The enemy has been defeated. Christ reigns victoriously. So why then are we commanded in Scripture to be equipped for spiritual battles? Ephesians chapter 6 verses 10 through 13 says this, a final word, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil. For we are not fighting against flesh and blood enemies against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. Therefore put on every piece of God's armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. The truth of the matter is that the devil is real and so are demons. They are not metaphors for evil. They are living sentient beings that exist in another worldly dimension. They have been around for eons, understand human nature, and are highly trained spiritual assassins. Now by no means should the believer live in a paranoid state or constantly worry about being overcome by demonic powers, but the Scripture clearly teaches that we are to be engaged in spiritual warfare. But since Christ has won the victory, how does spiritual warfare look for the believer? Mind you, demonic beings affect believers differently than they do unbelievers. So here is the simplest definition of spiritual warfare that I can give to you as it applies to the believer, the fight to believe God's truths over the enemy's lives. Think about what armor we are given, the shield of faith, the sword of the spirit, the belt of truth. By faith, we guard ourselves against lies. The sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, destroys deception. The belt of truth keeps us prepared to resist deception. At least for the believer, spiritual warfare is primarily about avoiding deception by getting you to believe lies. The enemy can affect your thinking. By affecting your thinking, the enemy can affect your emotions. By affecting your emotions, the enemy can affect your actions. Now, in no way can the enemy own the believer, but the believer can embrace lies that limit faith. There's much to know about spiritual warfare, but this is the primary way to win. Know the word of God, the sword of the spirit, and believe that word by faith. Apply the shield of faith for the believer. Knowing and believing the truth is the way to win. For when you know the truth, you are free. I'm David Diger Hernandez, and that is your moment of truth. For more free teachings like this, make sure you're signed up to my email list so that I can send you weekly emails with content that will help you to grow spiritually. Go to davidhernandezministries.com. Thank you for watching EncounterTV. Don't forget to subscribe and click the notification bell. Also, help us spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Make a one-time donation or become a monthly supporter by clicking on the donate link now.


So anyways, we've got about 45 minutes that we can finish hearing from Kristen or or. And so you want to pick up where you left off the other day, Kristen. Sure, happy to. I think we have a couple of questions for the record, Kristen has with the agency of agriculture. So maybe you can clarify my understanding was that there were the committee had some questions about the. Requirement that we're proposing in this bill related to swine and allowance for 96 hours for people to sort of re gather, recapture their escape, domestic swine. Is that the area of focus for. Yeah, that that was a question that was raised and there may be others, but we can start with that one and. Sure, move on. Okay. So the reason so that the 96 hours was decided upon. Jointly by us and the department of the agency of agriculture and the department of fish and wildlife and we also had collaborated with USDA wildlife services on this language and so they were involved in the conversations as well. Basically, we came up with 96 hours for a couple of reasons. And again, this is the time that would be given to an individual. Pigeons. And the reason that we came up with that is that we already have a precedent established in the CWD rule related to captive servants, captive gear. When they escape. There is a requirement for the owner to notify the agency of agriculture by the next business day. Once they become aware of escapees, but then they do have 96 hours. To get those deer back into an enclosure. So we wanted to try and mirror that time allotment in this language. It seemed to all of us involved in the conversation, like a reasonable period of time to allow somebody to make arrangements to get their pigs back in while not being too long of a period such that we end up with more. Or the owner ends up with more issues of pigs, maybe dispersing further away or making it more difficult for them to, to be recontained. So it seemed like a happy medium between those two things. And then another point that maybe is worth clarifying is that, you know, this proverbial clock would only start. After notification. So neither we, nor the department of fish and wildlife are going to be pitching tents outside of people's properties. You know, looking for this to happen. So, so there would have to be a notification that would sort of set that starting point for that 90. 96 hours. And of course the goal would be to. To help ensure that people get their pigs captured again. That that's going to be, to help ensure that people get their pigs captured again. That that's the collective goal, not to do anything different than that. But we want to be able to have a reasonable period of time in which to act, should they be. I'm successful in, in containing them. So that's where the 96 hours. Comes in and, you know, as you can tell, it's not. It's not a more scientific proposal than, than what I've described. There isn't really science that applies here. It's more to do with operational soundness and fairness and equity with the, with the swine farmers and swine owners. So that's how we came up with that. Yeah. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Chris. Is there any. I guess I'm struck that if a, if a farmer. Was being entirely cooperative and working alongside you to recapture the, their animal. That this still would take effect that, that, that. And I wonder if that's true in practice. In terms of, you know, taking an animal and just, could you help us understand that? Cause I'm wondering if we ought to clarify or have some distinction there. Yep. So the goal of the owner presumably would be to get them recaptured or recontain our goal. And, and I think I can speak for our partner agencies and say the same, our collective goal would be to work with them to do that. Even if they were unsuccessful, the owner was unsuccessful in getting those animals contained again. As I think the situation last year demonstrated. Our steps would be to try and provide, bring resources to bear to that situation, to just augment that effort, not necessarily automatically take a completely different approach. The thing that maybe is worth mentioning here too, an answer to your question, Senator, is that I mentioned when we talked on Friday that USDA wildlife services has a lot of expertise, equipment, supplies, et cetera, that they can bring to bear. But because they are a non regulatory portion of USDA, they need to be able to operate under some sort of state authority to bring those resources to bear. And so this is as much about identifying and clarifying that state authority so that we can engage those, that partner and help with the situation as, as anything else. I mean, and I, you know, the end goal is to have these animals contained again. So if there was a circumstance where people are just not making an effort or, or are failing in that, then, you know, there are a couple of different outcomes possible, but I can tell you that our first approach would be to bring those resources to bear and work with them to continue to be successful in that effort. So if you bring the resources to bear requires this trigger. Is that right? Is that what you're saying? Correct. Yes. What we, what we found out in 2019 was that in the in the circumstance there where there were escape domestic pigs that were located on, on neighboring properties and stuff, when we really dug down into the current statutory language and our rules and both we, the we being agency of agriculture and Department of Fish and Wildlife, we realized that we, we didn't have a clear authority to take any action under under which USDA wildlife services could, could act as our partners slash subcontractors to bring the, the traps and the cameras and the other resources to try and get the situation under control. So we had to shoot that. The scenario we were working with when, you know, through the higher ups of USDA wildlife services to try and clarify under whose authority would they be using federal equipment, federal funding to, to try and, and help. So this, this would clarify that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but could I just have a follow up? Sure. Sure. So as we read through it, I would say for myself, it sounded like we were setting a clock at which point, if necessary, the animal could be killed, right? And, and because it's a menace, we haven't, it hasn't worked, but I'm hearing you say that's a little portion of it, but also it's really about bringing in federal resources to help recapture an animal. Yes, that, that can be an equally likely and a hopeful outcome of this circumstance. So, so is it actually a problem that it's a fairly long window? And, and could there be a bifurcated option where you could more quickly get federal resources, but have some time before Vermonters felt like their animals would be taken. While you've also got the resources that you have, to handle a, a runaway. So in other words, would there be an option for in that scenario, wildlife services to bring equipment and supplies and expertise prior to the 96 hours should somebody request it or, or be interested in that assistance? Yeah. I would hope so. I hope that would be the case. Once they're, once they notify the agency that their pigs are out and they're trying to collect them. Wouldn't, wouldn't the agency go within a day and try to see how they were making out. And if it was real difficult. Jump into help. I think by, you know, in, in a practical sense, from having gone through the situation last year, it, to coordinate that we probably would look at, be looking at a several day period anyway. So when push comes to shove, I think that that between the animals escaping, the owner deciding that they're not going to be able to mitigate the situation themselves. Contacting, the agency of agriculture and department of fish and wildlife, us then coordinating with USDA wildlife services. That probably is going to be over a several day period anyway.  If somebody were to notify us on day one and a half that, Hey, my pigs are out. And I'm so far not being successful getting them. I'm not getting them. We would not wait until a magic 96 hour period to then start having conversations with wildlife services and giving them the heads up that, Hey, this, you know, this might be going on and, and we might be requesting your, your assistance. I can't speak for the department of fish and wildlife on that, but I would assume that their practice would be the same. And I'm so far not being successful getting them back in. We would not wait until a magic 96 hour period to then start having conversations with wildlife. And I'm so far not being successful getting them back in. And I would assume that their practice would be the same where there's not a. The 96 hours, I think should be looked at as. As. If, if the, if the situation goes in a direction where we have to take more permanent and maybe undesirable action, then we want to give people an adequate window. But in the instance where we are. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do these other resources. Probably it's going to take a several day period to coordinate that anyway. This may be how I would think of that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just skimming through the language as you're talking. And it seems to me that the 96 hours is after the 96 hours.  And. It's considered a feral swine, but it can be shot if it's a feral swine and can be, that's legal if it's considered a feral swine. But I don't see anything that talks about. Prior to the 96 hours, the agency. Of ag and natural resources will coordinate with the. USDA to help catch feral swine or to help catch the pigs before they become feral swines. And that's sort of what you've described, but I don't see it in the language. It just seems to me that the language is about. Removing feral swine, not about catching non feral pigs.  Yeah, I, it's, it's a, it's a consequence driven set of language basically versus, versus. Language that captures what our normal practice in interacting with farmers would be is now and would continue to, to be. Even if this were to pass. So I'm wondering if it might be helpful to add some language that says first and foremost, we want to be helpful. We want to catch the pigs. So we preserve the. Animals of a farmer and protect the public from their, you know, damage they may do. And if we're not able to do that, we're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that in the amount of time. And then these are the consequences if they're deemed feral, but something that says beforehand, we're going to be working collaboration with the farmer, because it, it seems like punitive and not collaborative in the language as it is now, unless I'm missing something, Michael. There's no specific. Reference to the agency or the department having. To coordinate with APHIS. An agency. To be able to identify authority over the welfare and management and transport. Of livestock. And when you read all of that authority together. They basically have the ability to respond to. An issue of a pig. Being loose. But this is about giving the agency and the department the authority specifically to manage that loose animal in a way that currently would be animal cruelty. And so I think you could have a specific reference to them coordinating with the APHIS or requesting APHIS's assistance prior to the 96 hours. I think they generally have that authority anyway. We could reference that and make it stronger. I think would you have any problems or that, Kristen? No, no. I just want to make sure that people don't think that this is just, you know, I think giving the authority to shoot a bunch of pigs instead of, hey, actually, our goal is to to catch them and make sure they're safe and everybody else is safe not to shoot them except for as a last resort, basically. Yeah, and now we we wouldn't have problem with that. I think the other thing to keep in mind and maybe Mike can think about this what new this nuances and that is where in this conversation talking about domestic pigs that escape, there also have been in Vermont and will continue to periodically crop up truly feral, you know, by everyone's sort of typical stereotypical traditional definition, feral swine. And those we we want to I don't we don't want to inadvertently undermine the Department of Fish and Wildlife's authority to, you know, a game warden is out in the woods runs into a more typical looking feral swine animal. There have been no reports of escape. No no reason to believe that this is a domestic pig that has gotten out based on the appearance or the reporting or anything else. We don't want to undermine their ability to manage that wild animal in the moment. So as long as that doesn't inadvertently happen, we'd be fine with the added language on the domestic pig side. Yeah, I I don't think we would want to stop that from happening. You know, if I want to take a wild boar and yeah, they they're really pretty bad. Yeah, exactly. So is the committee's in agreement with having Michael draft up some new language to add to our present language to allow for that or reference it basically. So the present language that's already in statute. Well, that's good. Any comments on that? Anthony, fine. Brian. You're good. So you want to do that, Michael? Any other any other questions for Kristen in regards to her proposed changes? And no, and Kristen, have you have you chatted with the House Committee on on your proposed changes? The two that we discussed on Friday during during your committee meeting. Yes, they well, let me back up. We did provide testimony on those back before this bill crossed over to the Senate side. I have not recommunicated with the House Ag Committee post Friday, but I'm happy to do that. If if you would like or Michael, if you think that's the best idea, maybe you've talked with them, I'm not sure. But happy, happy to reach back out to them. Yeah, I talked to them this morning. They asked the status of six, five, six, and I told them that the agency may come in and ask for a couple of tweaks that were caused by my failure to make the changes in the House Committee. Yeah. And any comments, Michael, back or? No, I just think that they are just curious as to the stats of the bill. That's all. Yeah. Any other questions for Kristen? No, no, Rose. Well, I just wondered if we are going to have every time Kristen's here, I'm like, oh, we got to ask her this. This is on a different topic. So is that OK since she's here? Should we have her back? It's more about our COVID relief package for Ag. No, you wait or you can. No, as we've got we've got time. So sure. So I don't mean to take you by surprise, Kristen, but I know that you're in contact with slaughter facilities and and the like around the state, and that has come up as an issue related to COVID and how they are busier than normal. And we have been discussing sort of generally about how to help the Ag sector. And if there are things that would be helpful for our slaughter facilities to keep up with the demand and also sort of ease the the potential for culled dairy cows into the slaughter facilities, if you've had those discussions or if their health related things that the slaughter facilities may should do in order to avoid the disastrous horrible things that are happening in the rest of the country or just any thoughts you've had in your discussions with those facilities just in general? Sure. So we have had the agency of Ag has had discussions one on one with several slaughter facility owners and managers, as well as sector wide conference calls with the slaughter sector, slaughter facility sector. And first and foremost, our message to them has been that it is hugely important for them to follow the PPE and the personal protective required, the health and safety requirements that are in place under the current order and to do that religiously, not only to protect their workers to make sure that there aren't unfortunate shutdowns of certain facilities, but also we have a vested interest in it from the standpoint of our own state employees are in those facilities as well, because they've been considered essential employees throughout. So making sure that they follow those requirements has been talked on our priority list and we've communicated that to them. I know that Ellen Kahler and some folks working with with her have put together coaching teams for slaughter facility owners who are interested in utilizing that expertise and those resources to try and troubleshoot some of those issues and the last that at least I was aware of Ellen reporting back on that, that had been, you know, a fairly successful. They were having good, good progress with that. I think I understand that there maybe has been talk or it's been alluded to that opening up or further relaxing the on farm slaughter allowances for for people to slaughter at home and then sell that product. It's my understanding that that's been discussed in different, different conversations and I just would use this opportunity to remind folks that, you know, we do have to maintain the the food safety standards that are in place and that's why there are prohibitions and limits on what can be slaughtered on farm and then what what the outcome or or disposition of that product can be. Certainly there perhaps is an option and I don't know of anybody who's pursuing this right now, but, you know, the whole custom slaughter situation. There's for expanding that that sector. Should somebody be interested in that? Because that would allow maybe more access for folks who are sending animals to slaughter and then intending on consuming that product themselves. So perhaps that could be an area that somebody might be interested in in exploring and, you know, could maybe do quite well at the at the moment. I'm aware of one federal establishment in Vermont. And this was several weeks, if not maybe a month ago, but they were looking at adding additional shifts to their operations and working with Food Safety Inspection Service to do that, to try and use some of the some of the burden as well. So those are, you know, that's been the activity on that front. And I think we've been very fortunate due to the good work of the slaughter facilities here to not be in the same situation as other parts of the country where that's been a significant cause, a significant backlog in in livestock movement to slaughter. The other thing that I was informed of by one of our employees who does the market reporting at two at our livestock market here in Vermont, as well as one over in Cambridge, New York, is that the price per pound for calves for dairy calves and for dairy, dairy beef has has gone up a fair bit during recent weeks. So that that bodes well for dairy farmers who are who are taking advantage of that market, too. They might be able to get a little better price for their animal at this point. Yeah, Michael, I just want to weigh in on this. The Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts state requirements. And I'm reading from a U.S. Supreme Court case, it precludes states from imposing requirements that are within the scope of the Federal Meat Inspection Act relate to slaughter house premises, facilities and operations are in addition to or different than those made under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. So I raise this because there's I've been asked to look at this material that's being circulated that says that states should amend their laws to allow slaughterhouses more flexibility. And it's based on assertion that Wyoming has done this. Now, Wyoming has basically adopted an on farm slaughter law like Vermont has. They haven't changed what the slaughterhouses are required to do because the Federal Meat Inspection Act would have preempted that. So if you're getting material that says you need to change or relax the requirements on slaughterhouses because Wyoming has done it, that's not accurate. And so you've already done what Wyoming has done and you did it four years ago. No, we're that far ahead. Yes. So four months ago, four years. Wyoming copy us. Pretty, it's pretty similar. Yeah. The Vermont law has more health and safety provisions written into it than the Wyoming laws. Yeah. Well, we don't know. And that that law is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as is the custom slaughter. They are both exceptions to the inspection requirements under the Federal Meat Inspection. So just I just want people to be aware of that. There's some disinformation that's circulating among certain communities. That that's fake news, right, Michael? I just it's just an incorrect interpretation of the Wyoming law. Ruth, you had a question. I just want to follow up quickly. Thanks for that, Michael. I have not seen that. So I'm glad to hear that we are already, you know, better than the rest of the country. But Kristen is always on that road. Yeah, of course. It doesn't sound like you have any specific recommendations for slaughterhouses that we should take up at this point. But, you know, based on COVID, your it sounds like things are going well in terms of their health and safety and their operations. Do the OK. I just want to clarify to make sure, because it sounds like you said a few things that could be done, but not anything that you would say should be done. Is that well, I think that because these are pretty extraordinary circumstances, I think the way the method that's being used to try and ensure compliance and education of of owners and managers and their employees is perhaps more productive than, for instance, putting into passing a law that says, thou shalt do these certain things. I that's maybe my own just personal opinion. But I but I think this is a unique enough circumstance that the the education and outreach method seems to be getting more traction and more success than, you know, a hard line mandate and then punitive action if if things aren't aren't being followed. Yeah, that wasn't actually what I was I was asking if you if there was anything we could do to be helpful and if they needed anything that we should include in our relief package, not if we should put extra requirements on them. I'm glad that they're following the recommendations, but wondering if they needed additional support or anything that's related to COVID, you know, Senator, might I suggest and I don't know if you pose that question to Ellen Koehler and Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, but she has, again, they've done a lot of work and have had a lot of good conversations with the with the slaughter facility sector. So I think actually maybe feedback from those discussions would would be the best information that you could go on. The role we have with slaughter facilities is a regulatory role. So so it's a little bit of a different camp that you're talking about here. But I would urge you to reach out to Ellen, perhaps with that question, because she might have some suggestions for helpful relief components that are based on feedback she's received from that sector. OK, yeah, we have a list from Ellen. So I will get to see if it has anything about slaughter facilities on it. Thank you, Kristen. Sure. Thank you. And Kristen Longer on is there any have you heard any talk amongst the slaughter people about getting any contracts out of Southern New England for for native beef from us or anything anything along those lines because they've been a shortage, I know, in mass and and down that way. Senator, I have I have not. No, I've not been privy to those conversations. I mean, we're we're I think more of the conversations I have been in are involved with trying to navigate some of the movement of livestock into Vermont and into New England and the Northeast in general as a result of the bottlenecks elsewhere in the country. But but that's been more on the live animal side versus the, you know, the post mortem, the slaughter, the slaughter side of those conversations. So I'm not I haven't been privy to the category of conversation that you're asking about. Yeah. Other questions for Kristen Long, she's with us. If you don't have questions, I have one other question for you all. If if we have time. Well, you've got us. So I guess we'd better make. OK, well, I'll be brief. It actually is related to the swine language in six fifty six. And I think it's the result of the longer you sit with language, the more sort of Monday morning quarterbacking we tend to do. And after Friday's conversation in talking with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we identified what might be an unintended consequence of the current proposed language, but that could be relatively easily clarified. And so I wanted to just run that by you guys. And that is that wondering if the if the committee would consider a slight adjustment to the notification language on in this is on page four of that condensed version online, too. And I can I can read it to you. It requires that. Can we just get oriented on the full bill? What page we're talking about there? Yeah. Is it the notification that the department shall notify the agency of Ag? Yeah, this position, a Farrell sign. Michael, yeah, that's on page twenty six. Subdivision five. And it's the paragraph it reads. Make sure I have the right one. OK, yeah, it reads any feral swine may be removed or destroyed by the department, the agency of agriculture or a designee. And I'm just summarizing here. And then it goes on to say the department shall notify the agency of agriculture, food and markets prior to the removal or destruction of the feral swine. The scenario that we got down into the weeds about on Friday is that and again, it goes back to maybe Senator Starr, your prior comment. If our state game wardens run across a traditional feral swine in the woods on the top of a mountain with no cell service and there's no no report of the creepies, these aren't domestic pigs. We don't want to undermine their ability to manage that wild animal in that moment. And so what we were wondering is if at the end of that sentence, there could be some clarification that the notification is required if it is a feral swine as defined by F1A, which would be the domestic pig category of feral swine. And then in the other circumstances, I mean, if a game warden runs across a Eurasian boar in the middle of the woods, they don't they don't have to be in touch with me or us or the agency of agriculture before they take action on that animal. And we don't want to create a situation where we're inadvertently requiring them to do so. Does that make sense? Yes. Well, yeah, I wouldn't think if there is a. There is a vast difference between a domestic pig that's been loose for a week than a wild boar has been wild for who knows how long. And I don't think we ought to mix that up. If they. I would think if fish and wild life runs across a wild boar, they ought to be able to take care of it without notifying anybody. I don't know. Is that something we could write in there, Michael, if the committee so chooses? Well, I think if you do what Dr. Haas has recommended that they would have that ability, they don't have to wait 96 hours to take a Eurasian boar. So I think if you just clarify the language in the way Dr. Haas has suggested, I think you you've given them that authority. Yeah, that fine with everybody looks like everybody's in agreement. So we could do that. Thanks for bringing that up. Could I just ask a question, Mr. Chair? Yeah, sure. I'm fine with that suggestion, Dr. Haas, I'm curious, would that be automatic that that the game warden would take take the boar? I mean, we just sort of have a zero tolerance for wildlife management in that regard. Well, I I mean, that would be a good question for them. But I would say, based on my understanding of our collective approach to truly feral wild boar, yes, that that would be what would be done. And that's happened a couple of times, mostly with escapees from a high fence facility in New Hampshire. And yeah, I mean, there's biology here that has to be taken into consideration. And sometimes if there's a group of wild boar, then then shooting them or trying to shoot one of them actually further disperses the remainder of the group, but if they come across a singleton animal that's by itself, then yeah, my understanding is that they need to have the flexibility to take immediate action on that animal. Thanks. Any other questions? No. I think years ago, many, many years ago, there was a wild game place down near fairly or down that way. And we had all kinds of problems with getting that resolved. So this would be good to get that taken care of. So are there other issues, Kristen, that you'd like to bring up? No, sir. No, thank you for the opportunity to bring that up. I know it's it's a little late in the game, but again, we stick with this longer and then want to help ensure unintended negative consequences of language that we're trying to put into place to do good things. So did you have any other sections in six, five, six that you're addressed on the health side? Yes, we did. We had let's see, there there is a weights and measures section in six, five, six. That on the oil trucks on the oil trucks. Yeah, that falls into the shop that I work within. We have a the change in the definition to amenable species under the meat inspection section and the and the removal of rabbits from that list, that that goes to meat inspection. We have some animal health related language in the bill that it was an inadvertent on our part, our mistake when we updated our animal health statutes a couple of years ago, we ended up creating a situation where livestock dealers, the record keeping requirements that used to be in place were were inadvertently loosened. And so what is in six, five, six is a reinsertion of that language to ensure that they keep adequate traceability records. So that was the other piece that I and colleagues I work with provided testimony on. I think that I think that was all of them. I think. Yeah, yes. So everything's fine and with with what your parts in the bill are fine. Yes, yes, indeed. Well, any anything else for Kristen from anybody? If not, thank you very much for your time, Kristen, and stay healthy. Yeah, I will do that. Enjoy the sun. Hey, thank you all. Yeah, you're welcome. So Anson still doing some conference things so he can't be with us. Linda, are you on? Yes. Did you get an email or a call or something? I got an email from him. And I also heard from Peter Sterling that you should be done by nine forty five tomorrow, so I asked Anson to come from ten to eleven thirty tomorrow. Yeah, and that's all OK. Anson is good with that. Yeah. So the only the only other thing I think we we've got to get this bill geared up as a committee and and go through it. Michael will probably have these changes by the next time by maybe tomorrow if we have time or but we should we we should move forward with it and try to get it maybe done up where we feel comfortable this week if we can can if we have time and so we can get it reported maybe next week. Rose. Yeah, I was just wondering if there's are there isn't an opportunity to add anything to this bill? Did you have any ideas on what you might have wanted to add? I'm trying to remember back to everything on my list, something that's come up is the the forestry, the carbon sequestration forestry bill that actually unfortunately didn't get to our committee, but is in natural resources. But there may be other things that sort of were left hanging wondering if there's any opportunity to add them here. Well, it's a miscellaneous bill. There's a zillion parts to it. I'm sure we can do whatever you'd like to do. And somebody could rule us non-Germain, but I I kind of figure out I I bet we can figure out a way around that. So I seek your guidance, Mr. Chair, I know you're the master of it. So that's why I was asking what your thoughts were. The milk bill that we talked a lot about off and on. Yeah, it's. I'd love to do that, but I I don't I don't feel comfortable with the timing right now with with all of the COVID-19 stuff. I I haven't talked to Michael about it, but I I think we're you know, we're up to our nose in in problems and it isn't a good time to try to push forward, you know, kind of a controversial, but I think very meaningful pricing system.  I don't know if any of you have got an opinion on that. But I mean, not that I wouldn't like to. I just don't think I don't feel comfortable with the timing. Brian, thank you, Mr. Chair, I think that's true of I don't want to say monkeying with, but modifying this bill too much is as we are slowly seeing the available time closing in, if you look closely at the Budget Adjustment Act this morning, we're only going to be able to stay around until I think the 18th of June, which is about three more weeks. So if we change this bill, then it's going to go back to the House and they can either concur or not. And then you might wind up with a conference committee. So I'm not necessarily saying I'm against anything that people want to do. I'm just very aware that the windows closing pretty quickly. We don't have the luxury of being, you know, in the middle of February. Well, I think I think any changes that we propose, it would be it would be wise to run them by the House committee. You know, during our discussion, once we get them up to where we think it, the change should be run it by the House committee to see if we can get, you know, at least half of them to one more than half to support it. So that Carolyn can get, you know, an agreement on it. You know, move to adopt the Senate Proposals of Amendment and it's over with. So I think that would be a wise move, but a good move. Chris. Yeah, I agree with that, Mr. Chair, and I just mind, Brian, we are making changes of some kind, at least if we follow. So it is going back. We're not adding such yet, but yeah, no, I mean, your point is is a very valid one. I'm also curious, Mr. Chair. You know, the covid relief concept has taken a few turns now. The governor adopting some of our ideas and but not others and we're waiting to hear from the secretary. I understand that. But I would assume we're still moving forward with the proposal that we would send to you and others in a probes. Is that accurate? Well, we don't really know. Do we? I know they, they, you know, I've met with economic development and whether they're going to try to put this all through under one bill and but we're going to have to deal as far as I'm concerned, I don't care what goes to economic development, but we're going to deal with the egg stuff. OK, as I understand, I water, that's our jurisdiction. And I think Michael, Michael's good to work with on our side. And so, you know, I think I think we'll we'll be dealing with the egg material. But as far as I understand it, and I think we would all vote that yeah, Michael is OK to work with. As I understand it, I wasn't talking about a grady. I see you smiling. You've always been good to work. Sure, I can. I was good to work with those damn guys with the name Michael are just good people. Yes, I wish sometimes Senator Sorokin had Mr. O'Grady's ease sense of anyway. As I understand it, tomorrow, Senator Kitchell, part of our all Senate call will be a little bit of an understanding of how we're moving forward with COVID, yeah, right. We'll get clarity there. But I certainly I guess I'm wondering if you want, Mr. Chair, us to bring you people we'd like to hear from to inform that last week while you were out, we had come up with kind of a little bit of a framework to keep exploring, including some of the people we maybe would speak to. So we can talk about that offline. But I think there is we're not we're not going to have an abundance of time to Senator Collin Moore's point and and our ability to do interesting things and help the ag sector, you know, are going to require some time. Yeah, that that's why I I had a scheduled all week this week every morning. So I thought we could get, you know, ahead of the curve a little bit instead of dragging behind us. But sure, go ahead and and get your list lined up and and be thinking about, you know, you've already talked about some things you'd like to see added in and, you know, like I I'm kind of waiting on Anson to the numbers that he gave me last week. Well, I think it was Friday when they cut that all loose. You know, on the different farm sizes, I think those numbers are out of whack, you know, on proportion to like a small farm of under 50 cows. I had the written written down the number I thought that he gave me was like forty two thousand dollars. Well, you know, if you've only got forty two cows or fifty cows, and you're going to get, you know, that I think there's too much money there. And and then if you get, you know, the top in your pretty light one hundred and ten for somebody that's got, say, fifteen hundred cows is is light. So I think we've got to, you know, get some people in and talk about how that how that should be divided up and and I I want to make for that. You know, everybody gets you somewhat fairly, but I want to make sure that the small and medium guys get used good. And, you know, there's plenty of money there. So everybody should be able to get used fairly if we if we do the forty, forty million in the top end of that extra ten. I have not a clue how they're proposing to distribute that. And have you got any ideas on that or have you heard, Michael? The secretary testified to House Act this morning. He said that the agency is going to administer the program. There are seven hundred and sixty dairy, including goat and other, that would be qualified under the program. And they feel that they are confident that they can provide it's going to be a one time check for my understanding to the seven hundred and forty farms, seven forty or seven sixty. Seven sixty, seven sixty, yeah. And so there's there's a lot in that under fifty cows in some ways, right? There would probably and this is just a rough maybe two hundred fifty. I think that would probably be around that number. So that two hundred fifty to three hundred. Did they have it broken down in categories? How much? Yeah, it's it's the same cat. They didn't have the numbers broken like the number of farms broken down. They had it broken down to the way that you were just describing it, Mr. Chair, with the the small farm, non-certified, the certified small farm, the medium and the large farm. And the large farm would get one hundred and ten. The medium would get ninety. The certified small farm would get sixty and the small farm would get forty two. Seeing in the way we had hours set up. You know, we had the small guys getting under the two seventy five under a small farm, just getting like a five thousand dollar check. Did they say anything about verification that they had those kind of losses? They did say that the farms need to qualify and part of qualification is certifying losses or expenses due to covid. I don't know if they're going to self-certify or have some sort of vetting. I think self-certification would probably be the easiest. But that's that's my understanding. We had we had I thought some pretty good certifying language that that we developed, you know, that it'd be self-certifying, I believe, but, you know, that they at least had to do a little something. Yeah, I think the certification language in your bill was in the the non-dairy section and not in the dairy section. I we didn't have. I thought we clarified that that language in the dairy section to some degree. They had to be milking and they had to be in good standing. Yeah, we got to look. I don't know whether we've decided yet on that survey, whether they have to fill it out or whether it should be kind of like, would you like to fill it out? I see Senator Pearson smiling. So I have a feeling I know what side he's on. Rose. Yeah, I guess since we started talking about this, but I also I have a comment on it. But I also wanted to ask Bobby, did we get did we just get a couple bills referred to us from the House that are separate from. Well, we we got one. Is it two fifty four? But we got that one. But the other house bill, they shipped off to the tree reward one. We didn't get that one. No, that went to natural because they're in the forestry big time in natural resources. OK, so maybe the forestry issue that I just brought up that the carbon sequestration thing would be more appropriate on that bill if they want to. Well, you better talk to your county mate and have him put it right on. I'm sure he'd jump on that. I'm sure I'm sure he would, you know, ask and you shall receive. Yeah, well, I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out if there's an avenue left for that, at least getting part of it in there, the language. But why don't you check and see if he'll deal with that? And don't don't push the issue. But if he doesn't, we'll figure out a place to tuck it into our bill. OK, sounds good. And then I had a question for Michael since we were talking about the dairy package. I heard from a farmer in my district that the feds had figured out how they finally figured out how they're distributing their aid to dairy and that it's based on milk volume for the first three months and that it's really geared toward helping the large milk producers so that the larger dairy operations would probably see the vast majority of that funding. And it's not. That's not that. Is that not accurate? It would be just really helpful to get a better understanding of how the federal money is being distributed so we could, you know, dovetail ours, fill in whatever holes that is missing. It's the first. Michael's got it, I'm sure. If he wants to. But the first three months are at eighty five percent based on hundred weights, but capped at one twenty five. And then the next three months is thirty percent, I believe. And the following three months, if there are, that'd be thirty or thirty five percent of their based on their production. My anywhere is near right, Michael. I am sending you the press release from USDA that they released last week that has all the details in it. OK, that's great, because I think they came out with the rules last week. Isn't that correct, Michael, that clarified some? Well, yeah, the requirements, yeah. Yeah. So you're welcome. And it would be good to look that over before we have Anson on tomorrow, you know, so we got something to compare by. So Anson's not coming today. He's coming tomorrow. Yeah, he he was tied up. I got a note that he's tied up, but he's going to come tomorrow at ten thirty. Oh, OK, OK, I misunderstood. I thought we were waiting for him now. Well, that's why I'm not really rambled on, but let the discussion kind of float because he couldn't make it. And no, I wouldn't hold him up. And is we have a sense, it sounds like Chris, maybe you were saying that we might know this more tomorrow from our caucus. But, you know, the the the agency's package is fifty million total. It's forty for dairy and then ten for cheese. And I'm wondering if is fifty what we get to work with or do we have more? Do we have less? I mean, because we have a lot of pieces in our bill that are not included in theirs. And so it's, you know, I don't want to forget the other portion. My I don't know the answer. I believe that Senator Kitchell will help us begin to understand the framework that she's applying and possibly the whole you'll probably learn. I don't know. So I don't know exactly. One idea I heard was, you know, there's a lot of money in the governor's proposal for restaurants.  You know, and that's where I think there's tremendous opportunity to help the restaurants and drive the money back into the local economy. And, you know, I think that the latest data we have is a dollar local generates about a buck six, the economic activity. So I'm hopeful we'll keep our eye on the whole thing. I'm hopeful, yeah, a gather. We'll have a little broader understanding tomorrow morning and then go to work to work for Derry, but also the broader economy. We have to do that. Yeah. And Jane is Jane's very supportive of our whole crew, you know, the little guys and and no, that that'll help. You know, a great deal. So, Michael, do you want to fool with those numbers a little bit and the money? You want me to call you and talk with you about how that could be divided up on a more fair basis, and maybe we could even keep a little of that money if it worked out right to do something else to help our small producers.  Well, see, you know, you have to figure if there's two hundred and fifty little farms and and you they're proposing to do forty two million, no, forty, forty, forty two thousand, right? Right, right. Well, how that breaks out per firm. And then and, you know, you've got the small certified firms that sixty thousand each in in the number on them should be around the same, I believe, to to something two sixty eight and the medium size is one hundred and five of them. And, you know, ninety ninety is pretty fair for that crew, you know, but how it figures out. And then and see, you know, who's getting maybe too much and who isn't getting enough. And and. But anyways, any any other questions, Chris? Well, I just have a basic question. Senator Hardy mentioned the federal package and and I'll look at what Michael just sent us, but do you believe do you understand and we can ask Ainsons tomorrow? Are we meaning to supplement that, add to it or let that go where it's going and us hit what it misses? Yeah, ours would be totally separate and it would be to supplement supplement the federal losses and the some of the one of the big guys that I talked with off and on, Amanda, you guys all know Amanda St. Pierre. They're they're losing about seventy five thousand dollars a week on on, you know, their their cuts that they've had to take.  But the average guy like Ruth's friend, Bill. That's your friend, Bill. He's my brother. Yeah, you're supposed to be mentoring him or he's your mentor. Bill is a mentor. I didn't know. No, I'll have to I'll have to clarify that with him. His his losses are, you know, much less than than that. They're like forty thousand dollars a milk check. The little guy that I talked with up in Holland, a small farm, his milk check one was five thousand less. In the second one was the next check was eight thousand less. So those little guys are taking it on the chin pretty hard, too. And and so, you know, we've got to be somewhat fair as fair can be to even that out. But we'll look over Michael's that federal program and and. Oh, I'll I'll look that over because I haven't I haven't seen what Michael's going to send us, so I'll look that over. See how much the little guys are going to get. Yeah, it doesn't have any of this. It doesn't have the specific number. I'm looking at it right now, but it does. It is mostly based on the first quarter. So I sent a second document from FSA and they have it as the chair was referring earlier for the months of January, February and March. The each producer is going to have the payment of four dollars and seventy one cents multiplied by the hundred weight of milk production for those months. So that's what they'll get for those months, which is going to be approximately eighty to eighty percent and then for four dollars and seventy one cents. Yeah. And then for after that for they don't have the payment for after that on the FSA document. But it's going to be based on a projected adjustment, which is effectively what they were talking about before the 30 percent. I have to get you more information about from March on. It's not in the FSA document I just sent. What it says in the site that I'm looking at is that for the paint, each eligible producer payment is calculated by multiplying the hundred weight of milk production for the months of January, February, March by the national adjustment of one point zero one four and by a dollar forty seven. That's for the second payment. It still seems like it's on the first quarter. Yeah, that's that's yeah, they break it down. There's the CARES Act funds and then the CCC funds, the commodity credit corporation funds. So the one dollar one point zero one four and one point four seven. That's the commodity credit funds. And then the CARES Act funds from the nine point five. That's that's the four dollars and seventy one cents in that first quarter. So so how much you don't have the 30 percent for the second quarter? Now, I don't have that that info. I'm going to have to get it from FSA. Yeah. Well, you work work on that then, Michael. Yeah. Yeah. Any any other questions or things that anybody wants to bring up? No, I have another meeting at one o'clock.  Thanks a lot, guys. And we'll see you on the full senate meeting in the morning. And then we'll switch to ag at ten thirty or quarter after ten. OK, yeah. Thank you, Linda, Michael.


and school systems are crazy right now gang if you're in school you got my sympathies because it's wacko in Canada United States anyway if you're at a school really be considerate to those who are in school there's a lot of kids that are struggling with what's going on right especially extroverts especially those that need the attention for them to work things out to get over some of the hiccups that they may be having learning any subject especially mathematics and physics sort of things that if you're missing one little piece it's very hard to grasp things that are being built on that concept right so be considerate to those who are in school who might be struggling who who need help who might be feeling angry or depressed or sad because a certain part of their lives and for some people you know going to school is very important to them and youth in general is very important the social awareness of it right there's a little trauma there right I was talking to a friend yesterday and she mentioned in she knows people in different parts of the world where they've been locked out for a long time okay and she mentioned specifically she knew people in Spain that have been in lockdown for a long time and for a few months and she mentioned one of their one of their friends they have really young kids and those young kids have been in an apartment right for a few months now right and when the first the lockdown opened up a little bit and they were able to go to the park because that during a severe lockdown in Spain I believe only one family member was allowed to go shopping and come out so they were living in the apartment and when the young kids went out to the park they were having a hard time adjusting to the perspective because when they're living in the apartment their eyesight is usually you're seeing within a room right so they weren't used to the vastness of nature so he said she mentioned that the kids were really overwhelmed by the nature and the trees and that light and stuff like this which is something that I hadn't considered before right so there's a lot of things happening to our society that we're not aware right now okay Tutsch and Jason my younger brother has just started his college studies over the last few months and he has been absolutely taking the whole thing strides super proud of him awesome Tutsch and Jason you should be you should be right and kudos to him right deck man I put off my last year of college because of all this did a half-semester online and it was miserable I'm studying film which is so hands-on so online classes absolutely don't cut it props to your younger brother for sticking with it yeah props to Jason's younger brother and the deck man you're not the only one there there's students that I know that have dropped out of certain classes that they're taking now they're taking correspondence trying to deal with that and a lot of classes they've been gutted right not that they were they weren't gutted before but they've got it even more now like there's a couple of chapters that they're not teaching like I have one student in math 11 and one of the chapters that they took out was personal finance so they're not teaching personal finance like what it's crazy


How about a bad faith law, the Metropolitan case? You have a law that says people who act in bad faith when, you know, applying their contractual remedies or interactions, that that is actionable, bad faith. Well, that's a law of general applicability. That applies to all makers of contracts, not just insurance companies. Therefore, the savings clause doesn't kick in. So it's not going to kick in only with laws of specific direction. Now, the last step, yes, Jim? In terms of the bad faith laws, there are some courts that have held that, you know, that they are safe and depending on the origin of the bad faith law, whether specifically directed at the insurance industry or had a law of general applicability. Yes, I agree with you, Judge. The question is, what if the bad faith law is a law of narrow applicability only to the insurance industry? Well, then you're right. I meant to be saying bad faith laws of general applicability. There's very few states that have bad faith laws of narrow applicability, but there are four or five of them. And I agree with you. So if you've got a bad faith law that's only aimed at insurance companies to regulate the industry, then you might have the savings clause. However, let's take that example. I've been correctly narrowed down. Now we've got that bad faith law of narrow applicability. All right? So it would seem to be saved. State law can go forward. However, you must then lastly consider the demer clause. Take an aspirin. Stay with me. All right. It's hard. Take this step with me. Now remember what we've got. We've got a law that seems to be saved. No Orissa. The demer clause, I'm going to say this and then I'm going to explain it. The demer clause says, no employee benefit plan itself shall be deemed to be an insurance company. In other words, uninsured, this is the English version. Uninsured or self-insured plans are not subject to the savings clause. So we've got that example. They seem to be saved. State law goes forward. However, if it's a self-insured or uninsured plan, meaning there's no insurance company anywhere else, forget the savings clause, it's deemed under the demer clause, Orissa still preempts. So what do we got the savings? What's left of the savings clause, as the law professors say? What's left is, you have a law that is aimed at the insurance industry and the plan is insured. Now, if you want to read the long version of what I just said, read FMC versus Holiday because that's the case that renders this decision. Supreme Court decision, FMC versus Holiday is a three-sitting reading case. You cannot read the case in one sitting because halfway through, you have a terrible attack of anxiety and other ills. And have you ever read the case in one sitting? You have a terrible attack of anxiety and other ills. And have you ever tried to read Holiday? You know exactly what I'm talking about. You've got to read it three separate times, preferably in different locations. Once you read it, however, you'll be no further along except understanding than what I've just told you, which is the savings clause only saves laws directed at insurance coming specifically because the plan that's involved in the case is insured. All right. Now, that is the latest and not the last word on a risk of preemption. So keep your eyes open because this is a fast-changing field, but that gets us sort of to where we need to be. Now, let's get to something that matters every day and will lead to our three cases. Let's go now to procedure. This is how can you send the case back even if there is jurisdiction? The back door is squeaky. Let's take a look at some of these. These are on your jurisdictional checklist, many of them. Let's take a look at them. Well, let's take rule number one. Rule number one is that the case must be removed within 30 days, generally speaking, of receipt by the first defendant. Now, I've got some loaded terms in here. I'm entitled to certain limited opinions. First of all, not within 30 days. Well, 30 days assuming that the original complaint is removable. If the original complaint is removable, meaning there's diversity, remove the thing or don't, but do it. If it's federal question, remove it or don't, but do it. If there is a basis for removal, it must be removed within 30 days. All right, that's easy enough. We'll get to a moment about the case that changes and becomes removable. That's far more interesting. Receipt. Oh, I'm really saucing the goose here, but I'll give you my opinion. And there's lots of case law to support it. The statute says within 30 days by service or otherwise. I don't know what the word or otherwise means, unless it means as at least 60% of the cases hold, that when the defendant receives it, even if not by formal or proper service, either situation. The case is courtesy copy. The plaintiff's lawyers who know removal learn this, or they take my seminars in California and the West, they learn it. Give a courtesy copy to the defendant. The 30-day clock starts ticking under the laws of many May states, and in your materials, I've given you some cases that stand for that proposition. District court cases primarily. And I think the Fifth Circuit would stand for that proposition as well, frankly, under Doe versus Kerwood. In any event, no real strong circuit authority one way or the other, some district court say, no, no, no, it's got to be proper service, because or otherwise meant to refer a couple of those weirdo states that had different rules for service. I don't buy it, particularly since removal jurisdiction is strictly construed. But you may have your own opinion. What does receipt mean? Receipt means they get a copy of a filed complaint. Giving them a courtesy copy of a draft is not enough, in my opinion. You don't have to have a file stamp on it, but it has to be something that is now in stone. Once it's in stone and the defendant has received it, then the 30-day clock starts running. And or they are served, but they're served improperly. That's also receipt. So improper service, I think the 30 days run from that moment. All right, one other last one. This one I don't think is sauced in the goose. I think it's the law, for sure. The 30-day clock starts running from service on the first defendant. That's when the clock starts running. So if the service is on May 1st, the receipt is May 1st, that's better. The clock starts running, and even if defendant number two, who gets served on June 2nd, more than 30 days later, says, wait a minute, let's remove, and convinces dumb defendant number one to join the removal, it's too late. The clock starts ticking with the first defendant who receives or in some circumstance is served. But let me tell you something. This is important. The reason why I gave you a proposed order that follows this list, by and large, an order shall cause is because now two circuits have held, the third circuit and the ninth circuit, and no other circuit is contrary to this, that you know the rule, a motion to remand for procedural defects if made by the plaintiff must be made within 30 days of the removal. Or the plaintiff waves their right to remand. So there's a, by the way, for subject matter jurisdiction defects, that can be remanded at any time. You know, even on appeal. I was told to break the seventh circuit apparently has a new decision which says that they are examining jurisdiction even at the appellate level, even after trials. Well, great. I mean, they're following these principles. But my point is that remand for lack of jurisdiction at any time, subject matter jurisdiction. But now we're talking procedural defect. The air service versus folium case out of the third circuit, and I forget the name out of the ninth circuit, the ninth circuit also holds that the 30-day time limit also, and the fifth circuit, the 30, the fifth circuit included, the 30-day time limit also applies to you judges. You can, these courts hold, suisponte remand by scanning the removals and seeing problems. I mean, you could come up with an argument against that, but I've ceased making it because it's now three circuits to none. So I'm now saying that you can suisponte remand by scanning the removal. Because for procedural defect, you've got the same 30-day time limit as the parties do. And therefore, if you let that case languish for more than 30 days and don't scan the procedural defects or issue this kind of order, you're possibly having a case in federal court that was removed improperly, and it stays there as long as there's jurisdiction. All right? Resident defendant removal, diversity. A lot of people forget this. Removal on diversity grounds is available. But not if one of the removing defendants who's been served is a resident of the state in which the action's pending, a local defendant. The theory, of course, is local defendants don't need the benefit of federal court to protect them from local prejudice. Why that same rule doesn't apply to local plaintiffs when they bring the action originally beyond me. But talk to Congress about that one. Local plaintiffs should not be able to sue out-of-state defendants originally in federal court because there's no reason for diversity. But put that aside. On removal, if the local defendant has been served and their joint is required, of course, then, if they're local, there's no diversity removal. It's often overlooked. That, I believe, is a procedural defect. If you don't bring it up within 30 days, it's waved. Wagstaff of a California sues Kelly of Nevada in Nevada. Or sues Kelly of Nevada and Rosenthal of another state, but not my state. There's complete diversity, but you've got a local defendant who's been served no removal. Remain is required and is appropriate if the motion is made or if you do it. Here we go. Now we're in the context of the original case is not removable. That's important. The original complaint, there was incomplete diversity. Our algebra failed. You know, Wagstaff of California versus Kelly of Virginia and Rosenthal of California. But into the case, I realize for whatever reasons that I don't want to be suing Rosenthal of California. So I settle. It requires a voluntary act. If there's a motion that gets her out of there, an involuntary act, no removal, the clock doesn't start again. But it's a voluntary act. I settle with her. She's out by my voluntary act. Once that settlement is done, and some people say even the motion to make the settlement, but the 30-day clock starts ticking, now Kelly, who is diverse and now there is diversity arising, can remove. Except number three. If that event takes place more than a year after commencement and the basis for removal is diversity, there's a one year outside clock. Under 1446 B. Fair enough? Now you might ask, well, wait a minute. What if the plaintiff is not in some sort of fast track state and so much doesn't want to be in your court? Who knows what reasons? Deliberately does not serve the defendant until a year and a day. Does this rule apply? Well, there's a split of authority. One line of authority represented by Judge Wilson in Zogby says no. And in fact, represented by the Northern District of Alabama in a career versus skill craft holds no. And if they deliberately didn't serve you for a year to avoid federal court, that's the Alabama rule. Or in Judge Wilson's case, if it wasn't a new event, the complaint was always removable, the 30-day clock starts whenever they're served. That's one version. With due respect to those very good judges who have rendered that version, I disagree with it because I believe that one year means one year and that the removal jurisdiction is strictly construed. Other cases, including some cases set forth here as well, both of them are set forth, say, even if it was fair to serve in a year, a year is a year, if it's the removals based on diversity, there is no removal. I think that is a more satisfactory rule in interpreting the statute. But read Judge Wilson's opinion in Zogby. It's a very clever reading of 1446B. If that's the way you want to go, I don't know why. All right. A mild editorial comment. Failure of all served defendants to join. This happens a lot and you don't even know about it because it doesn't get brought to your attention. There's removal. You may not have any in writing, or they say it. If all the defendants who have been joined and served do not join in the removal, that's an improper removal. And that means everybody. I told you about Doe v. Curl, it said, even the defendants to the non-removable claims to join. The exceptions to this rule are as follows. If you have federal officer removal, only the federal officer needs to join in that one. They've got their own unilateral exclusive right to remove. If you've got what used to be a 1441C removal, a separate and independent claim, where the federal claim is completely distinct from the state law claims, not related, no problem there, no jointer required. But generally speaking, you have to have jointer of all the defendants who have been served in this order would basically cold that out of the parties. Waver, I talked about, look, if there is a contract in the case, look to see if there's a forum selection clause. There's an enormous amount of authority described in Chapter 2D on forum selection clauses. It may well be that the language of the forum selection clause prevents removal by agreement. Now you may say, can that be raised to a sponti? I think so. If the other waverable defects can be raised to a sponti, so can this one. You can look at the contract and you ask yourself, has there been a waiver? Is there something in the contract that says this case will be initiated in state court? And that waiver has been found by many circuit decisions in your materials to be something, doesn't have to say and not federal court or no removal. Some interpret shall be initiated in the superior court of state X as being a requirement only in state court X. So take a look at a waiver clause. I think you're going to have it more often than you imagine. Now, there may be destruction of removal jurisdiction after removal. Wagstaff, Seuss, Kelly, California and Virginia, we've got removal jurisdiction.  Question, what do you do? Here's what you do. If you get a post-removal jointer that would defeat diversity, you are not limited by Rule 19, which is the indispensable party rule. You know Rule 19 which says you can only allow a jointer of a party who defeats diversity if they're indispensable at which point you dismiss. If they're only necessary or less, you just don't join them. Fair enough. The standard on post-removal under 1447 is more liberal. You ask yourself this question. Basically, would it be appropriate to add this party? Is this being done just to get out of federal court or is there a real reason to add this party? If the answer to those questions are yes, then I suggest what you do is you grant the motion to amend adding the party and now you remand, I don't think you should dismiss really very often, you remand to state court from where the action came. And by the way, please grant the motion to amend first. I had this situation recently where the motion to amend was, you know, I want to get back to state court. The motion to amend was made. The judge remanded, followed it beautifully. However, did not amend to add the party. I get back to state court and they won't allow the party to be added. You know what happened? The defendant removed again, which I thought was not great. But in any event, it created a terrible waste of time and energy. Grant the motion to amend, adding the party, then remand. You're not stuck with a high standard of Rule 19. You have a more pragmatic standard of whether it ought to take place. Okay? Last, our last form of jurisdiction, which we're going to just give you the basics. Here they are. This is supplemental jurisdiction. The side door. This is easy algebra. The basic rule is that supplemental jurisdiction is governed by section 1367. 1367 specifically holds that if there is a federal, a single federal claim, a single federal claim arising under federal law, or front door claim, the district court may adjudicate related state law claims to the federal claim. In other words, we have a single federal claim, no related state law claim can be adjudicated in the same court at its federal court, the side door, the pet door. In addition, that's true even if there's a supplemental party who's only a party of the state law claim. Okay? Let's take a look at transparency. Number one, this is easy. These are quick and down and dirty. This is your traditional supplemental claim jurisdiction. Plainiff versus defendant. Single plaintiff, single defendant. Federal securities act claim. Related state law securities act claim. Piece of cake. Related claims, the whole constitutional case. You're free to entertain the whole case as we'll look at it in a moment you don't have to. That's easy. Now look, let's look at transparency number two. Transparency number two is that we have a, now we have a situation where we have more than one party. Plainiff versus D1 on the federal claim and D2 on the state law claim. If those two claims are related, that is the federal claim and the state law claim, you have supplemental jurisdiction. The case can be removed by the two Ds. Have to join together by the way. Some people think that the supplemental party doesn't need to join. That's wrong. They both have to join if they've been served. And we have, that case can be originated in federal court. We have supplemental party jurisdiction under 1367. Those are the facts of Finley versus the United States. Finley versus the United States is the case where the Supreme Court held that there was no pendant party jurisdiction. Congress immediately, and the chagrin of anyone who was writing an update at the time to a book, found out that Congress overruled it in 1367 and said there is jurisdiction over D2, even though it's only party. It satisfies our rule. We have a single federal claim and a related state law claim even though it adds new party. We've got supplemental jurisdiction right there. All right? That one's not so bad. Now, let's go to another one. I said a federal question claim. Let's make sure we know that. This is our third transparency. Plaintiff of California versus Defendant 1 of Nevada and Defendant 2 of California. You know what they do? Defendant 1 says this is a complete diversity claim and this is a supplemental claim. Wrong. Alice Trebek throws out the question because this is simply trying to end round the complete diversity rule. It does not work. This rule for purposes of the plaintiff bringing the suit only applies if there's a federal question claim in order to join a party who's otherwise not subject to that claim. So you can't put it in English. You can't get around the complete diversity rule by the supplemental party rule, at least as to defendants. Oh, just as I said that, I let you down because now we come to another situation, what used to be called ancillary jurisdiction. Now, we don't need those terms anymore. For many years, I taught pendant jurisdiction are claims initiated by the plaintiff. Ancillary jurisdiction is anything else that happens in the case where a part of your claim is brought in. It's elegant and it's wrong now. It's all supplemental jurisdiction. I don't know what to do with that. Plaintiff of California. So who's defendant of Nevada? We've got complete diversity. Third party defendant of California. What do we got? We've got federal jurisdiction that what used to be ancillary jurisdiction is now clearly supplemental jurisdiction because this is not a question of the plaintiff in the end round. This is a question of the defendant seeking third party indemnity against Calvin. We also happen to have complete diversity here. So it works both ways. But what if he was a third party defendant who was in Nevada? Does that change it? Everybody? No. There's jurisdiction there too. You don't need an independent basis of jurisdiction for a party who's added by someone other than the plaintiff. Fair enough. Now you say, well what if third party defendant wants to sue the plaintiff? If he's brought in the case, I'm going to get the guy too on a cross claim. Okay, counterpaint. Well, is there jurisdiction? Yes. Okay. Symbiosis. How about this? Is there jurisdiction? No. I'm sorry. It's late. No one has to get them right from now on. The answer is that Supreme Court said in Owen Equipment v. Kroger, this would be doing an improper end round the complete diversity rule. Do you know what every plaintiff would do? They'd sue defendant one, wait for the third party defendant, and then do the cross claims back against each other. Supreme Court said it can go this way. That is third party defendant who's involuntarily there. But it can't go this way. Now I have a question for you. What if it goes this way? Don't get ahead of you. And there's a compulsory counterclaim against the third party defendant. Is that an exception to Owen Equipment v. Kroger? I don't think so. But you could probably come up with a rationale. You know what the better answer is there? The better answer is that there's a compulsory counterclaim by the plaintiff against the defendant. Don't exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third party defendant claim. That's the better answer. That's my own opinion, because Owen Equipment v. Kroger is an edifice according to some lower court decisions to which we cannot brook. Okay, now, well let's stick with this for a second. What if, instead of coming in as a third party defendant, it's through intervention or jointer. If they come in through intervention or jointer as a defendant, same rule. No independent jurisdiction required. This is something you're not doing that much now and you've got to start thinking this way. Normally when a motion intervening comes, you don't really much care whether they're a plaintiff or a defendant. Just get them in the case. Or join them, get them in the case. This third party defendant is really coming in on the side of the plaintiff, the complete diversity rule stands. So if this is an intervener from Nevada and he's going to come in on this side, you can't let him in.  So in that circumstance, you have no supplemental jurisdiction. Ha! One final thing. What about class actions? I knew you were thinking that. You're with me every step of the way. Particularly at this hour. Class actions only require diversity between the named representatives and the defendants. And if it's a defendant class, the named defendants. So all this stuff doesn't apply in the class action context in the sense of all parties must be considered and all this sort of stuff. Class actions, named representatives, citizenship only. All right. So as Nancy Reagan said, just say no to supplemental jurisdiction. Yes. This is our last visual aid. I'm telling you again, don't look so happy. Can you say no? Yes, you can. Under 1367, the statute specifically provides four, and I think exclusive areas where you can say no. Is the state law claim novel or complex? It doesn't mean hard. It doesn't mean novel or complex. If it is, you can say, I choose to say no to that supplemental claim or dismiss it if it's brought originally, remand it if it's brought by removal. That's easy enough. That was always with us. State law claims substantially predominates. The state law claim is the dog and the federal claim is the tail of $500 risk of claim and a $2 million wrongful discharge claim. Remand to the federal claim? This is the last bad story of a graduate. Graduate last year, not only the state law claim, but remanded the federal risk of claim wrong. You can't do it. You have to exercise that jurisdiction. You can't remand the whole case. You can dismiss the state law claim and then say to the plaintiff, hey, you know what? You don't want to be in here in that claim, do you? I'll let you voluntarily dismiss it which preserves the statute of limitations under a federal equitable tolling for at least 30 days, whatever the state court allows, go to state court. And you know what? If the defendant, upon the refinement of that claim in state court, if it removes again, I think that's sanctionable. Once the judge has said, I want this whole case in state court, it stays in state court. Federal claims are dismissed. This happens a lot. If at any time before trial, except in extraordinary circumstances, like you've invested a lot of time or you're about to dump the federal claim as well within a week or a month or soon, you cannot keep the federal claim. Some courts even reverse that as abuse of discretion if they're keeping it too far in advance of trial. I say, apply your good common sense. If you have invested an enormous amount of time and energy in that case, and it would be an unfair burden to the state court judge when you get rid of the federal claim, then do so. And you might say, what about the RTC? We already talked about that. Unfortunately, that's probably all the federal claim. So I don't think this backdoor, a trapdoor applies. Lastly, this is the last example. Compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. And it means that under extraordinary circumstances I've left out was in the statute. I believe, as much as I am in favor of reducing the size of your cases, that the new statute does place restrictions on when you can just dump it. I think it's got to satisfy one of these four. What might be a compelling reason? The one we just looked at. The third party defendant, counterclaim, can't be brought. You shouldn't keep that case. You know what I'm saying? That might be a compelling reason. I'll give you another reason that some judges apply. Title VII doesn't, you know, used to not allow certain kind of damages. It still has restricted damages. Orisa is joined with other claims which might confuse a jury. Maybe you say, let's get rid of the state law claims to avoid jury confusion. That, I think, might satisfy number four. But it would have to be an extraordinary case, not just your run-of-the-mill, Title VII or Orisa claim, in my opinion. All right. Front door, federal question. The visitor's door of diversity. The back door of removal. And the side door we've just been looking at. The pet door of supplemental jurisdiction. Now, we've been going for a couple hours. And I'll say this to you. As I say at most of the NMI speeches, which is that, you know, as Hamlet said, although you live in a nutshell, you are king of your space. There is no question in my mind that federal jurisdiction is a nutshell. As Judge Schwerzer says, the trick is to keep it in a nutshell. So I'll be around to answer questions. They won't be on the videotape. You're free to go. Thank you very much.


To me, that was the most stressful, completely like pressure cooker. You know, when I first got here, I really didn't care about throwing and I just got bruised up like crazy. So I literally go back to my traditional normal technique. I'm kind of extremist. I've never been a joy to coach because of. Looking at that, obviously 2018 was a big transition year, right? You had been at the center for multiple years. You moved obviously back to Ohio, but how did you guys meet and how did you wind up in Ohio? I knew of, so like where we met is like, I actually knew of her before she even knew who I was because I had a family friend who's actually, he's a Catholic priest who was stationed in Canton, Ohio. So when I was in high school, I would hear about this girl in North Canton who was really good at the job put. I mean, named something Muffin. I was just like, oh wow. And you know, I've seen this girl throwing 50 feet. So I knew who she was. And then we probably first really met, actually at a camp, she was an Ironwood camp. We really first met and indoor meet. She was throwing for Kentucky. I was throwing for Penn State. And that was just like the impassing meet that you meet at track meets, of course. But we stayed in contact for a while. She came out to the training center when I was there. She did a little thing where she was just, you know, following coaches around. She followed art around. And it was really cool, I think, experience for her to just see what we did at that level for a week. So yeah, I was always just trying to slide in, make sure that I was in the back of my mind somehow. Really, I would say after the USA's in 2017, out in Sacramento, that's when we really started talking more and more and it started evolving. And after the World Championships in 2017 is when I decided, you know, that was a point where it was just like, hey, I'm moving to Ohio. I moved here for her. I'm from Pennsylvania originally, which is pretty far, like a seven hour drive from here. So it was a 100% for her. I don't think she knew I was going to do that. I think people who know me know I'm a little bit more like calculated and that's not really the move. That's like a risky situation, but it was a gut feeling. And I was just like, this is right. And kind of packed up the bags and left Northridge and found my way coming out to Ohio. And I'll tell you, it was pretty darn cold after living in California for five years, but it was worth it. That's awesome, clearly. Obviously, so that 18, you guys get engaged. You have a, what for you definitely was a down year, right? I mean, for you, I think what you had 20, 20 102, I think was your season best. And then you had a solid indoor performance. All right, second over 70 feet as you begin the outdoor campaign, like you said, you got beat by one of the athletes, you're coaching and then I think you went to Stockholm, right?  So there's always that element, but if it wasn't, and you just had a bad meet, and then I think you went like what 20, 40 or something like the next day, somewhere else over there in Europe. And so at that point, you're at the, you're basically June 1st and USA's are three weeks away. She's taken the reins and you have the total trust now. Was there stress at that point or were you guys kind of just like, we know it's coming. What was kind of the mindset at that point?  So we went to UVA, Ohio State went to UVA and Joe was like, okay, I'm gonna come.  And I'm like, okay, I don't know how far that is because it's so far over that line.  And then it's just like shut down from there. You know, it's kind of backing off, trying to find the throw, the rhythm completely changes. So it's like, the people that were at that meet knew that like something was about to happen. So then he goes to Doha, same thing.  They measure one of the warmups, wasn't it in the 2280 range or something like that? 2287, it's like, okay, so all these things are happening. And so he's saying like, well, I weren't far all the time, like who cares, I'm not throwing far in the meet and I'm just like, well, let's talk about what's actually going on here.  So it's like having those types of conversations, I think were really important, but like I'm not gonna lie. Like to me, that whole phase of the entire thing was the most stressful, most pressure, just completely like pressure cooker. For me personally, and I think probably for Joe, that was the worst because I knew that he was in better shape than it looked, but I knew until he did something that actually counted, it was gonna be bad. And it was like that type of mentality, just like blue collar, just like shut up every day, everybody, like me, him, everybody's just go to the track, work on it, fix it, figure it out. Like if you can do it, and that's the thing I said to him all the time, I'm like, listen, I get what you're saying, warmups don't count. And I know they don't, but at the end of the day, if you can do that, you can do that. So like let's figure it out and do it, you know? And that was kind of my mentality with the whole thing. And I think that just making it a little bit more like, what are we doing? What are we not doing? What do we need to do better logistically to be able to make better use of the warmups and mentally like where are you at?  And I think that that really helped him just feel like, okay, I have a plan, I know what I'm doing. And it made him a lot more secure in going into me to be able to execute. When she says stressful, in 2018, when you refer to that off year I had, there's a lot more to that than most people know. And like, I don't mind saying it. You know, when I first got here, I really didn't care about throwing. You know, I was just excited to be here with her. So the few times I was throwing, you know, you can make anything look good when it's into the net. But really when the reality hit was like, you know, January, February, March, I'm starting to put some on it and it's not going. And she's seeing me, then we get to the point where I'm going to pre-fontain in like a week and I try to turn it on with this technique and I pull my groin, my right groin and I just got bruised up like crazy. So we're just like, oh, you can't go to pre-fontain to have a bad showing. So I literally go back to my traditional normal technique two days beforehand and then I throw a pre-fontain. And to be honest, it was actually pretty decent under the circumstances for not doing it for a while and having bummed up groin. But it was like a rough season and I think people think it was rough because I came here with transition but there was a lot more factors involved. I went back to doing that technique right after pre-fontain, I went to U.S.A.s. We went out to L.A. to work with Art with it and then all the way through Christmas, this past year I was still doing going back to L.A. Then Art actually saw it in person and was just like, I don't think it's going to work for you. I think he knew I was kind of giving up on it too. You know, I don't know, I don't want to say it was a bad technique or this and that but I know I could pull it off. It wasn't looking for me. And I think, yeah, in that transition year I could have made it look a lot better if I just kept things going but maybe ultimately it was a good thing because I kind of bought back into a lot of the bread and butter things that we worked on from the start, from the basics. Still what I do today are a lot of Arts drills for sure. That's my bread, I just get them in practice now. So I mean, that's the bread and butter for timing and sequencing, I still do. But yeah, with that whole transition that year there was a lot of like, what the heck? So then the fast forward what she was saying it really wasn't until after I had that low point I gave Ashley the reins, we cleaned it up through 70 feet indoors in two weeks which was like a big bounce back from throwing 19 meters and losing to the athlete that was coaching. But like she said, we had to, we called it the eight weeks till Doha because that's where our lifting plan was and Virginia was I think the seventh week of that and it really wasn't supposed to happen but I was kind of feeling good. But like, even though I went to that first diamond league in Doha, that was the most confident I'd been in a long time. It was not to say it wasn't stressful but like all of a sudden I started to get that feeling back and that excitement that day to day of like waking up and like you got a mission and you're ready to accomplish it. Even though I know it was stressful for her because she was starting to see glimpses of life and it wasn't happening yet I was starting to feel that groove. So fast forwarding that into those European meets which I will tell you that Stockholm meet I don't know if I could throw 21 meters at that meet just with the way the ring was set up it was moving all over the place. Yeah, like it was a lot up and down but I'll tell you like what I always used to tell people was like I know, like I know I'm gonna be done like when the cannon doesn't fire at far. Now if I'm like out of the ring and flopping all over the place like that's something we can fix. That's something I can fix off of my years experience but if I don't see that ball go at all and I tell you this I didn't really see it go at all in 2018. So all the people who were saying washed up and done and you know I've heard that my whole career but I started to believe it in 2018 real hard.  So once we kind of saw the ball go even in Virginia I did tell her like it doesn't count, it doesn't go this, this and I was maybe being a little whiny saying that because I was kind of pissed but at the same time in the back of my mind I was like you know you did make the ball. You know there wasn't a positive about that but I wasn't quite ready to get back into that phase until we put together the next segment going into the USA's.  I think one of the things that's really important based on what you both said you guys talk about plan mindset and that's I think a thing that a lot of people don't get they don't know how to plan. I mean like you're saying you're timing warmups you know I've done that with my athletes where we know okay you're gonna have like eight minutes between throws. So we would start running practices like we're going eight minutes between throws so we're always setting that rhythm. So planning and obviously mindset you did have a lot of variables. It was no shock if you looked at Instagram to see that you were very distracted in 2018 in a very positive way. You could see like the smitten teenager not to crash jokes. But it was like oh dude this guy is like love bit big time. But you kind of look at that and I think obviously working through that when you said you know the trust was there and obviously Ashley kind of took the reins that's a really important thing that people to get because a lot of people like you said when you guys were both stressed out what got you guys through that? A lot of guys in your shoes might have been if it was the same it was another Joe Kovacs go okay Art I've given it you know I let Ashley do it we're dying you got to help me with an emergency thing and you kind of freak out and you see athletes do that they jump. I've had athletes that when they lose the trust that's when everything goes down. So what helped you guys to kind of keep pushing through and not lose that trust? For me a major part was like we started speaking the same language. I'll tell you like I definitely never shut Art out. Like she was the thing was I kind of stopped talking to Art about track. Ashley actually talked to Art a few times occasionally about that but like I wasn't sending video and saying hey coach look at this this it was me and her working together. And of course like you know Art was super supportive of me in my career and he wants me to be happy but like there was a point where like she was kind of steering my ship at that point. So if there was any input to be had it kind of had to go through her cause otherwise I was just getting too caught up on one thing if it wasn't that and it was all downhill I'm kind of extremist and I know it's I've never you can ask any of my coaches in my career I've never been a joy to coach because of my volatility and how I get caught up on one thing and I just it's either works and goes well or nine times out of 10 it just freaks out and goes the opposite. I mean I think that the biggest misconception about the whole thing is like Joe said when he came here he and Art were working on a different technique that I don't know anything about that that's something that Art and Joe had spoken about before they decided to do it and at that point like I'd watch him practice but like I didn't have anything to say about that because I didn't know anything about that. So like I'm smart enough to know that if I don't know something like especially to a guy that's won a world championship and been an Olympic medalist like I didn't want anything to do with like directing that not that I ever necessarily wanted anything to do with directing it. What had happened was after that the technique and then the change and the change back to his original technique it was like every day even when they were doing the new technique like double cameras on the ring going through the videos every day that type of thing and it just that process of the video the uploading and then the conversations the phone conversations for coaching it was just tough it wasn't tough because of art it was just tough because like logistically it added another layer. The other thing was Joe watching video and over analyzing everything he did it just wasn't flowing. Everybody talks about like me taking the reins and I don't particularly see it like that. I mean when we started talking about the eight weeks to Doha so from the indoor season to the outdoor season a two month block like I was involved with the strength training piece of it. I wrote the listing on that but as far as like the X's and O's and that type of thing it was a lot of it was guided by Joe and if I ever had anything that I didn't understand like hey in this position or that I talked to art you know and so he really helped to like bridge the gap for us and I'm not saying that we were doing it all alone like he was out because he was never like out of the equation like there was a point where Joe we weren't sending him videos every day. Joe wasn't calling him talking to him about the technique every day. It wasn't like this daily what am I gonna do what am I gonna do type thing. That's when we started you know he helped us into that that's what he wanted for us. He wanted us to take it in that direction more ourselves but a lot of it is just has been listening to Joe what makes him feel comfortable what makes him feel confident. What were the things you were doing when you felt like you were your best and creating a plan around that. It's not like it's like oh here's Ashley and her system and she's no we did some different things that he hasn't done before that you know maybe he saw some Mike Clee just do and wanted to try. He's an adult he's a champion you know so it's a collaboration it's not as much of me just being like okay Joe this is what you're doing today that's just not how it is. I'll say she did expose me to some things that were like new and I think I probably got excited for that. I was throwing different weighted balls for the first time really in my career I threw an 18 one year with R for most of the year but I was actually kind of changing up the balls at that point which I struggled with. I threw an 18 or 17 if you gave me a 15 I couldn't throw the 15 bar for the longest time. Heck if you gave me a 14 if you threw an 18 you gave me a 14 it would take a lot in me to throw the 14 bar there in the 18 especially in the transition. But I think I learned some things about my throw and I think it gave me a little bit of a spark of excitement at that point. I don't know if I felt like I knew all the tools in the box I had but it kind of gave me a whole new like perspective a whole new my mind was geared towards doing something different. A lot of the lifting that we were doing first couple of weeks it wasn't we weren't lifting all throughout the week it was more like a one hit in beginning of the week and I didn't know how to do that. So like I was expecting to like last to throw on a Monday and then it didn't happen and like I had to go through all these like little transition during that first eight weeks of like learning like okay I'm gonna be fresh on these days and being fresh I could expect this but when I'm not fresh it's okay to just work on some technique it's okay to just work on some positions and work through it. Joe your mom was obviously your first coach she was a thrower did your mom offer to coach her or did you have to like convince her to coach you?