12-10-25 Scott Sloan Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you want to be an American idiot?

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Solob be back on seven hundred WW Man, We've got
everything going on all at the same time. We'll begin
with this story. This morning, federal judge has allowed Ohio,
the Buckeye State, to begin transferring unclaimed funds starting first
the year of finance at new Brown Stadium and all
of these millions, if not hundreds of millions, and now
we're into the billions of dollars when it comes to

(00:24):
unclaimed funds at Ohio. There's a lawsuit that was threatened
by Mark dan and that has now come to fruition.
It's going to challenge this US mister. Judge denied a
preliminary injunction. It said Ohio's really don't face a reparable
harm since they can still claim the money through twenty
thirty six. However, he also rejected the state's motion to
dismiss this case entirely. So the judge said, hey, it's

(00:47):
up to me to determine if the law's constitutional. He's
not here to decide if it's a good idea or not.
And he may have a ruling in this as early
as Tuesday on whether this preliminary injunction will be granted
on this who brought the case forward along with Mark
Dan As Jeff Cross to the Dan Law firm in Cleveland.
He's lead council. Jeff, welcome, How are you good?

Speaker 3 (01:04):
How are you today?

Speaker 2 (01:05):
I'm doing fine. A lot to unpack here as the
state tries to move like two billion dollars up to
two billion on claim funds into an account of finance, stadiums,
cultural projects, stuff like that six hundred million for the Browns, Cincinnati,
Columbus and others are probably gonna get some but let's
start here. The judge denied your request for the injunction,
but allow the case to move forward. So what's the

(01:25):
strategy here for you moving forward?

Speaker 3 (01:28):
Well, the case is the court noted the case does
have merit, so the case will continue and we ultimately
will hope to prevail in this case because we think
our constitutional arguments are pretty strong here. It's fundamental to
what we all understand then, what the constitution protects, which
is your private property right and gives you the opportunity

(01:48):
to object when the state tries to take your property,
which is not happening here because the state doesn't give
anybody notice that they're seeing people's property, putting it in
a what was supposed to be a lost and found account,
but now, as it turned out, is going to be
used as a slush fund to give out money to
various projects of the legislature.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Okay, so we'll unpack this a little bit here too.
Let's start with achievement laws. Obviously there are people who
will not claim funds despite public notices. Will get to
that element in just a second, but typically a state
and I think, o, hi, it's like ten years. Basically,
if you don't claim something in ten years, it reverts
back to the state because they just assume you don't
care or you're dead. Is that the biggest legal hurdle

(02:27):
you got to jump over.

Speaker 3 (02:29):
There's a lot of challenges to what the state is
doing here. First, a lot of people don't know that
their property is being seized, and there's really no legitimate
or practical way to protect yourself. So every bank account
that you own, whether it's a savings account or money
market account, or a life insurance policy or even a
safe deposit back with some personal belongings that may not
have economic value but might have personal value to you.

(02:52):
You can't protect yourself from the state seizing that property,
liquidating the property, and then you know, turning it over
to this slush fund. And we had a gentleman testify
the other day, a gentleman from Germany who had this
very experience happened him. His entire retirement account, which was
held at Charles Schwab, was confiscated by the State of California,
liquidated without his knowledge, and he ultimately received only a

(03:15):
fraction of what he was owned.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
But there's a justification here for dormant money. I mean,
if it sits unclaimed for a decade, that suggests owners
have forgotten it, moved without affording their information, died without
their errors knowing about it, which is unfortunate for sure.
But do we do you just suggest that this money
sits there in perpetuity.

Speaker 4 (03:33):
No.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
I think what the High Supreme Court has been clear
about is unclaim funds doesn't mean abandoned property. The High
Supreme Court a unanimous decision, when when does that happen?
Often right, in a unanimous decision not that long ago,
said that the unclaim funds is not abandoned. People simply
don't know about it. And then the state admitted on
the stand repeatedly over and over again. They do not

(03:54):
send any notice to anybody. So they're taking people's property
and liquidating it without their knowledge. So you can't abandon
something you don't have notice, gotcha.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
On the other hand, we know, I mean, this is
probably one of the few things they still do, Jeff,
is advertisements and newspapers where there's court decisions that you
have to publicly notify people, so you put an ad
in all the newspaper in each of the eighty eight counties. That's,
you know, technologically back in the day that especially. I
don't know if we still do that or not. You
could probably tell me better, But you know, we have
social media, we have public service campaigns. I mean, isn't

(04:26):
there a duty on the part of the person who
holds an account or an adult to be aware of
what the law is regarding this and therefore be informed.
I mean, how far should the state go to make
sure someone is dead or incapacitated or simply doesn't care.
You can only do so much. And I guess when
I look at public notices and newspapers that seems to
satisfy the courts.

Speaker 3 (04:46):
Why not the sun Well, two things there, One, the
US Supreme Court has been repeatedly in multiple cases, very clear.
It is the state's duty, not the individual's duty. It
is the state's duty if they want to take your property,
notify them. The other real problem here is that the
data is bad, and we had plenty of people testify

(05:07):
even the state testified that the data is not valid
in a lot of cases. Isn't balid. They don't have
zip code, they don't have correct addresses. There's people in
foreign countries and other states of the United States, Wisconsin,
New York, all over the country that publication in Tyhoga
County or Hamilton County or Franklin County doesn't reach those folks.
So they have no notice at all that your property

(05:28):
has been seized by the state of Ohio. The property
is going to be liquidated and handed over.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Okay, what the level of notification you think is constitutionally
required here?

Speaker 3 (05:36):
Then, well, the Supreme Court has been very clear on
that too. It has to be something that's calculated to
reach that person. So if your data is bad and
you're not sending out any notice whatsoever, I can pretty
safely say that there's no notice whatsoever.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
Yeah, I mean, you have what potentially thirty five thousand
claimants living abroad alone would never see those notices. In
this day and age where you can do your work
from anywhere around the world for that matter, that's problematic.
They'd have to change that.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
And I'll say this, there are plenty of municipalities and
fire departments and all kinds of local governments across the
state of Ohio. They have money's in the unclaimed fund.
You can't tell me the State of Ohio doesn't know
where the city of Cleveland, City Cincinnati is physically located,
where send the checks. They can do that. They could
send them notice and tell them that the property is
about to be liquidated.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
And we're not doing that right now. Just to be clear,
they do nothing. Accept here's the website. Find it for yourself. Correct, gotcha? Gotcha?
If you could point to other I guess precedent. And
when it comes to notifying people, I mean I get
notifications all the time for well things like class action lawsuits.
I get a postcard that says you want to be
part of this class et cetera. Somehow they can find

(06:42):
me there. But the state can in this case.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
Believe me, if the state and if you owe taxes
to the state, of Ohio they were trying to. I
can't imagine why in this case where they owe you money,
they're not looking for you, right right?

Speaker 2 (06:54):
He is Jeff Crossman. He is lead counsel in this
case against the State of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case.
It's going to fun on all the public Stadia Cleveland
first with three hundred million or six hundred million. I
guess I should say out of this up to two
billion dollars unclaimed funds. So if you have an unclaimed
a case, or you have unclaimed funds, whether it's a
dollar or a million dollars, you have to go to

(07:14):
the state website to check your unclaim funds and find
them for yourself, as opposed to the state doing due
diligence to try and find you. That's the crux of
the argument he's making in the judge of federal judges
rule that the case can move forward with some guardrails
in place. There it's I think it was you, or
it was Mark dan or I had honi you compared
it to unclaimed funds to a dog shelters website. You know,

(07:38):
I got I think just within the last year I
went on and got like because of this case. Actually,
I think about four hundred dollars on claim funds I
founded or my name and my brother did the same.
But the website, I mean, I didn't have a problem navigating.
But he said, it's just like the website itself is terrible,
and if it's bad, then it causes people to maybe
not look for their funds.

Speaker 3 (08:01):
The website is pretty rudimentary. We had a film and
tip right the other day who handles e commerce for
BMW internationally, and you know, he's got an IT expert,
and consider's some fundamental flaws in the way the database
captures data, sources data, and spits it back to you.
One of the things we identified originally was one of

(08:22):
the plaintetfs in the case. His name is pretty common.
It's Codd Butler. If you put that name into the database,
it fits back a thousand and it cuts off there.
There might be ten thousand Todd Butler's in there. You'll
never know whether or not those other ones are in
there because it stops giving you results after number one thousand.
Then the state admitted that every day, So there's just
really no way to know what property you truly have

(08:43):
in that whole front there's no way to search it all.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Imagine a government website or something the government not working properly. Jeff,
I'm shocked.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
Well, we're here to try to correct the process that
was the purpose of the laws. We're not anti stadium construction.
We're not anti Cleveland Browns were all sports here in
dan law. But we do think that the government should
act constitutionally, and we do think that they should employe
some better safeguards to make sure people's rights are protected.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah, and I think it's important FACETA too. This is
not about going after the Cleveland Browns or the fund.
I mean, look at it this way. So I think
someone made the accusation. This is about opposing public funding
for stadiums and billionaire stadiums rather than property rights. But
would you be in the same position if it were
funding schools, hospital something, all those lies.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
Well unclaimed funds. The way they're doing it is unconstitutional,
So you know our position is constitutionally, this doesn't make
any sense if it was a public purpose, a true
public purpose like building a school or building a fire station,
for example, that has a much more, much stronger justification
than in this case. Because it is money being used
it's a taking for a non public purpose.

Speaker 4 (09:53):
Is there there is a problem there too, Jeff?

Speaker 2 (09:54):
Is there a way you'd be satisfied? I mean, are
you posted using unclan funds for a public person purposes generally,
or is it's problematic just the stadium funding, or is
there a way to you, for you and your clients
or and your planing to those who brought the suit
here for them to be satisfied.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Well, there are two constitutional issues here. One is the
purpose of it taking, which you've identified, and secondly is
the notice in the due process we need to have
a a public purpose and be they have to improve
the new process safeguards here they don't exist right now.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Again, Jeff Crossman's here from the Dan Law firm. He's
the lead counsel in this case brought against the State
of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case that we've talked about
here that would fund stadiums across Ohio. The only problem
is it's coming out of unclaimed funds and after ten
years that money would revert back to the state. And
he's saying, there's just not enough notification in place, safeguards
in place to make sure that your whole and that

(10:46):
you get to get your money simply because the state
would rather you not. There's a lot of entities would
do that too. Right now, the way the lost hands,
if money left dormant for ten plus years is presumed
to abandon. I guess the question is should the state
be able to react unclaimed funds? And we're talking about
what makes that constitutionally acceptable? This morning on the show,
where do you think this goes in the next Well,

(11:08):
now I think too, didn't I say a Tuesday? I
believe it's a day a judge should make a decision.
Here he said, you confidence this is going to be Ford.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
The judge made a decision on the Pulomerian junction. Now
we're moving forward on the case and we're going to
decide whether we follow an appeal. And by the way,
I should note that when the state amended the statute,
it automatically created a complic of interest between the state
and yourself. You know, think about say you know your
investment account at Cheryl Schwab, if Charles Schwab now had
an incentive not to tell you how much money was

(11:36):
in the account or or what they were doing with
the money, and that if you don't contact them in
a certain amount of time, they can just take your money.
We would all fundamentally agree that that's what we would
call indezzlement. And essentially what's going on here the state
now has a conflict of interest. They don't have any
incentive to tell you that the money is there in
the ways about protecting yourself. So, uh, it's a real problem.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
Yeah, it seems to be. You know, you laid out
a very very good dynamic case as to why the
court should side with you and the plaintiffs in this
case simply because the lack of notification in the website
is terrible. My last name Sloan, not terribly uncommon, but
I could see if your last name is Smith or
something that if I'm not able to see and find
exactly the you know, Jeff Smith that's on there, and

(12:21):
there's probably thousands in the state of Ohio, that's problematic.
I mean, even if I want to find my money
and that's my common name, it's going to be difficult
to do so. And that's part of this lawsuit and
rightly so that's exactly right, all right, So timeline here
is now Judges hearing this is probably going to move
forward in this case. Do you think the state eventually

(12:42):
settles with this? Are you looking for a settlement or
just an outright I mean, what what happens to the
stadium funding model if you win?

Speaker 3 (12:50):
Well, that's an open question. I mean that was That's
why we argued that it was safer to keep the
money where it is until we litigate the merits of
the case. And I think at the end of the day,
we're still optimistic that we're going to prevail here. And
if that's the case, then this money, this half a
billion dollars or more has left the State of Ohio's coffers.
It's going to be taxpayers that have to put back
that money.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, Jeff, all the best. Thanks for chepping on this
morn now. You're extremely busy, but I appreciate taking time
out to chat here. Jeff Crossmow, the Dan Law firm,
lead counsel in this case, All the best, You have
a great dable chat again. Thanks again, man, I appreciate you.
I've got some time here maybe to talk about this. So,
I don't know if you've checked the Unclaimed fun site.
I have, and as I said, found like four hundred
bucks or something like that. I thought it was pretty

(13:32):
easy process myself on my name. Okay, this is me here, Boom.
But I have a common but not uncommon name. If
you have a very common name, I don't know if
you found it extremely difficult to navigate this site or not.
As I said, I didn't, but your results may vary.

Speaker 4 (13:50):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
I'm kind of torn on this, but I tend to
lean in this one towards more towards the state, and
not that I want people to lose their money, But
I don't know. After ten years, seems to me, with
all of the information out there, you know, check all
you gotta do is check this website. Now, it seems
to me that that is on you. Ten years, you
don't know that that money's out there. How far? How

(14:15):
far should the state go to try and get that
money back to you? Now, I think two things here
are important that the state would have to simply notify
you somehow, I send you a postcard or whatever it
might be, to a reasonable attempt to contact you. I mean,
I get contacted by people I don't want contact contacting
me all the time. They can find me, but the
state can't. That's problematic. And as he said, if you

(14:40):
have a common name, it's difficult to navigate the website.
That strike too, But I think if the state where
to change those two elements, that to me seems like
it would satisfy the claim that they're trying to hold
on the money. And you can see that right, there's
incentive for the state to hold your cash in an

(15:00):
unclaimed account because now it's going to go to fund
pet projects that lawmakers will definitely line up to try
and get that quote unquote free money, not free, but
quote unquote free money in order to well build something
nice to get votes. I'm the guy who got the
new Cleveland Stadium. I'm the one who got Pai Course Stadium.
I'm the one that got GABP made whole again and remodeled.

(15:26):
So there's tremendous incentive for the state here. But we'll
get your thoughts onto the unclaimed funds thing. And like
I said, I tend to look at and go all right,
I think you fix a website and make a concerned effort,
do your due diligence and trying to locate someone with
those funds, then that's probably the best you can do.
Outside of the public notices in the website your thoughts
five one, three, seven, four, nine hundred. The big one

(15:47):
talkback be the iHeartRadio app. You can get me there.
If you're listening to the stream through your phone, We'll
get do that. We'll get news. We've got weather moving
in all sorts of moving parts this morning here on
the Sconsolon Show on seven hundred w plony here seven
hundred WLW. I I've got their news. Got through some

(16:08):
other stuff. And last half hour I had Jeff Crossman
on Dan Law from lead Counselors's lawsuit against the State
of Ohio for unclaimed funds to finance well Cleveland Brown Stadium.
But let's face it, it's going to finance a redo
of great American ballpark money for pay Corpse Stadium, and
I would think it's going to be a critical funding
source for a new arena. If they can get this done,

(16:30):
I would think that a new arena is going to
be fast tracked here in Cincinnati, and not just in
c but across the state of Ohio. The problem is,
is this unclaimed funds thing. Is Jeff Crossman issuing with
the Dan Law firmers arguing that we just don't notify
people well enough in advance, and I think that's olally true.
I don't think I've ever gotten thinking, hey, you've got
unclaimed funds. You're just supposed to know where the website

(16:50):
is for other things. I get notifications, I get mail,
I get email. Somehow they can find me, but the
government can't, which backs up the claim that this is
now going to be even worse when it comes to
onclim funds, and that they're going to make it harder
for you to get your money. And the website is
like I said, I did, I didn't have a problem
with it, but if you have a common last name,
apparently it's a bit of a nightmare you clean those

(17:13):
two things up. I think it's a it's a go
simply because I mean, l's say, you know, if you
don't have an interest in finding money that's there for you,
I mean, how far how much notification should we give you?
It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that the
website is out there. You have to you have to
have an interest in finding that money to begin with.

(17:34):
Let me get to Tammy and Cincinnati on seven hundred
WW discussle and Joe Tammy appreciate holding what's up?

Speaker 5 (17:40):
Hi let's have a comment where I work at a
small business. Every year we go through the credits that
we owe to people and we have to try and
track them down and pay them back because if we
hold onto that money after a year, we have to
send it to the states. And my question is, if
we put in all the time and effort to try

(18:01):
and find these people and we can't find them, and
we send the money to the states, why is the
state entitled to that money and why wouldn't it revert.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
That tough go back to the tach Well, how you
distribute that? Does it go back to the general fund?
But if it goes to general fund, then the lawmakers
was to spend it on something else. At least it's
earmarked for I guess something that makes sense. You could
hear market. I suppose for a bunch of different things,
schools and whatnot. But this is a way to remedy
the cost of stadiums and not lean back on taxpayers.
Largely because of what happened in Cincinnati back in the ninety.

Speaker 5 (18:33):
But why wouldn't like the small business that I work for,
why shouldn't they get that money back?

Speaker 3 (18:38):
They put forth the.

Speaker 5 (18:38):
Effort to try and find the people. Yeah, should they
have to turn it over to the state.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
Right, the state eventually gets that money. Well, I think
it also gets back to now there's incentive for small
businesses to go. Hey, you know, if we pretend that
we're looking for these people, I mean, you make a
case of the state. I totally understand your argument there. Yeah, Tammy,
thanks for checking in this morning. Real quick over to
Mason and Frank on the big one.

Speaker 6 (18:58):
Hey, Frank, morning, I have a sort of a humor
story about unclaimed funds.

Speaker 4 (19:04):
About four years ago. I thought, I'm going to take.

Speaker 7 (19:08):
Them look it up and see if I can.

Speaker 6 (19:09):
Find anything, because I always if I get some money
from somebody, I'll give a story of it to the church.
So I go on and there was about twenty five
dollars somewhere around there that was owed.

Speaker 4 (19:20):
To me from unclaimed funds.

Speaker 6 (19:22):
So I applied for it, and in about three weeks
I get a check for three cents. I'm not kidding,
it was three cents, so they said, so they spent
fifty cents to send it to me. Then they need
and then they did three follow up letters telling me

(19:44):
to cast the check, which I was not going to
ever to cast that check I'm keeping.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
I'm going to keep it.

Speaker 6 (19:50):
And needless to say, I did not donate one cent
to the church.

Speaker 2 (19:55):
Well you could have, would be more than tithing, though
you'd have to a fraction of a cent there. But
what happened to the twenty five bucks?

Speaker 5 (20:03):
Uh?

Speaker 6 (20:03):
They kept the rest of it for incidental charges of
some kind. So I end up with three cents check
and I still have it.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
That's why I never I get I'm sure you do
postcards for class action suits and settlements, and you're part
of this class and you want the like I'm gonna
get like forty two cents and the attorney's going to
get forty two million, So it's not even worth my time.
You know, That's exactly right.

Speaker 6 (20:31):
But I just had fun with and every once in
a while i'd come across that letter or that's just
funny for three cents frame that?

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Yeah, there you go. It's like the first dollar you
make in a business. I framed the three cent check
right there, no doubt about it. It's like, I know
how that works with the class action had a gym
membership from nineteen ninety two. I'm gonna get how much Wow,
we're gonna sell us for millions of dollars. Okay, Gret,
how much do I get? You get forty two cents? Yeah, okay,
I'm good. One more of Les's two up Portsmouth and

(21:00):
Ross on the Scottsland Show on seven hundred WW thanks
for checking in, man on Hold, I appreciate you. What's up.

Speaker 7 (21:06):
I'm totally against giving money to billionaires for their playgrounds.
Number one. Number two our legislators was well cordoraty probably
thirty years to go to figure out school funding. Number
two or number three is we also have a property
tax issue. I would much rather see the school funding

(21:28):
and the property tax get taken care of with this money.
Seeing how this is public funds and not our legislators
funds and not rich people's funds, which should be used
for the better of the people that work in this
state and have funds coming to them instead of rich

(21:50):
people and politicians. And if they want a new stadium
in Cleveland, go to that city or that county and
let the voters in that county decide the House and
Family needs money from them and not from the whole state.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
Well, the state's going to wind up kicking money in
just the nature of it, because the revenue that comes
in from NFL football and the prestigio I mean, you know,
it's a measurable but the prestige of having two NFL
teams in Ohio. They don't want to lose that for
obvious reasons. And as far as the billionaires go, I mean,
we can't speak of the deal that the Brown family got.
It's much better than in the nineties, for sure, but

(22:32):
relative to the one in Cleveland. You know, the six
hundred million dollars, the Hasms are essentially putting up a
billion of their own money in this. That's it's not
like we're just giving the money away. There are stipulations
along with this.

Speaker 7 (22:44):
Well, but it's not their money to give away, the
politicians or anyone's money to give away. It's the people's friends.
It's unclaimed. It stirs and if they're like our local
newspaper here, which is a very poor newspaper that nobody
buys it, and they put it in there, nobody sees it.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Well, I mean, it is on it is on social
you know, I get what you're saying. But at the same time,
is like, do you just hold on the money. There's
there's money in that fund that's more than ten years old.
I mean, at some point, what do you do with
the money? I think it's a legit, legit issue. It's
called achievement in that there's a there's a cure period
there until like ten years in Ohio that says, you know,
if you don't claim the money after ten years and

(23:23):
because reverts back to the how we want to spend
it as the public fund. So you know, I think
there's there's there's some there's some burden on the person
who the money is owed to as well to claim
it true.

Speaker 7 (23:35):
But do you know what if I'm fifteen years behind
or got a tax built from fifteen years ago, they
can miraculously find me.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
Well, there's no question there. And you, oh, you know,
you know two bucks on of your taxes from six
and a half years ago. They're going to find a
way to come at you again. They can find you
when they need to find you. In that, my friend,
we both agree on there's no doubt about it. I
got to go Ross, thanks for checking in this morning.
I think it's the calls at five, one, three, seven,
eight hundred, the big one talk back if you're listening
to or radio app. I mean it is something else

(24:06):
they will if they need to find you, they will
find you. This one maybe not so much. I'm not
saying that I agree with the state one hundred percent
of this. I lean towards doing this, uh, simply because
I think the best thing would have done is to,
you know, attach a attax to gaming. I don't know
why I didn't support that, and particularly you know when

(24:28):
you talk about the big sports books out there, you
know other day I wouldn't do the what forty percent
that New York is doing fifty whatever, It something ridiculous,
but you know, you could definitely do seventeen to twenty
percent tax on them, and that will come out of
the big It's not like you know, you're they're going
to charge you more. And I think you know when
you examine that, I'm not for gouging businesses no matter

(24:49):
what device is. But at the same time, you look
at going, well, you know they're making still making a
lot of money, and it's not like you can go
and get it out of you know, past that those
costs on to the consumer when it comes to gaming,
everyone's got enough money in that seemed the way to go.
But for some reason decide not to do that and
do this route as well, which is a lot more
sticky in my opinion. But you know, you clean up
the website thing, make it a little bit more user friendly.

(25:09):
That's not hard. The other one is actually notifying people
and going doing your due diligence, trying to locate so
when you can. When it comes to taxes, I don't
know why you wouldn't do it with the unclaimed funds. Anyway,
I got to get a time out in just to
happen the show. We'll switch it up a little bit here.
Scotty Johnson, Chair of Law and Public Safety. I couldn't
agree with Scotty Moore on the issue of going wait

(25:30):
a minute, hold on just a second. We had the
George Floyd Blm protest back in twenty twenty summer twenty twenty,
and we had countless people come in, not only from
Ohio locally, but many many people from out of state.
As you know, any tempt there's a big protest like this,
you're going to get interlopers coming in. Most of the
people acted well in protests extra their First Amendment rights.
We did have some issues, however, and when the city

(25:51):
said Hey, listen, we've got a lot of people in
the city right now. We're going to institute a curfew,
and if you break curfew, we're going to arrest you.
The problem with that, though, of course, is the fact
that these people collectively got together, four hundred and seventy
nine of them and sued the city and the county.
And I, you know, if we pass and say there's

(26:11):
an ordinance here arresting criminals because there's a curfew, much
like Joe Niles and I understand your right to peacefully assemble,
but you also have, like anything, there are limits to
those constitutional rights. Kind of a yelling fire in a
crowded theater. I don't know how that doesn't apply here.
And bigger question is why isn't Why didn't the city
just fight this thing. I'll get to Scotti on that

(26:32):
coming up next on the show here on the Home
of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WWT Cincinnati.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
You do want to be American?

Speaker 8 (26:38):
All right?

Speaker 2 (26:39):
Here we go, second of the show stopped flowing on
seven hundred w welw busy today, busy, busy, busy. The
city and the county have settled in a lawsuit, so
Back in twenty twenty, during the Black Lives Matter George
Floyd protests here in Cincinnati went about four hundred and
sixty nine protesters, exactly four hundred and sixty nine protesters,

(26:59):
I should say. During those protests they have alleged in
their suits police brutality in humane conditions of the Hamlin
County jail and as part of the settlement which has
been finalized Hamlin County, the jailers pay sixty five thousand dollars.
The city on the hook for eight million dollars. Scottie Johnson,

(27:24):
council member, not happy about this at all, of course,
Chairs Public Safety and Governance of the City of Cincinnati. Scotty,
welcome back, my friend. How are you doing? Man?

Speaker 9 (27:32):
Doing well, Scott A little busy, but yeah, all's welly.

Speaker 4 (27:36):
Good to be with you.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
Ian you as well. I appreciate you taking time out.
You know, I read your comments and saw your comments.
I couldn't agree with you more on this one. What's
disturbing about this is well, on a number of levels,
the city paying eight million of the eight point one
million dollars, some of the county only paying sixty five
thousand dollars, and I think also the fact that you mean,

(27:57):
it seems like the city and you know better than
I will, it seems like the first thing they want
to do is settle as opposed to actually fighting. So
I couldn't imagine a jury looking at what happened in
twenty twenty and going, yeah, you know what, these people
are victims. I wouldn't see that happening in Hamlet County.
Quite honestly, are you surprised we didn't fight this?

Speaker 9 (28:17):
Well, according to our law department, there was a lot
of negotiation that took place, and the biggest thing that
came back was there was a possibility, if we were
to lose this, you could be paying double of the
eight million. You know what disturbs me more than anything

(28:37):
else is the fact that I'm still waiting on the
numbers of how many of these people were actually residents
of Cincinnati.

Speaker 4 (28:46):
And I think what.

Speaker 9 (28:47):
Happens, Scott is we send a very dangerous precedent that
Cincinnati is a place that you can come break the
law and get paid for breaking the law. Now, let
me say this, nobody can doone civil rights being violated.
Nobody condones mistreatment of any form or any shape, form

(29:07):
or fashion but let's just be let's get to the
meat and potatoes here. The Cincinnati police were faced with
extremely difficult circumstances. And when you have a number of
I guarantee you some of these people that are going
to get paid are professional protests. They go from city
to city and do what they believe is within their rights,

(29:31):
and the police respond to that. We had property damage,
we had police officers being assaulted, and that is something
that is completely unacceptable in Cincinnati. So now you got
people coming into Cincinnati to protest, that's your right to
protest peacefully.

Speaker 4 (29:50):
But after the police give you.

Speaker 9 (29:52):
Instructions and lay down the law, you need to follow
that law.

Speaker 4 (29:57):
Now when you as it.

Speaker 9 (29:59):
Was indicat during twenty twenty, nobody talked about police brutality.
All the conversation was about how they were treated when
they got to the jail in the Sally Point part
area of the county jail. And now the city is
getting ready to pay eight million dollars. Something doesn't smell

(30:20):
right here at all.

Speaker 4 (30:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:24):
The thing is because you had four hundred and seventy
nine people a little start there, that's an extreme number
of big size crowd for police officers to deal with.
I look at that number, go, okay, that's pretty substantial there,
and it would be reasonable based on the threats towards
law enforcement, maybe based on property damage and the like,
is to institute a curfew. And they're saying that that

(30:45):
is somehow unconstitutional. You know, you're not saying you can't protest.
But we know that these We know that our consocial
rights are not an absolute right. The old yelling and
screaming fire in a crowded theater, for example, that's not
a First Amendment violation. Our thing putting up reasonable curfew
for adult protesters is would stand a constitutional test, wasn't

(31:07):
you know? I mean, you're not saying you can protest,
you just have to do it and you gotta go
up the street at dark. Because while we've seen what
happened across the country with cities literally burning down, Scottie
Johnson private property being destroyed by these protesters, that it
was reasonable to an actor curfew.

Speaker 4 (31:23):
What's wrong with that exactly?

Speaker 9 (31:25):
And see that's we have a right and the mayor,
and the mayor has a right to institute a protests
until control is until the Cincinnati police get control back
in the city. So I'm with you one hundred percent
on that. Then if you look what happened after the

(31:46):
after the four hundred and sixty nine people were arrested, Cincinnati,
unlike other major cities, didn't have another day of knuckleheads
running through our city.

Speaker 4 (31:58):
So the issue here is.

Speaker 9 (32:01):
As what's disturbing to me is nobody talked about police brutality.
All complaints came from my recognition recognition recollection. And I'm
not saying I know everything, but all complaints were about
how they were treated when they got to the jail.
And I'm saying that if that's the case, then therefore,

(32:25):
why is the county writing a measly little check for
sixty five thousand in the city's writing a check.

Speaker 4 (32:31):
For eight million.

Speaker 9 (32:33):
All complaints during that time were about how they were
treated at the jail and the Sallyport area. I took
hundreds of prisoners in there over a career. It belongs
to the county. It appears based on video, that's where
they were left in the Sallyport area.

Speaker 4 (32:55):
And if there were.

Speaker 9 (32:57):
Cases of brutality by this Sinnati police that's just now
coming to light.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
Interesting. Yeah, let's focus on that, Scotty real quick. Here
is because the lawsuit alleges that polices to be CPD
used tear gas, pepper spray, flash bangs and crowds or
maybe just flash grenades on crowds including disabled people and
children that are caught up in there, that they were
detained on hours on buses outside in the weather, and

(33:23):
that would have been in the summer, with no access
to toilet, water, food, blankets, shelter, or necessary medication. In
the sally Port Hamilt County. It's an open air sally
port there. But again, if you had four hundred and
seventy nine people to process, that's going to take some time.
You're going to be sitting out there. Relative to the
tear gas, pepper spray and flash grenades, did Cincinnati to
your knowledge, CPD officers ever deploy that.

Speaker 9 (33:46):
I think there might have been some pepper spray to
get peak some crowds under control. I'm not sure Scott
one hundred percent whether flash bangs were used, but if
they were used, I get Cincinnati police are the best
trained in this nation. If they were used, it was necessary,
I know for a fact based on the commanders that

(34:09):
were running that during that time. Tactically sound gentlemen, ladies
and gentlemen. So if it was necessary to use flash banks,
then that those were deployed. But we gotta make sure
that Cincinnati is not a place you got to write
to protests. I support protests if it's orderly and there's

(34:30):
no property damage, but you don't get to come to
Cincinnati act lawless and then you get a check for that.
That's a problem, and we gotta make sure that message
is clear. You can come to Cincinnati and protests, but
you're gonna do it peacefully, and you're gonna do it
under the laws that the city of Cincinnati have in place.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
For those people who maybe weren't around then, weren't born there,
or were less paying attention, or simply forgot. Because this
goes back to twenty twenty five years later, each year
in my life's got in about you feels like it's
about I can barely remember what I did yesterday alone,
five years ago. Nonetheless, the reality of life is that
something's happened during those protesters. I recall, can you enlighten
us as to some of the things that members that

(35:13):
are not all I think they're largely well behaved. But
of course, as you said, there's gonna be some knuckleheads
in a group like that trying to take their liberties
with the law. What did you see or what did
you hear at the time that would have constituted a
reason to enforce this curfew that the city says, Well.

Speaker 9 (35:28):
You had, first of all, you had people unfortunate of
people in traffic where there's here's the thanks Scott, and
I'll get to that. Number one is Cincinnati police are
responsible for making sure everybody safe. That's the residents not
involved in protests. Those are business owners. Those are the protesters.

(35:50):
So some were in traffic causing possibly being a hazard
to getting hit by cars. The Cincinnati police were responsible
for fake making. I'm sure nobody got hit by cars.
You don't get to shut down traffic in Cincinnati where
a possibility you get ran over by car. Then people
are pointing at the police. Were where were the police?

(36:13):
So we had people in traffic, we had people breaking windows,
we had people throwing things at the police. You had
people attempting to assault police. So those are things that
would justify we're going to bring order back to Cincinnati
and implement a curfew. How in the world a curfew

(36:33):
is unconstitutional when you have people committing crimes is beyond
my belief. So those factors led to the fact that
it's time for people to get off the streets so
order to be restored in.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
Cincinnati, Scottie Johnson, would this settlement and a grain You
know with settlements there's no fault, there is given. But
based on the precedent set saying that, okay, curf you
can't have a curfew anymore for adults. Would does that
then undermine the juvenile curfew the Cincinnati has.

Speaker 9 (37:04):
No we're gonna push that. No, I pray not, because
let's just be frank. Young people obviously have shown in
the past they don't know how to conduct themselves. Some
not all don't know how to conduct themselves, and they
need to be home at a specific hour. There's nothing
positive for people under eighteen after midnight, Absolutely nothing positive.

(37:25):
You need to be at home somewhere. So let's hope
that's not Let's hope. And I think we need to
stick to making sure our young people are safe. It's
a safety issue for them also, and so we're not
going to We're not going to back off. We don't
need to change all policies and procedures every time somebody
sues or every time somebody gets paid in a settlement.

(37:47):
We've got a fantastic city here. We're gonna make sure
that we keep it safe, and we're gonna make sure
the Cincinnati Police are supported in making sure all citizens
are safe. I think Scott has a re all of this, though.
We've seen better communication between the city and the county,
the city police and the Sheriff's department at the jail,

(38:10):
and I think everybody was overwhelmed when you arrest four
hundred and sixty nine people. But I still go back
to we didn't hear complaints during the twenty twenty that
they were people were being brutalized by the Cincinnati police.
The complaints came as a result of how long they

(38:30):
had to sit in the sally Port.

Speaker 4 (38:32):
Look, if you break the law, don't.

Speaker 9 (38:34):
Look for us to put a pamper on you or
provide you with air conditioned and feed you and.

Speaker 4 (38:39):
All of those different things.

Speaker 9 (38:41):
You know, that's just stuff that people that professional protesters
need to know that, and you need to understand that
the Cincinnati.

Speaker 4 (38:49):
Police are here to enforce the law.

Speaker 9 (38:51):
They're not here to provide you with pampers and water
and all of that.

Speaker 4 (38:55):
Different type of stuff. When you break the law.

Speaker 9 (38:57):
You know, I don't want to see anybody abuse or
brutalized or rights violated. But when you break the law,
then you need to be in for what comes with that.

Speaker 2 (39:06):
Yeah, we're not Baltimore, but I subscribe to the theory.
You know, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you've
got a six ro you know, sitting around for six
or seven hours in the heat of the sally Port
while you're waiting to be processed, that's that's something you
should have considered prior to your activity, or prior to
being someone who's going to knowingly break the law. He
is a council member. Scotti Johnson on the Scott's lun

(39:27):
Show seven hundred WW Chair of Public Safety and Government.
City settling with these four hundred and sixty nine protesters
for the tune of eight million dollars roughly, but the
county Hamlet County is only on the hook for sixty
five thousand dollars. The lawsuit describes, as I mentioned, the
protest as being held for hours on buses which are
air conditioned by the way, and then outside without access

(39:49):
to toilet or water or medication.

Speaker 4 (39:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (39:51):
I remember seeing news coverage of you guys handing out
bottles of water to people. Is that an acceptable level
of detention your eyes of someone? The law enforcement and
should the law should? Should the courts look at this
and go, hey, look, these are extenuating circumstances. We were
overwhelmed with lawbreakers and they knowingly violated the curfew that
was in place to protect businesses and the quality of

(40:12):
life in Cincinnati. You can protest, but we can limit
where and what that protest looks like. That seemed to
be from what I remember, it was reasonable at the time.
How did this become so unreasonable? And why is the
county only paying sixty five grand?

Speaker 9 (40:26):
That's that's Those are great questions, and you said it.

Speaker 4 (40:30):
You know we're not No.

Speaker 9 (40:31):
If Cincinnati leads the leads the nation in reform, we
lead the nation, and we respecting people's civil rights, We
lead the nation when it comes to being community oriented.
So we know our track record is clean when it
comes to how we treat people, in how we interact
with citizens.

Speaker 4 (40:51):
If Cincinnati, he's God.

Speaker 9 (40:52):
I'm still waiting to see what numbers, how many of
these people actually live in Cincinnati, and how many of
them from out of town. So those are things we
got to take under consideration. Also, as you said, we
were overwhelmed, the county was, the jail was overwhelmed. So
I think better communication has been established as a result

(41:14):
of what happened here, But we got to make sure
people understand that you need to follow the law in
Cincinnati when you come.

Speaker 4 (41:24):
Here to protest.

Speaker 9 (41:25):
I'm still that discrepancy, that's huge discrepancy between sixty.

Speaker 4 (41:29):
Five thousand and eight million.

Speaker 9 (41:31):
That's still a huge question to get that. I'm still
I'm still puzzled by Yeah, because.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
What I described outside of the maybe the flash bangs
being used in tear gas, but that's reasonable considering the
way some of the crowd or acting control of the crowd.
But if the major crux of this was being held
on buses for hours and sitting out in the sally
port and no access to medication, that would be after
Hamlin County takes custody of that subject. Correct, So that's

(41:57):
outside of your control. And yet the city's eight million
dollars in their sixty five grand I just I don't
understand how they came to these numbers.

Speaker 9 (42:06):
And see here's the thing here, here's the question. Is
the Sallyport into Sallyport. If you're into Sallyport, are you
still under the control of Cincinnati Police and all the
other agencies in Hamilton County or do you you now
become under control of the county deputies once you enter

(42:27):
the just the jail.

Speaker 4 (42:28):
See, I know.

Speaker 9 (42:31):
Time and time again in the sally Port there were
times where you had disarly prisoners that the jets, that
the deputies would come and assist you and take immediate
control of disarly prisoners in the Sallyport area before you
could even get some of these.

Speaker 4 (42:48):
Clowns out of the car.

Speaker 9 (42:51):
So that's where somebody that has been there and done it.
That's where I'm saying, hold on, wait a minute now,
control is after the part prisoner's process. No, the sally
Port belonged. That's part of the jail. It once you
enter the jail. Unless something has changed in the coming

(43:11):
up on six years, hop and cone and that something
has changed, and.

Speaker 4 (43:15):
Now the videos Cincinnati runs.

Speaker 9 (43:17):
The sally portst That's why I got a real problem
with what happened here.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
Yeah, uh okay, So the sally part of your hearings.
It kind of looks like in some areas looks like
a garage you've ever seen a cop show. It's or
the unit'll roll in, there's a gate or a door.
You come in, it's secure. The sub subject has taken
and cuffs, usually to a a window where you're literally
you're transferring control from Cincinnati to the county. At some

(43:44):
point you're actually signing or you're signing this away, and
it's like a legal it's a legal exchange saying, okay,
you now have legal custody of this individual or individuals
the case may be. H The sally Port in Hamlet
County is not you know, it's it's not an air
conditioned area. It's and it's kind of like a courtyard
sort of speak. But it's pretty clear that you're trying
you and and all the arrests you've enacted in your

(44:05):
professional Chris Scottie Johnson, you literally signed custody over to
the county. When when when they're sitting there in there
on county land being monitored by deputies and jailers, that's
out of your control. And yet uh, the city is
the one having to foot the bill for this. It's
just it's really really interesting why we came to the sellment.
You think at some point we ain't know why they
came to this conclusion.

Speaker 9 (44:26):
I think, yeah, I think those questions are definitely being
asked by my colleagues. I've got the same question. But
I think the preliminary response from law has been that, uh,
we we could have gone down a rabbit hole where
we're paying almost double the eight million. I don't understand

(44:47):
that part. Not an attorney, I don't know everything. So
you know, the experts get to lead on this. But
as you as you explained properly as a Cincinnati police officer,
to even get in the sally Port, their security. So
once your car passes through one gate, stuck between two

(45:08):
gates before you even get into the big area. So
that to me would say, that's county control. So once
those metro buses with four hundred plus people got in
the sally Port, you're now on county property and the
deputy sheriffs have control. Unless something has changed over the

(45:30):
six years.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
I don't think it has. I think there's that legal custody,
there's that transfer issue. Scottie Johnson, I'll leave it at that, man,
I appreciate you coming on this morning. Thanks for enlightening
us or maybe just frustrating us even more. I have
no idea, ope not take care of me. I appreciate you. Yeah,
so that's what eleven twelve grand per person. Awesome SALOONI
here seven hundred ww giving you a vocational leg up

(45:57):
on everyone else. Here's our career, Sir, Julie Bouki. You
probably heard the term winners never quit, quitters never win.
On the other hand, we do have people who are
quiet quitting, so you make sense of that. Sometimes quitty
is good. Sometimes quitting is good. Pinch hitting for Julie
Bouc today is our friend Andy Duke. Andy is a

(46:19):
professional decision scientist and former professional poker player to talk
about when it's okay to quit, Annie, welcome back. How
are you?

Speaker 8 (46:28):
I'm good? Are you?

Speaker 2 (46:29):
Why'd you retire from poker? Did they have enough of
you winning? What's going on there? Did you run some problems?
Did you have to start throwing fists at people? What's
going on Annie?

Speaker 6 (46:36):
With you?

Speaker 4 (46:37):
No?

Speaker 8 (46:37):
You know what. I've been doing it preteen years and
I just didn't I didn't enjoy it anymore. And that's
a really good reason to.

Speaker 4 (46:43):
Quit something reason the question we do.

Speaker 8 (46:45):
Yeah, we're supposed to be making our sound happy, right,
and if you figure out that you're not happy doing something,
you should go do something else.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Yeah, I couldn't do it. You know, I've got a vegas.
I's got a Vegas and you go and you go
to bed at some ungodly hour like it, I don't
four o'clock in the morning, and you roll down back
at one in the afternoon. The same people are sitting
at the poker table. My ADHD will not allow me
to do that.

Speaker 8 (47:09):
Well, you know what, Actually, I think some people with
ADHD great hyper focused. So actually, poker it's full of
people with ADHD. I think it's just yet I want.

Speaker 2 (47:20):
To chew my leg off after about an hour, I'm good. Well,
let's start with this. Uh, the idea that quitters never win,
Winners never quit. That's what we tell our kids. That
where we were told. But and I think certainly it's
a virtue, right, You've got to be persistent. You can't
quit easily. You have to keep trying and trying and trying.
But that makes it sound like quitting is a vice,
is it.

Speaker 8 (47:41):
Yeah, No, it's not, as I say, the opposite of
a great virtue is awful a great virtue.

Speaker 3 (47:45):
So I agree with you.

Speaker 8 (47:46):
The grit is a virtue. In order to succeed at something,
you will have had stuff to stick to it. But
that doesn't mean that stick to things and you'll succeed
because what if, like, for example, you get a concussion
on the football field, since you walk off the field.
What if you are in a job with a toxic box,
since you go try to find another one. Or you know,
a relationship that's making you deeply unhappy. You know, assuming

(48:08):
that you've tried to make it work and all times
point to it's not going to change, shouldn't you walk away?
So in fact, winners quit a lot because what they
do is they try a whole lot of stuff and
they quit all the things that aren't working so that
they can stick to the things that are.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
It's kind of like this in the stock market. Now
you think Wall Street, right, ultra competitive and cutthroat and
that whole bra culture thing going on, and you would
think that, yeah, I know, quitting is a weakness, but
those guys quit all the time. You know, you pump
up a stock and say, okay, this is working. Out
we're going to cut and run. They do that consistently.
That's how they make that's how they're successful.

Speaker 8 (48:48):
Well that's exactly right. I mean, that's the thing is
that in order to be successful, you have to quit
the things that aren't working. And a lot of times
what happens with people who are trading stops is that
once they own something that's losing, they find it really
really hard to get rid of it. This is true
of not necessarily elite traders, but you're average person who's
playing in the stock market, and you know the reason

(49:11):
is that, like, if you buy a stock at fifty
and it's trading at forty, don't you want to get
that ten dollars back? That's that feeling that we have, like,
well if I sell now, then like I can't get
that ten dollars back. But that's something called the sunk
cost fallacy. What you've already lost in it doesn't matter
very much is the question of would you buy it today?

Speaker 4 (49:28):
Right?

Speaker 8 (49:28):
And if the answer is no, I would prefer to
buy something else. You want to go do that. But
we get stuck in these things because of our refusal
to quit.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
That makes sense, it's human nature, right, you can't just
walk away because then you can't validate all the time
and effort you spent getting to where you were.

Speaker 8 (49:46):
Well, that's exactly right. So the sunk cost fallacy doesn't
just have to do with money, right, So you could
be losing money in a stock and not want to
walk away. But people say all the time when you know,
you're talking to a friend and they're in a unhappy
relationship and you say, well, why don't you walk away?
And they said, because I've put so much time into it.
You know, I've put a year into this relationship. I
can't walk away now, or you know, in terms of effort,

(50:08):
you say, weren't you walking away from this job? Because
they'll say, because then all of my onboarding and all
of the training and getting to know the culture of
the workplace that will be you know, for not, I'll
have wasted it. But waste isn't really a backward looking
problem because that stuff has already gone. What matters is
do you want to go into work the next day?
Is this the right place for you to be going forward?

(50:29):
And we have trouble thinking about waste as a forward
looking problem, like in order to try to not waste
something that I've already put into it. I'm going to
waste more stuff is basically what ends up happening with
the sun crost fallacy.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. I think
that's also pretty obvious. But you can hold on to
something for so long you wind up harming yourself in
the end. I think there's a great analogy here with
a company a lot of people knowing that as Seers, right,
how literally they were Amazon before Amazon, now not in
the technological sense, but in the consumer and purchasing and
warehousing sense. Absolutely. They just I think that's a fascinating story.

Speaker 8 (51:06):
Yeah. So Sears was so huge that in the nineteen
fifties they represent one percent of gross national products. This
was a really big company. So yeah, so they had,
you know, they had all these retail stores. Everybody went
to Sears for all of their stus. But I think
it's pretty well known that they went bankrupt really in
the nineties. They started to really financially falter, and then

(51:28):
by the two thousands they were bankrupt, out of business.
They try and merging with Kmart at some point, which
I think people called the double suicide. The critics called
it because Kmart was also faltering at that point. The
thing that people don't know about Sears that I think
is really interesting is that Sears was also a financial
services company. So in particular in the nineteen thirties, when
people started driving cars to their retail locations, they thought, oh,

(51:51):
you know, people might need insurance to these cards, so
they founded a company called All State Insurance. I assume
you've heard of it.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
Yeah, I didn't know that we started that. That's interesting, right, And.

Speaker 8 (52:02):
They owned it actually all the way through the early nineties,
and All Say Insurance the last time I checked this
market cap was with somewhere around forty billion dollars or
something like that. And then they also owned a company
called Being Winter, which was a really big stopware for it.
I think Morgan Stanley acquired it. It was forty percent
of Morgan Stanley's where if they owned Discover Card, they
created the Discover card, and they had cold wal Banker.

(52:23):
So then you have to ask for people, how did
they go broke if they owned all of this stuff,
And it's actually a failure to quit that caused them
to go broke when they started faltering in the nineties,
when all of a sudden they weren't a number one
retailer anymore that went to k martin Walmart at that time,
and then Target pushed them out of the way. Also,
when those retail locations started faltering, the shareholders were saying,

(52:45):
you've got to do something because these retail stores are
losing money. So and you know, this other stuff is
making money and it's to drag on the business. And
what the board decided to do was quote unquote get
back to its retailing routs. So they refused to quit
the retail business. And they still off all of these
amazing financial services business in order to try to save
the retail business. Why wouldn't they quit that when it

(53:08):
was obvious that you should have held on to all
states I mean obviously right right, right right, because what
my fears they were a retail company. It was their identity.
And this is a lesson for all of us that
the hardest thing to quit is who you are. So
the things that you define you expet to find you,
whether it's your job or your beliefs or whatever it is,
those are going to be the things that's hurdest for

(53:30):
you to walk away from.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, And you know,
the Seers thing was. It's the killer is if you
go back in one hundred years before the retail shops,
most of America's are grarian, rural and people would buy
their stuff with the Seers catalog that would show up right,
and so they'd ship all the stuff to them. It
was Amazon without the Internet, basically, is what it was.
They missed out on that whole thing. And yeah, we're

(53:52):
gonna stick with brick and mortar retail because you know,
they're around the you know, the birth of the internet age
and online shopping. They could have been all over that,
but they chose not to. And now Sears is a
is a tombstone and and all because probably they're sitting
around some wood paneled boardroom looking at pictures of the
founder of Sears and going, man, we can't disappoint the
old man. There's a lot of analogies there, you know,

(54:14):
and that that legacy kind of thing, and you know, well,
what what the we're a retail company. Now you're your
company that has responsibilities to shareholders and workers. That's basically
the relationship there. You sell what people want to buy,
and they didn't do that, and there's your lesson there. Now,
On the other hand, regarding what we're talking about this
morning on seven hundred WLW and Anny Duke is on

(54:35):
she's a decision scientist. And the analogy that winners never quit, well, yeah,
they quit all the time because they're smart. That's that's
why they're winners. What what about that advice about quitting
while you're ahead? Is that the extreme opposite of this.

Speaker 8 (54:48):
So it's really funny, you know, Scott like. So there's
all this advice about quitting, most of which says, you know,
never ever give up, or quitters never win. Winners never
quit if first you don't try, try yet there's one
that encourages you to quit it, which is quit while
you're a head. And the funny thing about it, it's
actually terrible advice, just like the other stuff is terrible advice.

(55:09):
So it's clear you should shouldn't just stick to things
comewhat made because context matters, right, like if you get
injured in a fourse game, walk away. But quit while
you're a head is really interesting because what you find
with human behavior is that the time that we do
tend to quit too early, at least as adults, right,
kids quit too early because they can't see the reward
at the end of the rainboat, right, But that's not

(55:30):
true for adults, right. So for adults, the time that
we do quit too early is when we're ahead. So
if you let's say that, like in the stock market,
they have something called taking and what that means basically
is like, if you buy a stock at fifty, you'll
decide in advance that if it gets to fifty eight
you'll sell it. Right, so you'll make that decision. Ms

(55:52):
you'll also put in an order which says, if it
gets to fifty eight, I'm going to sell the stock,
and it will automatically sell. What you find is that,
let's say to fifty five, people will sell then instead
of waiting till it gets to fifty eight. So once
they're ahead of where they started, then they'll go ahead
and quit and this happens. It's really interesting because what
does being ahead mean? I means essentially having reached some

(56:14):
sort of goal in your head. And so there was
a really interesting study that was done with New York
City cab drivers from the nineteen eighties before the days
of uber, and what they found was that when they
looked at their trip feet, they were driving really long
hours when there weren't any fares around, and driving really

(56:34):
short hours when there were lots of fares around. So
that's weird because that's backwards. You would think they want
to drive a lot when there's lots of stars, and
they'd want to drive very little when they are very
few fairsreat this, by the way, this pattern was costing them.
They would have made fifteen percent more if they did
what I just said, drive more when there were lots
of fares and drive little when they're very few. So
they were costing themselves a lot of money with this behavior.

(56:56):
So the researcher said, well, what's going on? Why are
they stopping so and when there's lots of fares around?
And they asked the drivers, and the drivers that turned
out had set like a target and earning his goal
for the day, Like what, they didn't want to make
three hundred dollars for the day. As soon as they
hit the three hundred dollars they quit. Otherwise they would
just keep going so right, So this is where you

(57:18):
get like this quit while your head is really bad
advice because what that meant was it's just them a
really long time to hit their goal when there were
no fares around, so they drove for a really long time.
But when there were last affairs around, they quit their
They quit really quickly because they got to their goal
really fast. So then they considered themselves a head at
that point, and so they quit as soon as they

(57:39):
were ahead. Well, that created really bad behavior because they
that's when they should have been gritty. Right, that's why
I should have driving. So this is why this is
just bad advice. Quit while your head. Actually really exaggerate
the bias that we already have.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
Yeah, and it seems like everyone's this way, right are
we Are we pre wired as humans to stick with
the status quo?

Speaker 8 (58:05):
Yeah, I mean, look, there are some you know, there
are some people who who are going to be better
quitters than others. But in general, when you look across
human behavior, we love the status quo. And part of
the reason that we love the status quo is this
weird thing where when the status quo is going really poorly,
we actually tolerate it much better than the fear of

(58:28):
maybe if I switch and start something new it won't
turn out well. So you'll hear this all the time,
like you'll be talking to a friend who's been a
job that they hate, and you'll say, well, why aren't
you switching, like, go do something else? And we'll say,
but what if I take a new job and I
hate that? And it's such a strange thing to say,
because it's like, but you hate the job you're already in,
Like you know that for a fact. Yeah, there's some

(58:50):
chance you might not like the new thing, but there's
also a chance that you might really like it. But
the status quo is a really comfortable place to be,
and we don't even when we stick with the status quo,
we do really think about it as an active decision.
Like that same friend when you see them three weeks
later and you say, have you quit yet, They'll say,
I'm not ready to make a decision yet, and it's like, no,
but you did make a decision for the last three reaps.

(59:11):
You decided to stay in the job that you're in.
So there's all these things that are causing us to
stick to the thing we already know and be afraid
of switching to new things. Even if those new things
would you don't have a much better chance of being better.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
For it makes sense, Annie Duke, She's a decision scientist,
and it's quit. The power of knowing when to walk
away and quitting is not losing as long as you're
doing it with the right intent and it's thoughtful. Annie,
thanks again. I appreciate the time.

Speaker 4 (59:39):
Thank you, Annie Duke.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
She was in for Julie this morning, taking the day off.
Alonder the weather. Hope she's feeling better. To be back
next week for sure.

Speaker 4 (59:47):
Though.

Speaker 2 (59:48):
We've got a news update happening. We've got weather moving in,
we got snow coming that we got well not yet,
we got wind, we got rain, then snow. It's going
to get worse before it gets better, for sure. Full
news update coming up in just minutes and when a
return of the show. He's Ohio Senator Steve Hoffman, the
author of Senate Bill fifty six. This is the Ohio
recreational law he helped craft, and it's been changed billions

(01:00:10):
of times since it came to fruition. Some disturbing elements
that all bad. I'm not going to think this is
the worst thing. Ever, there's some concerns with what was negotiated.
Try and get this thing signed by the governor. The
biggest impact, of course, is the fact that this is
going to make thch beverages legal again to be sold
in bars, and that whole industry is just massive. It's

(01:00:32):
going to eclipse the craft beer industry before too long
because craft beer is kind of a dying thing, and
how thhch and fuse beverages are coming along because I'm
play for a lot of people. You feel better after
you drink them. It's different kind of buzz. Nonetheless, that
is going to be part of this thing. At least
the Fed's come to their senses hopefully and allow that
to be sold. They're going to get all the hemp
based products that and those derivatives, the intoxicating derivatives that

(01:00:54):
are sold by some convenience stores to miners. That's getting
cleaned up so you can get that dispensers. But I
mentioned there's some troubling elements here too, and that is
the big nanny state in effect here. Look, I'm pro marijuana.
I've been pro marijuana before this law took a when
it was extreme, when no states allowed you to use marijuana.

(01:01:15):
I'm glad to see people come into their census finally,
and I understand there's got to be some regulation, but
some of this stuff just screams nanny state. From the
people out of one side of their mouth who scream
about how the government has to get out of your life.
They have no problem getting in your life when it
suits their interest. We'll get to that next with State
Senator Steve Hoffman from Tip City coming up on the

(01:01:35):
show right after this on the Home of the Best
Bengals coverage seven hundred WLW.

Speaker 7 (01:01:40):
I do want to be an American idiot?

Speaker 2 (01:01:43):
Hi, Scott Calm back on seven hundred WLW and what
feels like the I don't know one hundred and sixty
seven thousandth provision to the Ohio Recreational Marijuana lows headed
to the Governor's desk for his signature, and that will
become law this time. All intoxicating him products can only
be sold in dispensaries. It would be illegal to bring
marijuana back to Ohio from another state. And there's a

(01:02:06):
number of other changes, well, some minor other ones. Leaves
the scratch in your head and on. That is the
architect of what started the Senate Bill fifty six. At
State Senator Steve Hoffman out of Justice, Tip City, Steve, how.

Speaker 10 (01:02:19):
Are you doing well on yourself?

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
I'm doing fine. One hundred and sixty seven thousandth revision,
I believe, and that's part of compromise and deals being made.
But man, this thing is it really has been carved
up and put back together several times for sure?

Speaker 4 (01:02:35):
Well it has. It is both.

Speaker 8 (01:02:38):
You know.

Speaker 10 (01:02:39):
Initially the Senate had two bills that I had on
one on marijuana, and then Senable Lady sixth on hamp
the House put them together and mixed it all up,
and this is.

Speaker 3 (01:02:50):
What we got.

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
Okay, could take an effect by I think in March,
if signed soon here by the governor. So let's just
jump in and I guess to me, as a civil libertarian,
what concerns me is there's a chance this is the
accusations of the what the seven Democrats that devoted against us.
But bring up some points about this could eliminate protections
from you know, maybe losing your job if you're using

(01:03:13):
and even on your own time for that matter, necessarily
on the job, but could get you kicked out of
your rental unit if you rent an apartment or something house.
Could also negate your parting rights in Ohio. Those are
pretty extreme arguments against this, and how do they how
do they fit in here?

Speaker 10 (01:03:30):
I think most of those things are already in statute
and are just a continuation of those so your parenting rights. Sure,
the judge should should be able to decide on his
opinion if you have a if you smoke every Friday
night and your kids are not around.

Speaker 4 (01:03:49):
I don't think he's going to care.

Speaker 10 (01:03:51):
But he should have the ability to say, hey, look,
you're smoking every day when your child is at the
home and he's two years old. He should be able
to have that that discretion, And that's what we leave it.
And same as the as for the employer. For the
employer in medical from the beginning, if if it's a

(01:04:12):
drug pre workplace, it's a drug pre workplace, he has
the right to terminate you, not because you smoke, but
you're you're positive at the workplace.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
Yeah, I guess the one that bothers me most is
a landlord myself. Is I get smoking because you say, hey,
no smoking in units, but if someone vapes in one
of your rentals, you could kick them out as well.
I'm not quite sure I agree with that.

Speaker 10 (01:04:36):
Yeah, I mean, I wanted to give the discretion to
the landlord because if you know somebody is in there
and they're smoking, and it really stinks and you go in,
you know, in a year later the guy moves out
and Scott clones rental. You have to go clean it
up and you just can't get that smell out and
cost you thousands of dollars. It's after the discretion the

(01:04:58):
guy that owns the buil.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
That's reasonable, but the vaping thing doesn't leave smell, So okay,
we'll leave that one out. That's a that's an outlaiyer there.
This would have been intoxic eating hemp products from being
all outside of licensed marijuana dispensaries, and it closes that
quote unquote loophole were you know, kids underage kids were
buying stuff at convenience stores and Delta eight and getting high.

Speaker 10 (01:05:20):
Yeah, I mean that was the main thing that on
the on the hemp side is to get you know,
the things that looked like gummy bears and and things
like that away from kids over twenty one. So that
in the dispensary, we really just married neared the federal
law that they you know they did in the center
bill won the big beautiful bill, and we just spent

(01:05:43):
that up. The feds gave it a year. We said
those ninety days, you know after the governor signed it
to these things will go away. But we did carve
out the beverages because I was thinking we got to
carve out the beverages because Scott Flown and his wife
like to drink beverages.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
Well, I think that's the biggest win so far. However,
I will say that that only carries the THC. Beverages
can be sold until the end of the year twenty
twenty six, which is problematic, but that has to do
with federal luck.

Speaker 4 (01:06:13):
Right.

Speaker 10 (01:06:15):
Yeah, again, it's mirrors federal law. We also put in
the bill, and that's none of the non codified section
is that the House and Senate if the FED has
changed that and allow for the beverages, we will come
back and make a good faith effort to carve out regulations.
We didn't have time to put in a tax structure,

(01:06:35):
regulatory things, inspection and stuff like that. So we'll make
a good if the Feds change it, will come back
and make a good faith effort.

Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
Yeah, and I would think that the FEDS would because
it is a huge industry. I mean, you know, not
only were we making these seven hundred million dollars in
the first year recremational marijuana but one of the biggest
growing sectors if you talk to beverage producers, is the
people are kind of done with craft beer and now
they're moving towards the THC ones because you feel a
lot better the next day we drink, you know, maybe

(01:07:05):
three or four beers and you feel a little bloated
and tired. You don't get that, I guess with the
THC beverages, and people are buying those by now, by
the bucketfull. Let's put it that way. We don't want
to really, I mean, we want to be pro business here, right,
You're right.

Speaker 10 (01:07:20):
I mean, look, Ryan Heist there in Cincinnati has a
huge damp beverage business, and we're going to keep that
and they're going to be able to do that going forward,
and and uh, and they'll be able to sell it
out of state.

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
You know, we we have it.

Speaker 10 (01:07:40):
We're at five milligrams here, uh in the state of
Ohio and and uh, you know other states are higher,
and they'll be able to produce that and send it
out of state.

Speaker 4 (01:07:49):
If they want.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
I'm trying to figure out though, the criminalizing someone bringing
product back from let's say Michigan for example, here too.
I don't know how you enforce that. I don't think
that's enforceable. It's in a package already. How would someone
know that it's purchased in Michigan and not somewhere or
not in Ohio. And also the testing standards, it's some
somehow Michigan's testing standards aren't up to snuff. I don't know.

(01:08:14):
Can Michigans tolerate THHC better than Ohio wins. It's not
like they don't regulate it to some degree. What why
is that in there?

Speaker 10 (01:08:22):
I believe that there are a different standard. It is
federal law, now, it's state law. Now, you can't bring
it across the state line. I don't think there's gonna
be the high The Democrats said yesterday that they're going
to be lined up in Toledo to come across when
you bring it across the state line, that's not going
to happen. I think there's a different testing. Uh, you

(01:08:43):
can figure it out, because Ohio has has seeds to
sail tracking on on all marijuana products. But I don't
think it's going to be really enforced. And why why
would we put it in there?

Speaker 3 (01:08:57):
Well?

Speaker 10 (01:08:57):
I think because uh, if it's abused, they'll be able
to enforce it in the sense that if you're bringing
you know, track too much, you cultivate too much, they'll
be able to figure it out.

Speaker 4 (01:09:15):
And that is that.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
I hate the notion that it's another sneak and peak
kind of thing, quite honestly, because hey, we saw you
come out of a weed store in Michigan, or hey
we you fit the profile. I just it's another reason
for law enforce from the sneak and peak. I totally
disagree with that. Okay, what about the THHD cap productions?
So we'd set a new cap at seventy percent for extras,
thirty five percent for flour, what does that mean to

(01:09:38):
the average consumer and what's the rationale behind that? What's
the research saying.

Speaker 10 (01:09:44):
I don't think the consumer is really going to notice anything.
And the thirty five percent is basically that's what what
you what they can grow now on on plants about
thirty five percent PhD. That is not going to change
the seventy per It's just you do you add more
to get the level of PHC do you want in

(01:10:06):
a product? It's like, yeah, you know, one hundred proof
from one hundred and fifty proof from you take a
little more one a little less the other. So you're
gonna get to concentrate concentration that you want.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
Yeah, and then people will just take more with n't.
I mean it really serves no purpose. You just gotta
buy more product. I guess if you want to, if
you want to, you know, a higher buzz, you're gonna
just use more of it.

Speaker 10 (01:10:34):
Yeah. I mean it's you, You're gonna people are gonna.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
Get what they want.

Speaker 4 (01:10:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
I just I again, those two of that makes sense
to me. Uh, you know, back to the well, the
transportation is one thing, but the bill requires marijuana state
in the original packaging and mandates trunk storage while driving. Again,
I think that's another way for stops and searches. But
I don't know. I go, Okay, well, original packaging, trunk
storage at the case. The contention though, is it's somehow

(01:11:00):
marijuana is more dangerous than a gun.

Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
There are less restrictions with carrying a gun at all, Hio,
there is marijuana. Does that make sense?

Speaker 5 (01:11:08):
Uh?

Speaker 10 (01:11:09):
Probably not on the whole. I think what we really
we're looking at or it's not sitting there next to you,
it's not readily available. Keep it in the package so
that you know this stuff on a gummy, a marijuana
gummy or a just a regular gummy. You can't tell

(01:11:30):
the difference, and you don't want to put in in.
Some kids said, oh, there's a there. Those are my gummies,
not a dad's gummies, and mix things up. So if
you keep them, uh, keep them in the in the
original packages. And I know that you can't if you're
homegrow you don't have an original package, but you know,
keep that away from uh, you know, the.

Speaker 4 (01:11:51):
Kids and people.

Speaker 2 (01:11:52):
Okay, my original pe. So if I'm going over to
Buddy's house and bring a couple of gummies with me,
let's say, uh, I get pulled over in the officer
set it, I could get a ticket for that. I mean,
I'm not I'm just trying to think it should be
the same as alcohol. Now you can't have open container
and like if you leave at a restaurant and you
didn't finish your wine, they will put the cork back
and then seal it in a plastic bag to show

(01:12:14):
law enforce. And hey, it's not an open container so
to speak, and then that should also apply to marijuana
as well. But the trunk storage to me seems rather extreme.

Speaker 10 (01:12:24):
I don't disagree with you. Maybe that's farther than we
should have went, but you know, trying to trying to
make things, you know, close to alcohol.

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
Yeah, he is a state senator, Steve Hoffman, and he's
a physician, also author of Senate Bill fifty six, which
has been chopped up a lot, and now it's going
to the governor's desk to be signed. So if you're
just joining some of the things that have changed, is
and this is the good news here, There's there's a
lot of good news in here too. It would make
legal the THD beverages we've talked about till at least
the end of twenty twenty six, so that's a two

(01:12:56):
year grace period. And in addition to that, we're talking
about the transportation concerns. You can't bring weed back from
another state. You can get stopped for that. Also, you
have to have it in the trunk, it has to
be in the original container. There's a lot of other
elements of this thing. We're also capping the amount of
THHC in the product as well, public storage ban, interstate transfer.

(01:13:18):
But I mentioned that as well. I look at this
whole thing and go, okay, well, if this is what
we had to do to get it all done. And
it seems like in context. While there's some things that
I question the sanity of, others like the THC beverage
and the restricting of hemp sales to license suspenser as
opposed to carryouts where kids can get it, are generally
good things here.

Speaker 10 (01:13:40):
No, I agree. And the other thing we haven't talked
about is attacked so we can roll the ten percent
tax on marijuana products and the thirty six percent of
locals and as soon and because that's an appropriation. There's
some good and the bad things with this bill. One
it gives the governor line item veto ability, and the

(01:14:00):
other thing it does is that as soon as he
finds it, that money that's been sitting in the state's bank,
about a one hundred million dollars will be distributed. Not instantly,
but you know, give them a couple of weeks. It
will be good Christmas for these jurisdictions that have been
waiting for a year and a half to get that money.

Speaker 2 (01:14:22):
Yeah, they're like seven hundred million in sales this first
year and you're going to get thirty six percent of
that revenue. That's significant money right there. And what are
the strings attached to that to local gums, how they
can spend it.

Speaker 10 (01:14:34):
They can spend it however they want. It's a ten
percent pack that they're going to get. Thirty six of
that ten percent, the state's going to get the other percent.

Speaker 2 (01:14:44):
Gotcha, gotcha. So they can spend on whatever they want.
And that's good because there's not municipalities that simply don't
have the funding that's going to help make them hole.

Speaker 10 (01:14:53):
Well, they accepted the dispensaries on the premise that they
were going to say, be some negative. I don't think
there's negative, but they accepted it so that knowing that they.

Speaker 3 (01:15:05):
Would get money to do stuff with.

Speaker 10 (01:15:06):
So we're honoring that that commitment that they accepted.

Speaker 7 (01:15:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
Yeah, the ten percent tax rate on records for marijuanas
is maintained. Home grow by the way, because that was
a source of contention. Six plants per adult, twelve per residents,
which is unchanged, and a cap a four hundred dispensary
state wide. All of that does stay the same. And
then of course that moment, as soon as the governor
signs us in the law, the money for that will
become available. And there are some concerns in here. For sure.

(01:15:33):
I don't think the sky's falling at all with the
Steve Hoffman. You've got to make concessions. I suppose there
are some troubling things for me as a civil libertarian
that leaves me scratching my head. But all in all,
at least we keep that THC beverage business going until
the end of twenty twenty six, and hopefully the federal
government will come to their senses and say we should
exempt that because there's just so much revenue involved, not

(01:15:55):
just in Ohio but every state jumping on the THC
beverage bandwagon. As long as it's sold in a are
regulated like alcohol, that's how this whole problem should be
addressed in the first place.

Speaker 3 (01:16:06):
I agree.

Speaker 10 (01:16:06):
I think we I mean, I've said it. It's very
unpopular in Columbus. I think we should deregulate the entire
marijuana in the next five to ten years. We should
still have those provisions to make it safe. But if
Scott Sloan wants to grow five thousand square feet, he
should be able to grow it if he can meet
the license and all the requirements that everybody else does.

(01:16:29):
We shouldn't just limit it to twelve or fifteen people,
because that's not capitalism, that's not the free market.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
Steve Hoffman got to get going, Senator, always appreciate the time.

Speaker 4 (01:16:39):
You have a great day, you too, take care. Scott
got a.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
Roll and get news in happening right now here with
traffic and weather, and the weather's concerned because we've got
some snow moving in full details just seconds away. And
the when return on the Scott's Loan show, Sarah's here
a little snort action. We'll talk about the Bengals next
seven hundred w Weld come in hot this morning, Sarah

(01:17:15):
Lee with the Snort report this morning here everything sports,
all the snorts, more sports, and.

Speaker 11 (01:17:23):
We just have to laugh to keep from crying.

Speaker 2 (01:17:26):
You are just unbearably happy this morning.

Speaker 11 (01:17:29):
Again. I'm just laughing and smiling.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
What do you have to be happy about? How dare
you come in this studio after I've been slaving away
for two and a half hours with that? What is
wrong with you?

Speaker 12 (01:17:43):
God forbid? Somebody is joyous around here. All you cranky
older gentlemen.

Speaker 2 (01:17:48):
Suck the life out of you.

Speaker 11 (01:17:49):
So we did find out that the middle.

Speaker 2 (01:17:50):
Aged women aren't much better.

Speaker 12 (01:17:53):
I'm not there yet give me a couple more years.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Fifty What are you talking about?

Speaker 11 (01:18:00):
Fifteen something? Fifteen years?

Speaker 2 (01:18:03):
Anyways, you've been thirty five for seven years.

Speaker 12 (01:18:06):
I've been thirty five for like to one year negative
two years. Anyways, that's beside the point. We found out
that the Reds. The Reds have money. The Reds have
more money than we thought.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
Just let's break it down here, Kyle Schwarber argument here.

Speaker 12 (01:18:23):
And look, this is the last day I'm talking about
Kyle Schwarberg for the.

Speaker 11 (01:18:27):
Next five years.

Speaker 12 (01:18:28):
All right, when he comes here as a Red in
when he's thirty eight years old and he can't swing
the bat anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:18:33):
Right, then we'll get them.

Speaker 11 (01:18:34):
The Reds are like, well, we'll give you a million bucks.

Speaker 2 (01:18:36):
You can sit on the bench right right, hometown discount.

Speaker 9 (01:18:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:18:40):
It turns out that Kyle Schwarber does love Cincinnati, but
not as much as he loves playing for the Phillies.

Speaker 11 (01:18:47):
I don't know if it's that it's twenty five million.

Speaker 2 (01:18:49):
Five million is more than twenty He's.

Speaker 12 (01:18:51):
Like, you know what, twenty five million dollars is a
lot better than living in Cincinnati.

Speaker 8 (01:18:55):
So there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:18:56):
And the Pirates offered a better Dean not only four years.

Speaker 12 (01:18:59):
But I think the Pirate Soffer was four years at
one twenty and the Reds were five at one twenty five,
and the Philly said, hold our beer five for one fifty.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
Yeah, we'll pay the luxury tax because you know it's
big market. Now I got the money, we don't.

Speaker 12 (01:19:13):
Yeah, so he will be thirty three when he starts
the season, thirty eight when the contract is up, so
it ain't over.

Speaker 11 (01:19:19):
We could still see this guy in a Reds You.

Speaker 2 (01:19:22):
I don't think so.

Speaker 12 (01:19:23):
But who knew that the red had this one hundred
and twenty five million dollars that they were just ready
to bother you to go?

Speaker 2 (01:19:28):
And then people will why do you make it one
thirty five?

Speaker 11 (01:19:31):
Why not?

Speaker 2 (01:19:32):
Well, I guess when it's not your money, you can
spend it, right.

Speaker 12 (01:19:34):
Yeah, like I will gladly spend the RDS money, I
will gladly spend somebody else's money. But according to Ken Rosenthal,
this is what he said. The Reds are not expected
to pursue other expensive free agents this off season.

Speaker 11 (01:19:48):
Their pursuit of Kyle Schwarber was due to the belief
that he would drive ticket sales.

Speaker 2 (01:19:53):
Well, winning generally does drive tickets.

Speaker 11 (01:19:54):
Winning does a lot of good does.

Speaker 2 (01:19:56):
Whether it's Kyle Schwarber or not. Now I will contend again.
You know, we've seen this movie play out before where
you bring somewhere like Griffy and how did that work out? Now,
granted he was older, is more beat up, but my
point is it seems like when you get people who
are even moderately good, decent hitters and they come here,
they can't hit.

Speaker 11 (01:20:12):
And it doesn't matter where they're from.

Speaker 12 (01:20:14):
Look, I'm just looking at the fact that he hit
fifty six bombs last season, and we need somebody that
can hit. Who on this team right now can hit
the ball like Kyas Sarberg needs somebody to hit.

Speaker 11 (01:20:23):
Noboddy, we really could have used him.

Speaker 2 (01:20:26):
You would have loved hitting at this park too. At
one hundred home runs.

Speaker 12 (01:20:28):
Oh my god, this is the best ballpark to do
it at. He would have hit seventy five, set a
new record.

Speaker 2 (01:20:36):
Right, I guess. But at the same time, he would
have could have. But it seems like we have correct him.
If I'm wrong, Red's lady. But we've had a streak
of guys coming here we're decent at the plate that
can't hit. Great American ballbar I don't know why that,
and it's been going on for twenty years.

Speaker 11 (01:20:48):
Which is really odd. Right, this is the home.

Speaker 2 (01:20:51):
I mean, he built this place short for Griffy in
that short porch and he could eatn't what do you do?

Speaker 11 (01:20:55):
It's built for balls to fly.

Speaker 12 (01:20:57):
Yeah, there's a joke there that I'm gonna let go,
but Barry, because I want Dave to edit that out
and it'll be used with impunity.

Speaker 2 (01:21:06):
On the Stooge Report at thirty.

Speaker 12 (01:21:09):
Today, Barry Larkin said, I want to try to recruit
his ass.

Speaker 11 (01:21:13):
Turns out Barry Larkin can't even get him here, Lark and.

Speaker 2 (01:21:16):
Can't get him, and I guess Lark wants to kick
any extra five mel Yeah, Lark.

Speaker 12 (01:21:20):
You're gonna ball out. It turns out that nobody could
have gotten here. Money truly talks, man. Anybody else would
have done it. For an extra twenty five million dollars,
you would have left to the way it's set up. Man,
He's like, I do love Cincinnati. That's cool and all
take a twenty five million dollars haircut one hundred and
six days until opening day. By the way, Okay, good
are there. Rud's going to get somebody to hit.

Speaker 2 (01:21:41):
That need somebody to come up and hit the ball.

Speaker 11 (01:21:44):
We gotta figure that out, Yeah, we do. And also
Tito the other day had said he was talking about
Ellie da la Cruz.

Speaker 12 (01:21:51):
We know that he was dealing with an injury in
the second half of that season, and he goes, yeah,
I wish I would have sat.

Speaker 11 (01:21:56):
Ellie a little bit more. That was on me much
Did we know about this.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
Right in the way it was playing, Well, you knew
something was there.

Speaker 12 (01:22:06):
Of course, I've got an inside source that says, oh, yeah,
we saw him walking around the clubhouse.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
I don't think Gaffer doubling around.

Speaker 11 (01:22:13):
It's a source. I don't think Gapper sees more than
we did.

Speaker 2 (01:22:17):
With those fuzzy eyeballs the screen, you can see.

Speaker 11 (01:22:20):
A lot through those screens.

Speaker 12 (01:22:21):
Look as someone that was the Easter Bunny at Tri
County Mall for three seasons in a row.

Speaker 11 (01:22:24):
It's amazing what you can see through those eyes.

Speaker 12 (01:22:27):
I was the Easter Bunny from the age sixteen to
eighteen years old.

Speaker 11 (01:22:31):
At Trick County Mall.

Speaker 12 (01:22:32):
Yes, I had grown men sitting on my lap and
little kids drew things for me. So it's for a
whole other day Wow, that's a whole other thing going
on there.

Speaker 11 (01:22:41):
That is a whole other thing.

Speaker 2 (01:22:42):
What happens in the suit stays in the suit, thank you.

Speaker 12 (01:22:46):
Except we will bring those stories of the airwaves someday.

Speaker 8 (01:22:50):
Right.

Speaker 12 (01:22:51):
That's enough with the Reds explained. Nothing else is going
on with the Reds.

Speaker 2 (01:22:54):
That's it. It's College Schwarber. We're done moving on.

Speaker 12 (01:22:57):
We're not talking about the guy from Middletown anymore. I
can't keep doing this. I'm not talking about the Big
Red Machine and I'm not talking about Middletown.

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
We'll be talking about the Big Red Machine soon enough,
once we.

Speaker 12 (01:23:06):
Get into the season, as soon as the Bengals wrap
up their season, because God knows that's happening.

Speaker 11 (01:23:11):
We got the yeah good, Just a vicious circle, that's
all it is.

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
It's Tony Perez babble night. Here we go, Here we go,
Here we go. Get the whole big bobble line up.
Every year hasn't been honored enough. Do something this century.
Come on, y'all.

Speaker 12 (01:23:31):
The Bengals. They're back at the jungle this Sunday. They're
back at practice today, which is the lesser of the
two evils. Joe Burrow is twenty nine today. By the way,
that was trending on social media. The Bengals wished to
my happy birthday. Happy birthday to Joe. You will be
celebrating that at practice today because they are back at

(01:23:53):
it after a couple of days off. Zach Taylor held
a press conference on Monday, and he actually had a
lot of information and to share with us. I'm sure
you've talked about it a ton on these airwaves. Finally
got rid of Germaine Burton, who was contributing nothing to
this team, making fifty six K a week or whatever
crazy number it was when he made, Yeah, making an

(01:24:16):
entire annual salary for.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
Just seventy thousand years the game. I think of sixty
nine to seventy somewhere around there. Yeah, I'm just simply
not sleeping through practice, not showing up, and just like.

Speaker 12 (01:24:25):
Going to the casino and not traveling with the team.
And there's a bunch of allegations around him and unpaid
bills and just weird things. But honestly, I agree with
what Zach Taylor said. He goes, Look, I hope he's
happy with his next adventure. Say, just get the help
that you need. Though he needs some help.

Speaker 4 (01:24:40):
I liked it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:41):
He didn't throw shade at him and just like said, hey,
we wish him all the best, good luck exactly, don't care.

Speaker 11 (01:24:45):
He was very uh about the entire thing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:49):
You have to be for the Brown family to pay
you for not play?

Speaker 4 (01:24:53):
Oh my right?

Speaker 11 (01:24:55):
And what was to do with them holding on to him?
I don't all wand I did.

Speaker 2 (01:24:58):
It's like the lost Savior, lost car. And we're going
to hear more of the Jermaine Burton start coming out
now that he's no longer with the team, right, We're
gonna hear more stories about what he actually didn't did
or didn't do U to.

Speaker 12 (01:25:10):
Want because we've seen the photos on social media trending
where he's sitting at the casino, and we've seen the
paperwork that there were some allegations with an ex girlfriend
of his. A lot to get through and it sounds
like he needs to get his mental health and check,
which is very, very important.

Speaker 11 (01:25:28):
And then but then that comes out now not even
a part of the Bengals problem.

Speaker 2 (01:25:31):
Okay, that's that's your name, but that's how much did
that come back in the Bengals because you took this
guy third round? He played what he had four catches
last year.

Speaker 11 (01:25:40):
In US was like, I don't even know why were
your career?

Speaker 2 (01:25:45):
I just wondered, shouldn't we be getting back to and
based on what's happened with the defense and all this
other stuff, is examining how they go about getting players.
I mean, that's the big It's not Jermaine Burton going
off the rails.

Speaker 11 (01:25:56):
We're not good at draft.

Speaker 2 (01:25:58):
Yeah, and how did you miss Son? Someone who's that
mentally unstable?

Speaker 11 (01:26:02):
It's sad, It's really it's a really sad situation. So
Zach Taylor on my horse.

Speaker 2 (01:26:08):
If you're the Bengals, I would think, Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:26:11):
Zach on Monday was like, I'm not going to give
a reason. We're just parting ways. That's all there is
to it. And the hits just really keep on coming.
Uh uh, You're gonna need a lot of alcohol this
weekend because I just checked the forecast for Sunday's games.
Take off at one against the Ravens, a high of
thirteen let's go thirteen degrees. That is some football weather.

(01:26:31):
That ain't nothing for you.

Speaker 2 (01:26:32):
I feel like, well, the thing was, there's no win.
It's unusual because of the lake there and that wind
is just awful.

Speaker 11 (01:26:38):
I don't know how windy.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
It wasn't windy at all. There you will see what
the wind. I don't think the wind's going to die
down after today, but it's going to be cold.

Speaker 12 (01:26:44):
Yeah, so there's a hitting the ground. Keep Joe off
the ground and those you know and Tea Haggins out.

Speaker 2 (01:26:49):
You have like a Bengals Uh, you have like a
bedazzled Bengal snowsuit that you wear to thost.

Speaker 11 (01:26:53):
Absolutely not. I will be in the comfort of my home.

Speaker 2 (01:26:57):
Watching she is Sarah Lisa snow get it straight back
to the show tomorrow, Kid Chris Show one of two
seven EB in the morning. The Snort Report on Wednesdays.
Here not much to snort about with our teams again,
you just got a left to care. I got you,
I gotcha all right. It is a Scott's Flown show.
Willie's on the way next afternoons. It's the home of
the best Bengals coverage. Seven hundred Wally Sincenati

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}12-10-25 Scott Sloan Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

All Episodes

12-10-25 Scott Sloan Show

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang