September 16, 2024 • 23 mins
How U.S. Steel got rolled: Biden, Harris, and Trump agree on one thing… they want o block Japanese Nippon Steel from acquiring U.S Steel. Are California prisons stiffing inmates on $200 release payments? Lawsuit says they are. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
And this is KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here
on a Monday morning, September sixteenth.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
And the big story.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We are looking at another assassination attempt, yet another one
against Donald Trump. And the shame of it is is Unfortunately,
it's not surprising.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
It's the first one. I don't think was particularly political.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was just some crazy kid who was just taking
advantage of the first person he can shoot on his
web his social media. It was Harris, it was Trump,
it was Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
It went up and down the list.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
This one we don't know. This one is a fifty
one year old guy and we don't know the motive yet.
But this may be more politically motivated, and it's either way,
it's it's just a shame we've gotten to this point.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
All right. Moving away from that, I want to do
a little bit of business news for you.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris don't usually agree
on much, right, well, they agree on this one. They
want to block the proposed purchase of US deal by
the Japanese firm Nippon Steel. They agreed to a fifteen
billion dollar deal last September December. Actually, but President Biden
(01:19):
said in March it is vital for US steal to
remain American steel company. Last month, Trump said I will
stop Japan from buying a US steal. Harris said last
week the company should remain American owned and operated. Now,
is this a antitrust action?
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Nope, nope, not all.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Actually, this isn't even financial. It is more politics than
anything else.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
And let me explain this, and.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
This is politics that's easily explainable. Here's what happens right now.
The government has the ability, the pet president has the
ability to stop foreign acquisition on national security grounds, and
that is what is going to happen. I mean, the
deal is basically dead. President Biden said it's dead. And
(02:12):
whoever comes into the White House next January, this deal
is dead based on the facts national security. It has
to stay in stay in American hands because it's so important. Well,
US deal isn't even the largest steel company in America anymore.
It used to be the largest steel producer in the world.
JP Morgan of JP Morgan Chase, John Pierpoint Morgan put
(02:35):
that deal together. He's the one that created US Steel
at the turn of the last century, and it became
the largest steel producer on the planet, and it was
in Pittsburgh. And then the world just changed. You had
other companies, other countries. I don't know, fifty sixty years ago,
the Chinese started dumping steel into the United States.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Government was subsidized.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
India is starting to come in with steel, and in fact,
it really isn't that important anymore.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And what's really weird is.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
That Nipon Steel is going to invest more money into
the plants in the US than would US.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Steel if it's stayed owning the company.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
US Steel is moving away from these big plants and
moving into smaller plants with different technology that use fewer
workers and are non unionized for the most part. And
while Nipon Steel is saying, hey, we want to buy
it because it's part of our international thinking, our international
(03:44):
business model.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
This is what we're gonna do.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
And it doesn't matter why because you have a foreign ownership,
foreign ownership.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Of a US company that is iconic, that.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
You have one of the most powerful unions, United steel Workers,
and you have the concept of it must stay American made.
So yesterday I was shopping for a chair for my
new place, and I looked at an Italian chair. It
was a swivel sort of a recliner chair so I
(04:16):
could fall asleep or watching football on Sundays. And it
was a recliner chair, and it really wasn't all that comfortable,
even though I love their furniture, super well made, Italian,
Italian leather, Italian manufacture. And so I ended up getting
an American made chair twice as much money, twice literally.
(04:40):
And the sales lady said, but this is not only
has it made the United States, but also it's American cowhide.
And I said, do you really think I care where
the dead cows come from?
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Do you think that's important to me?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
But the point is is that American made is very expensive,
and Nippon.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Steel is willing to come in and back that up.
Still not going to go.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Why Well, because telling Pennsylvanians that they're going to still
work for a steel plant even though they're going to
be cutting it down, no one.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Wants to hear it.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
It has to be made in America, which by the way,
makes a lot of sense. I like American made products,
I do, but sometimes when you have foreign acquisition coming
in and doing a better job for America.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Doesn't that make sense?
Speaker 2 (05:41):
And by the way, national security, I want to know
where national security comes into this one. Japan is a
national security risk. That's like Canada, that's like England. They
are our staunchest allies. Now, now, they weren't always well
(06:02):
that's true.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I mean there was a time when they there there
was an issue, there was let's see, there was I know,
I know, they say, I know there was a time.
You know, yeah, one at one time.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
By the way, it was Orthodox Jews that actually ran Japan.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Did you know that. You didn't know that, did you?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But if you look at any video or any history
of Pearl Harbor as they were bombing, you heard them
say torah, torah, torah, oh.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The love of Pete. And I walked right. I apologize
to everyone that I walked into that that was. That's
on me. That's on me. No, it is, you got it.
Thank you Neil for that all right.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Now, Uh, you've seen movies and TV's series. People get
out of prison and they just opened the gate and
out they walk and either someone's waiting for them or
someone is not. California law stipulates that as someone walks
out of prison, the prison has to hand them two
hundred dollars. That's called a gate way two hundred bucks.
(07:10):
And guess what is happening. Well, there's a story in
cal Matters about a guy named John Vassal who had
been in prison for thirty three years and he was
hoping from fulsome and he's out and instead.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Of getting two hundred dollars, he gets a big nothing nothing.
So he's filed a lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
He's suing the California Department of Corrections class action alleging
that the department has illegally docked fees from the gate
money that he was supposed to have.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
And I mean this is no small deal.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Because the lawsuit says the Corrections Department has shortchanged over
a million people.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Since nineteen ninety four. And here's what happens.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
The agency deducts money from release allowances if someone doesn't
have dress out clothes or a rainrangements for transportation, not
that they arrange transportation, is if you don't have transportation,
we're going to deduct money. I mean, there are all
kinds of rules they make up and they change them
and that's against the law. Thirty thousand people are released
(08:18):
from California State prisons every year.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
When I was a figure, I wasn't aware of.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
That's a lot of prisoners and they're not getting in
a lot of cases, they're gate money.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
By the way, you know who created the gate.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Money concept, a governor my named Ronald Reagan fifty one
years ago. Everybody gets two hundred dollars on the way out.
Now that's never been adjusted either in fifty one years.
In twenty twenty two, there was a state center wanted
to raise that gate money to thirteen hundred dollars and
the same two hundred dollars just adjusted for inflation.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Nope, that doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
So the lawsuit describes the release of these funds, and
this is the basis of Ronald Reagan actually signing this bill,
because he actually paid attention to what was going on
with the fate of prisoners leaving the prison. The lawsuit
describes the release of funds as a critical lifeline.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
That's a quote small, but a vital aid.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Why because a Stanford Criminal Justice Center report, this is
two thousand and eight said the first seventy two hours
are paramount to long term success. Now that's a little counterintuitive.
The first seventy two hours, and the report said, yeah,
Reagan understood. The first few days, people aren't sleeping on
(09:44):
the street. They have a chance to go places. If
they have no money, they're on the street. They're exposed.
They're exposing themselves to victimization. They're put in a desperate
situation where they have to commit a crime just to
eat if they have no money, if there's no one waiting,
they don't have bus fare. They're out in front of
(10:06):
the prison with nothing, and the law says they get
two hundred dollars in the Department of Corrections is saying.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
No, no, All right.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
So there is a bill right now that changes that,
that has been passed and it's sitting on Newsom's desk
as part of a larger government spending bill. And here
is the problem with that. One of the things that
Newsom is doing is he's running for president shocker of
(10:36):
all shockers, and he already has the liberal vote.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, he's got the left wing. I mean they're
going no place.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
So how does he then move towards the center and
get moderates, get people like me on his side. Well,
he's really careful with the money, and it's kind of
easy not getting prisoner's money.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Who the hell are prisoners? You care? Someone's coming out
of prison after thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
The good news He was in prison for thirty three years,
much less getting out, And now you want to give
him and a million other people, they're two hundred dollars
of which most have not gotten it. Well, he wants
(11:27):
to make sure that he is fiscally conservative to a degree.
There's an advocacy group, several of them, that actually did
surveys over seventy of these incarcerated people that returned home,
and the Department of Corrections deducted Gate money from them.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
And the people who got.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Gate money deducted were still struggling years later that first
seventy two hours, which.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Kind of you know, really counterintuitive. I mean, big deal,
what's three days.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Well, if you look at the study, you look at
the report, you bet that's important.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Hmm. I've talked plenty about that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Now let's just have fun and talk about how either
my or your life is completely over in a legal sense,
and it is time for Wayne Resnik and do they
have a case.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
So anyway, good morning Wayne, Good morning Bill. I know
you love musicals. If you love a regular place. So
I don't know if you've ever seen this play, the
Laramie Project.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I have not.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Okay, Well, it is about the murder of Matthew Shepherd
and Laramie, Wyoming, which is widely believed to have been
a hate crime motivated by the fact that Matthew Shepherd
was gay. So we have Ponderosa High School and they
want to put on a production of The Laramie Project.
And the drama teacher sends an email saying, this is
(13:00):
the play that we're gonna do. We know that there's
some sensitive stuff in this play, so when we advertise
the play, we're gonna say it's not for families.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
We think high school age or older only.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Now at this school, there's a guy who's the athletic
director and the assistant principal, Corey mcnellis, who is also
a big Christian, And there's this email chain going on
about putting on the play and a lot of people,
teachers are like, oh, yes, we.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Love it, inclusion and all this stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
So he sends an email and he says, Hey, as
a Christian, I'd love to collaborate with your project. Please
let me know if the love that Jesus can provide
will help your play. For the record, all of administration
does not agree with me on this. I am totally solo.
I understand people support this, forgive me for having a
(13:56):
different viewpoint in the audacity to publicly share it. He
comes into work on Monday and is told you need
to go home because you are under investigation for your
religious comments.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Two months later, he is fired.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
So he sues, as you might imagine, bill for a
discrimination under Title seven that says you cannot score around
with somebody's job because of their religion. And the district says, no,
there's no, it's not it's not religious discrimination. That's not
why we did it. And his lawyers say, well, what
other reason could there possibly be? So he goes to
(14:40):
court and a federal district court dismisses his case and says, says,
you've not even pleaded a case, which.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Is weird because that is weird.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Iminated against based on religious belief, that's not a cause
of action.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
This is what the lower court did. You know.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Not all federal judges are that sharp. So it goes
up to the ten Circuit Court of Appeals, and I
will say that this issue of whether or not he
pleaded any kind of case is dealt with. He's pleaded
a case. But the question is this, has he shown
enough direct or circumstantial evidence of religious discrimination to proceed?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
District says no. He says yes. What do you say?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I say that he has based on there is no
other logical explanation at all. It's not a question of
establishing yes he is. It's a question mainly omission that
nothing else makes any sense at all. And I think
the court that the law recognizes that when there's no
(15:54):
logical reason other than this. And so I think yes,
he has been discriminated, particularly when you talk about the
facts of the case, how he presented, how he said.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
It's just my view.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I'm by myself. I'm making no attempt to change anybody's wine. Effectively,
I would like just to give you a Christian view
of this. I think it is legitimate. I think he
has that's not I think that is religious discrimination. That's
what That's how I would read it. What did the
courts say?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
All right, now, I'll just let you know you were correct,
But listen to this. The Circuit court said, well, there
is no direct evidence of religious discrimination, which is what
I says.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
How can we know.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
With certainty that he was fired for his beliefs, which
is illegal, rather than for making religious comments that perhaps
violate a district policy, which is a work issue. But
they then said, let's take a look at what happened.
(17:03):
We're gonna put on the play. Hi, I'd like to
be involved from a Christian perspective, I'm the only one
who feels this way, but I sure would like to
be involved. Oh, you're under investigation for what you said.
Oh you're fired for what you said. That's at least
circumstantial evidence of religious discrimination.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
I would say it gets to go forward.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Yeah, I would say it's more than circumstantial, because with
circumstantial it is a piece. I mean, you tell me
where the logic is. So, yeah, I think he's going
to go forward, and I think he's gonna win. If
I'm on a jury, I.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Give it to him. I absolutely give it to him.
All right.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Have you ever gotten a parking ticket in the city
of Los Angeles? I have?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And did you pay it right away?
Speaker 3 (17:48):
I did, yes, because one of the reasons is you're
a good guy, and another reason is you did not
want to pay the late fee, which yeah, that same Yeah,
let's go number two instead of number one. All right,
you're not a good guy, but you didn't want to
pay double because the late fee on a parking ticket
in LA is the same amount as the fine for
(18:09):
the parking offense. Which brings us to a situation that
has been going on, literally for over a decade. So
you may be familiar with this situation because it was
in the news a lot.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
But there's a new case.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So sixty three bucks if you stay at the meter
too long and if you don't pay within twenty one days,
another sixty three dollars. Bunch people got together file the
lawsuit and said this is excessive fines under the constitution.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
This is too much.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
And the case went to a federal court here in
LA and the judge said it's all fine.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Nope, nothing to see here, folks.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
So they appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth
Circuit some time ago said, the first sixty three dollars
punishing you for staying in a parking space too long
is fine. We know the specific reason that we need
to deter it. There's not enough parking in Los Angeles,
so if you stay over, you're hurting people. But the
sixty three dollars fine for not paying in twenty one days,
(19:09):
you better take another look at that. We're not saying anything,
but you need to take a better look at that,
because that's a punishment for not paying within twenty one days,
and maybe that's disproportionate. So down it comes back to
la where the judge goes, no, it's all fine.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Up it goes again. That's the current case. This was
just decided.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Is sixty three dollars as a punishment for not paying
your parking ticket in twenty one days possibly excessive under
the constitution of the United States.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well, it's certainly excessive. However, under the Constitution of the
United States, I don't think so. I think it's up
to a municipality to even make it more punitive to
not pay a ticket than the underlying ticket.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
They stop them from doing that.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They can find that not paying a ticket is actually
a worse offense and probably charge you twice, and that
would I think be legal, because what is excessive? Who
decides what excessive is just the practicality of that. Is
it a percentage, is it a doubling, is it a tripling.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
So I'm saying that they're going to have to rule
it's fine.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Well, it's not that simple, because, of course not when
you say, you know, when is it excessive double triple?
It depends on why the city has to explain why
sixty three dollars is the right amount to punish people
(20:50):
for not paying within twenty one days.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
So here's what happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
The plaintiffs put on two former city officials who worked
in the parking program, one of whom was in charge
of parking fines for twelve years and testified that he
had no idea where that came from, and as far
as he knew, it was totally arbitrary. And another guy
testified that he knows for a fact that the reason
(21:19):
is to raise money for the city. That is not
a permissible purpose for a fine like this.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
How many offenses that are pure revenue calls happen every
single day.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Well, there's the offense itself, and then there's the fine
for not paying. Now, the city I think likes what
you're saying right now. They said, we find people sixty
three dollars for paying late in order to promote enforcement
of the laws and compliance with the laws. And the
plaintiffs say that's too vague, because you could say the
(21:58):
fine is ten thousand dollars to encourage people to comply
with the law. If simply complying with the law is
good enough. There is no such thing as an excessive fine. Well,
but because the Constitution says there can be, there has
to be some circumstance where it is. So it comes
back down to how did they decide that sixty three
(22:18):
dollars is the right amount? And here's the thing, and
I'm shocked they presented nothing. They simply didn't explain why
or how they came up with sixty three dollars as
opposed to two dollars or one hundred dollars.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yeah, I can think of all kinds of reasons. I'm
just fascinated that they didn't. And by the way, ten
thousand would be excessive because it would shock the conscious
of the conscious of the consciousness of the court or
conscious of the court. All right, Wayne, we'll catch you
again next Monday. Always good stuff.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
That's it. We're done. Coming up tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
We start all over again with Amy at five o'clock
wake up call, and then Neil and I jump aboard
and as always kno and yeah, They're always here, all right.
This is kf I am six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
And this is KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here
on a Monday morning, September sixteenth.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
And the big story.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We are looking at another assassination attempt, yet another one
against Donald Trump. And the shame of it is is Unfortunately,
it's not surprising.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
It's the first one. I don't think was particularly political.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was just some crazy kid who was just taking
advantage of the first person he can shoot on his
web his social media. It was Harris, it was Trump,
it was Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
It went up and down the list.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
This one we don't know. This one is a fifty
one year old guy and we don't know the motive yet.
But this may be more politically motivated, and it's either way,
it's it's just a shame we've gotten to this point.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
All right. Moving away from that, I want to do
a little bit of business news for you.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris don't usually agree
on much, right, well, they agree on this one. They
want to block the proposed purchase of US deal by
the Japanese firm Nippon Steel. They agreed to a fifteen
billion dollar deal last September December. Actually, but President Biden
(01:19):
said in March it is vital for US steal to
remain American steel company. Last month, Trump said I will
stop Japan from buying a US steal. Harris said last
week the company should remain American owned and operated. Now,
is this a antitrust action?
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Nope, nope, not all.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Actually, this isn't even financial. It is more politics than
anything else.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
And let me explain this, and.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
This is politics that's easily explainable. Here's what happens right now.
The government has the ability, the pet president has the
ability to stop foreign acquisition on national security grounds, and
that is what is going to happen. I mean, the
deal is basically dead. President Biden said it's dead. And
(02:12):
whoever comes into the White House next January, this deal
is dead based on the facts national security. It has
to stay in stay in American hands because it's so important. Well,
US deal isn't even the largest steel company in America anymore.
It used to be the largest steel producer in the world.
JP Morgan of JP Morgan Chase, John Pierpoint Morgan put
(02:35):
that deal together. He's the one that created US Steel
at the turn of the last century, and it became
the largest steel producer on the planet, and it was
in Pittsburgh. And then the world just changed. You had
other companies, other countries. I don't know, fifty sixty years ago,
the Chinese started dumping steel into the United States.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Government was subsidized.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
India is starting to come in with steel, and in fact,
it really isn't that important anymore.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And what's really weird is.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
That Nipon Steel is going to invest more money into
the plants in the US than would US.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Steel if it's stayed owning the company.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
US Steel is moving away from these big plants and
moving into smaller plants with different technology that use fewer
workers and are non unionized for the most part. And
while Nipon Steel is saying, hey, we want to buy
it because it's part of our international thinking, our international
(03:44):
business model.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
This is what we're gonna do.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
And it doesn't matter why because you have a foreign ownership,
foreign ownership.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Of a US company that is iconic, that.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
You have one of the most powerful unions, United steel Workers,
and you have the concept of it must stay American made.
So yesterday I was shopping for a chair for my
new place, and I looked at an Italian chair. It
was a swivel sort of a recliner chair so I
(04:16):
could fall asleep or watching football on Sundays. And it
was a recliner chair, and it really wasn't all that comfortable,
even though I love their furniture, super well made, Italian,
Italian leather, Italian manufacture. And so I ended up getting
an American made chair twice as much money, twice literally.
(04:40):
And the sales lady said, but this is not only
has it made the United States, but also it's American cowhide.
And I said, do you really think I care where
the dead cows come from?
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Do you think that's important to me?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
But the point is is that American made is very expensive,
and Nippon.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Steel is willing to come in and back that up.
Still not going to go.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Why Well, because telling Pennsylvanians that they're going to still
work for a steel plant even though they're going to
be cutting it down, no one.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Wants to hear it.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
It has to be made in America, which by the way,
makes a lot of sense. I like American made products,
I do, but sometimes when you have foreign acquisition coming
in and doing a better job for America.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Doesn't that make sense?
Speaker 2 (05:41):
And by the way, national security, I want to know
where national security comes into this one. Japan is a
national security risk. That's like Canada, that's like England. They
are our staunchest allies. Now, now, they weren't always well
(06:02):
that's true.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I mean there was a time when they there there
was an issue, there was let's see, there was I know,
I know, they say, I know there was a time.
You know, yeah, one at one time.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
By the way, it was Orthodox Jews that actually ran Japan.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Did you know that. You didn't know that, did you?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But if you look at any video or any history
of Pearl Harbor as they were bombing, you heard them
say torah, torah, torah, oh.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The love of Pete. And I walked right. I apologize
to everyone that I walked into that that was. That's
on me. That's on me. No, it is, you got it.
Thank you Neil for that all right.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Now, Uh, you've seen movies and TV's series. People get
out of prison and they just opened the gate and
out they walk and either someone's waiting for them or
someone is not. California law stipulates that as someone walks
out of prison, the prison has to hand them two
hundred dollars. That's called a gate way two hundred bucks.
(07:10):
And guess what is happening. Well, there's a story in
cal Matters about a guy named John Vassal who had
been in prison for thirty three years and he was
hoping from fulsome and he's out and instead.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Of getting two hundred dollars, he gets a big nothing nothing.
So he's filed a lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
He's suing the California Department of Corrections class action alleging
that the department has illegally docked fees from the gate
money that he was supposed to have.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
And I mean this is no small deal.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Because the lawsuit says the Corrections Department has shortchanged over
a million people.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Since nineteen ninety four. And here's what happens.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
The agency deducts money from release allowances if someone doesn't
have dress out clothes or a rainrangements for transportation, not
that they arrange transportation, is if you don't have transportation,
we're going to deduct money. I mean, there are all
kinds of rules they make up and they change them
and that's against the law. Thirty thousand people are released
(08:18):
from California State prisons every year.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
When I was a figure, I wasn't aware of.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
That's a lot of prisoners and they're not getting in
a lot of cases, they're gate money.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
By the way, you know who created the gate.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Money concept, a governor my named Ronald Reagan fifty one
years ago. Everybody gets two hundred dollars on the way out.
Now that's never been adjusted either in fifty one years.
In twenty twenty two, there was a state center wanted
to raise that gate money to thirteen hundred dollars and
the same two hundred dollars just adjusted for inflation.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Nope, that doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
So the lawsuit describes the release of these funds, and
this is the basis of Ronald Reagan actually signing this bill,
because he actually paid attention to what was going on
with the fate of prisoners leaving the prison. The lawsuit
describes the release of funds as a critical lifeline.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
That's a quote small, but a vital aid.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Why because a Stanford Criminal Justice Center report, this is
two thousand and eight said the first seventy two hours
are paramount to long term success. Now that's a little counterintuitive.
The first seventy two hours, and the report said, yeah,
Reagan understood. The first few days, people aren't sleeping on
(09:44):
the street. They have a chance to go places. If
they have no money, they're on the street. They're exposed.
They're exposing themselves to victimization. They're put in a desperate
situation where they have to commit a crime just to
eat if they have no money, if there's no one waiting,
they don't have bus fare. They're out in front of
(10:06):
the prison with nothing, and the law says they get
two hundred dollars in the Department of Corrections is saying.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
No, no, All right.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
So there is a bill right now that changes that,
that has been passed and it's sitting on Newsom's desk
as part of a larger government spending bill. And here
is the problem with that. One of the things that
Newsom is doing is he's running for president shocker of
(10:36):
all shockers, and he already has the liberal vote.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, he's got the left wing. I mean they're
going no place.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
So how does he then move towards the center and
get moderates, get people like me on his side. Well,
he's really careful with the money, and it's kind of
easy not getting prisoner's money.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Who the hell are prisoners? You care? Someone's coming out
of prison after thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
The good news He was in prison for thirty three years,
much less getting out, And now you want to give
him and a million other people, they're two hundred dollars
of which most have not gotten it. Well, he wants
(11:27):
to make sure that he is fiscally conservative to a degree.
There's an advocacy group, several of them, that actually did
surveys over seventy of these incarcerated people that returned home,
and the Department of Corrections deducted Gate money from them.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
And the people who got.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Gate money deducted were still struggling years later that first
seventy two hours, which.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Kind of you know, really counterintuitive. I mean, big deal,
what's three days.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Well, if you look at the study, you look at
the report, you bet that's important.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Hmm. I've talked plenty about that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Now let's just have fun and talk about how either
my or your life is completely over in a legal sense,
and it is time for Wayne Resnik and do they
have a case.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
So anyway, good morning Wayne, Good morning Bill. I know
you love musicals. If you love a regular place. So
I don't know if you've ever seen this play, the
Laramie Project.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I have not.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Okay, Well, it is about the murder of Matthew Shepherd
and Laramie, Wyoming, which is widely believed to have been
a hate crime motivated by the fact that Matthew Shepherd
was gay. So we have Ponderosa High School and they
want to put on a production of The Laramie Project.
And the drama teacher sends an email saying, this is
(13:00):
the play that we're gonna do. We know that there's
some sensitive stuff in this play, so when we advertise
the play, we're gonna say it's not for families.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
We think high school age or older only.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Now at this school, there's a guy who's the athletic
director and the assistant principal, Corey mcnellis, who is also
a big Christian, And there's this email chain going on
about putting on the play and a lot of people,
teachers are like, oh, yes, we.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Love it, inclusion and all this stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
So he sends an email and he says, Hey, as
a Christian, I'd love to collaborate with your project. Please
let me know if the love that Jesus can provide
will help your play. For the record, all of administration
does not agree with me on this. I am totally solo.
I understand people support this, forgive me for having a
(13:56):
different viewpoint in the audacity to publicly share it. He
comes into work on Monday and is told you need
to go home because you are under investigation for your
religious comments.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Two months later, he is fired.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
So he sues, as you might imagine, bill for a
discrimination under Title seven that says you cannot score around
with somebody's job because of their religion. And the district says, no,
there's no, it's not it's not religious discrimination. That's not
why we did it. And his lawyers say, well, what
other reason could there possibly be? So he goes to
(14:40):
court and a federal district court dismisses his case and says, says,
you've not even pleaded a case, which.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Is weird because that is weird.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Iminated against based on religious belief, that's not a cause
of action.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
This is what the lower court did. You know.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Not all federal judges are that sharp. So it goes
up to the ten Circuit Court of Appeals, and I
will say that this issue of whether or not he
pleaded any kind of case is dealt with. He's pleaded
a case. But the question is this, has he shown
enough direct or circumstantial evidence of religious discrimination to proceed?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
District says no. He says yes. What do you say?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I say that he has based on there is no
other logical explanation at all. It's not a question of
establishing yes he is. It's a question mainly omission that
nothing else makes any sense at all. And I think
the court that the law recognizes that when there's no
(15:54):
logical reason other than this. And so I think yes,
he has been discriminated, particularly when you talk about the
facts of the case, how he presented, how he said.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
It's just my view.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I'm by myself. I'm making no attempt to change anybody's wine. Effectively,
I would like just to give you a Christian view
of this. I think it is legitimate. I think he
has that's not I think that is religious discrimination. That's
what That's how I would read it. What did the
courts say?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
All right, now, I'll just let you know you were correct,
But listen to this. The Circuit court said, well, there
is no direct evidence of religious discrimination, which is what
I says.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
How can we know.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
With certainty that he was fired for his beliefs, which
is illegal, rather than for making religious comments that perhaps
violate a district policy, which is a work issue. But
they then said, let's take a look at what happened.
(17:03):
We're gonna put on the play. Hi, I'd like to
be involved from a Christian perspective, I'm the only one
who feels this way, but I sure would like to
be involved. Oh, you're under investigation for what you said.
Oh you're fired for what you said. That's at least
circumstantial evidence of religious discrimination.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
I would say it gets to go forward.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Yeah, I would say it's more than circumstantial, because with
circumstantial it is a piece. I mean, you tell me
where the logic is. So, yeah, I think he's going
to go forward, and I think he's gonna win. If
I'm on a jury, I.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Give it to him. I absolutely give it to him.
All right.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Have you ever gotten a parking ticket in the city
of Los Angeles? I have?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And did you pay it right away?
Speaker 3 (17:48):
I did, yes, because one of the reasons is you're
a good guy, and another reason is you did not
want to pay the late fee, which yeah, that same Yeah,
let's go number two instead of number one. All right,
you're not a good guy, but you didn't want to
pay double because the late fee on a parking ticket
in LA is the same amount as the fine for
(18:09):
the parking offense. Which brings us to a situation that
has been going on, literally for over a decade. So
you may be familiar with this situation because it was
in the news a lot.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
But there's a new case.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So sixty three bucks if you stay at the meter
too long and if you don't pay within twenty one days,
another sixty three dollars. Bunch people got together file the
lawsuit and said this is excessive fines under the constitution.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
This is too much.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
And the case went to a federal court here in
LA and the judge said it's all fine.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Nope, nothing to see here, folks.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
So they appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth
Circuit some time ago said, the first sixty three dollars
punishing you for staying in a parking space too long
is fine. We know the specific reason that we need
to deter it. There's not enough parking in Los Angeles,
so if you stay over, you're hurting people. But the
sixty three dollars fine for not paying in twenty one days,
(19:09):
you better take another look at that. We're not saying anything,
but you need to take a better look at that,
because that's a punishment for not paying within twenty one days,
and maybe that's disproportionate. So down it comes back to
la where the judge goes, no, it's all fine.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Up it goes again. That's the current case. This was
just decided.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Is sixty three dollars as a punishment for not paying
your parking ticket in twenty one days possibly excessive under
the constitution of the United States.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well, it's certainly excessive. However, under the Constitution of the
United States, I don't think so. I think it's up
to a municipality to even make it more punitive to
not pay a ticket than the underlying ticket.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
They stop them from doing that.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They can find that not paying a ticket is actually
a worse offense and probably charge you twice, and that
would I think be legal, because what is excessive? Who
decides what excessive is just the practicality of that. Is
it a percentage, is it a doubling, is it a tripling.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
So I'm saying that they're going to have to rule
it's fine.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Well, it's not that simple, because, of course not when
you say, you know, when is it excessive double triple?
It depends on why the city has to explain why
sixty three dollars is the right amount to punish people
(20:50):
for not paying within twenty one days.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
So here's what happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
The plaintiffs put on two former city officials who worked
in the parking program, one of whom was in charge
of parking fines for twelve years and testified that he
had no idea where that came from, and as far
as he knew, it was totally arbitrary. And another guy
testified that he knows for a fact that the reason
(21:19):
is to raise money for the city. That is not
a permissible purpose for a fine like this.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
How many offenses that are pure revenue calls happen every
single day.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Well, there's the offense itself, and then there's the fine
for not paying. Now, the city I think likes what
you're saying right now. They said, we find people sixty
three dollars for paying late in order to promote enforcement
of the laws and compliance with the laws. And the
plaintiffs say that's too vague, because you could say the
(21:58):
fine is ten thousand dollars to encourage people to comply
with the law. If simply complying with the law is
good enough. There is no such thing as an excessive fine. Well,
but because the Constitution says there can be, there has
to be some circumstance where it is. So it comes
back down to how did they decide that sixty three
(22:18):
dollars is the right amount? And here's the thing, and
I'm shocked they presented nothing. They simply didn't explain why
or how they came up with sixty three dollars as
opposed to two dollars or one hundred dollars.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yeah, I can think of all kinds of reasons. I'm
just fascinated that they didn't. And by the way, ten
thousand would be excessive because it would shock the conscious
of the conscious of the consciousness of the court or
conscious of the court. All right, Wayne, we'll catch you
again next Monday. Always good stuff.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
That's it. We're done. Coming up tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
We start all over again with Amy at five o'clock
wake up call, and then Neil and I jump aboard
and as always kno and yeah, They're always here, all right.
This is kf I am six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.