Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
TATO four, a fifty five PERSEEV talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Happy Wednesday to you.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Of course, continuing at theme, we were talking about veto
overrides Governor de Wan veto quite a few provisions in
the Ohio budget. Joining the fifty five Carsy Morning Show.
Founding partner of Dan Law Law Firm d A N N.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
L A W.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Can find him online at dan law dot com, multiple
offices Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and New York and New Jersey.
Welcome to the fifty five Carson Morning Show. Founding partner,
Mark Dan. It is a pleasure to have you on today.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Thank you for having me. I think he missed a
veto of one important thing. Unfortunately, what was that?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I think the governor missed a veto of the one
important thing.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
You're right, this is the most frustrating thing.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I was very frustrated because we were talking about the
hopeful property relief measures that he vetoed. Is like everything
they had to do with us taking a step toward
providing homeowners with property relief. He veto does, but he
left in there a six hundred million dollar gift to
a privately owned sports club known as the Cleveland Browns.
And really that irks me to know and mark as
(01:10):
a fundamental ethical moral principle.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
It is just wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It was worse when the House version came out because
they were going to actually borrow go into a debt
six hundred million dollars and have to pay debt service
on it to the tune of about a billion total dollars.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
That was bad. But then the Senate decides.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Well, you know what, we got this four point eight
billion dollar unclaimed funds account. Nobody's going after that money.
We don't have to borrow. Let's just take it out
of that and give it to the Browns. Doesn't solve
the problems that I have from an ethical moral standpoint
on the proper role of government, but at least it
didn't sound as bad as borrowing the money. So you
(01:46):
have filed a lawsuit and you have claimed that.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I actually think it's even worse than borrowing the money,
because because in a multitude of ways, it's an it's
an unconstitutional taking of the property of people whose money,
our moneys are in that fund. I mean people in Ohio. Actually,
there's people throughout the world that have money in Ohio's
unclaimed funds account, and it is not the state's money.
(02:14):
It is our money. It is individuals money who have
not yet been able to liberate it from that fund.
And liberating it from the fund is difficult if anybody's
ever tried. But it's an unconstitutional taking. The process by
which they're going to take it to lacks any due
process of law, any serious notice to the people who
(02:37):
have money in that fund that they're taking it and
it's going to be converted from their property on January
first to twenty twenty six to the state's property. And
all the bill provides is a promise that if they
make a claim later that the state will pay it,
a promise they can be broken by a politician down
the road.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Well clearly, and that payment will be based would be
taxpayer burden payment, because of course the state doesn't generate
income itself, it takes it from.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Us, right. Well, that's that's correct. And again it's you know,
it's if you've ever borrowed money from a friend or
a relative, you know, even with the best of intentions,
they don't always pay you back.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Isn't that true. That's why you never loan money to
friends and relatives. Mark Dan exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Now, my understanding is prior to the budget bill passing
that the law was very clear on this that that
money was not available for the use by our elected
officials for any project at all, but did not the
budget bill contain a revision to that to say, after
ten years, if unclaimed, we're free to take it, or
am I missing?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Am I missing some element of that?
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Well, it's more than that. They're gonna They're gonna take
one point seven billion dollars out of that fund on
January first, twenty twenty six, and that will become the
property of the state. What they're saying is that after
ten years, the state will have even if there's no money.
If there's no money left in the fund, the state
will have no obligation to pay you that money back.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
So you're out of.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Luck after ten years and there's money in there. I
talked to a guy in Finley yesterday. He's got fourteen
thousand dollars in there. They misspelled his name when they
entered it in the database. He's been trying for ten years,
and that money's been in there for twenty years. He's
been trying for ten years to get it out of there,
and they won't back down. Because they mistook an M
(04:29):
for an N in his last name and can't get
get that money out. I spoke to a woman in
Columbus yesterday who has money in there that went from
an insurance company just last October, and they in what
the folks at the Unclaimed Funds Office tod her is
that they were updating their software and they haven't entered
(04:50):
any any new entries since October. And so that's and
that's seven thousand dollars, which is a lot of money
in her situation and insurance proceeds that she desperately needs
and you got bills to pay, and they they can't
they can't verify it because they never entered it into
their system, so she can't get that money out. So
(05:13):
it's it is, it is. It is not a you know, again,
it's not a great system to begin with. No, there's
no actual notice given to the people that have money
in that fund, and now they want to take it
without without paying them for it, and that's just not right.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
I had it's a rather comical side note on that point,
Mark Dan that the idea, this six hundred million dollar
concept that we're also incensed about, has given people a
broad awareness that there is in fact an unclaimed funds
pile of money, and people are now going to the
website and trying to make claims on him. My executive
producer put his name in. He got twenty dollars back
(05:51):
that was in there. He got some settlement first.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah no good, yeah, good for him. And there's there's
settlements in there there there. Twenty years ago or so,
a lot of insurance companies were mutual insurance companies and
they became stock insurance companies and all the mutual beneficiaries
who they couldn't find, they threw the money in the
in the unclaimed funds. A few years ago there was
(06:16):
an order for life insurance companies did not hold on
to unclaimed benefits, but they have to put those in
that fund. And so there's millions and millions of dollars
of that Path Bank, you know, was headquartered in Columbus
for a long time, and they funds from all of
their accounts all over the world that were unclaimed went
(06:37):
into that into that fund. So there's people all over,
not just in Ohio, that don't have access to it.
And now, setting aside the fact that we're taking you know,
grandma's money from a life insurance policy that Grandpa paid
for to give six hundred billion dollars to a billionaire
for his own private interests of of building a stadium
(06:58):
that's going to only benefit him and frankly cost those
of us who are seezing ticket holders of the Browns
more money because they're going to charge us seat licenses
and other things as well. That's outrageous enough that that
they're taking that they're giving money to a billionaire for
his private interest, but it's it's also unconstitutional because the
(07:20):
government can't take your stuff or a private company. They
can only take it for a public purpose. So so
I mean, there's just a whole list of reasons this
is unconstitutional. They're taking the money for a private, private purpose.
They're they're they're not providing due process of law to
people to claim it, they're not paying compensation, and uh,
(07:42):
apropota your earlier conversation. The the uh this is this
is not related to the budget and it was passed
in a budget bill, and Ohio's constitution clearly says that
each bill needs to have a separate title and a
separate debate and a separate vote each each each separate subject.
It's called the single subject rule. So for for a
(08:05):
completely different reason, this enactment is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, you're making great argument, sounds to me. Mark Dan
of the Dan Law Firm d A N N l
a W dot com is where you find Mark and
his team. I guess I'm I sort of out loud,
wondering where a high attorney Donal David Yost is on this.
Isn't this something that he should be raising by way
of legal challenge, given that's given his role.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, that's right. Well it's interesting because he's we actually
attached the copy of his letter to the governor urging
him to veto this bad bill, this bad piece of legislation,
to our complaint, and he's charged with defending the state.
I'm not sure he doesn't have a conflict at this point.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
I agree.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So what he said, he's talked out of both sides
of his mouth. I'm shocking for an elected official. On
one side he said this is a terrible idea, and
the other said he said, I think it's defensible constantly. Well,
we're going to find out. We're going to let a
judge decide that I disagree. I had his job at
one time, I was the attorney general, and you represent
(09:10):
not you don't represent the governor. When you're attorney general,
you are a representative of the state, right and so
you have to make sometimes have to make some hard calls.
I mean, if he wants to get the governor his
own lawyer to defend this or the or this partner
commerce and the legislature of their own lawyer to defend
this unconstitutional enactment, you know he should probably do that.
(09:32):
I wouldn't have I wouldn't defend this if I were
the attorney general of the state.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
So the fund amount of point here is, and you
make a good argument, and there's like mountains of case
law on the idea that governments can't take property without
at least for to give it to private individuals. I mean,
there's all been all kinds of case law on confiscating
property for the greater good. You have to be paid
for it, though, like if they want to build a
park or something along those lines.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
So that I guess the point to that is.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Even though the budget changed the law and put this
permanent achievement provision in there saying after ten years or whatever,
this is our money of the one point seven billions
is our money. That does not override constitutional principles. Is
what you're found is the foundation of your lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
That's correct. Laws have to look a governor and the
members of legislatures swore an oath to the con to
follow the Constitution, and they didn't do that, and so
we think the courts will hold them accountable for that.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
So now who's going to answer on behalf of the state.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Well, we serve the state, and the Attorney General represents
the state. The Attorney General can decide that they that
they're conflicted or that they can't defend something that's unconstitutional.
In that case, they would have the option of providing
separate appointed council. We've sued the Director of Commerce, We've
sued the administrator of the fund, We've sued the state treasurer,
(10:57):
and we've sued that they've created already the first stay.
After the budget passed, they created this new Facilities Commission, which,
by the way, also has the capacity to give some
money to the to another billionaire in Cincinnati for the
for the Bengal State Yeah, and to the and to
the and to another billionaire for improvements to the Red Stadium.
(11:18):
So that that that that committee's already been already been constituted.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Well, hopefully you prevail on your lawsuit and we can
stop that from happening. That's a real source spot for
a lot of Hamilton County residents, my friend, a very
very sore spot. Well, i'll tell you what, it has
been a pleasure talking with you, Mark Dan. I wish
you all the best on the lawsuit. And I suppose,
uh what thirty days to answer otherwise? Please, then you
move for smery judgment right out of the gate, right.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Right, Well, we're going to move for a preliminary junction
because we want to make sure that money doesn't move
anyuary first and then and then and then THELP I
expect they'll answer with emotion to dismiss.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
That's what artification is.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Yeah, well, I practice the cases for sixteen years, so
I know the process. But I see it. But I
do you see a summary judgment motion looming on the horizon.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, that's it's a purely legal issue, it is. And
uh and and I see and I don't think it's
even a close fall. Uh and so we we but
we shall see. And look, they think they bought the
OHU Supreme Court. And that's literally what the one of
the articles that I read yesterday, that's what the Senate
President said. He goes, well, they may win in the
lower courts, but you know, well, well we'll fix this
(12:26):
in the Supreme Court. Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure Jimmy
HASLM is starting to write checks to Supreme Court justices already.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
I just wonder what Jimmy HASLM has by way of
a dirty inside information, because how this got in there
is still just a puzzle to me. Sir Mark Dan,
a real pleasure having you on the program today. Keep
up the great war and I listen.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Man. I will reach out to you, or you can
reach out to us. You got good updates.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
You want to talk about Shenanigans going on or anything
else on this lawsuit. You have an open forum here
on the fifty five KRC Morning Show.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Appreciate that, Thank you, look forward to talking to you again.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
My pleasure, Mark, as do I eight seventeen fifty five
KRC the Talk Station. Get touch with Zimmer Heating and
air Conditioning. Keep an area home safe, efficient and comfortable.
Eighty coming up on eighty years. That's a proud family tradition.
They provide wonderful customer service. They can service whatever kind
of unit you've got, but if it's belly up, it's
a great time to be working with Zimmer. The professionals
(13:24):
at Zimmer can replace your system with a cool Carrier
comfort system and you can save up to fifteen hundred
and fifty bucks. I call that real money.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
In my world. It will always be real money.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
But since it is expensive to replace an HVAC system,
why not save a heople in the money and get
the very wonderful carrier system. Zimmer has been representing Carrier
authorized dealer it is and they've been doing that for
a long long time. But great customer service, price is
always right. Chris Zimmer and the crew will take great
care of you. Give them a call or schedule appointment online.
To call them for the appointment, it's five to one
(13:56):
three five excuse me, five two one ninety eight ninety
three five two one one ninety eight ninety three. Online
you'll find them at go Zimmer dot com.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
This is fifty five KRC an iHeartRadio station o HC
is
TATO four, a fifty five PERSEEV talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Happy Wednesday to you.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Of course, continuing at theme, we were talking about veto
overrides Governor de Wan veto quite a few provisions in
the Ohio budget. Joining the fifty five Carsy Morning Show.
Founding partner of Dan Law Law Firm d A N N.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
L A W.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Can find him online at dan law dot com, multiple
offices Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and New York and New Jersey.
Welcome to the fifty five Carson Morning Show. Founding partner,
Mark Dan. It is a pleasure to have you on today.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Thank you for having me. I think he missed a
veto of one important thing. Unfortunately, what was that?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I think the governor missed a veto of the one
important thing.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
You're right, this is the most frustrating thing.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I was very frustrated because we were talking about the
hopeful property relief measures that he vetoed. Is like everything
they had to do with us taking a step toward
providing homeowners with property relief. He veto does, but he
left in there a six hundred million dollar gift to
a privately owned sports club known as the Cleveland Browns.
And really that irks me to know and mark as
(01:10):
a fundamental ethical moral principle.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
It is just wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It was worse when the House version came out because
they were going to actually borrow go into a debt
six hundred million dollars and have to pay debt service
on it to the tune of about a billion total dollars.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
That was bad. But then the Senate decides.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Well, you know what, we got this four point eight
billion dollar unclaimed funds account. Nobody's going after that money.
We don't have to borrow. Let's just take it out
of that and give it to the Browns. Doesn't solve
the problems that I have from an ethical moral standpoint
on the proper role of government, but at least it
didn't sound as bad as borrowing the money. So you
(01:46):
have filed a lawsuit and you have claimed that.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
I actually think it's even worse than borrowing the money,
because because in a multitude of ways, it's an it's
an unconstitutional taking of the property of people whose money,
our moneys are in that fund. I mean people in Ohio. Actually,
there's people throughout the world that have money in Ohio's
unclaimed funds account, and it is not the state's money.
(02:14):
It is our money. It is individuals money who have
not yet been able to liberate it from that fund.
And liberating it from the fund is difficult if anybody's
ever tried. But it's an unconstitutional taking. The process by
which they're going to take it to lacks any due
process of law, any serious notice to the people who
(02:37):
have money in that fund that they're taking it and
it's going to be converted from their property on January
first to twenty twenty six to the state's property. And
all the bill provides is a promise that if they
make a claim later that the state will pay it,
a promise they can be broken by a politician down
the road.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Well clearly, and that payment will be based would be
taxpayer burden payment, because of course the state doesn't generate
income itself, it takes it from.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Us, right. Well, that's that's correct. And again it's you know,
it's if you've ever borrowed money from a friend or
a relative, you know, even with the best of intentions,
they don't always pay you back.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Isn't that true. That's why you never loan money to
friends and relatives. Mark Dan exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Now, my understanding is prior to the budget bill passing
that the law was very clear on this that that
money was not available for the use by our elected
officials for any project at all, but did not the
budget bill contain a revision to that to say, after
ten years, if unclaimed, we're free to take it, or
am I missing?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Am I missing some element of that?
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Well, it's more than that. They're gonna They're gonna take
one point seven billion dollars out of that fund on
January first, twenty twenty six, and that will become the
property of the state. What they're saying is that after
ten years, the state will have even if there's no money.
If there's no money left in the fund, the state
will have no obligation to pay you that money back.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
So you're out of.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Luck after ten years and there's money in there. I
talked to a guy in Finley yesterday. He's got fourteen
thousand dollars in there. They misspelled his name when they
entered it in the database. He's been trying for ten years,
and that money's been in there for twenty years. He's
been trying for ten years to get it out of there,
and they won't back down. Because they mistook an M
(04:29):
for an N in his last name and can't get
get that money out. I spoke to a woman in
Columbus yesterday who has money in there that went from
an insurance company just last October, and they in what
the folks at the Unclaimed Funds Office tod her is
that they were updating their software and they haven't entered
(04:50):
any any new entries since October. And so that's and
that's seven thousand dollars, which is a lot of money
in her situation and insurance proceeds that she desperately needs
and you got bills to pay, and they they can't
they can't verify it because they never entered it into
their system, so she can't get that money out. So
(05:13):
it's it is, it is. It is not a you know, again,
it's not a great system to begin with. No, there's
no actual notice given to the people that have money
in that fund, and now they want to take it
without without paying them for it, and that's just not right.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
I had it's a rather comical side note on that point,
Mark Dan that the idea, this six hundred million dollar
concept that we're also incensed about, has given people a
broad awareness that there is in fact an unclaimed funds
pile of money, and people are now going to the
website and trying to make claims on him. My executive
producer put his name in. He got twenty dollars back
(05:51):
that was in there. He got some settlement first.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah no good, yeah, good for him. And there's there's
settlements in there there there. Twenty years ago or so,
a lot of insurance companies were mutual insurance companies and
they became stock insurance companies and all the mutual beneficiaries
who they couldn't find, they threw the money in the
in the unclaimed funds. A few years ago there was
(06:16):
an order for life insurance companies did not hold on
to unclaimed benefits, but they have to put those in
that fund. And so there's millions and millions of dollars
of that Path Bank, you know, was headquartered in Columbus
for a long time, and they funds from all of
their accounts all over the world that were unclaimed went
(06:37):
into that into that fund. So there's people all over,
not just in Ohio, that don't have access to it.
And now, setting aside the fact that we're taking you know,
grandma's money from a life insurance policy that Grandpa paid
for to give six hundred billion dollars to a billionaire
for his own private interests of of building a stadium
(06:58):
that's going to only benefit him and frankly cost those
of us who are seezing ticket holders of the Browns
more money because they're going to charge us seat licenses
and other things as well. That's outrageous enough that that
they're taking that they're giving money to a billionaire for
his private interest, but it's it's also unconstitutional because the
(07:20):
government can't take your stuff or a private company. They
can only take it for a public purpose. So so
I mean, there's just a whole list of reasons this
is unconstitutional. They're taking the money for a private, private purpose.
They're they're they're not providing due process of law to
people to claim it, they're not paying compensation, and uh,
(07:42):
apropota your earlier conversation. The the uh this is this
is not related to the budget and it was passed
in a budget bill, and Ohio's constitution clearly says that
each bill needs to have a separate title and a
separate debate and a separate vote each each each separate subject.
It's called the single subject rule. So for for a
(08:05):
completely different reason, this enactment is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, you're making great argument, sounds to me. Mark Dan
of the Dan Law Firm d A N N l
a W dot com is where you find Mark and
his team. I guess I'm I sort of out loud,
wondering where a high attorney Donal David Yost is on this.
Isn't this something that he should be raising by way
of legal challenge, given that's given his role.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, that's right. Well it's interesting because he's we actually
attached the copy of his letter to the governor urging
him to veto this bad bill, this bad piece of legislation,
to our complaint, and he's charged with defending the state.
I'm not sure he doesn't have a conflict at this point.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
I agree.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So what he said, he's talked out of both sides
of his mouth. I'm shocking for an elected official. On
one side he said this is a terrible idea, and
the other said he said, I think it's defensible constantly. Well,
we're going to find out. We're going to let a
judge decide that I disagree. I had his job at
one time, I was the attorney general, and you represent
(09:10):
not you don't represent the governor. When you're attorney general,
you are a representative of the state, right and so
you have to make sometimes have to make some hard calls.
I mean, if he wants to get the governor his
own lawyer to defend this or the or this partner
commerce and the legislature of their own lawyer to defend
this unconstitutional enactment, you know he should probably do that.
(09:32):
I wouldn't have I wouldn't defend this if I were
the attorney general of the state.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
So the fund amount of point here is, and you
make a good argument, and there's like mountains of case
law on the idea that governments can't take property without
at least for to give it to private individuals. I mean,
there's all been all kinds of case law on confiscating
property for the greater good. You have to be paid
for it, though, like if they want to build a
park or something along those lines.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
So that I guess the point to that is.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Even though the budget changed the law and put this
permanent achievement provision in there saying after ten years or whatever,
this is our money of the one point seven billions
is our money. That does not override constitutional principles. Is
what you're found is the foundation of your lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
That's correct. Laws have to look a governor and the
members of legislatures swore an oath to the con to
follow the Constitution, and they didn't do that, and so
we think the courts will hold them accountable for that.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
So now who's going to answer on behalf of the state.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Well, we serve the state, and the Attorney General represents
the state. The Attorney General can decide that they that
they're conflicted or that they can't defend something that's unconstitutional.
In that case, they would have the option of providing
separate appointed council. We've sued the Director of Commerce, We've
sued the administrator of the fund, We've sued the state treasurer,
(10:57):
and we've sued that they've created already the first stay.
After the budget passed, they created this new Facilities Commission, which,
by the way, also has the capacity to give some
money to the to another billionaire in Cincinnati for the
for the Bengal State Yeah, and to the and to
the and to another billionaire for improvements to the Red Stadium.
(11:18):
So that that that that committee's already been already been constituted.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Well, hopefully you prevail on your lawsuit and we can
stop that from happening. That's a real source spot for
a lot of Hamilton County residents, my friend, a very
very sore spot. Well, i'll tell you what, it has
been a pleasure talking with you, Mark Dan. I wish
you all the best on the lawsuit. And I suppose,
uh what thirty days to answer otherwise? Please, then you
move for smery judgment right out of the gate, right.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Right, Well, we're going to move for a preliminary junction
because we want to make sure that money doesn't move
anyuary first and then and then and then THELP I
expect they'll answer with emotion to dismiss.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
That's what artification is.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Yeah, well, I practice the cases for sixteen years, so
I know the process. But I see it. But I
do you see a summary judgment motion looming on the horizon.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, that's it's a purely legal issue, it is. And
uh and and I see and I don't think it's
even a close fall. Uh and so we we but
we shall see. And look, they think they bought the
OHU Supreme Court. And that's literally what the one of
the articles that I read yesterday, that's what the Senate
President said. He goes, well, they may win in the
lower courts, but you know, well, well we'll fix this
(12:26):
in the Supreme Court. Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure Jimmy
HASLM is starting to write checks to Supreme Court justices already.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
I just wonder what Jimmy HASLM has by way of
a dirty inside information, because how this got in there
is still just a puzzle to me. Sir Mark Dan,
a real pleasure having you on the program today. Keep
up the great war and I listen.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Man. I will reach out to you, or you can
reach out to us. You got good updates.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
You want to talk about Shenanigans going on or anything
else on this lawsuit. You have an open forum here
on the fifty five KRC Morning Show.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Appreciate that, Thank you, look forward to talking to you again.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
My pleasure, Mark, as do I eight seventeen fifty five
KRC the Talk Station. Get touch with Zimmer Heating and
air Conditioning. Keep an area home safe, efficient and comfortable.
Eighty coming up on eighty years. That's a proud family tradition.
They provide wonderful customer service. They can service whatever kind
of unit you've got, but if it's belly up, it's
a great time to be working with Zimmer. The professionals
(13:24):
at Zimmer can replace your system with a cool Carrier
comfort system and you can save up to fifteen hundred
and fifty bucks. I call that real money.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
In my world. It will always be real money.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
But since it is expensive to replace an HVAC system,
why not save a heople in the money and get
the very wonderful carrier system. Zimmer has been representing Carrier
authorized dealer it is and they've been doing that for
a long long time. But great customer service, price is
always right. Chris Zimmer and the crew will take great
care of you. Give them a call or schedule appointment online.
To call them for the appointment, it's five to one
(13:56):
three five excuse me, five two one ninety eight ninety
three five two one one ninety eight ninety three. Online
you'll find them at go Zimmer dot com.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
This is fifty five KRC an iHeartRadio station o HC
is
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.