sign ups, sheets over here. Yes, silly. I said that. It would be nice. Wait, wait, wait. Charmaine? Gendis? Yeah. Oh, I did get one. William's getting it. Oh, he's bringing it in. Okay. Good evening. It is 701. So let's get started. I'm Charmaine McKissick-Melton co-chair and we'd of course like to read our statement as we always do at the beginning of every meeting. We'd like to welcome and thank, first of all, the committee for serving and thank you to the public for coming and sharing. This is a public inclusive and educational project for all. And we put a high priority on gathering as much public input as possible. As you can see from our committee members, we've assembled an excellent group that represents a cross section of our community, both young, old, different races and genders from across the city and county. We do expect our discussions to be passionate and energetic, but also civil and constructive. At every meeting, we have an invited speaker who's an expert on some aspect of our charge. We will also have time for public comment and committee discussion. This will be the last meeting in these chambers. As a reminder, this process is not meant to address the rights or the wrongs of how the statute came down. Our charge is very specific and forward looking and is meant to lead to a final report with recommendations. So I'll read those charges and then we'll get ready for a public comment tonight before our speaker. Number one, engage the Durham community in an expansive and transparent public process regarding public monuments and other remnants of the Confederacy present in Durham. Number two, propose to the county commission a plan of dispensation for the Confederate monument torn down outside of the old courthouse as well as the base of that monument that remains. Number three, catalog all known Confederate monuments and other remnants of the Confederacy or the history of enslavement existing in Durham. And four, propose the city council and county commission as appropriate a plan for dispensation of such monuments and remnants. And lastly five, in addition to committee may choose at its discretion to solicit recommendations from the public for people events locations missing from Durham's historical narrative to be recognized in future public efforts. So again, thank you committee for serving. It's been a few months that we've all been working together. And we want to thank the Durham community for coming out to all of our various public meetings and hearing from the diverse forces. So we'll start now with public comment before we have our speaker for tonight. Just to have the committee members introduce each other. Oh, I'm sorry. I got that. Yeah. I want to start down with this. Good evening. My name is Dominique Walker. I've been a resident here in Durham County for the past three, four years. I was a graduate student of North Carolina Central University. Hello, I'm Elizabeth Sappenfield. I'm the former president of Preservation Durham, which is the citywide nonprofit historic preservation organization. I'm a Raleigh native and I've lived in Durham for 10 years. Hi, my name's Deanne Varose. I'm an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke. And my research focuses on US social policy with an emphasis on higher education. My name is William O'Quinn. I'm a native of Durham. My family's been here for over 200 years.  I'm a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp in Durham. I'm a resident of North Carolina Central University in Durham. I've been at camp and also the North Carolina Division Sons of Confederate Veterans as well as a reenactor in the company I have. Six North Carolina, which happened to be the same company and regiment as my great-great-grandfather and his brothers. Charmaine McKissick-Melton, associate professor of mass communication at North Carolina Central University and a native of Durham. Good evening. I'm Susanna Lee. I teach history at North Carolina State University and I live in Durham. Hi, I'm Barbara Lau. I'm the director of the Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice and the Pauli Murray Project at the Duke Human Rights Center. I teach about Durham history and I've lived here for 20 years. Hi, I'm Watson Jenison. I've been a resident since 2006. I'm a professor of history at UNC Greensboro. My name is Robin Kirk. I'm the co-chair with my colleague Dr. Charmaine McKissick-Melton. I teach at Duke University and I am a human rights person. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Diane Ford. I am a local filmmaker here based in Durham. So I think if there's anyone else who would like to sign up for public comment, if you could do so at this time. Dominique over there has the sign ups just so that we know who you are and we can also contact you later when we finish our report. I think my colleague has some of the people signed up. We had to change a little bit the format of today's meeting because our speaker had a class. So he will be coming a little bit after 7.30 and then we'll sort of flipping the order here. So who is the first person for me? First person is Gary Foreman. And if you could make sure to keep it to three minutes, that would be great. Yes. My name is Gary Foreman. I have lived in and loved Durham for over 45 years and I have attended a good many of your excellent meetings. This evening I wish to offer brief comment on the two prominent here most often heard reasons for actually restoring the monument. One being good law and order and the other being use of public property and funds. In addition, I have a specific proposal that I would like to discuss law and order. History has always worked well for those formulating what is considered good law and order, but not so much for those subject to it. And our history here, the institutions of slavery and the Jim Crow era were maintained by what was considered good law and order. Caused much suffering and untold numbers of Afro-Americans. And now comes today with this monument issue and with its own regulations to maintain good law and order. I submit that having such awful precedence in our history for good law and order that such laws as this that's been shoved on us by Raleigh just a few years ago should be considered very carefully with caution for our community. Public property and funds, that phrase implies the approval of the public through democratic representation and through voting. In our history also, there has been vicious, even lethal repression of the voting rights of Afro-Americans using good law and order. By 1940, for example, only about 3% of Afro-Americans in the south were registered down from about around 90% in some states. This most certainly in 1924 when the statue was erected, our Afro-American community here in Durham was suffering and had little of anything to officially say about anything including usage of public property and public funds. Therefore, any quote public approvals for the monument were just not representative of our community. My proposal, it is perhaps altogether right that voices persist for remembering the history, the history of deep suffering that southern people endured during the war. And a monument may properly memorialize that suffering, but our Afro-American community also suffered then and was suffering also in 1924. That suffering is also part of our history. Why should our community memorialize the one and not the other? I propose that upon the possible restoration of the monument, that an effort be made to acknowledge and to accept this part of our history and suffering. I suggest a plaque be added to the display. The wording on that plaque would be from two specific city ordinances that existed during the time the monument was erected. Two ordinances that evidence historically just how racially conflicted our community was. One is from the 1928 city ordinances chapter 15 section 21 is titled separation of races and restaurants and it's pretty graphic. This action, this plaque that I'm proposing would be considered an acknowledgement of the suffering of our entire community with this issue. It would not be an admission or reckoning about guilt and hypocrisy that would serve as a catharsis for us all. A stimulus for all to wonder about and judge how far we have come and possibly how much farther we need to go to immediately resolve issues of race in our community. Further, such an action would be moving towards what Lincoln exhorted us all to do with one another and that I maintain this committee should do with its task. And that is to proceed with malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right that God gives us to see the right. Thank you. Next speaker is Thomas Beach. Tonight I'd like to talk about the dedication of the Memorial. It was back in May 10th of 1924 I think it was presentation the Memorial was by done by Judge R. H. Sykes presiding officer. The unveiling was Mrs. Jeanine Jenny Webb Crabtree. The acceptance of the Memorial was from Mayor J. M. Manning. A benediction was given by Reverend J. T. Bailey chaplain of the RF web camp. That's the picture of those camp members that were alive at the time. In the afternoon the veterans then went down to Maplewood Cemetery where they ended the day by paying tribute to the soldiers who were buried there from their troop. They gave them a gun salute and they ended with a prayer that day. Let me tell you what the mayor had to say about this this monument. This day May 10th has been set aside by the entire Southland to honor the memory of the Confederate soldier whether living or dead. The men who with his heroic patriotism followed the destinies of Lee and Jackson men who fought for the cause they knew was right. The great principles of states rights as enunciated in the Constitution of the United States and was and is now the bulwark of American liberty. Judge Sykes as mayor of the city I accept for the county of and the city of Durham this monument as a slight token. Though somewhat delayed of the admiration, love and respect which our people hold for the Confederate soldier. The memorial was then unveiled amid the applause of the multitude by Mrs. Jenny Web Crabtree and the exercise closed with a prayer by a Reverend J. T. Bailey chaplain of the RF web camp of veterans. Later they went out to a lunch or dinner rather at the YMCA about 150 people were in attendance. Now a lot of folks call Confederate soldiers traders they weren't. The United States Senate and the Congress confirmed that they were actually US veterans. There were no more traders than their grandfathers, their grand uncles, their grand cousins who fought in the American Revolution. Some called them traders had they lost they probably all would have been hung and we'd be. I don't know probably speaking Native American language right now because who knows what would have happened. The point of all this is that this is patriotism. It was not white supremacy. It was not bigotry. It was not a racial slur. It was not slavery. Clearly the belief that this was about states rights versus slavery is well known all the way back to 1924. You cannot rewrite history to make it fit your narrative for today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The last public comment we have listed today is George Robertson. Robeson, excuse me. Good afternoon. Make sure the mic is up so that we can hear me now. Yeah. I have one question. How many of you on this council on this bench on this committee has actually read a hard copy of the 13th Amendment by a show of hands? How many have you? So therefore you know that no state statue, legislative statue can see the 13th Amendment. It says that no Confederate flag, statue, or badges of honor shall be on any government, state, or municipal property, period. Now with God so far they accept it or not, they mean they broke the law. And as the judge always tells my people, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  I didn't come here, but I had to because I sold it and put some steps and stuff up there for the Confederate monument. And I'm not going to have it. I would keep on break, keep on sipping the plane. And I will have. I would move for impeachment for every individual who keeps talking about leaving it there, period. I'm done with it. Thank you very much. We are still waiting for our speaker. So if you would like to make a public comment. This is a great time. name and contact information that would be wonderful. The last speaker spoke of Maplewood Cemetery, can you hear me there? I mentioned that there were two city ordinances in existence regarding race in 1924. I mentioned the one about separation of races and restaurants. The other is from the 1914 city ordinance to Chapter 4, Section 1. It reads, the city cemetery, known as Maplewood Cemetery, shall be used exclusively for the burial of white persons. Our next speaker is Kimberley Israel. Well, said my name is Kimberley Israel. Try to be coherent since I didn't know I was going to speak tonight. But one of the previous speakers mentioned the idea of states' rights as opposed to slavery. But it's also fairly well documented that during the Civil War, the states' right that the Confederacy was concerned about was both the right to own other human beings as slaves and the rights to force the northern states to cooperate with southern slavery. And I don't question the fact that people may have relatives who fought in the Confederacy and saw themselves as serving their country. But at the same time, I don't think we can deny that they were fighting for the wrong cause. And it's not a cause that is going to unite Durham here and now. Undoubtedly, there were also people in Germany in World War II who were just fighting for their country and maybe didn't support the Nazis. But we still don't put up statues of them. And so I think that in order to move forward, it's fine to have some of those monuments in a historical context for educational purposes. People said it's important not to forget our history, and that's certainly true. But at the same time, we shouldn't have those monuments putting up the Confederacy as something to be remembered publicly with affection. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. And one more public comment tonight from Anseldow. Hi, my name is Anseldow. I've lived in Durham for a year and a half, and I'm a UNC graduate of my distance. Good. I want to speak about what white supremacy was and what white supremacy is in North Carolina.  After the antebellum era, after the Civil War, white supremacy continued in the Jim Crow era with white people continuing to publicly dominate and control the lives of people of color. After the end of the Jim Crow era, white supremacy continued. And I think that this monument is a lasting vestige of white supremacy. It represents the power that white people have to publicly represent themselves as heroes and as powerful and benevolent leaders of society. To anyone who doesn't believe in what the Confederacy said for in slavery and oppression, the monument is disgusting. It's a physical representation of terror and of violence, and I don't think it has any place in public in Durham. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm very pleased to introduce our speaker for today, Scott Holmes, who is an assistant professor of law at North Carolina Central, where he supervises the Civil Litigation Clinic and teaches trial practice, appellate advocacy, criminal procedure, legal problems of the poor, and restorative justice. His clinic handles civil matters related to prison conditions, warehousing, police misconduct and evictions. His research and writing focus on how racial inequity impacts the rule of law. Before joining the faculty, he was a partner at the law firm, at the, at the Lachemi law firm, where he handled serious criminal cases in state and federal court at trial and on appeal. As some of you also know, he has represented the individuals who are accused of taking down both the Durham and the Silent Sam statues. And he's come to us to talk a little bit about his views on the legality of the statue. So please join me in welcoming Scott Holmes. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you all tonight about some of the law or. It really is an honor to get to speak to you and share some thoughts. I hope they're helpful to you in your consideration about what to do with what's left of the monument here in Durham. The North Carolina Constitution has a couple of provisions that have to do with, one has to do with treason and loyalty to the United States government. And the other has to do with equal protection of the law and a prohibition on race discrimination. Neither of these provisions have been applied in the specific context of monuments. But there is a strong argument I urge upon you and will may urge upon other folks that monument, the Confederate monument constitutes government speech. And that is that is accepted constitutional law that monuments erected in public places, particularly a courthouse steps and city parks, university campuses constitute government speech. And the government isn't restricted in its speech. There are no time manner place restrictions on the government, the way the government can impose on private speakers. But there are some limits to government speech. The one we know most about arises from the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing or preferring religion or preferring one religion over another. And there is good constitutional law and good constitutional methods for the courts to analyze government speech that has to do with religion. I there there's reason to believe in our law that government speech is bounded not only by establishment clause, but it's also bounded by other important parts of our Constitution. That government speech is and should be limited by being like the Equal Protection Clause and the prohibitions against race discrimination and the prohibition against actions which support or celebrate treason. And so the same way that the government cannot prefer one religion over another, it cannot also endorse principles that celebrate racism, a history of racism, and the secession of the Confederacy from the Union. Another way to think about that is that our Constitution, our federal Constitution under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment, announced a strong policy against slavery, against racism, and against the secession of the states to defend slavery. And therefore, if the government is going to engage in speech, the last thing it should do is celebrate that badges and incidents of slavery in the form of a Confederate soldier at our courthouse steps. And so I believe there is a strong legal argument, without any precedent, because this hasn't been well litigated yet, that Confederate monuments constitute government hate speech and are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause and under our state Constitution, the law, the land clause, and the prohibition against racial discrimination. I find some support for this idea that the Equal Protection Clause is an outer limit to government speech. In this case called Pleasant Grove, City of Pleasant Grove versus Sumum, and that case was an establishment clause case. In that case, some folks wanted to put a monument in a public square, and the city decided we don't want to put that monument in our city square. And this was a religious group, and they were like, well, you have the Ten Commandments, and so if you have the Ten Commandments, you ought to put ours up, too. And so they were saying you are limiting our private speech, but not allowing us to use this public forum. Well, the Supreme Court said it's okay to use public forum. This is a public forum. You're invited to talk, you talk, you leave, but monuments are more than just a public forum. They are government speech, because to put a monument in a place is speaking for the community, 24, 7, or centuries. And the court highlighted the importance of the government speech and used language like this. Governments have long used monuments to speak to the public, since ancient times, kings, emperors, and other rulers have erected statues of themselves to remind their subjects of their authority and power. Triumphal arches, columns, and other monuments have been built to commemorate military victories and sacrifices and other events of civic importance. And the Supreme Court goes on for a whole page talking about government speeches embodied in monuments. They also said government decision makers, y'all, select monuments that portray what they view as appropriate for the place in question. Taken into account such content-based factors such as aesthetics, history, and local culture, the monuments that are accepted, therefore, are meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a governmental message, and thus constitute government speech. So what does it say about our community? And what does it say to members of our community when we put a monument that celebrates the violent defense of racial human enslavement on our courthouse? Well, what it says to my clients and what they've said to me is that when I have to walk beneath the shadow of a Confederate monument into a building that's supposed to be about equal protection of the law, I'm not going to get the equal protection of the law. I already knew this system wasn't built for me, never has, but they've made it absolutely clear by putting a monument that celebrates the traitorous, violent revolt to defend human slavery. So our monuments should represent what is best about us as a community. They should represent what we all can agree on, and they should not be a point of division. There's division enough. We have many, many places where we can talk about this history. We can put them in museums. We can contextualize them in classrooms. We can put them in cemeteries where they belong, but to put a monument that has the history and represents the violent defense of human enslavement and our courthouse steps is a slap in the face to those people who are descendants of slaves. And because of that, it is very important that you choose voluntarily to remove what remains and have it put in a place that is contextualized so people can understand the history and not put it as an impediment to people going into the courtroom who are trying to get an education who want to enjoy a city park. In that Summon case, there was a concurring opinion where Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg wrote, for even if the free speech cause neither restricts nor protects government speech, government speakers are bounded by the Constitution's other prescriptions, including those established by the establishment clause and the equal protection clauses. Together with checks imposed by our democratic processes, these constitutional safeguards ensure that the effect of today's decision, allowing the city to prohibit speech, will be limited. And what the court was saying there is that even though there aren't a lot of cases in which government speech is stricken because it's racist, it can happen. We cannot put on our courthouse steps white supremacy forever. We cannot put the N word in our public documents. It seems like, almost a tautology, it seems like, of course we can't. And the reason for that is because our constitution prohibits race discrimination and therefore it also prohibits government speech that celebrates a history of racism. And that's a legal basis for you to consider when deciding what to do with that monument. I'd be glad to take questions if that's a louder one. I don't know what's next. Sure, yes. Thank you very much. Is it okay if I start over here with questions? Can you address statements that have been made or just answer if there is any language in the 13th Amendment about Confederate statues specifically? No, there's nothing in that amendment itself that says anything about statues. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and it has an exception for jails where there is still forced labor. There were cases later on that interpreted the 13th Amendment as allowing the federal government to take actions in the states to remove the badges and incidents of slavery. And so it went beyond that amendment and the authority of that amendment went beyond just ending involuntary servitude. It also was an authorizing constitutional provision that enabled the federal government during reconstruction to take actions to remove not only slavery but the badges and incidents of slavery which included the inability to find work, the inability to be treated equally, the inability to hold office and that sort of thing. The 13th Amendment did not get very far with that because those opinions then were later limited and then there hasn't been a lot of 13th Amendment jurisprudence since then. But the 13th Amendment did express a strong, it ended slavery and it expresses a strong constitutional policy against human enslavement on the basis of race. Can you name or tell us, share us the cases where language may have been specific about the 13th Amendment being an authorizing removal of the statues? I can't remember the name of the cases right now but I can give you all the list of the cases that talk about badges and incidents of slavery. Okay, so is that what some commenters are referring to when they say the 13th Amendment specifies but that's not in the actual written amendment? Well, my talk has to do with the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment is the one that has the provision about the equal protection of the law and it's the one that prohibits race discrimination. And so in the Supreme Court in the case that I just read said that government speech is limited by the equal protection clause, what that means is government cannot engage in speech that endorses racism under the 14th Amendment. I wanted to ask maybe a little bit of a devil's advocate question. And I wonder if you see any difference between certain kinds of monuments associated with the Confederacy and I mean specifically monuments to individuals say Robert E. Lee or the commander of the Confederate Navy or Jeb Stewart or whoever. And monuments that are erected to individuals from a place Durham County for instance who died because there has been a strong argument made and you may have heard it earlier that this is primarily a monument to dead soldiers. And I just wonder we have all sorts of unpopular wars and we have monuments to those wars, the Vietnam War for example. But that is not considered offensive because it's memorializing the human beings who died rightly or wrongly. I wonder if you see any difference between a monument to Confederate soldiers who are not leaders who did not start the war who may not have participated directly in slavery and monuments like Robert E. Lee or to the leaders of the Confederacy. Do you see any legal difference in the way you would consider these monuments? I think that if I were if and when I litigate this issue of government speech and equal protection that these are kinds of questions that will come up in depositions. These are the kinds of things that we will create a record about in order to decide what what was the meaning of this monument. Then what what do the records show the people said when they were erected and what were they celebrating and I can tell you the record of that was they were celebrating new Jim Crow the Jim Crow laws and white supremacy is what they were celebrating when they were erected. What do they mean now to the whole community. And is this and is this a message that we want to convey as representative of what we believe as a community. And the answer to both of those questions is this is a monument whether it's Robert E. Lee or to dead soldiers that celebrates the violent defense of human enslavement. And there's no comparable war that we fought that is like that. And there's no comparable issue like race that goes back to the beginning of our history that has divided us so there's no issue like race that's bet embedded in our Constitution where human beings were divided into fractions. And because our our country has been so torn by this issue of our Constitution now embodies a principle that it is unacceptable to celebrate racism.   It means to us as people we've got to celebrate inclusion in our public places and teach the history of racism in our museums and our schools. So yes there is a huge difference between a Vietnam Memorial, a deeply unpopular war that we shouldn't have fought and a war that was built around the defense of human enslavement when racism is an important part of our history and we still haven't overcome it. Thank you. I enjoyed your presentation. I have a question you had referenced not the not only the federal Constitution but the state Constitution. You didn't specify and there's no reason for you but I would like you to talk about the which version of the state Constitution referring to when it comes to trees. And if you could talk about the the circumstances surrounding the the actual ratification of that Constitution that state Constitution and speak to us a bit about what it meant to be to include treason as one of the things that was outlawed and what that meant to the people who were ratifying that document. What did treason mean to them? Yeah, so that article one section four and five of our state Constitution was enacted in the reconstruction stat Constitution shortly after the Civil War. And so the purpose of that those two articles of having to do with treason and succession were to show that North Carolina was going to re enter the Union. And it was going to be a part of our our founding document as a state that we would have loyalty to the United States government. Article one section 19, which is the law of the land clause has always had an equal protection clause within it from the beginning when we had our comparable bill of rights. But in 1968, there was another provision, another part of article section 19 that was added after the killing of Martin Luther King in 1968. And that provision says that there'll be no discrimination on the basis of race. And it's that that that provision actually, from my civil rights point of view, gives me a civil rights statute built into our Constitution, which actually I believe makes it easier for me to sue state governments and with a lower burden of proof because of this section of article one section 19 that just says there shall be no race discrimination. So one part of the state constitution that had to do with succession and treason was was enacted shortly after the Civil War, and it was in reaction to the succession of the North Carolina from the Union. Who ratified it, though? The state did. I know, but it was who in the state? The General Assembly and the Senate, by its own terms, the way in which the state has to be, I don't think it was sent to referendum, but I don't know if it was. Were there restrictions on white voters? I don't think there was when that constitution was enacted, no. These were white North Carolinians who had gone ahead and elected members of the General Assembly and the General Assembly decided that they were going to ratify this document stating that the Confederates were treason. Well, we are we are way past my good knowledge of this area. So I want to be very careful about what I say about the history of that treason provision. What I could tell you about it is that North Carolina seceded from the Union and declared themselves an enemy of the United States. They killed over 300,000, were part of a military group that killed over 300,000 people, United States soldiers. As a condition to reenter the Union, Southern states had to adopt constitutions that reflected an end of slavery and a loyalty to the United States government. Exactly how they did that procedurally and who voted and who was allowed to vote at that point. I don't know the details of that. Thank you so much for being with us. One one quick question was the Supreme Court case that you mentioned when was that litigated or when were those decisions. I'm just curious about how mentioned a few more recent justices. Yeah. So the case that I've been relying on is a 2009 case. 2009. That's pleasant growth. That plus that's pleasant growth. Yeah. So the I'm interested in the comparison between the litigation that's been done around what you call the establishment clause around religion and what might be done around this issue of equal protection and race in the cases where the establishment clause was used to change the display of public speech or monuments. What did they have to show that there was damage. Was there. Was there have did they have to show harm of the previous public monuments public displays in order to then make the case that they needed to be taken down. So you've you've you've touched upon a very difficult part of my legal argument right away. Sorry. No, that's good. I appreciate that. The legal under the establishment clause when we're talking about religion. A person to have standing or to be able to bring that suit and say I have a real conflict enough to go to court really doesn't have to show very much. They can show. I'm a taxpayer and I'm offended. And that usually gets them there although increasingly. We're backtracking on that standing requirement, but taxpayers standing and being offended by the government's preference for one religion is enough to get into court. With respect to the equal protection clause, the law is different. And usually more than just being offended is required to bring an equal protection claim. And the real difficulty in bringing the equal protection clause into an analysis limiting government speeches. How much of that other equal protection clause standing infrastructure legal reasoning will have to be used when we're talking about government speech. Is it are we going to litigate it like an establishment clause claim and not require more substantive harm? Or are we going to require more than emotional expressive harm in order to bring a equal protection claim? I think there are good there are good legal arguments that have already been made with respect to Confederate flags that say you have to have more than being offended in order to challenge those Confederate flags. But those cases are distinguishable from monuments and there also have never really taken seriously this idea from Sumam that if government speech is limited by the equal protection clause, then it needs to be limited in a way that's similar to the establishment clause. Therefore someone who is offended by racial speech should have standing and should be able to bring that claim the same way someone who's offended by religious speech does and should not have to show more harm just because it's a race based decision. Right now we are talking in the ether of constitutional law that has not been litigated and has not been brought forth and there are no rulings on these things that would really help us understand what higher courts would do with standing. What I can say is that our state constitution I believe it would be easier to show standing under our state constitution because of this provision that says no race discrimination. And I and the history of that and how it's similar to a Michigan provision shows how that because you treat it more like a civil rights statute, it would be easier to bring an equal protection race discrimination claim under our state constitution. And also because of the supremacy clause or the succession part, anybody who believes that our state actions are conflicting with the federal constitution could have taxpayer standing to bring that claim. So there might be a way to bootleg standing under the state constitution to litigate the federal claim. I think that a lot of recent research about generational trauma and the impact that hundreds of years of racist policy have had on African Americans begins to open up a whole conversation about different ways that we can really point to that people have been harmed. I really appreciate you talking about the power of symbols and the ways that you know the history of the ways that symbols have been used to talk about power and dominance and supremacy. And so, you know, in our thinking that's, you know, I think that it's difficult to think about what kind of space this would open up if we start to really take seriously the harm that has been done using many, many mechanisms and think about what our responsibility is to be reparative there. Yes, I also think in addition to the history of trauma associated with race that could show more of a harm than just expressive harm. The current history of violence around Confederate monuments and the way they become a public nuisance in cities around the country and have led to the killing of a protestor in Charlottesville put those monuments in a different light than they have been before. And the meanings of monuments can change over time and increasingly their focal point for violence. One last thing, and I know this is big and it may be something at some point you think about sharing with us either that could be, you know, an appendix or something you'll report but I heard in Robin's introduction that you also teach restorative justice. And I think that's actually a really interesting avenue for us to consider in terms of any decision that we make or as a community grappling with this symbol and its impact and its legacy in Durham. So if at some point you had some ideas related to techniques that are part of the restorative justice process that you think might be useful to us, we certainly would appreciate those that information. I have a lot of big ideas about that and I would love to share that. I can say that restorative justice techniques have been used in South Africa to overcome a history of racism and to address it head on that there's been a Greensboro commission around the violence that occurred there that employed these techniques of restorative justice. And there was a commission in Wilmington around the 1898 white attack on black businesses that where restorative justice techniques were used by Wilmington. So there's a history internationally and there's also a history within North Carolina for commissions to take these very difficult thorny issues and use them as an opportunity to work on these very difficult issues of race. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. In response to Barbara you seem to make a distinction between Confederate symbols like Confederate flags and Confederate monuments and I wondered if you could comment on the Supreme Court decision that involved Confederate flags or Confederate symbols on license plates. So specifically the walker be the Texas sense of Confederate veterans case if you could talk about because that also concerned government speech and I wonder if you could talk about how that Mike coincide or not coincide with what you're talking about in terms of government speech and the equal protection of the law. Yeah, so the Texas case had to do with a request by a private citizen for the Texas to allow them to put the Confederate symbol on their license tag. And so what the private citizen in that case wanted to do was to compel the government to speak in a certain way and to endorse by this symbol by allowing it to be on a public license plate. And the court said the government has the power to speak how it wants and if the Texas of all states decides it does not want to be racist and does not want to put the Confederate flag on its mind on its tags, then Texas has the right to say no, because the government can control its own speech. There's some tricky space in there though between a private forum where a public forum where private individuals want to speak and government speech that there are places where that can get blurry because if you create a public forum like this for me to come talk then you can't edit my speech but if you create a public forum like a social media site or some other kind of site and you start trying to and if you present it as this is a message from Durham government but it's really private speech then by endorsing that private speech you're making a government speech and so it can get blurry. Well there's a point at which things like license tags which you've got to have and which are can be personalized to some extent and monuments that stand on the courthouse step 24-7 do constitute government speech and the government has the freedom to say no, it had the freedom to say no and assume them that no we don't have to put your monument in our square and in Texas they said we don't have to put your symbol on our license plate it's okay and there's even a North Carolina case where it was okay for the state to endorse a pro-life symbol and the government chose not to allow an equal like a pro-choice symbol and it wasn't considered viewpoint discrimination because the government got to speak how it wanted to speak. That's different than saying when the government speaks it can't speak racism. That's a different situation because no private entities here making you speak as the government you can speak how you want as long as you don't endorse religion and as long as I would say you don't endorse racism that you have a pretty good latitude and what you speak but as the government you can't put white supremacy forever on the front of our courthouse because that violates the equal protection clause. Could you clarify in the Walker case and also in the Pleasant Grove City case whether or not the decisions were that the government can say no or the government must say no? The government can say no. You have the freedom. The government has an incredible amount of freedom to speak and that makes a lot of sense because the government has to speak all the time and the cases systematically in the whole say the real check to government speech is the ballot box that if the people don't like what you're saying that can change at the next election. And so the Supreme Court has indicated it's very unwilling to regulate government speech except in these areas like religion and maybe the equal protection clause. Otherwise government has a lot of freedom in how you speak. Thank you for coming tonight. I'm going to defer my time to the rest of the speakers so we can make sure everybody gets an opportunity to ask some questions. But if you could send us all some to Robin and I will spread it to the committee. Some of the basic info Barbara mentioned about restorative justice so we can kind of take a look at that as we begin to mull over things for the committee. I'd love that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for coming tonight. I just want to ask are you aware that at West Point secession was taught as a legal form of government before the war between the states. So what are you saying? I said are you aware that the act of secession was still taught as a legal form of. Today at West Point they teach that before the war between the states. But it was still taught in the legal classes at West Point as a legal remedy for what if a state did not like the way the government was acting or anything else. Well you know Thomas Jefferson taught that we should have a revolution every generation.  And they taught secession at common sense. Thomas Payne in the federalist papers.  But because they there were people who thought leaving our nation was a good idea. That's I don't have a problem with that. Leave. You don't like it. But don't leave in order to defend the human enslavement of people of color. Because if if they are enslaved then they need to be free. And if what you're fighting for is to keep humans in chains then that's worth. Well I'm not going to debate that but I would say they had the right to secede. Defend human enslavement. They did not have a right to secede because every human has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the South was systematically denying it to eight fifth five eighths of its population. So no they didn't have a right to secede human enslavement. Well I would just add that the Supreme Court ruled in 1869. 1869 after the war. After the war. But there was no Supreme Court decision prior to 1861. No there was not.  You know that Horace Greeley petitioned the United States government to let Jefferson Davis out of Fort Monroe. Yeah another traitor. He would never win the argument. Jefferson Davis would never win the argument. What which argument did he never win. I said the United States would never win the argument that the South did not have the right to secede. Who was arguing and what was who was the judge and what was the what was. What argument were you talking about. I said the Supreme Court petitioned the United States government to release Jefferson Davis. Okay. Therefore he was released because they didn't want to have the trial and I'll leave it at that. It was one other thing. I do take offense of anybody calling these people treasonous when they had.  People were spies for the Union and spies for the Confederacy that they were killed. A lot of people taking offense to that. Well because it was treason.  There's no other word for that in the Constitution. Our Constitution calls that treason and people were killed and shot for treason during the Civil War. They were, we had our own country. Who had what country? There was a country. What country? The southern country, the Confederate States of America. Yeah that country failed. Yes it did. And it was erected to defend humans enslavement. I'm not going to argue that point. Well good because it seems like you want to dodge it. No. They embrace that because they say heritage is not hate but they never explain what it is. What is it? What did they fight for if it wasn't slavery? They fought for slavery but they fought for other things. What? Like what? They fought for tariffs. They fought for... Tariffs? Yes sir. I'm not going to get into that tonight. Why not? Because I... We're not going to have public comment from the... I'm sorry. That's exactly right. You're exactly right. We're going to have to ask you to leave. We're going to have to ask you to leave. Superceded by the Constitution. I'm sorry. We're going to have to. That's right. You're fine. The time for public comment is over and all of our meetings have been civil and this one will remain so also. Another question. I thought if you could just address the committee members. That would be great. Thank you. So Professor Holmes, thank you so much for your presentation. I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the balance of what monuments represent. So I've been thinking a lot about... You raised the case of 1898 in Wilmington and so there are a number of people who participated in that insurrection who went on to other roles in North Carolina governmental history. So when you think about monuments to those figures, to what extent do we weigh the reprehensible or arguably questionable historical actions of those people against other subsequent actions? And so is there a threshold that you would point to in terms of classifying a monument as questionable government speech? That's a great question. And I think it raises another difficulty in limiting any speech. That once you start limiting one kind of speech, there's a real slippery slope to start limiting other kinds of speech. And as someone who does a lot of fighting for people who are trying to speak, it really is a painful thing to think about that slippery slope. And so I welcome your question. A few years ago we were down in Wilmington and I took my kids, two of them, the four who are here, down to McCray Park. And it had been donated to Wilmington by Hugh McCray. And he was one of the participants in the insurrection and wrote the White Declaration of Independence and was responsible for the burning of the black businesses there in Wilmington in 1898. And he deeded that property to Wilmington as a park and put racially restrictive covenants in it so only white children could play at that place. So I show up with my kids. I didn't know which park we were showing up to. And I look and then there's a little monument there that says something like donated by Hugh McCray, gentlemen, philanthropists, brother of ours, something like that.  So I think that there are examples where the racism is immediately and apparently demonstrable in the record. Like the Hugh McCray park, they need to change that sign because the deed to that very park is racist. And to contextualize that gift is important for people to understand that that's a part of Wilmington's history.  I don't know where that line is, and I'm not sure how to think about it because I'm at such a beginning stage of really trying to think about Confederate monuments. The Confederate monuments because of our particular history with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment, I think clearly demonstrate the kind of speech that celebrates that human enslavement that is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. I also think if we could point to particular people who are being celebrated who engaged in racist acts and the property in which they're being celebrated itself was conveyed in a racial manner, that that is another good example of something that needs to be changed. But beyond that it's hard to imagine where to draw a bright line and protect us from that slippery slope. To kind of continue on the, to take this Wilmington example, you would argue then that the city of Wilmington needs to remove the monument and rename the park. I'm not sure what the proper remedy is. Let me get to my question because I don't want to argue about Wilmington. But for our example, because of the 2015 state statute, the state is would say that the city of Durham is limited in its ability to choose its speech if it were to choose to speak by taking down the monument. So how do we suss that out? Yes. Well, if I'm right, which there's plenty of reason to doubt that, right? If I'm right that government speech is bounded by the Equal Protection Clause and that this monument constitutes government hate speech, then any statute that would compel that is unconstitutional, that the statute, the law that prohibits this city from deciding its own speech and if the city believes that you're engaging in race speech, the city would have a strong grounds to sue for an injunction against that statute declaring it unconstitutional as applied to this situation because the Durham should have the ability to speak non-racist messages if government so chooses and any law imposed by the General Assembly that restricts municipal speech should be declared unconstitutional. And I guess I should just say it's probably the county, right? Not the city of Durham. Sorry, yes. It's probably say the county just to be clear. Yeah, but the same principles would apply. Yeah. Well, let me also say that there are some, there are also parts of that chapter 100 that kind of limits the government, the local government's ability to move the thing that I think with some creative lawyering could help. There are ways in which you could deal with, if you were really serious about moving that thing, there's ways that the county of the city could do that, comply with that statute to get rid of the statute. And in some cities like in Memphis, they actually conveyed the property that the monument was on to a private property and let them do whatever they wanted to with it. And then that was one way out. There are other, Governor Cooper has even suggested that some of these pose public safety threats and might meet the public safety exception. Also, since that one has been damaged, there's grounds in which to consider that a project and have it removed. So there may be ways in which your county and city attorneys, if they were serious about moving it, could do that at the will of this body without running afoul of that statute. Thank you for your presentation. You really have answered a lot of my questions that I had already. I just was curious to know some of the dissenting opinions from the 2009 case law of Pleasant Grove, if you had it on you. Yeah, let's see. I don't think I have the whole opinion. Actually, there were no dissents. There were lots of concurrences, which makes it difficult to figure out what the holding is sometimes, but there were no dissents. Okay. I will say that the little portion that I read you about the Equal Protection Clause being a limit to government speech came in a concurrence with Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg. So I'm hanging my hat on a pretty thin legal thread because they were not the majority opinion. They were concurring opinions. So it wasn't a dissent, but it's still pretty weak. Any other questions of our members? I have one follow-up. Do you want to ask a question? When you talk about government speech embodied in these monuments, and this may not be a legal question. This is more as a citizen of Durham question, does say, if we take as a given that the Confederate monument base that remains on the county property constitutes racist speech, is what I understand your argument to be. If the county and city choose to add around the monument non-racist speech, does that change? Do you feel the racist content of the base does adding speech materially shift that question? Or does that base, in your opinion, remain racist?  And that's what that feels like to me. The problem is that there are people in Durham who want to go to the courthouse to get equal protection of the law. That there are people who want to believe that there is no racism in the people who are going to decide about their fate and their deeds. And those people have to walk by there to get into that old courthouse. So, you know, maybe if you moved it somewhere else and contextualize it and gave the history of it and made it a history lesson. So that people who are suffering, who are in disputes, who are trying to get deeds to their property, who are trying to figure out they got a criminal record, did not have to walk beneath the shadow of a confederate soldier to do that. Stephanie? Yes. You mentioned earlier when you said that you mentioned being on the record that the Durham monument was erected to celebrate white supremacy in Jim Crow. What documentation or sources are you referring to? Well, so there's a long history. The daughters of the Confederacy who moved and helped pay for and raise money for that monument, they were on a statewide campaign to erect monuments across the state. At that time? At that time. They helped raise the Silent Sam monument on the campus of Chapel Hill at that time. They also in Concord, North Carolina erected a memorial and a monument to the KKK at that time. They were engaging by their own terms in an attempt to shift the narrative around the Civil War from a narrative that it was about defending slavery to what they called the lost cause narrative in which they were defending a kind of old Southern culture that embraced states' rights and that this really wasn't about slavery. And that actually became the way in which history was taught for decades after they were part of that changing of our history. And so one of the people who moved for the county to raise our monument was Julian Carr. The Durham newspapers at the time that talked about the building of the monument and the raising of the monument did it. And Julian Carr was the mover and shaker around that. He was the person who was making a lot of money here along with Mr. Dew doing tobacco and also textile mills. The town of Carborough was named after him and we have a number of the folks at Duke are trying to change their history building to change their name so it's not Carr because there was actually a white supremacy award that they had and his face was on it because he was such a good one. I believe it was the state of North Carolina had a white supremacy award. It was either that or a local Durham award. I have a copy of that medallion with Julian Carr's face on it and I can't remember if it's a state award but it says white supremacy on it. He bragged in his speech he was at the speech for the Silent Sam when it was put up and during that he said things like in bringing up this monument we are celebrating the purity of the Anglo-Saxon race.  He also signed his name general and people referred to him as general even though he was never a general in the Confederate Army so he lied about his reign. But it didn't bother folks because he was so rich and he was donating a lot of money to a lot of people at that time and celebrating the success of the white supremacist at that time and enacting Jim Crow laws that segregated the races. Historians generally agree that the monuments that were erected during that period of time after 1898 before 1920 that period of time they were erecting these monuments to celebrate the separation of the races and the success of white supremacy as a political doctrine to exclude people from the ballot box to exclude them from owning homes, from excluding them, from going to the same bathrooms and that sort of thing. That was the purpose of the Confederate monuments not to celebrate the death of some poor soldier. And would you, I guess I can ask you this from a legal angle, do you think that there is an argument to make in front of a court that white supremacy, the belief of white supremacy is a religion based on current? Oh, that's an interesting question. I feel like I'm back in law school so hypothetically. I would say that it's a religion. Well, I think the way the courts and the Supreme Court defines religion, I do not believe it meets the legal definition of religion. I think it's a pernicious ideology that has killed a lot of people in our history. It is something that we also individually have to work on our own racism, having been raised in a culture in which there is still systemic and implicit bias. We have not overcome our history of that. And there are people who practice white supremacy like you would think is a religion in terms of rituals and symbols and the KKK certainly mixed Christian symbols with their terror on black people when they were burning crosses. But I don't think that white supremacy itself is a religion. I just wanted to ask another question. I think it's really interesting that it's many lawyers have been taking up sort of the litigating the impacts of white supremacy or oppression of African Americans and really trying to begin to think about what the country community owes them in reparation as a way. It's similar to the what's happening in Alabama where the lynching Memorial where we're, you know, the acknowledgement of what's happened and the acknowledgement of the people that have been harmed by that. So I'm wondering if there are things that that folks use in legal cases to document the trauma of the harm, you know, we understand certainly in lynching people lost their lives. But I think as we think about the gradations of that and we think about as you suggest people walking by a symbol that is meant to intimidate meant to announce that they don't have the power and the equal rights they deserve. I'm wondering if there are ways that lawyers have used what have they used to document and show cause of that kind of harm that that you know might be germane to what we're thinking about. Well, the thing that comes to mind is the Brown versus Board of Education litigation, which Thurgood Marshall and Hamilton Hughes and those folks as part of their litigation strategy, they had and found many social studies on children and people of color on how the stigmatic harm of going being excluded from schools impacted children. And so there was social science that they employed to show how the internalized racism harmed people of color. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir right here to McKessick Melton's didn't hear right before me. So I won't say much more beyond that civil rights lawyers. The geniuses who started the civil rights movement understood that in order to be successful in civil rights movements, it is important to be able to document and articulate and quantify and show how systemic racism impacts people in their bodies and souls. Thank you. Any other members have any. I just wanted to one point on general car. You know, he didn't lie about his rank that was conferred on him by the confederate veterans when he was commander of the organization. I will say he took it a little bit far. It was conferred on him by the veterans. Yeah, well, I have a very poor opinion of him. Any other comments and questions by the committee. We have about 10 minutes left if we need that. We have upon occasion let the audience ask a question if they liked I just don't want us to get unruly again. And I'd like to say to the gentleman who was talking about the Declaration of Independence that, you know, his point is mine exactly that there is this right to revolt when the that that's built into our system of government that if you don't like it, leave. So we do have a little bit of time if there's a question from the audience for Dr. Holmes. No, Scott Holmes. I'm not a doctor. There's a question from the audience for Scott. So I don't know. So, I mean, I know more about the reasons articulated by the people who started the American Revolution as to why they felt justified in revolting and leaving the British Empire. And the things that they pointed to were contract theories under John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and a number of people that they pointed to that showed that government was really built upon the consent of the governed. And that at some point if the government becomes so authoritarian and so oppressive that the individuals lack basic liberties, then those individuals have the right to revolt and institute their own government. And that's that language is pretty well articulated in the Declaration of Independence that we just heard passionately articulated. I don't know the legalities of the debate that occurred at the time of secession that whether or not this was a legal secession or not a legal secession. I think it would be hard to make those arguments in the context of people leaving a country because the basic idea of rule of law would no longer apply if the people who are leaving are rejecting the authority of the people they're leaving.  And we don't want to respect and you don't want to respect the feelings of people of color who are traumatized by these public monuments, then go start your own country. Do we have any other questions, comments? Yes ma'am, if you could, if you have a comment or question, then I will repeat it because they need it for the broadcast. So if I could just repeat that for the for television viewers that that the right to secede and correct me if I'm wrong applies more logically to people who are enslaved to protest that enslavement. And it's your argument that it doesn't necessarily apply as as well to people who are succeeding in order to keep others enslaved. Is that correct? You want to comment on this? I don't I think secession really has to do more with states than it does individual liberties, but that's a nuance that really doesn't matter. I think your point is exactly right. If anybody had a right to revolt in the South, it was the people who were enslaved and not the white plantation owners who were benefiting from their labor. Great, well thanks everyone so much and thank you Scott for coming to a very interesting presentation very helpful I think for us. This is our last formal meeting with public comment. So I want to thank everyone both who's here tonight who's come to our meetings and who's listening via the city cable channel for coming and sharing your views with us. We are going to start meeting as a committee now to decide on what our recommendations will be to the city and the county. And we will definitely keep people informed about that. So if you haven't already, we have a sign up sheet out by the snacks, please take snacks. And please leave us your name and yeah kids hit snacks their rice crispy treats. Please leave us your name and any contact information so that we can let you know about what our deliberations are in the end. But thank you so much. And one last thing that are still all our social media is up and running so if you still have any additional comments not only the people that are here but anybody out there in the public. And she'd like to make any comments to us please feel free to do so on thank the committee. Thank the public since it's our last public meeting and good night. Yeah, thank you.


Five businesses in Cross Lake were heavily damaged early Friday morning when a fire broke out in the Pineberry Plaza building, causing extensive smoke damage. According to Cross Lake fire chief Chip Lomiller, the fire started in the basement on the east side and spread throughout the building, which is located on County Road 66. Pineberry Plaza houses the Crossfire Nutrition Club, Nordic House, Lake Lux Beauty Bar, Pineview Auto Sales, and the Northern Minnesota Railroad Heritage Museum. We really don't have any estimations yet because of the investigations continuing. If it is a total rebuild, obviously that could be months. So as far as myself, I know with the Crossfire, I probably will set up somewhere temporary. Not sure on all the details on that yet, but I really want to support my people and my clients, and I'm just keeping a really positive attitude on this. No one was injured in the fire, and it is currently being investigated by the state fire marshal. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Your Coca-Cola bottler presents Claudia Claudia based on the original stories by Rose Franken Brought to you transcribed Monday through Friday by your friendly neighbor who bottles Coca-Cola Relax and while you're listening refresh yourself Have a Coke And now Claudia That's very pretty what is making faces at yourself in the mirror That's my plain old face you're talking about. I'm not making one extra face with it Oh, I wish I'd known sooner about this party tonight.  New Year's Eve parties don't break up until very late Nothing will be really underway until 11 or half past really so late Why doesn't it all start earlier? Then we could get home earlier. We'd have been there just as long Well, that's not the way that it's done Oh Mom and I always stay home on New Year's Eve Somehow there was no Reason to go out. Are you sure you want to tonight sure?  It does Strange. I never thought that you'd not so fun.  I didn't notice mentally my mental We're gonna be the handsomest couple there, but of course and we won't go to bed till after breakfast. We'll dance and dance You're yawning already If you are you've got plenty of time to nap, you know getting undressed to get dressed at this hour Go to bed. Don't you sort of only three hours to next year David Will it be as nice as last year do you think of course it will and then some When you've got white hair and I'm using a cane We'll sit back on our rockers and dream about tonight our first New Year's Eve together I can't believe we'll ever be that old. I hope we will be both of us The only excuse for getting old what is it'll be both of us together Darling Are you scared terribly? Is that awful no?   I mean Weren't so perfect now That won't change darling other things will but That will always be the same feel better now Then you kiss me I forget to be scared But darling You were right what about I feel a little sleepy you do a little And since I'm not dressed yet and since it's only nine o'clock And since the party doesn't start till later It's I love you so very much. Mrs. Norton. I can hardly keep her beyond it by itself really That's the nicest compliment you ever paid me It to be so late you're almost ready. It's 11 blasted bow ties. They just don't tie right Parties you have to get dressed up for David we won't get to the party till after midnight. Oh, that's terrible there. How's that look? I'd say I look pretty handsome not pretty but handsome I'm all ready to all right. Here's your coat Cinderella on it goes David Come on out with it. Nothing. I'm sure we'll have fun. Well, that's why we're going So I suppose I feel this way because we're we're used to going out during the day and going to bed during the night Well Let's be getting along guess we might as well This is an awfully cozy apartment, isn't it? Bluff and Shakespeare have the whole place to themselves. I hope they have a nice New Year's Eve Let's leave the light on for them. That's a good idea No, no, now you can't come along you weren't invited get out get out.  I don't know am I? Darling, I think he wants just too bad about him. It's too late. It's a good thing. I've got the car downstairs We'd never get a cab We had a solder your boy not tonight. Mrs. Norton and I are stepping out alone He's right now. I'll be quiet both of you Did you hear what I said quiet? Well No, no order when they get one Come on now. Let's get out of here while everything's quiet Good night, love. Good night Shakespeare. Goodbye, my darling. You sound as if you were saying goodbye Forever Adorable He's gonna bark till we get home probably probably Look, do you or do you not want to go to this party? Do you I ask you first? Dressed up now. We might as well What's the matter you little clock, why didn't you tell me you didn't want to go either? Well, I thought Just because I invited you who you invited me to marry you too Me not either. It's too late to discuss that. Come on. We're on our way. I thought we weren't going. We're not. We're not David still walks out.  Me I'm psychic So there is here here. I've got a key Make yourself decent mother. It's the family This is a fine time to drop in any complaints But I thought you'd be there. We changed our minds any objections Yes, did you have to bring the whole menagerie get down you? gorilla He likes your mama I wish he'd like me a little less. I'll be less demonstrative about it. Go on. I'll get down get the way I should go to ask this in have I any choice? Come on in But why aren't you at that party? Oh, I got sleepy at the last minute But you're all dressed. I was afraid I'd get lonesome My dreamy genie with the light I think you've been to that party Suspicious woman who wasn't brought up right but now a son-in-law till too late in life any hope for This is a pretty sight the two of you in your evening clothes the dog the cat And the parrot I hadn't forgotten you Solomon. It's quite a gathering This we got married the family is increased isn't it David? Well, I hope there are no more additions for another few months. You know, it's too bad You can't buy a baby in a pet shop so much faster and you know what you're getting to Maybe you too will invent a new system. Oh the ancient one's not so bad Nice to be here.  That's your idea of bringing in a new year What time is your mother? Just a few minutes before midnight the old years almost out. Sorry to see it go Still it's been pretty good to me Mama Year ago tonight. Could you possibly have imagined this? No, I didn't imagine it It's nicer than anything. I could have imagined. I wonder what it'll be like next year this time Oh, even nicer. I'll be a grandmother. We're pretty lucky the three of us We're about to set out on a new year We've got everything in the world of person could possibly ask for that too many people who don't have anything to Look forward to just another year of hunger Misery and fear and want well, maybe this year will be the last of that It'll be a brand new clean year in a few minutes. Not so clean darling Too many carryovers on the red side of the ledger Too many things the world didn't finish up last year. I remember the time. Oh You two wouldn't even know it was before the first world war That long ago when you could face a new year with no backward looks No need to carry the past with all its terror and sins Into the present and future when you could start fresh and strong and sure of yourself When goodwill was on earth That's the difference, isn't it mother? Big difference to David. Why didn't you tell me tell you what? We've gone to the party. I think I feel a little shame You never stop to think what tonight meant to other people deep inside darling You didn't want to go or we would have gone Mind if I turn on the radio? I'll do it. I can reach it. Let's see now Just another minute just one more minute and God will give the world another chance Only one minute left in the old year as we switch you now to Times Square in New York City Nothing wrong with shouting it's healthy shows that man is an eternal optimist and that he's got all the courage and hope he's going to need All right takes courage a much greater courage than that mama don't talk like that David maker stop It's all right, Gloria. The years keep coming. You'll see a great many of them Land to use them well David hold me tight. I'm here darling. Just just hang on 10 seconds left He has never felt like this before what's happened to growing up That's all every 10 seconds the most important the most beautiful or the most terrible Five seconds left and the new book opens. I hope the words will read well We shall write the words mother Claudia and I and our sons and our daughters and their generations to come in the end The words will read well We're ready for darling Let her come this broadcast of Claudia was supervised and directed by William Brown Maloney Whatever revelry you plan for this evening whether you're going out to a restaurant a nightclub a party or you're planning to see the new year in at Your own fireside. There's one good old friend ready to see 1948 in with you You're always dependable accompaniment to pleasure Coca-Cola There's still time to get a supply for this evening if the party is at your house With the case of coke on hand You're ready to welcome friends and neighbors to the pause that refreshes year in year out Every day Monday through Friday Claudia comes to you transcribed with the best wishes of your friendly neighbor who bottles Coca-Cola So listen again tomorrow at the same time And now this is Joe King saying or of war and remember Whoever you are whatever you do Wherever you may be When you think of refreshment think of Coca-Cola Or ice cold Coca-Cola makes any pause the pause that refreshes


Hello, welcome to the Dave Bernan show presented by Buffalo Wildlings I'm Greg Royce with here with Stevenson cross country head coach Dave Bernan coach you guys Saturday went up to the Matt conference championship up at Delaware Valley and You had a lot of best best ever finished for the men's second place and you know the women's side Kelly Winkleball had our best ever, you know place for a woman in fifth So, you know first let's just talk about the men I was these six all conference people two in the top five Patrick Watson second at Langston gash finishing fifth take us through that race Yes, so I mean the guy is going in they really thought I mean we had an outside shot of winning But nobody really picked us to win so they kind of went in this went in as the underdog But I mean to be to finish within 10 points of Messiah.  I mean for one pat getting second place. Nobody saw that coming I mean I did but as far as people in the conference and things like that Nobody really expected that and then our fifth guy in the key to cool it He really came on strong It was the first time that he was even in our top seven this year, and then he was our fifth guy Yeah, yeah, I know Pat Watson's a guy We've kind of talked about all years kind of being you know, he's been kind of the second place guy But you've always said he has that potential to be you know right there with Langston Yeah, definitely and Langston kind of had a little bit of an off day as well But if we can get the two of them to be closer together at regionals, it's and I mean it's really gonna help us Yeah, and then like you said 10 point difference. That's not you know, that's really not that big You know a couple guys switch one or two spots higher and push them You know spotter too lower and all of a sudden you're talking about you know, you're right there Yeah, exactly, and I mean we're happy. I'm happy with second place. Like you said It's the best we've ever finished last year. We were fifth I don't remember what we were the year before that but we're definitely improving every year absolutely another women's side You know Kelly Winklemire missed this race last year because she was her came back finished fifth best ever finished for female in the program History. Yeah, she ran a great race. She went out really conservative and Was actually pretty far back early on and then worked her way up into fifth place by halfway And then this kind of kind of hung on there.  She finished 17th.  So I mean it we were close I mean and next year that I know they're excited about improving upon that Yeah, it seems like with the women like you said you got a lot of you know underclassmen that are strong and You know have been improving the whole year. Yeah, definitely. We've said we've had some pretty big jumps I mean Emily Gates has been up there all year, but then I mean we also have Chloe O'Hara another freshman and then I mean Carly Bartholomew is another one and they just keep improving every week So it's exciting to watch. Yeah. All right. Now. You've got you know a couple weeks until the regionals What do you do to prepare for that? We'll talk a little more about regionals next week Yeah, you know, what do you do prepare with these two weeks until the regional? I mean we're back to work I mean this this week because we have a we have two weeks this week in between ends up being Not not a really hard week, but another another kind of higher intensity week so that they can get ready to race well in two weeks and The great thing about the guys is as soon as they finished they were already thinking about what they can do in two weeks at regionals Yeah, that's good to hear. Well, congratulations on everything from this past weekend and we'll talk to you next week about You know about that and see a regional All right for David and I'm Greg Royce. This has been the David and show


to psychic medium Tony Green. I'm so happy to be here with you this morning. So so many things going on in the world that we know. So many distractions going on in the world that we know. And that's exactly what they are. So stay focused.  Thank you for taking the time to be with me here today. I'm so grateful for your presence. I am going to give a gentle reminder that this show does air on TV, WSCS, Ryoku and a number of other streaming channels. All of WSCS's streaming channels and all of Rude Rangers TV streaming channels. It does air on TV on several different stations. That's why I sound so eloquent for TV. And I put it out to Rude Rangers and WSCS puts it out. So please when you're asking questions, be mindful of what you are saying and how you are saying it. Second, I'm Tony Green. I have been a psychic medium and intuitive channel my entire life. So what I am, I always think it's funny. I have this very condescending, not so nice person in my life that will say things like, I know you think you're psychic. Really? I have a whole TV show and eight books about it or seven books. I'm working on number eight. I think I am. Are you kidding me? But I, Narcissus much? Okay, I need to stop. I'm just trying to be funny, everybody. I'm trying to be funny. So here's what I, yes, I have been a psychic medium and channel my entire life. And yes, I do have seven books. They are all available on Amazon. I'm working on number eight right now. I'm very excited about getting number eight out there. Oh my goodness. My phone is just like one call after the other right now. And okay, so aside from that, there was so much, and it's so distracting because as I'm trying to talk whatever. So okay. Okay, if you'd like an appointment with me, that's where we are. I'm so sorry, everybody. If you would like to schedule an appointment, I do have appointments. The only way to get an appointment with me is through my website, t-o-n-i-g dot i-n-f-o. I do not reach out to people for appointments. I do not need to. And please do not get scammed by somebody who reaches out to you. I have uploaded new clearings on TikTok this morning. And I'm going to be putting them on the rest of Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn this afternoon. So be ready for those, everybody. Okay, I want to say hi to Heather, Genevieve, Vaughn, Scott, Patrick, Lolly. I know Lolly and Sandy watch all the time. Jessica, you know, Jessica, thanks for this weekend. It was awesome. Jess is this amazing makeup person. So when I see her, and she'll bring me makeup sometimes. And I'm looking to see if I can easily reach for the palette she brought me this weekend. Don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere. I think I got it. I think I got it. No, I don't have it. It's not there. Oh, it's right here. Okay. So Jess brought me Two-Face Natural Eyes. And I love it. I love it. It is awesome. Now, here's the thing. Brand new makeup is like tools to men. It is. When we open it and we and we look at all the pretty colors and they're not cracked and broken and used. It's like, this is such an amazing, beautiful palette. And I love it. Absolutely adored. I was a little nervous that the colors might be too bold. Perfecto. Perfecto. Also, I just want to say, yes, makeup. Love brand new makeup, but I also love brand new tools. Bring me a drill and watch me like go crazy and figure out what I need to make. I'm not even joking. I love brand new tools to drills, even, even like screwdrivers. I'm like, can I go screw? Don't take that the wrong way. What can I go? What can I go do? What can I go put in the wall? What can, how can I use this? I love tools like I love makeup. I know, right? That's awesome. Okay. In a moment, I am going to be taking cards and when I open your area code, please say your name and you're calling from an a specific question and or connect. If you, I will let you know who is here for you. I will. I will tell you so and so is here. I probably won't know their names, but I will tell you who might see. Now, I am going to tell you on Monday, show somebody by the name of Marjorie showed up and that person is back again. So if for the love of all, that's good. Please, if you know Marjorie, please tell me who this Marjorie is because Marjorie is here and I just heard her name again. And maybe you're Marjorie and this is somebody for you, but I keep hearing Marjorie, Marjorie. So, so yes, Marjorie is here or somebody named Marjorie. Somebody wants your attention. Real quick, I want to say hi to John. John, absolutely my pleasure, John. John, just thank me for my tic-tac clearings. And this morning, you guys, this morning, I did uno dos. That's the only Spanish I know. I also know trace, but I don't think I say it correctly. I think I'm supposed to roll my tongue. I don't, I don't know how to roll my tongue. I know how to twist it and curl it and I can cherry-stom with it. Is that, is that hurtin' my name for me? I don't think so. Anyway, it's a romantic to do tic-tacs. And the first one is attacks. And I think this one, every, when you get to pin it, save it, send it to yourself because it's for spiritual attacks, psychic attacks, physical attacks, any attacks at all that come at you. And I cannot tell you the number of people that feel like they are under. I hope everybody, everybody, I really, truly hope that everybody goes and does this tic-tac. It's about shadow stalking. So I just asked everybody to post their shadow stalking story or, yeah, their shadow stalking experience in this one. And then I'll go on and, and do some of my shadow stalking experiences. Now shadow stalking is when you, and it's probably my term. I've never heard this term before, but it's, I think it fits. It's when you end a relationship with someone, like you're done, you're out, see a sort of thing. And this person starts popping up or starts making relationships and friendships with your friends and your people. Never made friends with them before or starts going to your practitioners or hair or whatever people. They make sure they start putting themselves in your people's lives. And they do this for two reasons. Uno, dos, again. The first reason is because they want the other person to know their side of the story. And to make sure that they don't come off looking like the villain. Okay, that's fine. And also they want to keep getting information about you and knowing where you are in your life and keep that connection via a third person, even if they're not talking to you. No, I'm fine. But let me go now. I'm kidding. You guys, I got jokes all day long. So please, nobody take anything personally. Do not, do not think I'm trying to be funny this morning. I am just trying to straight up be funny. But please go to go and put your shadow stalking stories down. Typically, people who shadow stalk you, they do have personality disorders. I'm not diagnosing anybody. Their behaviors do that for themselves. I'm just saying, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it might be it ending up orange duck at a Chinese restaurant. That's all I'm saying. Okay, here it is. Take colors so that I don't get like, thrown at me later. Okay. Hey, Caroline, wonderful to see you. Hi, Jenna. You guys, Jenna is just like one of the sweetest people I know, and she's going to be she already does amazing healing work. She's going to do even more amazing healing work down the line. I just, I know she is. She's gonna, I just know, you know how I know, because apparently I think I'm a psychic. I am a psychic. Okay. Here we go. 205. What's your name? Where are you calling from? Please take me up a speakerphone if you have me on speaker. Hi, Tony. Thank you so much for taking us. My name is Patricia calling from Alabama. I want to come visit you. Yeah, I can. I want to come visit you just to be in Alabama. Okay. So Patricia, how can I help you today? Yes, Tony. There's this gentleman by the name of Deb. We also know we connect of drinks and adult talks. So that's good company. And then, and then we, you know, connect. So when we connect, it serves us like people in community energy. The only thing for me is intentional. It seems I'm trying to question is manipulative or self-serving for him and maybe me, because it almost seems as if for a couple of days it was addictive because all I could do was think, you know, about him and everything that happened. And I mean, it put me to sleep. It put me to sleep. Like this is the second time I've went to sleep after the fact. Okay. Yeah. What are you doing? Girl, I'm like, I am so grateful. I am so grateful you called in today. There's like, this could be the whole show. It won't be the whole show, everybody. Don't worry to the rest of my callers. I'm going to try to get to as many of you as I can. But this is so important, pertinent. This is the Jimmy to the jam. I just love that you called in today with this. Okay. First, foremost, thank you. And thank you for sharing these details because some people are aware of this and other people are not. So we are energetic beings. And when we have adult sexy time with other people, there is absolutely energy exchange. So you're completely enmeshing your energy and body with somebody else's.  Just saying these words are not an accident. They are and you are exchanging your energies. Now, if you are with somebody casually occasionally, maybe just once and they have been with other people, you're also picking up that energy. Okay.  Girl, yep, their karma. You can have a karma and a destiny exchange in that moment. You can pick up the and when I say karma, I mean, you can pick up their situations that are going on right now or generational karma that this person has. They if they are very versed in the energy exchange in intimacy, they can really lay it on you or they can be, have intention with this act that they're doing. Most people aren't. Most people aren't aware that when they have from Jaina to Jaina or head head, that they're picking up this person very super. I say this. Or other things that probably also picked up other things along the way. And that can be exchanged during sexy time too.  Why don't you believe in threesomes? But there's a lot that gets exchanged during that time. So if you're not in a completely monogamous situation, you don't know who's what you're picking up. Okay. So if you're feeling tired after the deed and you're falling asleep, typically it's not because they did such a good job. That is just not the case. It is because the energy that you just took on or even more importantly, my friends, listen to this one. Please listen. Energy goes both ways. It's not even maybe that they left something with you or it could be just that they sucked all your good energy right out of you. And what I'm going to say now is you're going to have adult activities with people. Please make sure that you kind of have an idea of what kind of person this is and what they're doing in the meantime in between time of your adult sexy time.  It's not because they threw that ball home. If you are feeling some sort of way that is not the way you felt before it, you can just pretty much assess that they've probably been dipping their doodle in somebody else's cream. I'm just saying. And then you have to make the decision of what you want to do. Now, sometimes it's not as easy to walk as you want to, but that obsessive thinking after the fact is definitely something that has probably changed that you do not want. And as a matter of fact, the psychic attack or spiritual attack clearing I did this morning would be perfect. There's also another one on TikTok that I put on all the other social media clearing you, your home and everybody in it. But for you and everybody listening right now, right at the 20 minute mark of the show, I'm going to clear any energy transfers. Yeah, that's it. Let's clear that now.  And we're going to start clearing that now for you, everybody listening, re listening. Oh, yeah. And then I'm also going to go one step further and say clear all four and all four and energies have been cleared from us. So we're going to clear that now. And this can be, you know, when a friend, a family member, a partner is intently thinking about us. Or again, we've been in their presence and we've picked up their energy and we just need to get it off of us and be back in our own energy. Excuse me, everybody. That's what this is. And again, I feel that coming out of the throat area. Now I want to say, as a medium, yes, I can see your loved ones on the other side, but I can also see and feel things that a lot of people don't don't want to. And don't let that make you afraid to open your medium or psychic intuitive abilities because they're there. A lot of times whether you can see them or not. It's a matter of excuse me, it's a matter of what you can do with them. Not that they're there or not, but what you can do with it. And it's just clearing it. Just sending, asking the angels to come in and take us out. And I don't know if anybody else is feeling this. If you feel it, please let me know. Comment. I am. Girl. I am. Thank you so much. Absolutely. That is what I'm here for. We help each other. And what I would recommend moving forward is really, and we're all adults, and we have, we have, you know, whatever. Do you know what the song, okay, this is the best way I can say this because my show is on TV. The song Electric Slide. Do you know what that was originally? There's this all new meaning to the song, the Electric Slide. Look that up. And that might be a good option for a lot of women out there. If you don't know, you need to know. That's all I'm saying. Okay. So, so that's what I have for you. Love. Thank you so much, Tony. I knew I needed to call you and find out what had happened because, yeah, it seemed like he brought in like the heavy toward him. Okay. So thank you for saying that. Thank you for saying that. And here's another thing that people who are involved, active, sexy, let's call it sexy time. Women want sex time for emotional, psychological, want to be touched on love. Okay. Men, oftentimes, and some women do this, don't let me blanket out the statement. Oftentimes, men want to lose a load, relieve stress, get rid of their daily, weekly tensions. So when they're having, like, yes, intimacy in general, if it's done right, boys, relieve stress for both men and women. I'm sorry, boys. I didn't mean that. I'm just trying to be funny. It relieves stress for both men and women. But when they go into that act thinking, I'm so stressed. I'm pent up. I'm angry. I had a bad day. I'm going to pound this out. Whatever they're pounding out. And they may not even realize it. They're pounding it into you. They're unloading into us. So if you're the bottom, or whomever that came out for, or you're the receptacle, that's what they're doing. They're unloading all of their plush into us. And if you don't know how to clear that, or if that's their intention for the act itself, you need to really be aware of that.  And it's a mutual give and take of love and sexy time and big ol' owes. Big ol' owes. It doesn't always work out that way. Because sometimes people are, like I said, unloading their day. And even if they're not intentionally doing that, it can happen. And it's not only that men do it to women. I know women who do it to men also. And I know women who will intentionally do certain acts to men because they have very false beliefs about what that act is. But let's just call it the soul snatcher 3000, where they think if they do a certain act, they can extract certain things. Maybe they are, maybe they can. But again, it's your intention during the act that is the most important thing. So if you're coming together to come together and have this mutual exchange, all good, all good. If it's just another conquest, or somebody you're part timing or unloading on, not so good, not so good for you. So yes, that's a lot of sexy time taught by the show folks. So Cody, real quick, I know you have to go to the next call. So when did you pick up? What did you see? Was this a mutual thing for him? Okay, so what I feel like to you, actually, what if what I see what I'm going to tell you what I'm seeing, rather than so energy can be light and energy can be dark. And I don't want you to misunderstand this and think that if I say this, it means it was like a lower dark being. What I just see is a lot of dark energy being transferred from one person to the other. And again, that can be somebody can have dark energy because they are stressed, angry, having a bad day. It doesn't have to be whatever. So we just like get rid of that, that energy. We release all of that energy. And the next thing we, we just are a little bit more aware and content. And here's what I'll say. Just because somebody is trying to, they have bad, they've had a bad day or they're having negative energy. We still want to be intimate with them. All we have to do is like, have it be our intention and reject any of their transfer is the best I can say that. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not. Thank you so much for taking your time and joining me today. I will be back Monday at noon for a minimum of 30 minutes for a pregnancy. I'm sending you as much love as I possibly can have an amazing rest of the week.