55KRC Thursday Show - Todd Zinser, Jay Ratliff

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good one so far, trying to make it a good

(00:01):
one even if you're not right now. Could get better.
It's always possibility coming up. It'll get better. At seven
oh five, citizen watchdog Todd Zenzer. Yeah, striking fear into
the hearts and minds of the mayor, the city manager,
and members of Cincinni City Council, looking out for all
the best interests of the voters and the residents of
the City of Cincinnati. Today, Todd Zinzer will address in

(00:23):
studio the mayor's sketchy board memberships on nonprofits. Oh, he's
all over that, isn't he. Iris Rawley, for example, where
is that railway money? And where's the money going? He
sold the railway promises to bring in millions and millions
of dollars, giving up the most valuable asset owned by
the City of Cincinnati. And I don't know where the

(00:45):
money's going, Todd Zinser, may he'll certainly let us know.
Why hasn't the City Cincinni spent over thirty million dollars
allocated for street repairs across the city. Yeah, how your
street's doing. I'll give a nod to whoever decided to
finally pay Sunset I did get to drive on it
for the last listener launch of the year, going to
Price sal Chili. It's nice, hell of a lot better
than it was. What about all the other road repairs?

(01:08):
Where is that money? Is it sitting in a pile unused?
Are they incapable of addressing the road problems we still
have in the city. I don't know. That's why we
get todds ends there plus a year in Review and
Looking Forward Citizen Watchdogs the name of Todd's podcast. I
can't encourage you enough to hear what todds Enzer reports
on and talks about regularly in between his visits here
to the fifty five Carcene Morning Show. So one hour

(01:30):
of Power with Todd beginning again seven oh five. I
heard media aviation expert Jay Ratliff eight thirty for that,
giving us lots of time between now and then to
talk on the phone if you want to call, got
a topic you want to talk about? Five on three,
seven four nine fifty five hundred, eight hundred and eighty
two to three dog pound five fifty on AT and
T phones. I've been recommending and encouraging everybody Signal ninety
nine on Facebook. Uh looking out for the Shenanigans and

(01:54):
antics for well issues related to the CINCINNT Police Department.
She formed CINSINNT Police officer. Her identity has been revealed
because apparently there's a lot of crazy characters out there,
following when Signal ninety nine has to say, all she
does is report accurate information. But of course everything you
say online gets politicized. But revealing that not only her

(02:14):
name and her identity, the fact that the Sheriff's department
ran a check on her because of her quotes on
social media, they actually did a background check on her. Huh.
That's kind of frightening, isn't it. Joe? Do you think
they've done a background check on you? And I not you.
We are integrally involved in the subject matter here on

(02:35):
the fifty five Casey Morning Show. We've been critical of
Connie Pillot's in the Prosecutor's office. We've been critical of
Charmie McGuffey in the Sheriff's department from time to time.
That's all Signal ninety nine does. I guess maybe I
gained a Freedom of information actor quest to find out
if they run background checks on me. Anyway, no problem
will cause to run that check. That's one issue, But
the other issue is what was announced on the top

(02:56):
of the air news the dismissal of the case by
Connie Pillach. After thirty years, Connie pill has dismissed all
charges against Elwood Jones and Joe Deeters got a little
bit upset about this, so much so that Supreme Court
Justice Joe Dieters wrote a letter to Connie Pilach. He

(03:18):
was the one that was the Hamilton County prosecutor at
the time this man was put on trial and convicted,
a conviction affirmed on appeal, guilty on a reasonable doubt,
upheld by multiple appeals up to the appellate process. Humph,
So why was it dismissed? Joe Deeter's on fire over that,
and Signal ninety nine also summarized pretty much what Joe

(03:40):
Deeters said by way of his letter to Connie Pillach.
So before addressing the substance of this matter, he writes,
I want to be clear about the capacity which I write.
I do so both as the former prosecuting attorney for
Hamilton County and as a citizen of the county. My
current role is justice of the highest Supreme Court of
exercise scrupulous caution with respect to the matter originating from

(04:00):
my former as office, and consistent with that obligation, he's
getting out in front of it. Folks, I voluntarily recused
myself from any participation in the Elwood Jones case. That is,
to the extent it ends up landing on his desk
in front in the Supreme Court. Don't think that's gonna
happen anymore, said, I've watched the full press conference in
which you dismissed the entire case against Elwood Jones, and

(04:24):
during that conference you publicly proclaim that Jones has been,
in her words, cleared of the murder of Miss Nathan
Hellos quote, asserting that your decision was based on modern
day medical testing that excluded Elwood Jones as a suspect.
Wait for it, then you went further, he right. You

(04:45):
publicly impugned the integrity of former members of my office,
suggesting they cheated, falsely implied that thousands of pages of
evidence have been withheld from the defense. You compounded these
accusations by portraying your actions as a necessary, very corrective
to alleged pass misconduct, invoking the creation of a conviction

(05:05):
integrity unit as justification. They have one of those units.
Now it's supposed to reviewing all the cases just to
find out if anybody in the past has ever been
deprived of evidence in the criminal trial. Exculpatory evidence must
be produced. If you're a defense attorney, you know this
prosecutor's office knows they have to hand over documents that
contain any information that might suggest or prove that the

(05:30):
defendant is innocent. That's a fair rule. It should be.
They shouldn't be able to sit on exculpatory evidence in
this particular case, As Joe Deeters points out, they didn't,
as reviewed and confirmed by appellate courts who've reviewed all
the evidence that was allegedly withheld. Theaters are these assertions
are not only outrageous, they are false, reckless, and profoundly

(05:52):
damaging the constitute, gross disservice to the people of Hamilton County,
and unjustified attack on the honorable public servants. These are
Connie Pillach's employees, the assistant prosecutors who work hard day
in and day out to bring bad people to justice.
Her underlings, the people that will may derive some you know,

(06:17):
sense of a feeling of a worth or worthlessness depending
upon what comes out of Connie Pillach's mouth. I'm gonna
go with worthlessness. Now, first, he writes, you claim that
modern day medical testing excluded Jones from murder is demonstrably untrue.
You stated that because mister Nathan had hepatitis, or miss Nathan,

(06:39):
she's the dead one, all right, She had hepatitis undisputed fact.
Because she had appatitis, Jones would necessarily have contracted it
had he been the perpetrator. Now he, as the jury
can believe beyond a reasonable doubt, he beat her with

(07:00):
his fist and a walkie talkie in the mouth important
she was very bloody. Also reported that he had an
injury to his dominant hand. We'll get to that in
a minute. So because she had hepatitis, Pillage claimed that

(07:21):
he would have contracted it had he been the perpetrator.
Yet the defense's own paid expert testified that there was
only a thirty three percent chance that Jones would have
contracted hepatitis if he were the person who beat her
to death. Only a thirty three percent chance. So one
out of three you're beating someone up with your hand,

(07:43):
you the one out of three chances you're going to
contract hepatitis, meaning and two out of three chances you're not.
So is that exculpatory? No, that's what Deeters wrote. A
thirty three percent probability of transmission is not exclusion. He said,
either you don't understand the meaning of that term. You
knowingly made a s that was patently false. Amen, brother,

(08:04):
Over to the documents your county. Pillot's reference to thousands
of pages of withheld evidences likewise a red herring. After
the defendant exhausted every available state appellate remedy, his council
sought additional records in federal court. This is an avenue
defense attorneys take all the time with criminal defendantcy and
once you exhaust the state mechanisms, you go through the

(08:25):
federal usually involving civil rights violations federal allegations, and then
you start pursuing appeals on the federal level. So this
is why after thirty years there was really an ongoing
set of appeals in a case. After conviction was you know,
again at the trial level, all the way through the
appellate court level affirmed. So back to the documents. So

(08:46):
they asked for additional documents in federal court, specifically the
documents they asked for police runs to the hotel, and
a questionnaire circulated by the Blue Ash de Police Department
of hotel guests. These materials contained no oh, exculpatory evidence whatsoever.
They consisted of paper, nothing more, no facts, no forensic revelations,
no information that would have altered the outcome of the case. Hmm,

(09:10):
do we have to take Joe Dieter's word on that. No,
the Federal District Court explicitly found these materials would not
have affected jones conviction. The six Circuit Court of Appeals
unaniously affirmed that conclusion. Not read that opinion you should have.
The claim you advanced publicly is baseless. So here's Connie
pillichs saying the deprivation of these records somehow impacted his

(09:33):
ability to get a fair trial. Well, the federal courts
reviewed that very claim and said, no, there's nothing in
these documents. Had they been available to the defendant of
during the original trial, I'm guessing none of them would
have come out in the original truck because they had
no bearing on it. Said, I was the prosecutor ultimately

(09:55):
responsible for the decision to seek Jones's indictment. At no
point in my office cheat word she used, as you
so casually and irresponsibly alleged. Mark Pete Meyer, the attorney
who prosecuted the case in court, among the most respected
prosecutors in the history of this state. Your statements about
him and others were slanderous, unjustified, and wrong. If you're

(10:18):
committed to transparency, deaders rites, I suggest you explained the
following facts of the public. And here's where the rubber
meets a road. How many individuals possessed a master key
capable of opening the locked door to Ronda Nathan's hotel
room that morning? The answer is for he was one
of them. He worked there, he had the master key.

(10:39):
How Jones sustained this is great? The infected wound to
his hand, an injury consistent only with striking a human mouth.
And how did he know that because the man had
an infection in the wound on his hand, an infection
that doctors said could only come from the bacteria from

(11:00):
a human mouth. How the distinctive walkie talkie in Jones' possession,
the murder weapon, was supposedly used by someone else. The
question never answered. Apparently that murder weapon, the walkie talkie
he used his hand, and that she had imprints on
her face consistent with the walkie talkie that he had

(11:22):
in his possession. The marks matched up. How is Nathan's
unique piece of customed jewelry ended up in the toolbox
in the trunk of Jones's car, which the defense claimed,
without any shred of proof, was planted by law enforcement.

(11:42):
So she's got a handmade piece of jewelry attributed to
be made by one of the family members in his
car in the back, and so rather than deal with
that reality, the defense suggested that the police just put
it there, an argument apparently rejected by the trial court.
The jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He
went on, you also stated them as Nathan's family was

(12:03):
merely disappointed by your decision. That characterization broadly borders on insulting.
They are furious, and you may well have violated Marcy's
law on a matter with which the decision was handled.
Marcy's law requires the prosecutor's office to consult with the
victims before doing something like she did in this particular case,
which is dismissed. All these charges, after all these trials

(12:24):
and appeals confirmed that he was guilty and there had
been no violations. What is going on here? Why are
they so held baun on letting this guy out and
spitted in the face of all this evidence? Good question?
Why are they willing to do so much damage to
the reputation of the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office. I'll let
you draw your own conclusions on that part of a
broader pattern undermining law enforcement and one of its arms,

(12:48):
the prosecutor's office. Right. No, we're not going to believe
anything the prosecutor's office does anymore. And I'll admit over
the years that I have been convinced there are some
people in jail that it shouldn't be there. That's why
I'm glad there are folks out there looking into the
records and document evidence to find out if some perhaps
well problem happened, some something untoward. Amy prosecutor's always going

(13:10):
after someone. It doesn't appear to be the case here
and even close. So maybe we're just left to conclude
that the judge in this particular case, Cross and Connie
Pillach are seeking to further undermine the whole concept of
law enforcement and holding a people accountable for their crimes.

(13:32):
Five on three, seven, four, nine, fifty fifty five hundred,
eight hundred and eighty two three talk pound five fifty
on a T and T Fundes five nineteen be right back.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
Kcity Talk Station. There it is Joe Deaters quote Elwood
Jones is a murderer. Okay, period. If Elwood wants to
assume me, sue me, I'll be happy to go to
court and say exactly what I've been saying for the
last thirty years. Separate memorandum summarizes the evidence, pointing out
that he hadn't have a huge criminal hit history before
murdering Ronda Nathan. He writes, Jones career criminal, extensive history

(14:04):
of violence in burglary, fo aggravated burglary, burglary arrests, five
assaults on civilians as soltled a police officer, domestic violence,
sort of prison sentence for aggravated burglary, released on parole, reoffended,
returned to prison, which demonstrates a history of violence in
a pattern of pattern of well breaking the law, stealing
property by breaking into dwellings. M So, what happened on

(14:29):
the morning of September second, ninety four, Jones working at
the blue ash Embassy suite had access because he had
a master key because he's employed there from his work location.
He observed Elane Shove and Joe Kaplan leave their locked room,
saw him downstairs in the breakfast, and then that's where
he thought, I'm going to go into the empty room
and steal stuff, use his master key to get in there. However,

(14:52):
unexpectedly encountered the late Ronda Nathan alone, wearing only a towel.
Rather than flee, Jones beat her to death using items
he carried for work. He then stole cash from her
shoves purse. The other occupant of the room removed a
distinctive pendant Rondy Nathan always wore. That's the one they
found in his car. When the other two returned, Sho

(15:14):
and Kaplan, they found her unresponsive. Paramedics attempted resuscitation. She
died cornered or termed to death. Was blunt force trauma injuries,
including missing teeth, pattern to bruising consistent with a walkie
talkie and door chain. Jones initially had no visible injuries.
Later that day, coworkers saw that he had a wrapped

(15:36):
hand and heard inconsistent explanations about where that injury came
from the wound became infected. Here you go, folks, prompting
medical attention. Doctor John mcconnough McDonnell, apparently testified in front
of the jury in the original trial, concluded the injury
was classic fight bite caused by punching someone in the mouth.
Test and confirmed the infection with something called Echinella oridens,

(16:01):
a bacterium found only in the human mouth. Search of Jones'
car and residents recovered to walkie talking and door chain
matching the victim's injuries. They recovered rodon Nathan's unique pendant,
which was missing immediately after the assault. Interesting that Jones
unanimously clicked convicted and murder by the Hamilton County jury

(16:22):
unanimously recommended a death sentence. On top of that, that
conviction and sentence unanimously confirmed on a direct appeal in Ohio,
later affirmed by the Federal District Court and six Circuit
Court of Appeals. That's all those arguments that he made,
deprived of documents, seeking documents, know nothing's there. We reviewed
the documents. Nothing would have helped him upholding the conviction.

(16:45):
Those claims withheld evidence. Deeters Rose New scientific evidence and
alternative perpetrator were fully litigated in federal court and rejected.
So called new witness testimony consisted of inadmissible double hearsay
from a demonstrably unreliable sore and lacked any corroboration or
factual plausibility. In other words, they dug someone up and
they tried to present that testimony hearsays bad enough. Double hearsay.

(17:10):
You're repeating what someone else said to you as a
factual statement. But in this particular case, that thing that
someone else told you was a was something that that
other person learned from someone else, making it double hearsay.
It's like playing the telephone game, you know, as it
goes down the road, the story and the information tends
to change over time because you try to remember what

(17:30):
the other person said, regardless double hearsay. So that witness
testimony well thrown out all makes sense. He said murder
had to be president. The embassy suites Check possessed the
master key. Check witheld matching items matching the victim's injuries,
yet steal ron Nathan's distinctive pendant. Check sustained to fight

(17:52):
bite injury check. Only one individual satisfies every requirement that
person Elwood Jones who Connie Pillage dismissed the case again
after thirty years? Answer how and why this is going on?
Can anybody make any sense out of this? Five twenty
seven fifty five krc DE talk station Local stories or
your calls are welcome? Coming up next fifty five and

(18:13):
Happy Friday, Eve Shenanigan's declaration coming up int the seven
o five hour with Citizen watch Dog CODs Ins or
over the phones we go. Let see what Tom's got
this morning, Tom, Happy Friday, Eve Man, Welcome to the show.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
Hey, good morning. Sounds like we've already Yanni Sinanigan's declaration
going on? What a mess? I know, that's wow. I mean,
I'm my first question was is Connie running for election
here pretty soon? Or what is the reason for this?
He just still hasn't presented anything right.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
I do not know? And how unusual it is is
it for Joe Deeters, I mean, or any like justice
sitting on the Supreme Court to go out on a
limb to defend not only his former prosecutors and the
prosecutor tried the case, but his reputation and to just
aggressively go after Connie Pillage for well, what he calls
lies in her suggestions that the prosecutors were engaged in
untoward conduct. What an insult to the prosecutors. Under the circumstance,

(19:12):
the evidence was overwhelming. I mean, yeah, we're glad he
stuck his head out and addressed all this in a
very straightforward way, because that's what leads me to conclude,
I don't understand what the hell's going on with Connie
Pillage and this judge.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
Yeah, it's a running joke up the dial. And I'm
sure you know this that if Joe ever gets on
the radio with his buddy Willie, he doesn't say anything.
He like, you get nothing out of him. It's like
a freaking steel vault. And here he comes out and
just lamb blast this this prosecutor. I mean, rightfully, so

(19:46):
I based on what I'm hearing. Obviously I don't know
the case. I mean, I not don't know the ins
and outs, but I mean, yeah, that's that's not evidence.
But it should definitely make you if you're listening to this,
you hear this story, make you raise an eyebraw, Go
wait a second, what's going on here? What was the
I mean, and it doesn't seem like anything is you know,

(20:07):
and I know this is being very simplistic, but you know,
the whole thing with whenever there's a you know, a
call an NFL game, they have a review and and
and if they review it, and you know, they they
find they don't find enough obvious evidence to overturn the call,
they don't overturn the call. I mean, there's nothing obvious here.
That's oh you know they didn't know this before. Oh

(20:30):
well okay, I mean even there's not even enough there
to like go, you know what, maybe that I don't
even hear him maybe anywhere, So so I have you know, what,
what conclusion can we make? Is it politics? I mean,
I don't know. I don't know this woman, uh Connie Pillach,
But I mean, what what else are we supposed to
think here? Are you appealing to a certain group of

(20:52):
people or what? I don't know what what's your motivation here?
Because it sure does not seem like there's some obvious
reason why this man should be let out of prison
and taking off death row.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
Well it doesn't. It would be a better argument, or
at least you allow allow people to be somewhat satisfied that,
you know what we're gonna give him another shot. Is
going to be a retroal whatever, if there hadn't been
such a thorough and comprehensive appellate record on this one.
His initial trial, I was confirmed it was guilpy on
a reasonable doubt, went through the whole appellate process, moving
over to federal court, going through multiple appell appeals in

(21:26):
the federal court, all led to his the confirmation of
his conviction. Now it magically disappears because even though the
federal courts and the and the appellate courts rejected the
arguments that Connie Pillage put forward, suggesting that it was
the proper thing to do to overturn his conviction, it
was all right there that had already been addressed. So

(21:46):
it's frustrating Tom have to acknowledge that.

Speaker 3 (21:49):
Well, elections have consequences, and we talk about it every day,
and every day I remind people, don't vote Democrat.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
Have a great datah Man, Well, maybe she's appealing to
the huge swath of voters in Hamilton County who have
been convicted of murder or something. I don't know, Jay,
what's going on, man, Welcome to the Morning Show.

Speaker 4 (22:09):
Hey, First of all, Merry Christmas to you and Joe
and Tom and the listeners. And I'm going to say
this first because I've been delinquent and I've been letting
Tom down. So I'm going to say I'm going to
change my approach and say, don't vote Democrat, don't vote Rhino.
We're going to get that up front to build on
Tom's delivery. But here's my question. I'm a process guy, Brian,

(22:30):
and you were just explaining the appellate process. When something
comes from the county level to the state to the
federal and it keeps getting reviewed, does a county prosecutor
have the decision making authority thirty years later to shake
the extra sketch and say never mind, after it's already
been weighed in at the higher court levels. Does she

(22:53):
have the authorities.

Speaker 3 (22:54):
To do that?

Speaker 1 (22:55):
I think baseball what was done yesterday, the ANSWER's got
to be yes. Well, I mean, if she didn't, I
have no question in my mind that Joe Eters would
have pointed that out. She doesn't have the authority even
do this. That seems to me to be argument number one.
If that authority it didn't exist. So I think we
just put that to bed.

Speaker 4 (23:14):
Yeah, she has well, what is the point of having
the seppellt and kicking it into the higher level courts
to have them way in if somebody at the lowest
level later on can say, never mind.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Well look at this though. Some of the Justice Department
cases that were advanced against Donald Trump magically have been dismissed.
They're no longer pursuing them, So that flexibility has to exist.
Prosecutorial discretion is apparently what they call that. Just because
the crime may have been committed doesn't mean that the
law enforcement or a prosecutor has to go after you. Flexibility,

(23:46):
it's built into the pie built process.

Speaker 4 (23:48):
So hypothetically, if it went to the Supreme Court, quote
the Supreme Law of the Land, and they weighed in
on this and they said he's guilty, We've reviewed it,
that she could say that the county level, never mind,
we're not going to do the shape the ectousketch. And
it's like it's like surfro, like it never even happened.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Well, it appears that there's some point in the process
here that I can't latch onto that brought this back
before Hamilton County prosecutor Counting Village and this judge. Remember
it was the judge's who said that he should not
have been convicted, that the prosecutors that she concluded rather
or ruled that the prosecutors had withheld evidence that the
exculpatory evidence from the doctor i e. One in three

(24:30):
chances of getting hepatitis B was actually exculpatory when it wasn't.
She made that legal ruling. County Pillage gets it and says, okay,
based upon this local judge's ruling, here, we are going
to just dismiss the case outright. So the process of
getting in front of Judge Cross is confusing to me.
I don't know how it happened, but it did, and
that's how we got to where we are. Appreciate it, Joe,

(24:51):
I understand. Thank you, love you brother. You take care
of yourself and I have a great Friday e five
thirty seven fifty five cac the talk station five on
three seven four nine fifty five hundred, eight hundred and
eighty two to three Talk Pound five fifty on AT
and T phones. Calls or Stupid coming up next fifty
five talk Station five forty one on a Friday Eve.

(25:12):
Citizen watch Dog Coddsen's er seven oh five in studio
Jay Ratlift today as well, looking forward to those guys tomorrow,
Tech Friday with Dave Hatter and the return the weekly
return of Congressman Warren Davidson. So we had some big
activity yesterday. We'll talk about that later. Donald Trump saying
he's going to do something about aggressive housing prices, didn't

(25:33):
hear specifically what anyway? Over to the stack of stupid
Georgia homeowner charged with in the shooting of two teens
suspected of stealing packages from his front porch. Rock Caing
Bradford now facing two counts of aggravated assault and possession
of a firearm during the commission of a felony in
the shooting of two teenage boys who were aged fifteen

(25:54):
and sixteen about three thirty in the afternoon December eleventh.
We're in Atlanta on this one court to the police Chief,
Darren Schierbaum of the Atlanta Police, our investigation determined that
we believe a property crime was occurring, that some packages
were being taken off a front porch, which is not
uncommon this time of year, and the homeowner did discharge

(26:15):
his weapon to stop that. Let's not do that, folks.
Responding officers found a fifteen year old with a gunshot
wound to his right foot, taken to the hospital for treatment.
After that, they found the other team of the gunshot
wound to his right arm taken to the hospital in
critical condition. That boy early Friday morning. Police said the
teen underwhen surgery. Both are expected to survive, which is

(26:36):
lucky for this guy squeezing off the rounds because it
could be homicide. Teen suspected of stealing packages i e.
Porch pirates. No charges against the teen announced, but of
course they can be charged with endeavoring to steal packages.
But listen, unless you are faced with the eminent apprehension
of grievous bodily harm or fear of your own life

(26:58):
being taken from you, you can't use deadly for so
if someone's stealing the packages on the front porch, rely
on your ring camera, doorbell to turn that information over
to the police. Otherwise, call the police, let them know
what's happening, but do not shoot them if they enter
your home. You're in a different realm Castle doctrine. Assume

(27:20):
you are in fear of your life when someone breaks
into your home. I know people want to shoot people
for stealing property, but you can't do it. Florida woman
arrested for driving a stolen car to the federal courthouse
where she was on trial for her allegerle and conspiracy
to defraud twenty nine million dollars from COVID nineteen relief money.

(27:45):
Thirty nine year Oldatoya Clark blocks away from the US
District Court and Fort Pierce with a license plate reader
flagged her vehicle as a stolen vehicle. She's hid in
the wheel of a twenty twenty five ram Pro Master
cargo van when she got pulled over. After she got
out of the vehicle, was handcuffed. Cop explained why she
was being detained. Oh, I know why, she said, adding

(28:09):
that she was on the way to the federal courthouse
quote because she is on trial for a federal crime.
Close quote court. To the court records, she obtained the
van a couple of months ago in a one day
rental from U Haul. When she failed to return the vehicle,
it was reported stolen. Charged with the felon, he booked
into the county jail, made her a note show at

(28:29):
the federal court where she was indicted in May for conspiracy,
money laundering, a wire fraud. She and five co defendants
engaged in the multi year scheme to filew phony COVID
relief applications one of like nine billion of these, considering
nobody was looking out for fraud, waste, and abuse. There
He'd said it again, Thomas is on a roll. They
submitted ninety two bogus claims, netting them twenty nine million dollars. Well.

(28:53):
Following her arrest in the stolen van case, her bond
was revoked by the US District Court. Cannon rejected a
defense argument that her retention of the U haul van
was born entirely out of poverty, desperation, and survival, and
that she was living out of the stolen wheels. You

(29:15):
think Connie Pillich would have dismissed as Joe, Yeah, I know.
Five forty five fifty five care City Talk Station was SAYI,
Jim and Bill will get your calls coming right out
of the gate as soon as you get back after
these brief courts fifty five eight Leave Talk Station five
fifty to fifty five ker City Talk Station always welcome

(29:35):
phone calls here on the fifty five Kersee Morning Show.
Five on three, seven, four nine, fifty five hundred ty
two three Talk Wes Side Jim. Always good to hear
from you, my friend. Welcome back.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
Good morning, Brian Thomas. So let me get this straight.
Mark Petemeyer and Joe Dieters, two of the most respected
prosecutors and assistant prosecutor at Hamilton County, much so less
Ohio and probably across the country, have ever had planted
the evidence or implied that the evidence has been planned

(30:05):
just to get a conviction.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
Now, no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
The defense claimed that the necklace, which was a custom
made personal possession of the deceased, was in The prosecutors
pointed out they found that in his car. I think
was found in a toolbox, and he owned it was
in the truck of his car. The defense attorneys suggested
that it was planted. Deaders did okay, well you just

(30:30):
got done saying theaters, and Pete Meer suggested that it
was planted.

Speaker 5 (30:34):
Well, well, if I said that, I'm sorry, I just want.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
To make sure of it. I understood it. So the
listeners understood it. Yeah, the defense argument, and that was
rejected by the jury who found him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt and so much so that they recommended the
death penalty.

Speaker 5 (30:48):
Well, I would still take is that somehow that evidence
was that put in the toolbox. Somebody had to put
it there.

Speaker 6 (30:57):
Yeah, the defendant question, my bigger question is how many
millions of dollars are the county hatchpayers on the hook
for it now? Because this guy is going to sue
and sue and sue for thirty years of incarceration. And
I've seen this over and over and over that somebody

(31:19):
like this gets some team millions of dollars for every
year that they're in prison.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
Well, that's what Dinner's point is. The judge cross here
in Hamilton County is the one who claimed that this
stuff was planted, that evidence was withheld, now notwithstanding the
fact that prior courts had concluded that no evidence was
not withheld, and even to the extent he had documents
weren't produced. They had nothing to do with the case. Basically,
So there's no argument there. You have appellate court decisions

(31:45):
that you can rely on in defense of any civil
suit that's brought by this guy. I mean, I agree
with you, a civil suit may very well ensue, but
that doesn't mean you can't defend against it.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
Oh he's gonna sue, He's something definitely sue. They always do,
because now you know he was on TV stating his
innocence and the nurse saying, well you are guilty, and
Joe Dieters is out there saying he's a murderer.

Speaker 3 (32:12):
He is going to sue. You.

Speaker 5 (32:13):
Watch the same as what I said to you about
a month ago about streetcar number two and you kind
of scoffed at it and laughed at it.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
I'm laughing at it again. Just the idea of a
street car number two makes me laugh. Whether or not
it has genuine motive or a genuine effort behind it,
and they really do plan on putting one in, it's
just the idea that they come up with to do
streetcar number two is in and of itself comical and stupid. Well,

(32:42):
I agree, I'm not going to go I'm not saying
it's not going to happen though, it's just it's just
doubling down on dumb.

Speaker 5 (32:50):
Anyway, I'm gonna I'm gonna get the old popcorn and
watch it. Watch the millions flow out of the coffers,
because these people don't mind writing checks for millions and
millions of dollars to anyboddy that pushes it and I
know dagone, well this has got politics behind it.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
Well that'll be the check. The check right after the
former fire chief Washington and police chief former chief on
administratively Fiji have their checks written to them. So maybe
check number three will in fact go to this convicted murderer.
I'm just going on the record there, Bill, Welcome to
the program. Happy Friday, Eve.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
Hey Brian, happy to you too. Hey, listen, I remember
watching this on television in Saint Louis. They had like
Unsolved Mysteries and Mystery whatever show a whole hour on
this murder and how they've basically found all the evidence.
The lady got punched in the mouth that gave the

(33:46):
guy a hand disease similar to the same thing that
cats can give people. It's that's how that doctor knew it,
because he knew it was the same thing that sometimes
a house cat if they fight your or your wrestling
with it, and Charles blood, it's the same. It's the
same disease as that, and that lady acted she had

(34:10):
it in her mouth and not too many people have them,
but she did. And it was a heck of a show.
I don't know if you've ever seen it or how
you could look that up to watch it. But yeah,
I mean for this lady to say there's no evidence
and just to try to let somebody out blows me away.

(34:30):
How somebody years down the road can do this.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
It just it's not it's not right, which pretty much
sums up in short form, all of the points that
former Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Dieters made and of course
commented yesterday speaking with Bill Cunningham on the radio as well. Yeah,
he called them outright liars. That's a bold statement. That's
why he issued a statement also saying go ahead and

(34:55):
sue me, Go ahead, sue me for defamation. We'll go
to court on that one too, and I'll say the
same thing in court and defending myself that have been
saying about this murderer for the last thirty years. Five
fifty five fifty five car CD talk stations stick around
plenty to talk about the six o'clock hour, go any
direction you want with phone calls. Got some other areas
that we want to talk about as well. I'll be
right back. Today's tough headlines coming upation it's six or

(35:20):
six here fifty five GARRICD Talk station all right, Tom's
wishing everyone very happy Friday Eve Thursday of Forest. Coming
up in an hour the return of Todd zinz Er
Citizen Watchdog, and I can encourage you to check out
his podcast, Citizen Watchdog, where we get your podcasts, produced
by executive producer Joe Strecker This side gig. So if
you want to produce a podcast, he's get in touch
with Joey makes it really easy. We're talking with Todd

(35:43):
about the mayor's sketchy board memberships. Why is he on
board of directors with money that from the City of
since Ant going to the entities upon which he sits
as a board of director? Good question. Where's the railway
money going? That's a good question. Dodd maybe knows, or
maybe he doesn't. Just wants to point out that apparently

(36:04):
there's railway money out there, there's not being used. Most notably,
it's not going to repair city roads across the city.
Why hasn't the city spent over three hundred million dollars
that was allocated to repair the roads in the city.
And just to basically a year in review as well
as a looking forward into the next calendar year from
Todd zens or that'll come up in an hour. Jay
RATTLFFE at eight thirty I heard media aviation expert you

(36:26):
anytime you want to call five one, three, seven, four,
nine fifty, five hundred, eight hundred and eighty two to
three talk. You can go with time five fifty on
eighteen and T phones. And big story locally anyway, is
Hamlin County Prosecutor Pillage dismissing the Elwood Jones case, effectively
rendering it the whole case over with. So a convicted
murderer who'd been through the appellate process, both on state

(36:48):
level appeals and the federal court appeals, lots of evidence
pointed directly to him as being the murderer. The jury
had no problem convicting him, convinced me on a reasonable doubt,
and I recommend for the death penalty because he beat
a woman to death, convicted of that, and yet it
ends up in front of Judge Wendy Cross. I think
it was remanded after one of the appellate courts dealt

(37:10):
with the issues that were raised in the case. It
was remanded in front of her, and then she decides
that well, in spite of the fact that all the
judges above her and the original court hearing found that
the claims that resulted in the dismissal of this case
actually lies. Called out his lies yesterday by not only
Hamilton County or former prosecutor Joe Dieters now Supreme Court

(37:31):
Justice Joe Deeters, but a lot of other folks, including
our friend out there. Signal ninety nine summed up all
the evidence, I mean, and what COUNNYE. Pillage said, if
you look at the evidence it was all laid out,
was in fact a lie. That blood test Okay, The
prosecutors argued and proved to the jury that he beat

(37:52):
her to death with walkie talking and his hand, his
hands got a cut on it. He has an infection,
and infection comes from a bacteria that was in her mouth,
and a doctor that testified it couldn't have come from
any place else but somebody's mouth. And the injury was
consistent with a fight injury. That's pretty damning evidence right there.

(38:13):
And the judge concluded that the forensic evidence was exculpatory.
That's not exactly what the judge said, or the defendant's
own experts said. He had a one in three chance,
one out of three of getting hepatitis bat which the
deceit had that he would have got it one out
of three chances, So that means two out of three

(38:34):
times he didn't or wouldn't have That doesn't exclude it
doesn't mean it render him innocent. It doesn't prove that
he didn't hit her. It's just not dispositive of the
issue whether he hit or not. But the jury's allowed
to factor that into the case, along with the other evidence,
like the jewelry that she owned that was found in
his car, like the walkie talkie that he had as

(38:55):
part of his employment that was used to beat her
to death. Apparently the marks on her body indicated that
she was hit with a walkie talki like device. Anyway,
the imprint matched up that was produced as evidence in court.
Apparently the trial court bought it. I mean, his notably
lengthy criminal record, the fact that he had the master

(39:17):
key to the room that he entered. Only one of
four people that could have got had a key to
that room, two of whom were the people that occupied
the room and were sitting in the restaurant in the
hotel enjoying breakfast or whatever meal they were having at
the time. He used his master key and went into
the apartment or the hotel room unexpectedly finding the deceit

(39:43):
so demonstrably rewriting the evidence. I think that's how Signal
ninety nine referred to it. And yeah, she just wrote
the other day and sums it up great. Remember the
days when elected officials cared about truth and integrity and
Hamilton County facts matters. Prosecutors didn't stand a podiums and
outright lie to the public just to justify a political
decision that would be highly controversial. And ask yourself this

(40:07):
them dismissing these charges after all of these appellate reviews
confirmed what was done at trial was appropriate at above board,
nothing controversial there. Why in the hell is this a
political decision? Who is this murderer that he apparently wields
so much power over Connie Pilloch and Judge Wendy Cross.
What connections does he or anybody related to him have

(40:30):
that they can just ignore all of this damning evidence again,
damning evidence that was reviewed multiple times in multiple courts.
I don't get that. I like how Signal ninety nine
her comments on this reminded the world that Connie Pillats
never prosecuted a case in her life. She had never
even practiced law in decades and allowed her law license

(40:52):
to expire, only to well renew the license when she
decided to run for Hamilton County Prosecutor, knowing full well
as a Democrat in Hamilton County, she was assured victory
in spite of how well she had no credentials to
even be on the job. Congratulations voters in Hamilton County.
This is apparently what you get as a consequence. I
guess elections have consequences. Serving ninety nine says, you know

(41:17):
what Hamilton County Prosecutor, County Pillag and Judge Wendy Crost did.
And the Elwood Jones case wasn't a mistake, It wasn't
a misunderstanding. It wasn't messy. That was a word they used.
It was a deliberate rewriting of history, built on distortions, omissions,
and outright falsehoods meant to sell you a lie. They
hope that no one would challenge. But when all these
documents and evidence are all out there, all it takes

(41:37):
is someone to bring it back up, like was done
over and over in the various appeals that this man
had through the appellate process. Both state and federal. As
she points out, the receipts exist and they're absolutely devastating.
Let's start with a lie, then anchor the entire narrative
that the modern day medical test and excluded l One
Jones as Ronda Nathan's killer. That claim not only false,

(41:59):
it's an outright lie. And here's where we go back
over rehashing the one and three thing. The defense is
unpaid expert testified there's a one in three chance he
would have contracted hepatitis from Ron and Nathan even if
he beat her at at thirty three percent, not exclusion
its probability. It's uncertainty and pretending otherwise. It's either in
competence or here's the answer, intentional deception. So what is it?

(42:28):
She asked rhetorically. Were they just too incapable to understand
the law and how to properly decipher actual evidence, or
did they intentionally lie? Or was it both? So that's
the whole nefarious or stupid argument that I always make
when you see problems like this which you can't quite understand.
Are they just dumb or are they nefarious? Dumb is

(42:49):
one thing, he said, Well they're idiots. Nefarious is another level,
going back to the whole political decision. Is this political
and if it is political, it is nefarious. But why
what would motivate them to do this after thirty years
Signal ninety nine says no. Then came the next whopper,

(43:11):
thousands of pages withheld evidence, another live Federal courts reviewed
those materials, not once, not twice. And the background on
that is, after he goes to the state process, gets convicted,
a trial, goes up to the state appeals process, has
his conviction confirmed confirmed, they jump over to federal court
and say they want all these other documents because they
were allegedly withheld. All the documents were gathered, but nothing

(43:32):
was in there. There was nothing that was exculpatory. Prosecutors
have an obligation to hand over all evidence that they possessed,
that it could be exculpatory, even could be exculpatory if
it relates to the underlying charges, you have to hand
it over. Well, they went back, they got all these
extra documents and found that none of them have any
connection with this case. None of them are exculpatory. That

(43:53):
conclusion not only asserted by the prosecutor's office, confirmed by
federal courts who reviewed it, and yet Judge Wendy Cross
claimed that the up that this failure to turn over
these unrelated documents was an injustice that justified him having
a new trial, and once that decision was handed down,

(44:14):
new trial is allowed. That's when Hamilton County Prosecutor Pillage says, no,
we're dropping all charges, rendering any further appeals on that
issue completely moot and as was suggested, making him not
eligible for a retrial due to double jeopardy rules. I
don't know how that works in maybe we need Steve
Gooden to comment on that one. Joe. So I'm upset

(44:40):
about it, not as an upset as Joe Dieters is.
And again I went through some of the items that
he pointed out to Connie Pillage in an outright damning letter,
going through all of the evidence that was presented and
the whole appellate process calling them basically liars. Why can

(45:03):
someone answer that question? Why was this man granted a
new trial after all of that? And why did Connie
Pillis choose to just outright dismiss the case. Pats on
the phone, Maybe Pat has the answer to that. Maybe
you have the answer that or anything else. Feel free
to call five on three seven four nine fifty eight
eight two three talk found five fifty on ET and

(45:23):
T phones, and take your car to foreign exchange traditionally
imported manufactured car six twenty one fifty five kcdtalk station.
Trump promising to reduce home prices yesterday, and I'm not
quite sure how I take what his announcement was related
to home prices. He said, I will announce some of

(45:46):
the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history. Well
he didn't yesterday, and this is a real challenge. I
fully appreciate the politically charged predicament that the Republicans are
having with regard to in inflation as we approach the
November of elections. It's a real problem. Of course, healthcare
is another separate problem. These are the Democrats' two main arguments.

(46:07):
But dealing with housing reform and trying to get housing
affordability as a concept out there in the world again
because it used to be is a major major problem.
And here the facts are what they are. Affordability a
top concern. Of course, there's your political issue. Beginning with
a COVID pandemic, housing costs have gone clearly up. Medium
home prices jumped apparently fifty five percent. That fact from

(46:30):
the National Association of Homebuilders. Rents jumped thirty five percent nationwide.
According to Zilo. That's again since the COVID nineteen pandemic.
Right barring costs are up, Federal Reserve jacked, interest rates
up because of inflation. Yeah, I remember that pesky thing.
Inflation we're all dealing with. It's not just housing inflation,
of course. Donald Trump's ab talked about food inflation yesterday

(46:53):
as well. Some bright spots in the food inflation. Of course,
he noted that eggs have dropped dramatically. Part of the
problem with eggs the bird flu wiped out tons of
the bird population. You also had supply chain issues, etc.
During COVID nineteen. Those problems have gone away as a
matter of course, and therefore eggs fell. Okay, there's one
bright spot. What about all the others like bee for example,
the herds are too small. We haven't hit adequately sized

(47:17):
herds for a variety of reasons COVID nineteen. Again one
of those if you're workers, the slaughter the meat smaller herds.
Price of feed jumped up, fertilizers shot through the roof,
and that of course, largely driven by green energy policies,
at least in part. Accord to the National Association Realtors,
housing shortage number one reason for lack of affordability. Housing shortage.

(47:42):
Now he's going to announce some of the most aggressive
housing reform plans in American history. How are you going
to resolve the housing shortage problem? Well, part of it
are these self inflicted wounds that I've been talking about
a lot of late. You know, you want to point
to the problem with inflation. Yeah, there's the problem right there.
It's the regulatory hurdles to get something built, not just

(48:03):
high mortgage rates, persistent shortage of home experts pointing to
years of underbuilding, and Donald trumpillatered this too, talk about
the reality of adding ten to twenty million illegal immigrants
over a very short period of a few years. That
causes a housing shortage. Clearly, if nobody's been building an

(48:28):
adequate supply of housing for years and then we hit
COVID and then we got an in border invasion, you
got also restrictive zoning laws. My friends in California know
all about that. They built any houses of the Pacific
Palisades after the fire. Yet, how's that situation in Hawaii
going eh restrictive zoning laws, regulatory hurdles another reason cited

(48:54):
by the experts of why there is an insufficient supply
of housing out there, regulatory hurdles, again self inflicted will
uns So can Donald Trump go after the core problem
here getting rid of restrictive zoning laws and the regulatory
hurdles that states have the power to impose. Which is

(49:17):
why I go back to he said he was going
to announce the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history.
I'm waiting to hear what specifically they are, because if
he goes straight to the core of the problem, I
don't know that he's in a position or the federal
governments in a position to do anything about it. Just
the facts, man, six twenty five right now, local story
or your calls either way. First Zimmer Heating and Cooling

(49:40):
the best in the business for more than six point
thirty Here fifty five krs DE talk station local stories.
Remember fifty five krcy dot com. And you can't listen live,
So if can't stick around for Todd Zenzer coming up
over the top of the hour, his podcast with that
conversation be a fifty five cars dot Com. Here my
conversation with Judge Depaulitano. The Americans will Prospers endorsements for

(50:01):
various congressional candidates that are running for office here in
the state of Ohio. And of course a classic Christmas movie,
Big Picture with Jack Avid in little waxing, Little Holiday,
poetic yesterday and brilliant he is, and I appreciate Jack
being on the program. He's geared up for another year
of Big Picture next year. Over the local stories, after

(50:22):
the sun went down Kenwood Road in Blue Ash last Thursday,
woman told police that she was pulled into her garage,
got out of her that she pulled into her garage,
got out of her car, and the man pulled a
gun on her. Man took off in her car, described
as dressed in all black and wearing a mask. Officer
said there's possibility a looks like there might be a
white logo on his right or left sleeve. Police found

(50:47):
the stolen vehicle parked in Westwood, no damage. They took
it in for investigation. Local News Wow speaking with the
car Jackton viction set having a gun point at her
was terrifying. Of course, believes it may have started at
the harp Point Kroger parking lot and that she was
possibly followed home. Hm hm, that's Mi Kroger. Security cameras

(51:11):
of Blue Ash Police found that there was that the
thief was dropped off at the victim's house by another driver.
No arrest yet from the Blue Ash According to the
Blue Ash Police, that's frightening stuff and another reason you
might want to have a concealed carry weapon, just saying.
Police investigating a shots fired incident after two young men

(51:32):
were seen fighting on Cloverdale Avenue yesterday afternoon one pm.
Witnesses report of the pair of fighting. Neighbors said a
woman who's ring doorbell captured the altercation tried to break
the pair up, but she ran back inside and called
the police when she saw a gun. Smart move, police
said a news release. One of the two young men
used the gun to fire several shots. Woman described as

(51:56):
hearing six pops roughly initially thinking they were fireworks. Two
suspects ran away, and a neighbor named Carmen said she
believed they ran into her backyard, and she said that
after twenty five years in the neighborhood of the situation
highly unusual. Yeah, I guess so, please, said they recovered
parts of the weapon at the scene. In those parts
necessary for the gun to operate, So an inactive firearm

(52:18):
out in the world. No bystanders injured. Please say, they
don't believe that there's any threat to the general public,
though the suspects are still at large. If you have
any information, please contact us and say Police Department Crime
Stoppers three five two thirty forty. I suppose will work
man and two dogs. This is so sad were found
in a pond at Voice of America Metro Park yesterday

(52:39):
at corner to Westchester Fire Chief speaking with local news
Channel nineteen Rick Prince or west Chester Fire Chief Rick
Prince speaking with nineteen. Water search was issued a little
before nine o'clock in the morning after multiple reports from
park maintenance that someone maybe in the pond. Cruise reported
finding a cell phone at dog leash and keys sitting
by the edge of the water, prompting them to believe

(53:01):
someone had entered into the pond. They also found shoe prints,
leading to the water safety teams began searching the water
about nine o'clock in the morning. Prince said, when we
got there, we immediately put people in the water search
teams in the water, and we did recover a dog
pretty quickly around noontime. Officials called the Butler Kenny Corner
on the scene. Once they found a man and a

(53:24):
second dog. Bodies were recovered, pond was still covered with ice.
They said that made recovery efforts a little more difficult.
But he's a sonar in the water to find the body. Obviously.
Prince said they were searching the pond for at least
an hour before they did find the man and has
not known how long he was in the water. They
are speculating that the dogs fell into the pond, broke

(53:47):
through the ice, and that he went after them to
rescue them. Just so sad, so sad, and finally some
positive it is In terms of the environment, a hot
Department of Wildlife confirmed that an animal that was spotted
on one of the wildlife cameras in Cleveland, the first
record in the county of this animal species since it

(54:10):
disappeared in the eighteen hundreds. Animals called the fissure also
referred to as a fisher cat, recorded on this wildlife
camera in the Cleveland Metropolitan or metro parks earlier in
the year. They did confirm that it was in fact
this long disappeared fisher video was posted. How Division of
Wildlife confirm it was the first record in Cauyhoga County

(54:31):
since the species originally disappeared in the eighteen hundreds. They
estimate the species was extirpated from the state by the
mid eighteen hundreds due to unregulated harvest and loss of habitat.
Listed currently as a species of Special Interest by the
hot Department of Natural Resources. They call the siting tremendously exciting,
saying it's another species native to Ohio that to be

(54:53):
documented for the first time. Record to the metroparks announcement
the return of fishers and other extrapated speed She's like otters,
bobcats and trumpeter Swan's a result of conservation efforts and
emphasize the importance of healthy forest, wetlands, waterways, and natural
areas in Cleveland metro Parks. No reference to carbon dioxide
being directly attributable to the fisher returning to the state

(55:16):
of Ohio. But that's welcome news and congratulations. Six thirty
five fifty five KRC The talk station Color and Electric
the best it is six point forty here fifty five
KRC Detalk Station Todds ends are at the top of
our news, our Citizen Watchdog and Jay Rayler at eight thirty.
You can feel free to call love to hear from you.
Five one, three, seven, four, nine fifty five hundred, eight

(55:38):
hundred eighty two to three talco with pound five fifty
on at and t phones.

Speaker 4 (55:42):
Ah.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
What else is going on? Well, you know, I, honestly
I will profess not having a clear understanding on where
the authority comes from that pesky little thing called do
you have the executive authority to do it? Do you
need congressional approval? But you know, I'm a huge fan
the American veteran and I like them to receive more money.
And apparently Jnald Trump is going to hand every member

(56:05):
of the American Armed Force is a check for one thousand,
seven hundred and seventy six dollars seventeen seventy six as
a Christmas bonus, calling it the Warrior Dividend. This during
last night's address from the White House, that payment said
will go one time payment, most notably one point four
to five million service members, and he says they're already

(56:25):
being distributed. He said, with the checks scheduled to arrive
before Christmas. Obviously the amount seventeen seventy six, based on
our country's founding. We are heading to the nation's two
two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. If that fun fact had
escape your attention, he said, I am also proud to
announce that one thousand or one million, four to fifty
thousand military service members will receive a special we call

(56:45):
Warrior dif dividend just before Christmas, a warrior dividend in
honor of our nation's founding in seventeen seventy six. We
are sending every soldier one thousand, seven hundred and seventy
six dollars. The checks are already on the way. Nobody
deserves it more than our military, and I say, congratulations
is to everybody great now. He of course, gave himself
credit for having the money because of the revenue generator

(57:07):
through tariffs, arguing that stronger trade enforcement and changes in
economic policy produced results at exceeded projections. I saw an
article reporting the other day two hundred billion dollars taken
in so far into the Trump tariff scheme. I use
that word anyway, depending on where you look, the tariffs
are working really really well or in some cases, they're

(57:29):
causing some inflationary problems, not overwhelmingly causing inflation in spite
of all the gloomen doom projections. And I too was
a fence sitter when I heard Trump started starting to
talk about it in implementing tariffs in all these countries.
But it is bearing fruit across the board, and one
of the prices in price increases we've been talking about
of late coffee. Oh my god, people have to make

(57:49):
coffee at home now because they don't want to spend
seventy eight dollars a cup over at Starbucks. Great. I
think that's smart anyway, But you know what, it's out
of Donald Trump's hands. There's no tariff on the coffee anymore.
He got rid of those a month and a half
or two months ago, at least a month and a
half ago, So that's not causing it. It's environmental problems.
They're having too much rain and drought conditions where they
grow coffee, and there's not a damn thing anybody can

(58:12):
do about changing the supply. It is what it is.
Limited number of regions grow coffee, so you're stuck with
that one anyway. But the broader question I have is one,
seven and seventy six dollars. Fine, Okay, you've identified a
source of the revenue. Is it tariff revenue? All a

(58:33):
pile of money that Donald Trump can decide where it
goes because he's promised some of that money to you
and I as well. A lot of rumblings and rumors
about us each getting about two thousand dollars and as
a result of the tariffs that have been levied and collected.
I'm waiting for that one. But power of the purse
last time I check rest with Congress. So I don't

(58:55):
know that it's politically prudent to object to these checks.
I mean, people of all political stripes tend to have
a pretty good amount of respect for the frontline soldiers
out there. So I don't know if anybody wants to
touch that with a ten foot poll. But I suspect

(59:15):
there arguably could be some challenges to the idea of
handing these checks out, merely because these distributing money that
was collected by the federal government without a specific authorization. Plus,
of course it came from some peace of legislation that
I'm not familiar with. There's that pesky constitution. Oh and
you know, that pesky constitution is run headlong into Donald

(59:36):
Trump's bombing of boats in Venezuela. Considering bombing Venezuela itself,
I've been calling for an authorization for use of military
force from Congress. I've been calling for congressional involvement in
that again, waging war. Constitution speaks to that. We've kind
of gotten around the whole idea of declarations of war
in post World War II world with authorizations for use

(59:56):
of military force with and then declaration of war since
World War Two. But the House did reject a plan
to block Trump from using military force against Venezuela just yesterday.
Where does that leave us? I'm asking out loud, six
forty five fifty five krs DE talk station, go tankless.
If your hot water heater goes belly up, you don't

(01:00:18):
need to replace it with fifty five krs the talk
station six fifty fifty five krc detalk station. Yeah, you know,
we're going to the congressional authorization. And I know I
see to be a lone voice in the wilderness talking
about whether or not Trump has the authority to blow
up the voats off the south the coast of even
as well. I see it seems to me to be
a little bit beyond the executive power. But that's me

(01:00:42):
just looking at the Constitution. Anyway. Yesterday twenty two eleven
to two thirteen vote against a war powers resolution, meaning
it failed that would have blocked Trump from using military
force against Venezuela absent congressional authorization. Oh, try to do
it resolution advanced by Jim McGovern, Democrat out of Massachusetts,

(01:01:06):
and yes, Thomas Massey. So it didn't advance, which means
what so he's going to continue on his path. We're
going ahead and unilatterly bombing Venezuelans. Generally speaking, I suppose
at Massey's point, he wrote it on acts, when war
making power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves. Congress needs
to vote before the president attempts to regime change. On

(01:01:29):
the other side, you have somebody like Republican Florida represented
Brian mass chairman of the House Born Affairs Committee, saying that, well,
he does not need permission from Congress to execute, in
his words, precise limited strikes. Well, okay, then that seems,
at least in his mind, that protects him and his
ability to vote or to bomb the boats. But that's

(01:01:53):
precise limited strikes would ground operations and an effort for
regime change because the Durea government has now been labeled
a foreign terrorist operation? Would that be precise and limited?
It's the rhetorical question anyway. Over the editorial board of
Wall Street Journal talk about self inflicted wounds. Where California
is doing it to itself? Why are why is energy

(01:02:15):
so damn expensive in California? It's not Donald Trump, it's
not inflation. It's their stupid pursuit of carbon emissi or
carbon dioxide. So they right. Remember when climate lobby claimed
the fossil fuels wuld become stranded assets of oil gas
companies should start winding down their business these days. That
better describe some green energy investments. Ford Motor Company this

(01:02:37):
week wrote down nineteen and a half billion dollars in
electric and vehicle investment. Pulling the plug on the plug.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company fighting California regulators to pull
the plug on this costly solar plant known as ivan Pa.
I've talked about this before, So Mohabbi Desert Solar Project
started operating back in twenty fourteen, a two point two

(01:02:59):
billion dollar plant built by investments from Google, NRG Energy,
Bright Source Energy, and thanks to you, a one point
six billion dollar loan guarantee from the Obama administration, coupled
with a thirty percent federal tax credit and a five
hundred and thirty five million dollar Treasury grant. Those tail
end figures are coming compliments of you and your hard

(01:03:21):
work and the money they take from your paycheck and
of course your children's efforts down the road, because we're
paying interest on this borrowed money. Anyway, this plant used
what they call embryonic solar thermal technology. Bottom line is
you got thousands and thousands of mirrors that focus sunlight
onto a giant tower. But what happened was, since it's
been operating since twenty fourteen, they found out this is

(01:03:43):
not a very efficient way to generate power from the sun.
There are more efficient ways. We've got newer technologies. We're
losing money on this. The power it generates is insufficient
and it's very costly. Let's stop doing this. Also described
as the world's biggest bird fryer, incinerating thousand and of
birds every year who unknowingly fly into the path of
this concentrated sunlight and die PGENI earlier this year announced

(01:04:11):
plans to terminate the power purchase agreement with the plant
to save customers money step in the right direction. Utilities
said it didn't need Ivanpase electricity to meet the state's
sixty percent renewable mandate. Again, there's a self inflicted room
just by putting a mandate in there for sixty percent
renewable generation. But hey, even in spite of that, we

(01:04:32):
don't need this. We don't want this plant. It's too costly.
Solar photovol voltaic projects are the newer wave of technology
that produces energy more efficiently. It would provide electricity at
a lower cost, although I would argue not as low
a cost as as a natural gas fired plant would offer.
But okay, at least as to this one plant. They're

(01:04:55):
trying to do the right thing while maintaining the renewable mandates.
Energy analyst Robert Brice calculates that nixing Ivanpak could say
the ratepayers about one hundred million dollars a year, not
an insignificant amount. No matters, say the energy regulators who
work for Governor Gavin Newsom. The State Public Utilities Commission
rejected the energy company's plans this month because their plans

(01:05:17):
to get rid of the plant, it risks stranding sunk
infrastructure costs. Huh, So the plant was built. It does
generate some electricity, although inefficiently, and a significant increase for
the taxpayers. But because it's built, we're not going to

(01:05:40):
let you stop running it. It's built, so ratepayers spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to connect to the plant
to the grid. Now the state plans will force them
to keep subsidizing the project, which wasn't economic even with
a tower of government handouts. Their words not mine the
props of them for writing them. They say, four it
took a right down on evs to cut its losses.

(01:06:01):
California regulators want to make ratepayers pour good money after
bad one of the reasons electric rates in California are
the second highest in the country after Hawaii, that has
its own regulated imposed mandates with little regard to cost.
Self inflicted wound. Does it have to cost that much
your energy? No, it doesn't, and it shouldn't, and this

(01:06:23):
plant should have been built in the first place. We
keep running down that road despite of the fact that
the vast majority of folks have moved on and away
from the whole concept of this global warming crap. Share
respondence calling climate and the environment their most important issue
dropped from fourteen percent in twenty twenty, it's down to

(01:06:46):
six percent. So if all the issues that voters care about,
six percent think the climate is the most important. Why, well,
because the climate crisis has run into affordability problems, and
affordability has won out. Not just here, it's moving that

(01:07:09):
direction in the European Union as well, after their years
of self inflicted wounds ruined their economy. Todds Ends or
Citizen Watchdog After the news, I hope you can stick
around today's top headlines coming up at the top of
the hour because the news changes. Fifty five KRC the
talk station.

Speaker 7 (01:07:28):
This report is sponsored by Jake Sweeney Automotive, serving the
Tri State for over one hundred years.

Speaker 1 (01:07:32):
It's red tag just I have seven six here fifty
five KRC Detalk station. Very Happy Friday, eve Ta made
extra special in studios. Citizen Watchdog todds Ends Or, former
Inspector General for the United States of America, is keenly

(01:07:54):
interested in what I always like to jokingly refer to
as Shenanigan's going on in the city of downtown Cincinnati,
or is he follows the figures, follows the money, finds
out where money is being allocated, most notably those pesky
NGOs that seemed to suck up a lot of cash
and then don't provide information about what they've actually done
with it. So I'm suggesting maybe that those handouts of
money rewards for political favoritism. And a little bird told

(01:08:16):
me over the break there, and I was looking for
facts or information surrounding why. And this is not related
to a conversation we're having with Todd Zenzer. But good
to see again, Todd Zenzer, thank you for coming in.

Speaker 7 (01:08:25):
Thank you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
The dismissal of the murder case against Elwood Jones, after
having been convicted and affirmed on appeal through the state level,
all the way through the federal level. Wondering why it
is that Connie Pilach and Judge Wendy Cross decided we
were going to ditch this, Wendy Cross issuing an order
saying he was entitled to a recal retrial, followed by
Connie Pillage saying no, we're dismissing all charges against him.

(01:08:47):
He's been released. He is obviously guilty. Look at what
Joe Deeters had to say about it, former prosecutor apparently
at the press conference doing this. Iris Rawley was there.
So I was looking for a political reality of why
would they go through all the trouble to to dismiss
the charges against this murderer clearly guilty without question and

(01:09:08):
basically having Pillage lie to the to her constituents, the
Hamilton County voters who put her in office, distorted the evidence,
distorted the underlying record yesterday in the press conference. Maybe
that's it, Scott iris Rawley's fingerprints on it. I'll let
you decide. Moving over, thank you Todd Zenzer for the
work that you do on behalf of the taxpayers of

(01:09:28):
the City of Cincinnati. Right out of the gate man.
What you show, it's really frightening. And let's start with
the mayor.

Speaker 7 (01:09:34):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Now, last time you were on the show, you had
pointed out that mayor aft have provol is a board member.
Now it's no, you found it. It's on several organizations.
Am I right on that too?

Speaker 7 (01:09:45):
So far that I found okay?

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
And under the ethical rules of being a mayor that
governed the mayor's office is he an obligated to report
where his you know, these board memberships, just as a
matter of public disclosure.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:10:00):
The financial disclosures that the Ohio Ethics Commission requires has
a section where you have to disclose any other organizations
where you have a fiduciary role, which board members absolutely
have a fiduciary role. And so I actually looked at
his financial disclosures in connection with those repossessions to.

Speaker 1 (01:10:22):
See what is the repossession.

Speaker 7 (01:10:24):
Yeah, so I got those, and when I was looking
at the forums, this section on fiduciary does not contain
his board membership for Centrifeus. And I had three years
of disclosure and none of those are reporting his board
membership of Centrifus, which I had already found. And then

(01:10:47):
there's a second nonprofit that he is a board member
for and they also get money from the city. They
get about fifty thousand dollars a year an outfit called Compass,
and Centrifuze has gotten between two hundred and two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars a year.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
No, okay, I just referenced the NGOs that get money
and the question marks swirling around whether or not we
get any return for the money they're given. But we
all know that money is given to a variety of
different non governmental organizations from the city coffers. He sits
on two boards of directors for independent companies, the ones

(01:11:29):
that you just mentioned that receive those types of handouts
from the city taxpayers. Yes, how I mean that is
that is a conflict of interest.

Speaker 7 (01:11:39):
Well, I believe.

Speaker 1 (01:11:40):
Let mean establish this. Let's point out that does mayor
Afta Purwalls have some or any say in where these
funds are handed to whom these funds are given or
handed out. I know the city managers intogrillly involved in that.
We've been down this process before. But the mayor does
have some authority over that, right.

Speaker 7 (01:11:59):
Yes, if you look at the authorities of the mayor
and the authorities of the city manager. I have a
memo that from the former solicitor that basically says that
the mayor and the city manager share the responsibility of
formulating the budget. So he's involved in formulating the budget

(01:12:19):
in general that has all of these leverage support payments
is what they are, grants is what they call it.
And then there's a process and I've criticized the city
council for this to their face, where the city council
members and the mayor will recommend additions to whatever the

(01:12:42):
city manager is recommending. For these leverage support recipients, the
city council members and the mayor can actually propose adding
or subtracting from those amounts. And there's one year, for example,
where the mayor himself inserts himself in the leverage support
for centrifuse, where he adds twenty five thousand dollars to

(01:13:06):
the grant level that the city manager had already recommended.

Speaker 1 (01:13:10):
And he is sitting on their board, on the board
effectively voting money or directing money. This isn't even a vote,
This doesn't require since a council approval majority or otherwise
does it.

Speaker 7 (01:13:20):
Well, it's part of the overall budget, so yeah, they
vote on it. Oh they don't have to vote, Well,
I guess they do vote on the overall budgets.

Speaker 1 (01:13:27):
So yes, so they effectively stamp of approval. Wait a minute,
they make a list of ones that they want to
get money, these different various NGOs, so city council is
involved in that process along with the city manager. And
then after they do that, Oh, wait a second, I
want to add this company on the list of recipients,
in this particular case, twenty five thousand dollars to a

(01:13:49):
company that he sits on the board of directors. So
they add that. Then council later approves the budget. That's correct,
which it contains the additions that they didn't recommend in
the first place.

Speaker 7 (01:14:00):
That's correct.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
So he has complete control and authority over this type
of addition. It sounds like now they could reject the
budget based upon the addition of that one NGO, but
they clearly didn't.

Speaker 7 (01:14:08):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
That is I mean, that's an open and shutcase of
conflict of interest.

Speaker 7 (01:14:14):
Yeah, it's kind of an ethics one O one thing.

Speaker 1 (01:14:16):
I mean purely. That's why I really wanted to focus
on where the authority lies. Who has the authority to
ensure that, you know, he well this? So what are
you in response to this? I guess supposedly, or I
suppose to. The first quick question is what action can
be taken? I mean, first of all, he isn't complying
with his obligations on the disclosures.

Speaker 7 (01:14:37):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:14:38):
Is that actionable? Does that mean is this subjected to
exposure to a penalty or a fine or public right
condemnation or anything.

Speaker 7 (01:14:48):
All of that would fall under the jurisdiction of the
Ohio Ethics Commission, and so you know they have they
have ways to come enforce their rules. And whether or
not mister Purval becomes subject to those enforcement efforts is
a different question.

Speaker 1 (01:15:08):
Well, that requires someone to bring it to the Ethics
Boards attention by way of a formal request or or complaint.

Speaker 7 (01:15:14):
That would that would be the start of the process.

Speaker 1 (01:15:18):
Yeah, okay, is that like a chrisp any kind of
thing or uh no.

Speaker 7 (01:15:21):
Any any citizen can file a complaint with.

Speaker 1 (01:15:24):
The including a citizen watch talk.

Speaker 7 (01:15:26):
Yeah, they could, he could.

Speaker 1 (01:15:28):
I'm looking at Utah's insert just asking I see that brain.
I know, I just ask him for the listening audience.
So I don't know where to go with that one.
That is ethical vote.

Speaker 7 (01:15:43):
What I've well, first of all, I have I have
raised this issue to the city Council in public comments
about how screwy this system is where they make recommendations
on top of the city manager. And so I told
him one time, I said, the least you can do
is when you send your memos in with these requests,

(01:16:05):
the least you could do is have a little attestation
at the bottom of the memo saying that you do
not have a conflict of interest with any of these organizations.
So I made that recommendations earlier this year, or that
recommendation earlier this year. We'll see whether they do that.
But there's no oversight of any of this NGO spending

(01:16:26):
the well.

Speaker 1 (01:16:28):
I suppose their theoretically could be oversight if he accurately
filled out his financial disclosure forms, because then the information
will be public and it will be in combing perhaps
arguably on the city council members when these requests are
made to look at the disclosures to find out if
he has any connection with the money of the organizations
that are getting money. If he's not there, he has

(01:16:49):
no connection. One could logically conclude, that is if he's
being honest with his financial disclosure forms. But here we
have a situa where he's not right, taking away the
ability of anybody to check whether this is an etheric violation.
That's right on paper, Enter Todd Zinzer on paper right now.

Speaker 7 (01:17:04):
With the financial disclosures, no indication that he sits on
the board of Centrifuse. But I have confirmation from the
CEO of centrifews that he is sitting on the.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
Board fine pivoting over to the other entity where he
did disclose he was a board member, they too received
money as well, right, which negates my point about the
city council actually doing its job and checking into these
things on its own. Yes.

Speaker 7 (01:17:28):
Well, here's here's another thing, Brian early On, I asked
for the financial disclosure forms that they that the officials
in Cincinnati file with the city, that there's a separate
financial disclosure that they file with the city. So I
requested those, and the city did not give them, give
me any of them.

Speaker 1 (01:17:49):
Did they provide you with an explanation of why that
information was not forthcoming? Todd's Enzer, Well.

Speaker 7 (01:17:53):
I can't remember exactly what they say, but they don't.
They don't give a lot of explanation on public records
request and they deny it. It just says it's overbroad,
or we don't do research for you, or you know,
excuses like that, it's a problem. This public disclosure or
this public records request process for the city is terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:18:13):
Which is how it always ends up in court, Yes,
and how they always end up losing in court. Yes,
And how that money that they went and fought in court.
Was coming from the taxpayer of the city of Cincinnati.
Litigation is expensive.

Speaker 7 (01:18:24):
Yes, but their first instinct is to withhold, and somehow
we've got to turn that around. Their first instinct should
be to disclose the records.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
Well, we recently had an opportunity to turn things around,
but one in four voters in the sea just showed
up and we know what we got out of that. Yes, sir, massive, massive,
But let's do it all over again more with Todds Inzer.
We've got lots more Shenanigans call out right coming up
at seven sixteen right now. Todds ins are in studio.
Citizen Watchdog's name of the podcast. He is a Citizen Watchdog.

(01:18:55):
You can fall on Facebook, you can listen to the
podcast produced by Joe Her. Of course Tounzans you would
mentioned and I don't want to let it go without
following up on it. I think the board membership that
after Provol is involved with here, I think is a
greater and more problematic problem than after Pervol's personal expense issues.

(01:19:19):
But he didn't pay his monthly car payment, resulting in
the repossession of his automobile. They actually repossessed it.

Speaker 7 (01:19:27):
That's my understanding.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
Yes, that was widely reported, and he even had a
press conference following day saying, ah, it was an oversight.

Speaker 7 (01:19:34):
Yeah, he was interviewed. I can't remember who interviewed him,
but he did make public statements that there was a
problem with his auto pay.

Speaker 1 (01:19:40):
Right auto pay. So you set up and it makes
an automatic payment. Fine, I'll acknowledge, and I'll just go
ahead and admit fine, he has auto pay. But he
didn't say, no, my car was not repossessed. I mean,
that's an admission of fact right there, right, Okay. With
that in mind, who out there really truly believed is
that he didn't get multiple notices in advance before his

(01:20:03):
car was actually towed away. I mean, nobody wants to
tow away a car if it was mere oversight. Oh
I'm sorry. Here's the money from last month, and by
the way, here's my payment for this month. Great, we
don't have to get a tow truck out there. Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:20:15):
People I spoke to didn't find it credible.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
So incredible, not believable. Right, Maybe one could characterize that
as a lie, if we want to go so far
as to put a pejorative term on it.

Speaker 7 (01:20:27):
You could say that, okay, all right, So here's the
thing about this.

Speaker 1 (01:20:33):
He's looking at the ethical picture here in total. So
we're moving from one ethical problem to another, and lying
to the constituents to me, is an ethical breach.

Speaker 7 (01:20:42):
Well, just on the financial disclosures and his failure to
comply with the rules. There what happens is, let's say
there's somebody else who has to file financial disclosures who
haven't done that. It gets caught up in some kind
of a gratuity issue or bribery issue, and you're not
going to be able to punt for any of those
disclosure problems because all he has to do is point

(01:21:04):
to the mayor and say he's he's not complying, why
should I comply? So that's one issue. The other issue
point the other issue is that it shows everybody that
we're operating in it catch me if you can operation,
which is very common where the people heading up these
public agencies they don't follow the rules and when they're caught,

(01:21:26):
they say, oh, I'm sorry, I just we won't do
it again. And that's that's the kind of culture that
seems to be at play here in Cincinnati, which.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
Is why you're such a thorn on their side. There's
so many catch me if you can, things going on
out there, and you seem to be the only one
that's even interested in getting to the bottom of how
they are getting away with it or holding them accountable
for violating the rules.

Speaker 7 (01:21:49):
I really criticize the city council for that because that's
their job. Their job is to oversee the administration. And
for example, on this eight million dollar settlement, not one
member of city council ask the solicitor, how did you
arrive at eight million dollars? How did you arrive at
twelve or thirteen thousand dollars for each of the members

(01:22:11):
of the class.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
This is the settlement for the curfew violation arrests.

Speaker 7 (01:22:15):
Yeah, for the law for the civil rights lawsuit that
was filed in right, and they're not doing The City
Council does not do any oversight that I can see
right now. All they do is spend money. That's basically
what they do.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
Well, using your disclosure rule as an illustration, if you
don't know the rules, you're probably not going to comply
with them. Is it possible, Todd Zendser that the folks
that have been elected to the Cincinnia City Council just
really don't know what they're doing. Insofar as they have

(01:22:51):
that responsibility for oversight.

Speaker 7 (01:22:54):
Well, thereby law they must take an ethics course going
into their going into their term of office. But in
the case of the mayor, I didn't bring up with
me today, but he actually signed a code of conduct
that talks about he has to know the conflict of
interest rules, he has to go to ethics training every year,

(01:23:16):
and he has to agree not to retaliate against anybody
that's blowing a whistle.

Speaker 1 (01:23:21):
Okay, and then at some point there should be a
failure to abide by the foregoing result in some consequence.
What might that consequence be? I know, you said you
can report somebody to the ethics board, which probably has
been done. If I mean, I'm just saying it out loud,
some probably has been done, or refer to the prosecutor's
office or whatever. But is there any accountability in that
ethics mandate or edict that he issued.

Speaker 7 (01:23:43):
No, it's it's just to him signing that he will
do do all that, all.

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
Right, see folks seven twenty five fifty five k c
DE talk station. We'll find out where in the hell
was that ready? Thursday, to you Brian Thomas with Citizen
Watchdog Todds Inzer and Studio for the hour, one revelation
after another, and Todd you know, I commented to you
off the break, I cannot thank you enough for the
work that you're doing. It's got it. You're fighting this

(01:24:08):
Sissophian challenge to you know, right, the wrongs that are
going on each and every day, and you're met with
such resistance at every single turn. You didn't follow all
of these rules. You were derelicting your duty from way
back to this point in time. You ask for the information,
they resist giving you the information. And then when you
when you pully fully pull the carpet out from under

(01:24:31):
them or reveal the facts and information, then they just say, whoops,
I'm sorry, that's right, and continue to do it in
all other areas of government.

Speaker 3 (01:24:39):
Right.

Speaker 7 (01:24:39):
So the first red flag to me was when I
first started looking at the city. I looked at their
internal audit operation and on their website it said that
they do a risk assessment every six months or twice
a year. So I asked to see that. I put
a record's request in to see it, and they come
back and they say, oh, well, we don't do that.
We don't we don't have the re sources to do

(01:25:00):
a risk assessment, which means that they haven't done any
work to see what's on the horizon that could hurt
the city. That's the purpose of the risk assessment is
to find out where your weaknesses are that you have
to work on to protect the city.

Speaker 1 (01:25:18):
So spending what I would argue is a small amount
of money to protect the financial future of the City
of Cincinnati, generally speaking, has gone by the wayside because
they claim they don't have enough money to do that
while giving away money to outside organizations, some of whom
Mayor Burvall sits on the board of directors.

Speaker 7 (01:25:34):
Yeah, okay, great, So that was a big red flag
for me because it doesn't really cost any money. All
they have to do is go to each department head
ask what are your biggest challenges? What are your biggest concerns?
You ask the department heads what risks do you face
to complete your work? And you ask each department head.

(01:25:54):
They give you the answer, you write it down, you
issue the report. That's a risk assessment.

Speaker 1 (01:25:59):
Yeah, that doesn't sound like it sounds like a job
responsibility that should be done on a day to day
activity kind of thing. Doesn't no additional allocation fun absolutely wow, Okay,
you quite revealing, Todds Ends are moving over to railway money.
We were promised millions and millions of dollars were rolling
on in and the one limitation they have on using
railway money allegedly is existing infrastructure. But you've run into

(01:26:20):
some problems with all of that, Todds ins Or, explain
that to my listening audience.

Speaker 7 (01:26:24):
Well, most recently, in fact, I just sent a letter
to the board yesterday because of this report on Local
twelve that they haven't they haven't spent a thirty million
dollars that they're getting for infrastructure work. And the reason
I wrote to the board is because back in February

(01:26:45):
I went to a board meeting and I asked them,
what are you going to do with the city isn't
able to spend the money that you dispersed to them.
It's sitting there in the city coffers doing nothing. Why
don't you make them justify their request and keep that
money in the trust fund until the city actually needs

(01:27:09):
the money.

Speaker 1 (01:27:09):
Okay, And when you say their request, who is the
they that you're referring to that has the request I
just kind of want to get I want to have
clear understanding of this how this works.

Speaker 7 (01:27:21):
The city gets an automatic disbursement now every quarter of
the railway money. Okay, So it goes into the city
coffers and it's.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
In a separate pile, a trust fund sort of kind
Oh you give me the John decide of suspicion on that.

Speaker 7 (01:27:36):
No, it just goes through the city. They have an account,
they have a line item for it, but they're not
spending it all right, and so the I can't recall
your question, Ryan, So.

Speaker 1 (01:27:50):
The money requests, where's that coming from? That it has
not been dispersed. It's still sitting in the city coffers.

Speaker 7 (01:27:57):
Well, the projects that they planned the fund with that
money aren't off the ground. They're not incurring any cost yet,
so that money's just sitting there.

Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
Okay. So let's say repaving some road requires a construction
crew or an allocation of city construction crew resources. Yes,
either an independent contractor is going to do the work
or the city itself is going to do the work. Right, Yes,
So they're standing there, presumably waiting for money so they
can start work. On the project.

Speaker 7 (01:28:26):
Well, they've got they've already got capital funds that they're
using that are in the budget, and then this extra
money they've got projects in mind to use the railroad
money for those projects, and it's those projects that aren't
getting off the ground, and it's the money that's not
being spent, the money to repave the roads. They've got

(01:28:47):
money to repave the roads, and the railroad money is
a supplement to all those moneys.

Speaker 1 (01:28:52):
Right, that was the joke behind everything, because money's fungible. Yes,
they have all the tax dollars that come in and
a separate source of revenue call it flag tax dollars
is railroad money that's going to the same pot. That
just gives more money to handle, money to handle the
responsibility that the original taxpayer should have done. So that
gives them an extra thirty million dollars to play with, right,

(01:29:14):
thirty million dollars to play with it. Now they can
say no, we're getting railroad, we're getting road repair from
that thirty million dollars that the railroad produced because that's
existing infrastructure. But that takes the weight off the budget
by thirty million dollars for them to go out and
fund some goofy brand new projects taught. That's exactly right,
that's how it's working as far as I can tell. Yes,

(01:29:37):
have they identified the road projects that have yet to
be funded that aren't being done right now that you're
referring to a moment ago? I mean, are you if
you looked at them when you say, yeah, that's existing infrastructure.
What are we being denied because of this sort of
hold on the fund distribution.

Speaker 7 (01:29:53):
Well, it's just a matter of the city doesn't have
the infrastructure or the processes and the empower and the
contracting to get all this money working. So it's just
sitting there until the city can get its act together
in terms of you know, the bidding of contracts and
uh A, purchasing of materials and it's it's all in

(01:30:16):
the it's all in the queue, and they haven't actually
spent the money.

Speaker 1 (01:30:20):
Yet because they don't have the resources to do their job.

Speaker 7 (01:30:24):
Yeah, they they they don't. They don't have the infrastructure
in the city to spend all that.

Speaker 1 (01:30:30):
That's like your foyer request. Yes, yes, for documents. They
have a legal obligation to produce them. I'm sorry, we
don't have the resources to comply with the law. Well
that's a really convenient way of getting around the law,
isn't it, Todd.

Speaker 7 (01:30:41):
Right, So what I've been saying is that they they
turn back money every year from the capital Account that
they have not been able to spend because of their
you know, bad processes and things like that. So they
already can't spend the infrastructure money that they had in
the general fund. And then you're going to layer railroad

(01:31:02):
money on top of that, and they don't have the
infrastructure to spend that either. And that was a big
argument of ours for why we shouldn't be selling the railroad.

Speaker 1 (01:31:13):
Jeez, this gets worse the longer this conversation goes. Todd,
I just am really struggling with trying to find some
positive and there apparently there are none.

Speaker 7 (01:31:24):
Well, they did pay Sunset, Brian, they paved Sunset.

Speaker 1 (01:31:28):
I know they had money for that after all these
many many years, decades even Yeah, thanks for doing that.
And you no longer have me to be able to
complain about that. I still have the gift that keeps
on giving along the complaint lines. The street car. Maybe
Todd knows something about maybe a new leg of the streetcar,
because there's been a lot of rumblings about that one
going on seven thirty seven right now, if you have
krc DE talk station, imported cars, whether they're from Asia

(01:31:49):
or Europe, Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRS deep talk station
seven forty you came up with seven forty two fifty
five KRCIT talk station. Brian Thomas with Citizen Watchdog Todds,
I stick with the parameters of this budget. I think
I personally was a little confused because I was thinking,
like the federal government's budget this sticking with the thirty
million dollars. So the Railroad Trustee Board allocates the proceeds

(01:32:14):
and gives the city a Sincinnty the thirty million dollars. Yes,
the city has budgeted certain programs during the budgeting process
for the prior year. Where that money is going to go,
as you've explained it based upon their inability to get
these projects off the ground, issuing RFPs, going through the
process of you know, selecting contractors whatever. They don't have

(01:32:34):
the resources to do that, so the money remains unspent. Yes,
moving into the next county year. The federal government and
the way their budget process works, it's use it or
lose it.

Speaker 7 (01:32:44):
That's absolutely correct.

Speaker 1 (01:32:45):
You have to spend the money during that fiscal year.
That's right. That's not the case for the city.

Speaker 7 (01:32:49):
No, that's not so.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
The money remains in the account.

Speaker 3 (01:32:53):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:32:53):
Is the city under an obligation in the following year
the new budget to honor the commit it's made under
the prior year budget to do those certain projects that
were identified or is that Can they start from scratch?

Speaker 7 (01:33:06):
Well that's a good question, Brian. I think they can
basically move that money to whatever projects are the priority
at the moment. And what I suggested to the board.

Speaker 1 (01:33:15):
This week the trustees that monitor the investment from the
railroad sale that board, that's right, not one of the
ones I after have pro ball sitting on. Sorry, had
to make this is this is.

Speaker 7 (01:33:26):
The railroad the railroad board. What I suggested this week
is that they adopt a draw down system like the
Federal Highway Administration has, where the states come in and
they draw down money from the federal government account as
they need it. They don't get all this money up front.
They have to put claims into the federal government to

(01:33:48):
draw down money from their account.

Speaker 1 (01:33:50):
It's like an attorney working off a retainer. Yes, get
a lump sum upfront. You can only draw money after
you've done the hour's work. Right.

Speaker 7 (01:33:56):
So what I suggested to the board in a letter
this week is that they adopt a drawdown system where
the city has to come and make specific requests for
specific sums of money for specific projects, and that's when
the Board can transfer money to them.

Speaker 1 (01:34:14):
Because the issue is not ripe for transfer of money
until they have a set in stone project, that's right,
funding parameters.

Speaker 7 (01:34:22):
Until until they have something they're going to spend that
money on in a timely way. That money should stay
in the trust fund earning returns or.

Speaker 1 (01:34:31):
Earning Yeah, that's the other that's the benefit from that.
Not only does it make them you know, you pay
money owly for projects that are actually working and being accomplished,
but you continue to earn interest.

Speaker 7 (01:34:42):
Right, the money should either be working on the infrastructure
or working by earning gains in the trust fund.

Speaker 1 (01:34:49):
Have you heard back from the board on that concept.

Speaker 7 (01:34:51):
No, I just sent the letter the other day.

Speaker 1 (01:34:52):
Okay, do they do you think they have the ability
to implement a drawdown procedure along those lines?

Speaker 7 (01:34:57):
Absolutely, that's my read of it anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
All Right, So this isn't intruding on Cincinnati Council's authority
to choose projects or to pick whether to allocate where
the funds go. It just merely is demonstrating to the
board who's got the money, that there is a specific
project the money is going to.

Speaker 3 (01:35:15):
Right.

Speaker 7 (01:35:15):
So the board has some very good lawyers that are
sitting on the board. So I don't want to tell them,
you know, legally what they can and cannot do, but
they should. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure
that they are earning the maximum amount they can earn
in that account. And by giving money to the city
that the city isn't in a position to spend, you know,

(01:35:36):
they're losing that earnings.

Speaker 1 (01:35:40):
Huh, which might give rise to a cause of action
by any sinsinni taxpayer for breach of fiduciary duty.

Speaker 7 (01:35:48):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:35:49):
Oh well, there's another lawsuit somebody out there, and the
audience can key contia.

Speaker 7 (01:35:53):
So I'll let people know what they tell me, if
they tell me anything. But the next meeting of the
trust board is in February. So in fact, what I
I think I posted it last night on my Facebook.
I went to the meeting in February of this year
of twenty five, and I raised the issue of the

(01:36:14):
inability of the city to spend the money that the
board was transferring to them. I said, you, you can't
transfer money to the city and have it just sit there. Right,
So they didn't do anything back in February. We'll see
if they do anything.

Speaker 1 (01:36:30):
Now, don't hold your breath. We really like you and
what you're doing for the city. In spite of the
fact it's a thorn in the well. Am Ayor's side
is as much as any of the the council members
and the city manager. Seven forty six right now more
one more with Todd sendsers stick around QC Kinetics, will
QC Kinetics saw talk station seven fifty have kr C

(01:37:00):
de talk station Brian Thomas Todd Zinser and probably just
scratching the service of all the issues going on in
downtown Cincinnati that Todd is writing. Heard over. He busily
writes letters issues for your requests and waits and waits
and waits and waits and waits for them to say,
I'm sorry, we don't have time to do it. Kind
of just summarizing your life over the course of the
past year. Todd's enser one of the things you mentioned

(01:37:21):
on the break, You've got the ongoing issues. Those are
issues you've advanced, you've sent letters, you've brought to the
public's attention, waiting for follow up, waiting for resolution. So
you're keeping track of the ongoing and I presume ever
growing lists. But then you also have, like into the future,
what you want to look into. So there's that list

(01:37:42):
projects you need to get to. But then you start
as you become more and more popular and more widely
known for what you are doing, this value to the
city that you provide, people are bringing more things to
your attention. Yeah, so you can I summarize by saying
you're feeling a bit overwhelmed with a number of issues
that need to be looked into.

Speaker 7 (01:38:00):
Todd, Yeah, I think one of the things I have
to do is manage people's expectations about what exactly we
can look into here, because we really don't have any
authority to you know, go into places and talk to
people like I did when I was working. But yeah,
there are people that they have their own oversight questions.

(01:38:21):
You know, the courts for example, and the criminal justice issues.

Speaker 1 (01:38:25):
Big topic this morning, It is a big.

Speaker 7 (01:38:27):
Issue for people there are people that have have their
own lawsuits against the city that they're calling me about for,
you know, for my take on their efforts and things
like that. I've got a phone call today and I
got a phone call tomorrow with some folks. So there's
things going on and I just have to do what

(01:38:50):
I can really well.

Speaker 1 (01:38:51):
And that leads me to ask you about the process
of your starting this five oh one C three entity
to do this type of work under the umbrella of
an of for profit company. The Cincinnati Oversight Project is
I believe that's what you've named it.

Speaker 7 (01:39:08):
That's what I've named it, and the I want to
kind of model it after a Judicial Watch if you
if you're familiar with that organization, and you know, a
lot of their work is getting records out of the
government that disclose what's really going on. So that's that's
part of the effort. The other effort is to have
a platform to start talking to people about the value

(01:39:30):
or benefits of having an oversight organization within the government
here in Cincinnati, like they do in a lot of
states and they do in a lot of municipalities.

Speaker 1 (01:39:41):
That's what we have, Inspectors General, right.

Speaker 7 (01:39:43):
That's correct, and you know that if you've seen one
inspector general, you've seen one inspector general. They're all kind
of different. And so Cincinnati is in a position to
build their Inspector General operation from the you know, from
the get go, and improve the oversight of the city's operations,
including the city council operation and the and the mayor.

Speaker 1 (01:40:08):
Well, why would they want to expose themselves to something
that their own internal Inspector General office would expose.

Speaker 7 (01:40:14):
That's exactly right, Brian. And that's why you don't have
them everywhere, because there's a lot of resistance to that
type of oversight even when they even when they established
those oversight offices. For example, I interviewed for a position
out West one time for a transit authority IG, and
I went into interview and their proposal gave the IG

(01:40:38):
no authority. No investigative authority was in the statute. And
I told them that that's not that's not going to
work out. Got my teeth, And so they selected a
woman who was friends with the governor, and she wound
up quitting over that issue. In a couple of years,
they got in she got into a dispute with the
board and they weren't cooperating with her, and she didn't

(01:41:01):
have any authority to press.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
Well, I'm guessing that you know, if you start the
Cincinnati Oversight Project, you get your five oh one C
three status, you're going to need some help. Is this
an invitation for people who are interested in doing the
type of work you're doing, to help you deal with
all these challenges, including all the items that you have
on your to do list.

Speaker 7 (01:41:21):
Well, eventually the answer would be yes. And you know,
I haven't really decided whether it would be a five
oh one C three or five O one C four.
I'm inclined to maybe not do a five oh one
C three because the donors for the five oh one
C three are public and five oh one C four

(01:41:42):
donors are not public. And I'm thinking that people that
want to donate and get greater oversight of the city
may not want to have their name out front like that.
So I'm those are the kind of things I'm right,
I'm looking at.

Speaker 1 (01:41:54):
Well, look at Signal ninety nine, and they did a
background check on her and she wasn't even living in
the greatest Cincinnati area at the time. Why do they
do that? Why do they rifle through her records while
she was an employee of this insant police department, because
she's made posts online and she annoyed our elected officials. Right, yeah,
you set yourself up with a crosshair. When you do,
you know, open your mouth. And that's why we're proud

(01:42:16):
of you and happy with what you're doing, because you'll
take the slings and errors from these clowns and you're
identifying all the issues that will justify me calling them clowns.
How's that, Todd?

Speaker 7 (01:42:26):
That's fine.

Speaker 1 (01:42:27):
Well, it.

Speaker 7 (01:42:28):
Provides a more healthy government if you have outside or
independent people giving that third party view of what the
operations are doing.

Speaker 1 (01:42:39):
Todd Endzer, keep up the great work. A very merry Christmas,
Happy holidays across the board. Well wishes for you and
your family. I know you and I'll be talking a
lot throughout the next calendar year. You're always here, welcome
here on the fifty five Carecen Morning Show to bring
further to the public's attention the stuff you're doing each
and every day. Follow Todd on Facebook, just look for
Citizen Watchdog and regularly check up on his podcast because

(01:43:00):
you will remain enlightened throughout the year. Todd, I don't
end for you, but I appreciate you. Thank you, Brian.

Speaker 7 (01:43:06):
Merry Christmas to you and everybody out there.

Speaker 1 (01:43:08):
Thanks much. Seven fifty six fifty five cars to DETALX station.
Got time to chime in if you feel like I
feel free to call me five one, three eighth six
here fifty five KRC Detalk station. Happy Friday Eve coming up,
bottom of the hour. I gotta wait for it. iHeart
me the aviation next word, Jay Rattle. A whole bunch
of topics talked about with Jay, which is always the case,
and I thoroughly enjoy having him on the program. Jay,

(01:43:29):
looking forward to talking with you. Coming up in a
half hour. I always enjoy talking with you as well.
You can call. Phone lines are open five one, three, seven,
four nine fifty five hundred, eight hundred and eighty two
to three Taco with pound five fifty on eighth and
t phones. Of course, A big story of the morning
was this dismissal of that crazy case against Elwood Jones.
Case wasn't crazy. The jury convicted to be on a
reasonable doubt. It's been through the appellate process all the
way through the state appellate process. Then his lawyers filed

(01:43:52):
motions in federal court seeking additional records that went through
the entire pellate court process and amazingly ended up landing
in Judge Wendy Cross is I think on remand I
really wish I knew that item, that element of it.
Because Judge Wendy Cross had a land back in her lap.
This is after thirty years. This man was convicted and
has been locked up for thirty years brutally beat a

(01:44:14):
woman to death. Her name Rondon Nathan. Happen in an
apartment building. He in a I guess hotel. He had
a master key to the room, broke into the room
after he saw the other two occupants of the room
go to the restaurant and thought it was empty. Found
Rondon Nathan and they were wearing only a towel, beat
her to death. They had evidence about her having hepatitis,

(01:44:42):
and there was a testimony that was advanced by the
defense attorney from the defense attorney's expert for Elwa Jones,
saying only a thirty three percent chance that Jones would
have contracted hepatitis B from beating Rond and Nathan to death. Now,
the Judge Wendy Cross said that that was exculpatory evidence.
In other words, he was essentially found not guilty because

(01:45:05):
there's no way because he didn't contract hepatitis, than therefore
he couldn't have been the one to beat her. But no,
that's not anything like what the defense expert said. He
had a one in three chance of contracting it. Well,
that is not exculpatory. It is something for a jury
to consider. And there was other evidence too. They claimed
that records were withheld, but the records were out there,

(01:45:26):
and that element was reviewed by federal courts as well.
All of the evidence that they allegedly withheld had nothing
to do. There was nothing in there that was exculpatory.
And of course Supreme Court Justice Joe Dieters was prosecuted
at the time, and he wrote a scathing letter to
Connie Pillage for dismissing the case after Wendy Cross said
he was entitled to a new trial. He'd asked for

(01:45:47):
that previously. So confusing how it landed up in front
of her. But even more baffling and confusing is why
Connie Pillage dropped that after all these successful prosecutions and
successful appeals, nothing's changed except she came out yesterday and
basically lied about the evidence that actually was presented, I
mean lies called out as such by our friends Signal

(01:46:07):
ninety nine out there former police officer summarizing the information.
But Joe Dieter's letter dated December seventeenth to Connie Pillage
walks through all of the evidence and he's in sensed
that this man was dismissed. That is, he is now
walking out on the streets and is not subject to
prosecution anymore. So the crazy thing is, why, after all

(01:46:28):
this time, why is Edward Jones out on the street?
What drew this to Connie Pillag's attention as a case
that needs to be dismissed rather than retrying them based
on the same information, an exercise that shouldn't have had
to happen in the first place. I don't know. Demonstration
of Well again, we go back to nefarious or stupid.

(01:46:55):
Some are drawing a conclusion that perhaps it's an illustration
of both. Anyway, Tomorrow is Tech Friday. Go ahead, sweat bullets, folks.
I'm not quite sure and are clear what the benefits
of membership are. But Shiny Hunters described as a notorious

(01:47:15):
hacking group. Maybe Dave Dave Hatter will talk about this
one to Mark, because there's two components of this. First off,
the fact that Shiny Hunters, the notorious hacking group, well
cracked into porn Hub, apparently a very popular pornography site
based upon the numbers that they say, I show up

(01:47:35):
at porn Pornhub every day a lot, one hundred million
annually or something along those lines. Anyway, they cracked into it.
So if you're a member of Pornhub, apparently the Shiny
Hunters hacking group has your information and they are extorting
demanding money from Pornhub or they going to release all
this information. Actually the group talk to Reuters. I find

(01:47:57):
that particularly baffling. Anyway. I guess they have a company
or a notorious hacking group spokesperson. Anyway, they Shiny Hunter
speaking with Reuters were demanding a ransom payment in Bitcoin
to prevent the publication of pornhub data and dete delete
the data. They'll they'll delete what they stole if they
get their ransom money.

Speaker 8 (01:48:18):
One.

Speaker 1 (01:48:18):
Yeah, here's that figure. I was thinking about one hundred
million daily visits to this one site annually. Thirty six
billion people at least log into the site or not
log in or at least show up at pornhub dot com.

(01:48:39):
I guess that's a thirty six billion and they're you know,
let me just emphasize, I'm sure you know it as
well as I do. Pornhub not the only porn site
on the internet. Popular subject that is, which allows me
to pivot over. So anyway, there's that extortion element going on,
and no word for how much they're demanding some of
the that the actually has end. They verified that the

(01:49:00):
information was indeed stolen having spoken with a couple of
the porn hub members, which means they paid a fee
again access to additional material. Those are the folks that
have their data stolen. So if that's you and you
signed up and paid a fee, you've been exposed or
are subject to it. Now pivoting over to Indiana. Now,

(01:49:21):
they banned access to pornography for children under the age
of I guess eighteen, whatever the date is, there's a
ban on that in state of Indiana, one of many
states who've been trying to prevent children from getting access
to porn. A noble goal, I will admit, but you
run into that pesky First Amendment freedom of speech, free exercise,
right to speak freely, and of course constitutional right to

(01:49:44):
view porn I suppose, but anyway, set up Bill seventeen.
Last year, Indiana State Center Bill seventeen mandated that websites
featuring material harmful to minors have to verify the visitors
are eighteen or a bob. So how do you deal
with that? Well, rather than checking IDs, the parent company

(01:50:04):
of pornhub, a company called a low aylo whether it
matters or not there it is responded saying fine, in
order to comply with CENTATEBIL seventeen, We're just going to
pull the plug on Indiana folks accessing the site. So
if your IP address reflects that you're an Indiana resident,

(01:50:25):
you're not going to get in. Period twenty one years old,
thirty five years old, ninety eight or under the age
of eighteen, you're not getting in. It's an easy, quick solution.
But is it a solution? State of Indiana saying no,
that isn't good enough. Why Because virtual private networks VPN.
We talk about these with Dave Hatter all the time.

(01:50:46):
If you want to appear as though your computer is
living or resting in a different region of the world,
you work through a VPN. You can say I'm in Chicago,
or I'm in Poughkeepsie, Iowa. There's my friends at Poughkeepsie again,
or maybe I'm in Belgium or Australia. That's the IP
address that the site sees. And so in the case

(01:51:07):
of Indiana, the site sees that you are not in
the state of India, so to allow you access to
the site. Now, Indiana is now suing this company ALO
and others, I suppose because they don't assess the risk
posed by virtual private networks. In a section of the
sue detailing how ILO allegedly violated the age tech law,

(01:51:30):
Indiana notes that last July, and investigator employed by the
Ohio office and the Indiana or India or the Ohio
I'm sorry, the Office of Indiana Attorney General access pornhub
dot Com from Indiana using a VPN with the Chicago,
Illinois IP address. They see that this person's from Chicago.
It appears access is granted. Now the state argues that

(01:51:54):
because some Indiana residents could use a VPN to get
around location based blocks, that they are therefore insufficient to
comply with Indiana's age verification law. So they're imposing in
an extra layer of obligation on these companies out there
to see if your IP address is in fact from
a VPN. Now this is again piece of god territory.

(01:52:14):
I don't know how any given entity out there offering
online content could know whether or not that IP address
is affiliated with the VPN or is actually a real
human being. I guess they have lists out there that
say that. But you can see the awful slippery slope
this might offer states trying to require social media platforms,

(01:52:37):
app stores, and other web services to verify users, ages
that could be used to justify sanctioning all types of
applications and services for fill into VPNs and other anonymity
aiding tools. One of the problems bad for folks in
countries or situations where free speech and online could be dangerous.

(01:53:00):
You got this really onerous European Union laws. If they
implemented something like this, they have no free speech in
a lot of the world right And if their countries
want to say, hmm, these pesky VPNs are allowing our citizens,
deprived as they are, of information about what's going on
in the world, They're allowing them to get the information
about what's really going on in the world. They're bucking

(01:53:20):
our propaganda agenda. They're seeing through it and around it
because they've got websites that are located elsewhere in the world,
with reporters actually looking into what we're doing in our
country to our citizens. We can't have that. Let's pass
the law saying that Internet companies must prevent VPNs from
being used. That would be the end of anonymity. That'd

(01:53:41):
be the end of people gaining access to I would
argue very important information. And also, of course accessing porn
maybe not important information, maybe yes, posing a health to
a health risk and a cognitive risk to our young people.
But what's more important here And if Indiana is going

(01:54:02):
to do it, and if they're successful on this, just
wait for it, because it's coming to a theater near
you eight seventeen. Right now, we'll see if I can't
get data to talk about VPNs and that situation tomorrow
at fifty five KRC Morning Show every Friday at six
point thirty. I'll be right back after these brief words
fifty five KRC dot com.

Speaker 7 (01:54:19):
You addition.

Speaker 1 (01:54:24):
Eight twenty one here fifty five KRC Detalk Station fridaye
going into the bottom of the hour with iHeartMedia aviation
expert Jay rattlif fifty five krs dot com get your
iHeart Media app. I don't think there's any age verification
request on the IHEARTMEDIAPP. You can't access it. Fifty five
cars dot com if you're using a VPN too. Oh,

(01:54:45):
and further to tech information, I saw this just the
other day, several days ago, Petco. I don't know if
you've ever online ordered pet food or supplies or anything
like that from the company called pet Petco. They had
a data breach and they revealed it the apparently, at
least in color if you have a breach involving at
least five hundred state residents, you got to tell everybody

(01:55:06):
about the breach. And yes, they did tell everybody about
the breach. If you didn't get a letter from Pepco,
apparently your information has not been stolen. But I found
it rather troubling what they say was stolen. Corner reports
file with the Texas Terney General's Office.

Speaker 3 (01:55:23):
Name.

Speaker 1 (01:55:24):
That makes sense, social security number, driver's license number, financial
account details, credit card numbers, and dates of birth. Have
you ever had to provide your Social Security number when
ordering items online? I never, And my reaction to that

(01:55:46):
was wait a second. I would never provide any one
of these companies with my social security information online. Why
because the data could be breached. That's one of the
most important pieces of information you got out there. So
just FYI on that.

Speaker 6 (01:55:57):
But I.

Speaker 1 (01:55:59):
Don't know that I would go down a road where
a company's asking for that, I would never provide it
to them. I think, you know, maybe go to one
of the competitors like Chewy, or go down to your
local pet food store and get the pet food there.
H And one more little item I wanted to get to.
You know how I always go on a tear on
the global warming challenges we face. Oh my god, bro,

(01:56:20):
I'm gonna die at carbon dioxide. This is the kind
of thing that really irks me from an attorney perspective,
just from a logic and common sense perspective. The Philippines
and more than one hundred Filipino residents are suing Shell
Oil Company, claiming that its historical contribution to climate change
from fossil fuel production was a significant factor in causing

(01:56:41):
a typhoon that battered the country. This is four years ago,
December twenty twenty one, caused the death of four hundred
people nearly a billion dollars in damage. That storm did
that one storm, So shells responsible for that? Have there
been any other typhoons out there in any Yeah, uh huh,
over time, over history, you can see the record of
all the typhoons that have had an impact on the Philippines.

(01:57:04):
The group bringing the case against Shell in London, that's
where Shell's headquartered, parenthetically, but it will be applying Filipino
law trying to recoup the losses from property damage, personal injury, breathing,
and psychological trauma, arguing Shell is known for decades of
burning fossil fuels, contributes to climate change. Okay, information that's

(01:57:30):
been peddled around for years and years. That's how these
religion got incorporated into our young people's curriculums at elementary school. Yeah,
you're learning about climate change. It's all man made. Quit breathing.
So if you know it and I know it, and
we've been hearing about this for the last twenty years.
Remember coming back to al Gore, We're all going to
die by counter of year twenty ten or whatever. Yeah,
that didn't happen. So Shell also presumably knew all this,

(01:57:54):
But they made an interesting point. The spokesperson came out
in response to this litigation, this suggestion that you know,
Shell one of how many oil producing companies. The suggestion
that Shell has unique knowledge about climate change is simply
not true. The issue is how to tackle it. It
has been part of our public discussion in scientific scientific
research for many decades. Here's the point I wanted to

(01:58:16):
bring up. This claim also overlooks the benefits energy brings
and the decades of choices made by governments, businesses, and
consumers that have shaped our energy system. You bought the
products plastics, notably, governments bought the oil and the gas
to run government, run their own entities, run the American military.

(01:58:38):
This is what the technology allowed for. Everybody embraced it
and used it regularly. Along comes the argument that these
pollutants and these problems are coming from the burning of
fossil fuels. You can't get rid of them. They allow
society operate. Now, contemplate how many tens of millions of
people would have died had we immediately eliminated fossil fuels

(01:58:58):
from the environment. Do you think that typhoon would have
not happened? We can all just speculate on that. Is
Shell responsible for a typhoon, when millions and millions and
millions of people around this globe ord final fossil fuels
from a variety of different sources every single day. No
shell can't be alone blamed for this. They just have
a deep pocket that you can sue. But when you

(01:59:24):
face inflation, and you face the problems that manufacturing is
having in Germany and even here, when you face rolling
brownouts or blackouts because the windmills aren't spinning and the
sun's not shining, we automatically and reliably turn to fossil
fuels for our own benefits. And if you take them
out of the equation, a lot more people are going
to die than that alleged increase in the sea level

(01:59:47):
or the folks that passed and perished sadly so in
a typhoon. A twenty six fifty five kc DE talk
station Jay Rattler, Thank God for JA He'll be on
next Don't Go Away fifty five KRC. The iHeartMedia Aviation
Extra Jay Ratler for joining the program every Thursday at
this time to talk aviation issues. Welcome back, my friend,

(02:00:08):
a real pleasure.

Speaker 8 (02:00:09):
May pleasant good morning to you, and an early merry
Christmas to you, my friend.

Speaker 1 (02:00:13):
Yeah, right back at you. This will be our last
discussion before the end of the year, since I'm off
after the twenty third until the fifth, So we'll hit
the ground running in January, and I'm certainly looking forward
to that. Already perfect timing. Issue number one, now, the
United States admitted liability in the January Army helicopter crash
that killed sixty seven people. Helicopter flying right in front

(02:00:35):
of a runway and a plane ran into it. Bad. Absolutely,
as I understand the way this happened. So the plane
or the helicopter flying in this crowded airspace was not
using the Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast technology called ADSB, which
transmits the location of the aircraft. The system wasn't on

(02:00:55):
because they had a waiver exempting those military helicopters from
broadcasting where they were. After that, the FAA required all
aircraft in that airspace to use the ADSB technology. Yesterday
they passed the nine hundred and one billion dollar National
Defense Authorization Act, which removed that obligation.

Speaker 8 (02:01:14):
Unreal, unreal, it is mind boggling. In fact, it was
so egregious that the chair of the National Transportation Safety
board actually, and something that's never really happened before was
commenting on that bill as it was moving towards approval,
saying that to take a step back is ridiculous and rare,

(02:01:37):
is it. Do you have anyone connected with the NTSB
that's active that will come out and make that kind
of a comment. But that was exactly the case, and
why we are okay and taking a step back still
confuses me. I don't have anyone yet that's been able
to say why that's an.

Speaker 1 (02:01:53):
Okay thing to do.

Speaker 8 (02:01:54):
And it's another indication of many brian where it's real
easy to say safe, he's their number one priority. Yeah,
blah blah blah, prove it. And when you do things
like this, it's just you scratch your head thinking these
are supposed to be intelligent people. We're trying to honor
the lives of the sixty seven people that were lost
in January. Why are we not making things safer instead

(02:02:18):
of saying, well, that was bad, but you know, we're
going to make things actually worse than they were. And
you know, one of the things that investigation really bore
out in January as we move forward was just how
many other near misissues and things that we'd had in
that airspace over the years, and the fact that you
had so many of these helicopters and other military aircraft

(02:02:39):
that were actively crossing the arrival departure runways of so
many different aircraft, and we had several times where crews
had to divert their landing and go around and come
back to another runway. It was such a common occurrence.
It was pretty much a red flag that said this
is an issue, and we are in essence on borrowed

(02:03:02):
time here before something horrific happens. And the situation in January,
there was just a whole number of events that contributed
to it that you sadly again cost sixty seven lives
and we don't make things safer. Shame on us.

Speaker 1 (02:03:17):
Yeah, really, And you one of the weird facts about
this and reading the reporting on it, apparently members of Congress,
House and Senate use those helicopters to get to the
airport real quick when they want to go home for
Christmas time soccer, and so I know that, and see
that's the first reaction like, oh, they just want to
make this so easy for themselves, but that just puts

(02:03:37):
their lives in more jeopardy because if they're the ones
that are using these helicopters more frequently, and I assume
they are than anybody else on the planet, with the
exception of the military personnel flying them, they just put
themselves in greater risks of getting knocked out of the
air by an airplane.

Speaker 8 (02:03:50):
Absolutely, And it's again just another one of those situations
that just it baffles logic and common sense when you're
talking about it. But then we're back to managing the
perception of security more than we are actually security itself.
And it's happened too many times, and I've seen it
happen more times than I can count over the last
four decades, and it's just it's frustrating. I mean, I've

(02:04:13):
walked out of meetings with the Federal Aviation Administration over
just that you know, we're having a meeting for the
sake of a meeting talking about things we talked about
a year ago. There's nothing getting done. So this is
a waste of time, goodbye. And because it just it
just I don't know. And when you talk about the
number of people that are behind creating a bill, passing

(02:04:33):
a bill, saying that the bill is okay, it makes
me want to point a finger at every single person involved.
We're not one single person that I'm aware of raised
their hand prior to the National Transportation Safety Board chief
chair and say wait a minute, this is this is wrong.
We've got to address this now, and I'm hoping that
something can be done. Where as the outrage obviously grows

(02:04:57):
that the Washington d C we have individ jewels that
are actually going to fix this unbelievable.

Speaker 1 (02:05:03):
Well. I don't wish ill will on anybody, but maybe
if a member of Congress or maybe one of our
senators is on one of those helicopters and they are
involved in a mid air collision, but perhaps they'll change
their mind. Jam Rattelift, I didn't know. I didn't know.
There are parking tickets for parking and airplane if you
forget about it, that and more, we got a bunch
of topics to try to run through with Jay just

(02:05:24):
stick around me right.

Speaker 7 (02:05:25):
Back fifty five KRC No One celebrates that the cockpit
before it.

Speaker 1 (02:05:31):
Jay Rye Left has a thirty nine If you have
KCD Talks edition, Jay real quick here on Mark's point,
he says, what about covert operations? If you got this
ADSB hardware going alerting the people to where the the
helicopters flying. Well, My responsible was, well, fine, COVID operations
may be a reason not to want to use that,
but that means that the covert operation may not be

(02:05:51):
completed because they got blown up during a plane collision
with a plane is the best path that the best
path to success may not involve the most direct flight
path was my follow up point. Right.

Speaker 8 (02:06:03):
And of course you want to make it the training
you plays, your practice and practice as you play, so
you're gonna do everything you can to try to make
it as it would be during an actual exercise, if
it was for real. The problem is when you're conducting
that in amid a crowded airspace with a lot of
commercial flight activity, you are increasing the risk. Yeah, and

(02:06:25):
you know that to me is what's either acceptable or unacceptable.
And I'm always going to air on the side of
caution and say, if safety is the number one priority,
you know there needs to be some adjustments to prevent
a disaster from taking place. And we've had one, so
we've obviously seen the results. We've got to pivot from
that direction or it's going to happen again.

Speaker 1 (02:06:47):
Ah, Air India one hundred and twenty thousand dollars parking tab.

Speaker 8 (02:06:53):
Well, yeah, yeah, it's that for some reason, Air India
needed to park one of their seven thirty sevens at
another airport, Kolkatta, and it's airport in India and it's
you know, perhaps they had maintenance scheduled for the aircraft
and it was parked on a remote part of the
of the airport grounds there. But shortly thereafter Air India

(02:07:14):
had changes in their staffing and management team and apparently
somebody forgot it was there. Okay, So eventually the airport
contacts Air India think, you know, how much longer is
this airplane of year is going to be here? And
initially Air India said that's not ours and of course yeah,
they got in essence the ven number if you will,

(02:07:35):
and said, hey, do you not still own this and
they said, oh gosh, yeah we do and they said
that's fine because the parking is so much and since
it's been here since twenty and twelve, the fee is
going to be one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in
Air India paid it and they're removing the aircraft by
ground they're going to make it part of their training

(02:07:56):
facility as far as that type of aircraft because it's
no longer fit to fly because of all the work
that has to be.

Speaker 1 (02:08:02):
Done to it.

Speaker 8 (02:08:03):
But you know, you go through airport parking lot and
we encountered this a lot at the airports that I
was connected with, and you would have cars that would
be parked in the parking lot for years, in long term,
even short term, and in some instances, you know, you'd
have to have the cars removed toad try to contact
the owner. Sometimes it was an individual passed away, individuals

(02:08:26):
were running away.

Speaker 1 (02:08:27):
Have malfunctioning autokay, or it would have been.

Speaker 8 (02:08:32):
Somebody that was involved in you know, some sort of
legal illegal operation, or it was just a stolen car.
But yeah, it's amazing when you have that type of
thing where you've got a large number of these but
you know, one car kind of blends in with the
rest of them in the parking lot. One aircraft kind
of sitting there day after day after day, week after week,
month after month, and yes, year after year. I love

(02:08:53):
it kind of stand out, I.

Speaker 1 (02:08:54):
Would think, so, I would think, But you know, Air
India not even losing track of a multi million dollar
aircraft and denying it even owned it. That seems rather
peculiar to me, But then again, I don't run airlines, so.

Speaker 8 (02:09:04):
Well, it's easier to say it's not ours than to
admit craft we forgot about it for thirteen years.

Speaker 1 (02:09:08):
Yeah. True, rumors still swirling about Spirit Airlines being on
the brink of collapse. What happened to that Frontier thing?

Speaker 8 (02:09:17):
Well last year, Well, you know, Frontier and Spirit we're
going to merge years ago, and Jet Blue came in
kind of pushed him out of the way and we
had all that go through where eventually then the Spirit
jet Blue merger didn't come through. In this last weekend,
you had individuals saying that Spirit Airlines was on the
brink of shutting down, they weren't even going to get
through last weekend. Spirit executives quickly commit and said, look,

(02:09:41):
we've got some cash to keep us moving. They're in
the Chapter eleven bankruptcy process, the second time they filed
in less than a year. And obviously there's concerns, certainly
for passengers that are coming up on vacations over the
next two and a half weeks. But right now we're
also hearing that there's a kind of rekindled conversation that
have started again between Frontier and Spirit about a possible merger.

(02:10:04):
Now I'm glad this is going to happen. You and
I've talked about it before. How I really liked that
initial merger between the two low cost carriers of Spirit
and Frontier because their route maps compliment each other so well.
When you overlapped them, there was very few cities that
were overlapped, meaning those two airlines you would have a

(02:10:24):
less reduction of service into airports, a fewer jobs cut,
not the case with Jet Blue and Frontier. That or
Spirit that had so many overlapping markets, which is one
of the reasons it was not allowed to move forward.
So low cost carriers, Brian and I have talked about
so many times before keep the average low fare down.
So we love low cost carriers. I certainly want to

(02:10:46):
make sure Spirit continues flying, and I would love to
see the merger with Frontier because I think that would
make them a much stronger carrier. It would keep them around,
and it would have more low cost carrier seats in
the marketplace, which is obviously what we want to see happen.

Speaker 1 (02:11:01):
And then and real quick because we have quite a
few topics to get to. We won't get to all
of them real quick since it evolves. Jet Blue dodged
a mid air collision with the US military refueling tanker.
Briefing on that.

Speaker 8 (02:11:12):
Yeah, coming out of carousel the Caribbean Airline near Venezuela.
They're climbing and all of a sudden, there's a US
Air Force aircraft five thousand feet in front of them,
same flight path, and they didn't know it was there.
If they had to take evasive action, it was classified
as possible a mid air situation. From a collision standpoint,
we had five thousand feet separation. Bottom line was that

(02:11:35):
there was a minimum there was no there's a breakdown
in communication from the Air Force to the Federal Aviation Administration.
They couldn't notify the crews because they weren't aware of
it was there at the time. And you know, luckily
they didn't get super close. Jet Blue crew did what
they were trained to do, and we can learn from this,
so hopefully things can be made safer as we move forward.

Speaker 1 (02:11:56):
Yeah, kind of like we were supposed to learn from
the helicopter plane collision. We just got done talk about it.

Speaker 8 (02:12:01):
But pilots have also been notified in that area. If
you're flying anywhere around Venezuela a lot of activity, be
on guard because there are military aircraft from all different
kinds that are flying and you may not be aware
of the fact that they're there until you see them.

Speaker 1 (02:12:13):
Great point more with iHeart Media aviation expert Jay ratleft
right after these brief words.

Speaker 4 (02:12:19):
Fifty five KRC fifty five KRC they talk station.

Speaker 1 (02:12:25):
Ay forty eight fifty five KRCD talk station. Very very
happy Friday or Friday Eve to you, love heaving. I
heard media aviation expert ja let Rat left on the
program program every Friday Eve. And of course you're going
to indulge me here for just a moment. It is
the Christmas season. You already risk me. Merry Christmas. I
wish you merry Christmas. I hope you enjoy the holiday
spirit and just have a just a really heartwarming message

(02:12:46):
to pass along. Brian Ibold from the Help Squad Jay.
If you're not familiar, they help out westsiders and need
Christian Faith collaborative. You give the money. You give money
to them and they make sure the right people get it.
Every dollar you give to the Help Squad is a
dollar in benefits to someone truly in need. Brian Ibold
for since a police officer started the whole thing. He
was on the program not that long ago, got a

(02:13:06):
text from him this morning. I received this letter along
with one thousand dollars a check for one thousand dollars
because this woman, her name is Shannon, was on my program.
He said thank you for the continued support. So that
really warmed my heart. In a shout out to Shannon
who or it's either Shannon or Sharon. It's cursive and
it's I can't read the writing very well, but she
did say she heard about the Help Squad on my program.

(02:13:29):
She was thanking him for helping people who otherwise would
not get any help. And the thousand dollars contribution, So
thank you Brian for passing along the information and to
that listener who made the contribution. That kind of thing
just warms my heart.

Speaker 3 (02:13:42):
Jay.

Speaker 1 (02:13:42):
It's just such a wonderful position to be in where
I can spread the information about these great charities out
there and how people can get in touch with them
and help out. It's just great.

Speaker 8 (02:13:51):
Is that link on your website or it's.

Speaker 1 (02:13:54):
The help Squad sincey withthey dot com. It's been up
many times over the year. It is not currently there
because this I just literally got the message from Brian
as we're on the brain, I.

Speaker 8 (02:14:03):
Will add to that.

Speaker 7 (02:14:04):
Oh wow.

Speaker 8 (02:14:05):
Well, you know, the nice thing, Brian is that it's
this time of year where, you know, there's a lot
of crazy things going on with all the activities that
were over committed to do, but it's also a time
that a lot of us just kind of take stock
in the fact of just how blessed we are. And
sometimes it's this or that doing things. And I remember
when I met Sherry nineteen years ago. We were dating,

(02:14:27):
and one of the things she was doing with her
young young sons at the time was when they would
get a Christmas present a toy, they would take an
old toy and donate it to someone else. That way,
when they got something, they were giving something, And it
was just kind of a type of thing she was
trying to ingrain into them about being thankful for what
you have and then taking sometimes even a toy you like,

(02:14:48):
and let's donate it to somebody that may not have one.
There you go, and there's just so many people, especially
in this audience because I hear from so many people
that have that mindset and they appreciate what they have
and look, life's temporary, so let's let's make the most
of it. Be thankful and and you know this idea
of just not not trying to help you fellow man.

(02:15:08):
You know, fortunately for a lot of us, that's that's
a foreign concept. We're gonna do what we can to help.
And I'm glad that you mentioned that that worthwhile organization, the.

Speaker 1 (02:15:17):
Help Squad, since you with a why the help squadsincy
dot com. They are terrific of what they do, focusing
on an area that they found was desperately in need
for help. So salute all the help Squad folks. And
Brian Ibel, thanks again for that latest survey ranking the
most reliable and least reliable airports and airlines. Is CBG
on that list there anywhere? No, no, no, no, it's not.

Speaker 8 (02:15:38):
But you know, one of the things that they looked
at was the on time performance. When they looked at
you know, how different airports do things as far as
you know which ones are the best or not. And
when we're coming into the airport the travel season with
the holidays, One of the things that people ask all
the time is Jay, what's the best airports to go through?

(02:16:00):
And when you look at you know idea as far
as Orlando being one of the airports, it has one
of the better on time performances that that's a key
one to go through a Delta airlines having the best
on time performance as far as their on time performance
is also something people look at when they're planning their trip,
and that's important for a lot of people as they're

(02:16:21):
traveling or planning their upcoming trip is which airline airport
can I count on that I they can give me
the best chance of being on time. And that's that's
one of the reasons that these rankings come out all
the time. When you're looking at you know which airports
to avoid, which ones to not, and you know that's
why Delta is normally a number one key and you know,

(02:16:42):
even Detroit came in in the top of that list
as well, which was kind of surprising to me from
a hub standpoint. And then you know they had other
airports that were considered the worst. I thought airports like
Philadelphia Newark would be on the don't go there because
it's not going to be on it, but they were not.
So Yeah, but again, I'm always asked which airline is
my airline of choice, and Delta is mine not only

(02:17:05):
from the on time performance, but their completion factor is
higher than others, and that's why when you're traveling through
the holidays, it's you know, I like having that because
even if the flight's a little bit delayed, I know
that they're going to get the aircraft to its destination
more often than not, and certainly more than others because
their completion factor is normally in the high eighty percent range,

(02:17:27):
and that's great when you're traveling, especially over the holidays.

Speaker 1 (02:17:30):
I tend to agree with this statement because I've been
through a lot of meetings at work day when I
used to work as an in house attorney at Anthem,
and of course a lot of meetings in my prior
day practicing law. Not as many, though the weekly meeting
my wife gets. A weekly meeting gets two hours long.
She uses that time to do her nails. Paul Oute,
I'm sorry I had to say that out loud, but
not a whole lot of activity on the call that's

(02:17:52):
really truly important to her area of work. Nonetheless, has
an obligation to attend them. So what did Southwest Airline
CEO mean when he said to his team meetings are
not work.

Speaker 8 (02:18:03):
Well, a lot of people were saying, I'm busy, I'm
feeling good about what I'm doing because my schedule's full
doing these types of things. And Bob Jordan, the head
the CEO of Southwest said, wait a minute, meetings aren't
leadership meetings. Aren't us doing our work. We need to
be out there doing our job, not sitting around having

(02:18:24):
a bunch of especially one on one meetings. He said,
that's a waste of time. And he's trying to change
the focus of Southwest Airlines where you're trying to make
sure that every single individual is doing the most that
they can each and every day to try to help
that airline advance, especially on the customer service side of things.
And he found that a lot of people in his
leadership team were busy in meetings instead of doing other

(02:18:47):
things that were far more practical. And I remember the
last supervisor I had at Northwest Airlines, he demanded a
two hour conference call every Monday morning, excuse me, the
busiest day of the week. We could tell him what
was going on and it was nuts. So you know,
some people are so meeting you know, yes, sess And

(02:19:08):
I heard somebody, somebody used to work for me come
in and on my Facebook posts, he said, Jade. People
that have those like to hear themselves talk. And I
think that's probably the case, and it's the perception of
being productive. That's what meetings are. Many times you don't
need to have them. And I told you about the
FA meeting I walked out of in the last segment.
We were talking about the same topics that we were
a year before, and I walked out. I said, folks,

(02:19:31):
no disrespect, but these are the same talking points we
had a year ago. We've not done anything and it's
a waste of my time and yours. And I let
my boss wasn't too happy when he found out about it.
But you know, the bottom line is the idea of
just having a meeting for meeting's sake, no. And it's
kind of a corporate mindset where some of this is changing.
You're seeing that corporations adopt the same thing, and I
think that's a great thing to do and mind as we.

Speaker 1 (02:19:53):
A conference call was on with attorneys from all over
the fifty states including Hawaii on a tobacco litigation call,
same rehashing stuff that had been over and over and
over and over again. I didn't realize my mute button
wasn't on, my speaker phone was on, and I said
blah blah blah, and the whole conference I just went silent.

Speaker 8 (02:20:13):
Keep your stupid mouth shut.

Speaker 1 (02:20:16):
Yeah, that was my moment, one of the most embarrassing
moments I had. But everybody on the call, I assure you,
with the exception of that one attorney that prompted my
blah blah blah, was very happy that I interjected along
those lines. Jay Ratliffe, real quick, hubblays. Any problems out
there today, real quick?

Speaker 8 (02:20:31):
Yeah, a lot of rain unfortunately giving us issues in Chicago,
Detroit's gonna have problems, Atlanta, Charlotte, a lot of issues.
And if you're traveling over the next couple of weeks,
you've not blown in a while. TSA dot Gov great
sight to go to to make sure you're aware of
any changes that may have taken place since the last
time you flow.

Speaker 1 (02:20:47):
You'll be back in January, Jay raytl if I trust,
and I'm looking forward to it already. God bless you
your beautiful wife's share. You have a wonderful Christmas and
if you're traveling, safe travels. Man appreciate you coming on
the show. It's a fifty six some of then e
fifty sevens. It is