The Menendez Brothers, citing their new documentary on Peacock, say there's enough evidence for them to be freed from prison and have filed a petition for their release. KFI Anchor, Host and Business Expert Jason Middleton joins the show for MACRO! The Federal Reserve hiked interest rates again - what does that mean if you're in the market for a new home? Fewer and fewer people in Southern California are seeing pay raises. And what makes inflation so...sticky? And Mo Kelly is back for Musings with Mo. He and Handel talk about the Writers Strike that's shutting down Hollywood and the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You're list Saints camp I AM sixforty The bill handles show on demand on
the iHeartRadio app camp I AM sixforty handle here. It is a Thursday
morning, May fourth, As wecontinue the show, some of the big
stories we're covering, it's first ofall, the weather. We're supposed to
have a fairly light rain. Icame in this morning and there were places
(00:24):
where I could not see one hundredone hundred feet in front of me.
The rain was coming down as hardas it was a few weeks ago when
we had those monumental ind of theWorld storms and writers strike. Guild enters.
Its day three and a lot ofpeople are meeting at the White House.
(00:45):
Google and Microsoft CEO, Facebook orMeta CEOs are coming in to meet
at the White House to discuss AIand they're being it's only to put it
this way. It is being describedas a frank discussion. Why they're talking
about hot dogs? I have absolutelyno idea. Now let's get to what's
(01:06):
going on at the schools. Ialways try to talk about LA Unified.
First of all, it is thesecond largest school district in the United States.
It is I think the poster childof an Ungovernable School District. One
school day this week, LA Unified, a double stabbing outside of a high
(01:26):
school, multiple fetnel overdoses at amiddle school, a traffic collision outside of
an elementary school that badly injuredy kid. So Karen Bass and the school superintendent,
Alberto Carvallo, and they're on thephone talking, what the hell do
we do? Well? The goodnews no students died, that's terrific news.
(01:51):
But we did have at least twostudents and a parent did die at
the school or nearest school, WilsonHigh. Two teenage genre students were abbed,
a mother struck by a car atHancock Park Elementary School and Narcan dealing
with fentyl overdoses has been administered twentysix times. Now are those huge numbers?
(02:15):
Well, I mean relative to thenumber of students. I think what
four hundred and fifty thousand students said, LA unified. But the trend keeps
going up and there has to bea lot happening. One of the things
when you talk about the violence,and this is what Carvallos said, and
this was after val date in whichnineteen children and two teachers were killed.
(02:37):
Carvallos said, LA Unified began installingcameras in hallways areas where people congregate inside
the schools, and there was animmediate not uproar, but posting saying what
the hell are you doing? Whomans the cameras? For example, one
parent said, we don't have thestaff to sit and monitor school. Isn't
(02:59):
a prison. Well, the reality, schools can be very dangerous and you
really need people that man the cameraswhat you need, or cameras to tell
people to tell the authorities where theyare. Let's say you call an active
shooter at school active shooter, andall of a sudden, you have a
command center that has all these camerasat all the schools, and you immediately
(03:21):
plug in thus school and you're lookingat the hallways, you're looking at the
cafeteria. I mean that makes sense. So for parents that say that,
I think command guys, I meanthat works. I believe we'll see this
district has totally revamped as comprehensive safetyplan still in development, and right now
(03:43):
you know how they're dealing with it. I mean, they're trying to put
cameras at the least, they're tryingto get more officers. But what's happening
is the immediate response to anyone ofthese horrific situations is the same. You
temporarily provide extra counselors, especially whensomeone has died, has been killed,
(04:06):
even accidentally killed. I remember thatwhen I was going to school and extra
police patrols. Down the street frommy house there is an elementary school.
And when my kids were little,and you'd see all of these elementary school
kids would be picked up and pickedup by their parents and then walked home.
(04:29):
We were talking about little ones.And there was an accident which someone
driving an suv was right in frontof the school and backed up and ran
over a little girlhood run in theback of the suv, and the little
girl was killed. And the entireneighborhood was completely devastated. And it was
a LA unified school district school.And what they did is they brought in
(04:55):
crossing guards, I mean front andback, and you couldn't drive through that
place without being stopped four times witha traffic traffic What do you call a
crossing guard today? No crossing guard, because it gets old, it's expensive,
gets old in the sense of thishappened what twenty years ago when my
(05:18):
little ones were little ones. Notso a little anymore. They're in their
late twenties. God, are theyreally? Are we getting that old?
Maybe you are, but I'm not. Oh yeah you are. Oh I
have an hour long Boatox appointment today. Yeah, that'd be okay. All
(05:39):
right. Another shooting and this oneis on Mark was on Market Street in
San Francisco. Now keep in mindSan Francisco has exploded in crime, and
it's a very liberal. It's notthe most liberal city in California. So
whenever you have anybody shot immediately,especially someone unarmed, we think, as
(06:00):
you can imagine, the neighborhood isin an uproar. So this has to
do with the shooting of this victim, and that's Bnko Brown. And he
is a homeless guy, well respectedand described as beloved in the neighborhood and
an activist and so all around agood guy. There is a security guard,
Michael Earl Wayne Anthony, who washired by Walgreens, and the story
(06:28):
is, as is panning out,is that Benko Brown was shoplifting at Walgreens
and Michael Earl Wayne Anthony, theguard, stopped him. And this whole
incident is being described as a shopliftingincident that went bad. So, as
is being described by the District AttorneyBrooke Jenkins, You've got Anthony stopping Brown
(06:55):
because Brown was shoplifting, and theyhad an altar case. And somehow this
altercation turned into some kind of aserious encounter and Anthony ended up shooting bank
o'brown. And so that's an easyone. You've got an unarmed person.
(07:17):
You've got a security guard who shootsan unarmed person. Okay, of course
there's going to be a prosecution.And the problem is for the neighborhood there
is no prosecution because the DA saidin a statement, the evidence clearly shows
that the suspect believed he was inmortal danger, that Michael Anthony believed he
(07:41):
was in mortal danger. Now wedon't know exactly what happened. There is
no indication that benk o'brown had aweapon. And all we're told is two
things. There was an altercation andthat Anthony believed that he was in mortal
(08:01):
danger. And here is the statementthat was made by the DA. We
reviewed witness statements, statements from thesuspect, video footage of the incident,
and it doesn't meet the people's burdento be able to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt to a jury that the suspectis guilty of a crime. It's not
(08:24):
to say that a crime was notcommitted. But according to the DA and
other prosecutors, if there is enoughevidence to show reasonable doubt, or anybody
looking at it says, well,yeah, there's doubt. It could have
gone either way, then they're notgoing to bring forth prosecution, or they're
not supposed to, because the burdenof the prosecution is to prove beyond a
(08:46):
reasonable doubt. Now, people sometimesget beyond a reasonable doubt confused with beyond
a shadow of a doubt. It'snot beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is not evidence that there isno chance that there wasn't there wasn't a
(09:07):
crime committed. And by the waythat happens, I mean and guess what
happens. The defendants lose on thatone, and big time. So the
DA says that there was enough evidencehere that a jury would look at it
and say, you know what,there's reasonable doubt. By law, the
jury has to say if it isnot proved by the prosecution, the defendant
(09:28):
walks. That's what the judge says, that's what the jury is told.
That's part of jury instructions. Ladiesand gentlemen of the jury. If there
is reasonable doubt, you must acquit, you must render a not guilty verdict.
And so the DA she says thatthe statements from the suspect video footage
(09:54):
simply doesn't meet the people's burden toprove beyond that reasonable doubt that the jury
to a jury that the suspect isguilty of a crime. We cannot bring
forward charges when there's credible evidence ofreasonable self defense. Doing so would be
unethical and create false hope for successfulprosecution. As you can imagine, the
(10:15):
neighborhood went nuts, just nuts.And why is that. It's because you
have an unarmed man who was shot, and at least we're told that he
was unarmed and that he was agood guy in the community, and he
(10:35):
was homeless, which has brought thelevel of victims to a new level.
And the mother, of course,his mother, who I always give a
pass with moms, and she saidhe didn't deserve to die. This was
a senseless death. I guess inmany ways it was. And the shooters
(10:56):
should be prosecuted and should be putin jailo that you shouldn't say that.
Moms, family members always get itpass. But I guarantee you if there
are witnesses, and there are twentyfive witnesses in the neighborhood, you'll have
twenty five people saying that the victim, especially when there's a police shooting,
the victim was on his knees,hands in the air, saying please please
(11:16):
don't shoot me, and the copsshot him. Inevitably, that will happen.
Now we're not hearing quite that,but pretty close. There was a
rally on Monday. Hundreds of peoplecrowded around the closed Walgreens and talked about
Brown and talked about how Walgreens shouldbe held accountable for Brown's death and Mayor
(11:43):
Breed should be found accountable because ofher campaign promises to eradicate homelessness and the
city's transgender youth population. Oh,on top of that, the victim was
transgender, was African American and transgender. So you put those two together and
you've got a victim on your hands. Now, the security guard, I
(12:03):
think was black, so at leastit wasn't a white guy shooting a black,
transgender, homeless person. Man,you put that one and what do
you have, Well, you havea made for TV shows what you do?
That's what happened. So local wholefood store closed downtown a year after
(12:28):
it opened. Nordstrom's closed, andthey're all upset. The people in the
neighborhood are screaming, how dare youclose these stores? It goes to show
you how unfair you are. Andthe executives at these stores are saying,
the crime is too high, we'relosing our shirts. That was Nordstrom's yesterday
(12:48):
called it a dynamic dynamics change inthat area. Yeah, it's just being
the crime. It is so crimeridden Market Street down there, you can't
walk down the street. Now thereis a Peacock. And talking about Peacock,
the network a documentary that just cameout and it has to deal with
(13:09):
Eric and Lyle Menendez. And letme give you the backstory. Remember that,
I mean that name should be instantlyrecognizable. I can't believe this went
back in nineteen ninety six. Isit really almost twenty years ago? Wow?
And these are the two brothers whoshot and killed their parents and Beverly
(13:30):
Hills are now asking the court tovacate the conviction and they're saying, there's
new evidence from this series that allegedtheir father sexually assaulted a former underage member
of Manudo. Remember in Manudo,that ridiculous boy band, one of the
first boy bands out there, RickyMartin, Yeah, the little guy,
Yeah yeah. And so one ofthe defenses. A matter of fact,
(13:56):
the main defense that Eric and Lylemanand has had was their dad abuse them
so badly that they were in suchfear of their very lives that they shot
him up and killed their mother.And this was shotguns and shooting him in
the head, And there was alot to it, and the argument was
that all they wanted was to inheritthe money and parents are worth fourteen million
(14:20):
dollars, But that was nineteen ninetysix, so today fourteen million dollars is
worth about two hundred and forty dollarsbecause of inflation. In any case,
they were going to spend the money, and their defense was that had nothing
to do with it. In themeantime, immediately after the parents died,
they go out and by rolexes andsports cars and take vacations, having the
time of their lives. Very upsetthat their parents died, clearly and so
(14:43):
that was part of the prosecution,and their defense was, oh, no,
no, we were so badly traumatizedand abuse and fearful for our lives.
That's why we killed our parents.There was never an issue as to
whether they killed their parents or not. Why did they kill the mom because
she was there and I don't thinkthat ever came out. They were caught
(15:05):
up in it, or she letshe let her dad? Yeah, do
all that, and there was nothere's no issue killed. They killed the
parents, and they argued the sexualabuse. The prosecution basically said, is
there any corroboration? Is anybody hereto testify? No, we don't have
anybody. It's just our testimony.So the jury had a couple of choices
(15:26):
manslaughter, murder, couldn't agree.It was a hung jury, and so
it's a retrial. And because therewas no corroboration, the second judge said,
you will not be able to evenenter the defense of sexual abuse.
And they were convicted life imprisonment withoutthe possibility of parole. Okay, that's
(15:48):
one, and then they appealed itdone. Now, this documentary series comes
out talking about one of the Boyone of the Minuto Boy members who are
abused by Eric and Lyle's father,the same thing. And what the Menendez
(16:08):
brothers are doing saying, Hey,this guy, our father abused and raped
young boys. That's new evidence.We need a new trial. We have
to bring this in and is askingthe appeals court to overturn either overturned the
(16:29):
conviction or ask for a new trial, which they can do one and the
same. And so those are thetwo choices. Now, is it going
to be granted because this is newinformation, There's no question about it.
However, the question is the timing. The question is is should the judge
(16:52):
have let this information on the secondtrial even into court? And we're gonna
bring Wayne in, and that's thecase. Do they have a case?
Are they going to get a newtrial? It's my own version of do
they have a case? Usually Waynebrings them aboard. I've brought one to
the table. And this has todo with a new documentary that just come
(17:14):
out from Peacock and it references anddeals with Eric and Lyle Menendez who in
nineteen ninety six killed their parents.They were tried, they were convicted of
murder on a second trial. Wayne, since you do a far better job
of recapping than I do. Canyou quickly put it together before we go
forward? Yeah, well, allright, sure. The Menendez brothers killed
(17:37):
their parents with shotguns. They shotthem a bunch of times. When they
saw their mom was still alive.After being shot several times, one of
them ran out of the car,reloaded the shotgun, came back in a
shot her in the head. Firsttrial, the jury was allowed to choose
between first degree murder or manslaughter basedon the idea that the Menendez brothers had
(18:00):
been sexually abused and also had beenthreatened with death should they ever tell anybody
about the sexual abuse at the handsof their father. And in those trials
the jury hung as to both ofthem between manslaughter and murder, meaning at
least half or so of the juriesbelieved them. They had a retrial,
and at that time the judge said, you know, there's a new Supreme
(18:22):
Court case and it says I can'tallow you or I'm concluding that I cannot
allow you to present the abuse asa defense. And that's based on that's
based on there was no corroboration,and I'm assuming that was the reason.
I'm not sure what was specifically inthat Supreme Court case. At the time
(18:45):
that the judge cited. But hedidn't just make the decision willy nilly.
He said, I'm looking at thiscase and I don't think I can allow
this. And the jury convicted themboth of first degree murder. They appealed
all the way up to the stateSupreme Court. None of that worked,
lost. Everything went into federal court, which you can do. They said
(19:06):
no, went to the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals, they said no.
Here we are now, many yearslater, and they have file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.They want to open this up again.
Mark Garrigos is one of their twoattorneys, and he is saying, there's
new evidence. Okay, let mestop you again. Would you explain a
(19:27):
writ of habeas corpus? Yeah,Well, that's basically where you say,
order order the order that this personbe brought before the court so they may
challenge their detention or their incarceration toexplain that they have an opportunity to explain
why they shouldn't be in jail.And this goes back common law, oh
(19:48):
years and hundreds of years, Ithink almost of the Magna carta. I
mean, it goes back far soanyway, so now now there's two pieces
of new evidence that they are citingthat they should be allowed to come back
into court and argue that the conviction'sno good. One of them is what's
being reported in the news that theguy who used to be in the band
(20:08):
Minuto, in a documentary about theMenendez brother says that he also was sexually
assaulted by their father. And theother piece of information that's not being talked
about is it's a letter from oneof their cousins that it was written back
at the time when they were kids, where I think it's Eric is writing
(20:32):
to the cousins saying, hey,we're trying to avoid our father. We're
trying to stay away from him becausehe's doing these things to us. That
would be contemporaneous evidence that it washappening, and they want to bring that
into evidence to open up the trial. EI either overturned the conviction outright or
new trial because of new evidence.As I said to Anne and asked you
(20:52):
to come and join me, whichI always do on these kinds of cases.
Anne said, which side gonna takeBill? And I said, I
don't care whatever that, whatever Wayneis going, whatever side Wayne is going
I'm gonna take the other side.So, uh Wayne, you say no,
right, Well, do I thinkthe problem here? Yeah? I
(21:15):
mean look, I'm not like,I'm not pulling a like. I hate
these guys, so I don't carewhat they say. They don't get anything.
They're making it sound like this isblockbuster new evidence. However, a
couple of things. One of oneof it is not really evidence at all.
It's a guy saying something happened that'snot really to me evidence, although
(21:41):
it's an allegation and it's not anallegation of abuse against one or both of
the Menendez brothers. Would that havebeen by saying, I a completely different
person who did not shotgun them todeath, I was abused by this guy.
And then the other one is yes, he was one of them,
was writing to their cousin and wastalking about some bad behavior going on.
(22:03):
But here's the thing that Okay,so the one thing is new, the
guy from the new that's new,it's not really an evidence. That's that
germane to whether or not they wereabused. The other the letter is Germaine
because it means back before they killedthem, they were saying, hey,
we're being abused there was already inthe first trial evidence that they were being
(22:26):
abused, So in a way,this is not new either, because there
already was other evidence. The issuehere is not new evidence of the abuse.
The issue is in the second trial, was the judge fatally constitutionally wrong
for prohibiting the evidence of abuse.Now, I know you are quoted a
(22:51):
Supreme Court case, and I amsaying I'm still arguing, and I will
argue for the sake of this argument, that there is enough there that that
is enough for the jury to haveat least heard that information. I'm not
saying it's right, but I'm sayingthis is not frivolous, This is not
harmless error. This is not bringingin something that wouldn't affect what the jury
(23:15):
would hear. However, you havea Supreme Court case, which, by
the way, for the light ofthe life of me, I don't understand
why the court does not allow aSupreme Court case. It had to be
something that was in a different obviously, a different set of circumstances. Couldn't
be on point that somehow the judgeconnected it and Saiter's where I'm gonna do,
(23:36):
and the appeals court all agreed withthe judge, which, by the
way, I would say that theyhave a case against that. But we've
talked about judges going squirrely. Idon't know the decision, but I would
argue that if the appeals court upheldthe lower court's decision not to allow that
kind of evidence in, it's asquirrely decision. And I don't know what
(24:00):
the the makeup of the court was. It well, it went through it
went through some understand several levels infederal court, and they they all said
there was no problem with what thejudge did. What there's why. I
know we're out of time. Butone thing, there's one wrinkle. There
was a law passed in California intwenty sixteen, somewhat recently compared to these
(24:21):
events that says, if you wereconvicted of a crime in a trial where
you were not allowed to present evidenceof abuse, you can try for another
bite at the apple, and thatlaw might make this fly for them.
Okay, So there is they areboth sides of this one. This isn't
that clear cut. Although there's nochance, by the way, I agree.
(24:42):
I agree with Wayne, I aregoing to sit there and just enjoy
themselves for the rest of their livesin prison. You think they were abused
by the father boy. I can'twait to tell you about what happened during
prison. Prison is not a funplace to be, It really isn't.
Now it is time for are Macrowith Jason Middleton Economy, Economy, where
(25:07):
are you? The economy is inthe crapper. It's time begins Macro Macro
with Jason Middleton on the Bill HandallShow. And uh, oh, there
you go, Jason chair dancing guydoing the twist. I might add,
uh wow, you're not dated atall. Jason is heard Sundays two to
(25:27):
four right here with his show allabout economics and finance. Okay, Jason,
we have so much news to cover, it is astounding. Let's start
with a big one. A matterof fact, they're all that big.
And that is exactly as you calledit, exactly as you expected. The
(25:48):
Fed raised interest rates a quarter ofa point twenty five basis points. Uh
what does that mean and how doesthat ripple down? It means everything that
costs money you just got more expensive. So everything you loan, mortgages,
which we're going to talk about ina second, because I did some math
on the radio. So you don'thave to um your credit cards, as
(26:11):
you mentioned earlier in your show,So that's all going up as well.
So, just like with an earningsreport, there are two things to look
at. There's the hard numbers,which is the point two five percent increase
that the FED came out with,and then there's the expectations, right the
forward looking stuff. And it seemsthat the Fed is ready to pause for
a while. A lot of bankersare are saying this is a this is
a hard pause until the end ofthe year. Now, the reason the
(26:32):
markets went up at first was becauseof the you know, dovish nature of
what FED chair J Powell said aboutpausing. Then after the market closed,
it went down again and after markettrading, and that was because they were
hoping to hear that they might startcutting rates later this year. I'm still
not I'm still not getting a readon that. And first of all,
it's absurd to think that J.Pal is going to come out and say,
(26:52):
yes, we are raising their rateby a quarter of percent, oh
and then we're going to cut itagain later. I mean, that just
doesn't that that's he would be Hewould get a basted for making that call
at that time. I don't thinkI don't think they're going they can do
anything until they find out what happenshere. The FED is a blunt instrument,
right and the economy they're fighting afight that's already happened. We just
don't know that it happened yet.So inflationary stuff is backward looking, and
(27:15):
they're just trying to deal with itbest they can. To know. They're
going to pause, all right,explain what the FED rate is because we're
not borrowing from the FED. Wehave nothing to do with a FED exactly,
but your banking institutions do. SoBasically, it's between five percent right
now and five and a quarter percent, depending on what you're buying from the
FED. So they're going to rollout today. It's just almost one hundred
(27:36):
billion dollars worth of bonds are goingto go out, and you can buy
those bonds. That's what banks doto bank roll themselves. And it's a
very low interest rate return, butthere is a return on it. It's
guaranteed by the federal government. Sowhen that costs more money for the banks,
the banks pass that on to us. And so that's why when the
FED goes up a quarter point itmight be even bigger on the other side,
because we saw a jump in thenational average right now for a mortgage
(27:59):
at six point eight seven percent.That's for a thirty year fixed And the
best rate I could find today wasfive point nine one percent, which is
about a half point higher than thelast time we talked a couple weeks ago
about this. Let me quickly interruptfor just a moment. News that literally
just broke seconds ago is the fourProud boys that are we're tried for seditious
compiracy have just been convicted in afederal court. So they're going to go
(28:22):
to jail for a very long time. All right, Back we go back
to the Fed. We don't borrowfrom the Fed, but we really do
because the banks borrow from the Fedand it's a past, yeah, and
then turn around and sell to usand of course make a small profit.
And that's why the banks are sowealthy. Not from that. It's on
that credit card stuff. Yeah,thirty eight percent. Yeah, that's that's
(28:44):
insane. It's the highest I've everever seen it, and I think it's
the highest that's ever been I meanperiod and within my lifetime for sure.
People used to go to prison forthat. Yeah, usury laws. Yeah,
that's some serious big You're better offdaily with the mafia shape, right,
and customer service with mafia, haveto say is one to one.
I mean it really, it's unmatched. That's true. You get conversation,
(29:07):
You have no problem talking to yourbanker. Somebody's always picking up that phone.
Yeah, yeah, that's true.Now the other big story is we
have a fourth bank that is nowtottering and may very well fail. And
I think it lost what half ofits value yesterday? Yeah, after market
trading was and it was already downthirty percent going into yesterday. All right,
(29:30):
and that's pack West Bank, yeabank number four. So tell me
how big how important this is?Is there going to be a ripple effect?
Well, that seems to be thething, right. So basically the
economy the rubric for the economy thatI use as markets and psychology, this
one has to do with more psychologythan it does with markets. Because pack
(29:51):
West actually has not seen an outflowof its deposits, it might have a
problem with its management dealing with theFederal Reserve raising interest rate so quickly,
which is what happened. SVB gotcaught with its pants now and other banks
that have been swooping in to pickthat up. Right now, as of
this morning, PacWest has ninety eightbillion dollars assets under management that includes deposits
(30:11):
and loans and everything else, soit's about half as big as First Republic.
But the psychology of it is interestingbecause you've got short sellers who are
very active and vocal on several financialnetworks and whatnot that would like to see
this kind of thing happen because they'reshorting the bank that they're betting that the
bank is going to fail. Soyou have that at the same time,
(30:33):
you might have a bit of amanagement problem, of course, but the
government but it doesn't want this tohappen again. This one stands out.
The other three that have felt theSignature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank and First
Republic did not respond to the marketconditions quickly enough, so their asset and
center management were worthless that they shouldhave been compared to other things that they
could have been investing in. Itdoesn't seem that's the same case here at
(30:55):
PacWest, at least not to thatscale. But Jamie Diamond and JP Morgan
are not going to be able toride to the rescue here if that's the
case, because they've already done that. Yeah, but why not? First
of all, I mean, JPMorgan is JP Morgan Chase is so big,
it's huge. I mean we're talkingtrillions of dollars about three point two
trial. I mean, that isinsane. That's bigger than the vast majority
(31:17):
of governments around the world. It'salso a very good at doing business too.
Don't forget that it paid about elevenbillion dollars, So eleven will get
you two hundred because that's what theypaid in order to take over First Republic
and that's how much they got back. They paid eleven billion. Now they
have two hundred some plus billion undermanagement. Now, all right, So
why wouldn't the government if the bankis going to go under and fail and
(31:41):
then the FDIC takes it over,or it's just going to go in and
sell buy the bank, why wouldn'tJP Morgan Chase do it? Because first
of all, this is Penny's Secondof all, it's a very well managed
bank. And I'm assuming the governmentreally likes JP Morgan Chase, Oh absolutely.
And they were positioned to do theFirst Republic because they had a team
they anticipated it to the point wherethey had an insular team within JP Morgan
(32:06):
so there would be no problems withregulators coming in and saying no, that
was a little bit fishy. JJamie Diamond took this for the right way,
being able to take over another regionalbank of list size of one hundred
billion dollars almost right on the oneweek after doing it. I mean,
you and I were on the airMonday morning talking about JP Morgan taking over
First Republic. I would gamble thatI'll be back with you Monday morning to
(32:29):
talk about pac West. I don'tthink it's going to be JP Morgan we're
talking about. But you think it'sgoing to fail. The FDIC is going
to command take it over. Ithink so, because I mean, just
this, the third sentence in J. Powell's commentary yesterday after raising the rates
was that the banking industry is resultingit unstable, which it is, right.
But then but then a few hourslater, fifty percent of its share
(32:52):
price of of PacWest went down.So that's that's not a run on the
bank. That's an investor hedging againstwhat they see coming, all right,
of a run on the bank.And you said that there isn't a run
on a bank here at Pac West. And the thinking is, I mean,
if I had money in the bank, any bank, I wouldn't take
(33:13):
it out because I know the FEDSare going to come in and make good
on every dime I have. I'mnot gonna lose penny one. There hasn't
been a penny loss since the FDICcame into being back in the thirties.
Why would I take money out ofa bank. Yeah, it's according to
Pac West as of this warning,seventy five percent ish of its deposits are
already covered and insured by this.Now, don't forget when when JP Morgan
(33:35):
took over First Republic, everything wascovered. So if you if you didn't,
if you were above the two hundredand fifty thousand, it didn't really
matter. And so that was thatwas covered by the by the deal that
they had to get a special exceptionfor with the government. That could very
well happen again. I just don'tsee it being very good for JP Morgan
Chase to get even bigger right aftergobbling up another bank. Yeah, it's
(33:57):
I find a bank with three anda half trillion dollars in assets. There's
too big to fail and then there'sthis Oh yeah, if it failed,
I mean it's impossible, that wouldjust wipe out the world market. Yeah,
oh totally ed. You mentioned theFDIC. You know that happened after
JP Morgan, the old guy tookeverybody into his library, locked the doors
(34:17):
and said we're not having a bankround. We're leaving here and fixing this.
And then eight years later the FDICcame in. So J. Pierpont
Morgan saw that coming and took careof it back then. That's the kind
of power Jamie Diamond has right now, but it's not the kind of pr
he wants or the heat all right. I've been talking a lot about housing
and the cost of housing, andthey have flattened, although it was reported
(34:38):
yesterday that, for example, inSan Diego, the San Diego region,
it's gone down pretty dramatically the valuethe cost of houses. So what's going
on relative to the market in general? The Fed raising the rates, what
do we see happening? Okay,well, right now the six point eight
to seven percent that's the national averagefor a thirty year fixed I did a
(34:58):
little bit of math, if you'dget it six point eight and seven one
million dollar loan is the number Iwas working with. Okay, so you're
going to wind up that loan isgoing to cost you about two point four
one when you're done paying it offafter thirty years. At six point one
three percent, that's going to beabout a half a billion dollars cheaper,
almost four hundred thousand dollars in changecheaper at that six point one three percent,
which is another average I could findon bank rate dot com. So
(35:20):
right, that just shows you thedifference of a half a point in a
mortgage over thirty years is an enormousamount of money. Yeah, Now,
long term, I don't think anybodypays attention to what it's going to cost
me over thirty years. Yeah,because you get the tax rebate first.
Now, what is it going tocost me a month a one million dollar
mortgage today's rate versus a couple ofyears ago, A couple of years ago,
oh half? So right now atsix point eight seven the national average
(35:44):
we talked about, that's a monthlypayment on a one million dollars loan of
sixty five hundred and sixty five dollars. That would have been a closer to
thirty eight hundred two years ago.Depending on because the rate was so much
lower. Okay, So with thatin mind, and don't we don't have
supply either building That is the otherproblem is no supply there. If supply
were there, you would see houses, I mean almost being given away because
(36:08):
people there's supply, people can buythem. Uh you can, well even
if if you don't qualify, you'regonna get them for such a if you
can't qualify for six point seven uhloan, you can qualify for four thousand
dollars a month. You can't qualifyfor seven thousand dollars a month. So
is there any long term now?Of course, I know values have flattened,
(36:28):
they're not going up the way theydid, and we're guessing that values
are going to actually decrease. Butgive me a timeline. Oh no,
I mean it's it's it's years out, if not a decade out. There
we have we have millennials and Genzs are coming into the home buying age
right now. That's a bubble that'scoming into a market that doesn't have supply
to support it. Therefore, I'dsay ten ten years, depending unless something
(36:50):
breaks with federal regulation and you canstart building faster. All right, Thanks,
Jason Sunday two to four pm,a Macro with Jason Middleton, Time
for Kelly and it's Musings with Mo. Mo is heard tonight on the Apple
name Mo Kelly Show. Wrong,it's Later with Moke. I know,
but I okay, sorry about thatGood morning, Good Morning Later with Mo
(37:17):
Kelly and that seven to ten pm. I'd rather have it called the Mo
Kelly Show and his social is atmister Kelly Mo. We got so much
to talk about Day three of thewriters strike. LA Times today ran their
front page is why Hollywood writers strikewon't end soon. So let's talk about
(37:39):
that. We know, well,first of all, we talk about what
the fallout is, which is beyondenormous, and uh, your your guess
is as to prognostications as to what'sgoing to happen and when. Yeah,
I think it's going to last along time. And I don't know if
the heat that the writers have generatedin the beginning of this strike is going
to be sustained able let's say thirtysixty ninety days from now, because we're
(38:02):
talking about streaming, so the averageconsumer like you and me, we won't
feel it, we won't be asimpacted as we were back in two thousand
and seven where everything was broadcast television, and we noticed the absence of certain
shows and certain productions and movies andso forth. We may not feel it
because there was a rush and planningin advance to get as much intellectual property
(38:24):
and material and content into the binas possible, so we as consumers would
not feel it and also feel asmuch empathy for writers, So it could
be very difficult for the writers tomaintain that momentum. Yeah, it makes
sense. So when you think aboutit, because when streaming, there's a
big impact on streaming when they havethese huge shows a Game of Thrones,
(38:46):
squid games that just are massive internationalhits, and without those, you know,
they just go back to regular purchasingof content, put it on.
I watch Netflix and Hulu just forall the stuff that's on it. So
the writers strike doesn't affect me,right, and it doesn't affect most people
because I can say, well,let me just go through Neckflace, let
(39:07):
me go through Disney Plus, letme go through all these streaming flatforms and
watch all the content which is alreadyavailable which wasn't available back in two thousand
and seven, and then you realizethat the average consumer is not going to
feel as emotionally connected. Now,how that impacts the writer on the ground
is means that they're going to haveThey're gonna have to be more visible for
(39:28):
a longer amount of time, beingon the picket lines, being in interviews,
and making sure it is front ofmine for everyone to stand in solidarity
with them, not just sag afterbut the lay individual and so people will
know that it's still going on,because I suspect in three or four weeks,
if we didn't talk about it inmedia, that most people would not
know about it. Yeah, Imean, I'm thinking about even the people
(39:49):
that want to sneak onto lots aren'tgoing to because they're going to honor the
picket lines. Let's talk about whatwhat the writers want. Part of it,
I understand completely parts of it.I have no idea where they're going
with this. Certainly more money,I understand, because they get less money
than they used to. Certainly residualson the big streaming shows. I can
(40:10):
understand that because residuals are part ofthe game. Now. The many rooms
saying to television shows we want aminimum number of writers on staff aren't the
shows able to decide how many writersthey want? Why are they are?
But also I would say that theindustry has been very cute, too cute
(40:32):
by half in terms of diminishing whatthey're offering writers is in fewer writers,
fewer episodes, of a fewer royalties, excuse me, residuals, and so
overall they've been chipping away at thewriter's guild overall. As far as the
amount of monetary outlay, this ispart and parcel of a larger issue wherewith
streaming they're really trying to cut cornersand make sure that they get far more
(40:57):
from the writers while offering far lessin return. No, I get fruf
overview. No I get that,I get the residuals part of it.
I understand that I don't get ourseason is ten episodes and the writers go,
no, it isn't. Your seasonis going to be thirteen episodes.
I just don't get where they're comingon that one. Well, let me
(41:19):
just try to explain it this way. They would like streaming to be treated
just like broadcast television, where youhad some twenty two episodes per season.
Now there's more of a larger contentlandscape. And then more writers get to
work. But at the same time, if you're working on a season and
you're only working for maybe nine episodes, as many seasons are on streaming right
now, you can't necessarily maintain thatas a career, where if you're walking
(41:44):
well working on broadcast television where you'dhave some twenty two episodes, and you
then are diminished by more than halfas far as potential revenue, not saying
how you may have been paid aflat rate for streaming and not getting them
out of residuals in reruns that youwould normally get it on broadcast television.
That seems like the writers to justrequests that the streaming services Hulu, Netflix,
(42:07):
that they sell commercials, they haveto sell commercials, and they have
to have twenty two seasons will tellyou how this business works. To me,
it seems ludicrous. But you knowthat's the way I take it.
One more point. I want tomake what the writers are demanding. And
I understand the money part. Iunderstand they want more writers. That's easy
(42:29):
to understand whether you're on one sideor the other. But protection against AI
man, where do you go withthat? What kind of protection? How
do you do it? What dothey think anybody can do about it at
this point, Well, they wantguarantees in writing that studios production companies will
(42:49):
not use AI to either generate contentor use AI or material already established by
humans to train a in the future. This is the correlation I would make
with the analogy I would make isthey don't want the movie studios or production
steals to imple to practice automation inthe way like if you're going to McDonald's.
(43:13):
It's one thing if you could havea machine hand out the Hamburgers and
so forth, you're not going tohave someone behind the kioscar behind the cash.
Year. The writers want to makesure that that same change is not
made in their industry where you haveautomated writers, if you will creating content
under the guise of acting as humansor using human created content to help generate
(43:36):
artificial intelligence generated content, well,how do they know. Here, I
am a writer and I go onto chat box, for example, a
chat GPT, and I throw in, okay, here's my idea bank robbery,
Norway expat Americans doing it. Boom, there's the idea. Back comes
(43:58):
a script. Change it a littlebit. It's an original piece. It's
ninety percent AI. I turn itinto the studios, that's my script.
How do they everything to know,Well, you're talking about something that would
have been done on the writers end. To presumably write something in this industry,
you have to be a member ofthe WGA and there would have to
(44:19):
be some sort of verification by thestudio that you are actually the writer of
it. So if writers themselves wantto undermine themselves with the use of AI,
that's an internal issue. They're tryingto make the writers at this point,
they're trying to make sure that theindustry that movie studios don't explicitly try
to use AI and thwart and underminewriters themselves. Now, writers want to
(44:40):
undermine themselves, that's up to them. Yeah, but to the studios police
the writers or they just take thescripts make sure it's not being plagiarized.
Except with AI, it's impossible totell. And I personal experience. My
partner and I Karen, Now weare in the infertility business and we have
we have an internet and we're doinga series of not only we have a
(45:04):
chat room and we have a website, but we all start doing videos.
You know what we're throwing in ourideas getting back AI written scripts that we
change a little bit, those areour scripts. No one knows. You
can't tell. Well, Hollywood hasalways been rife with thievery and theft of
intellectual property, so that idea isnot new. When you put in the
(45:27):
AI component, it's still a functionof copyright of inter intellectual property. So
I don't know if you can getrid of all thievery in that regard.
But if the studios want to useAI, no one's going to stop them
in that regard. If you're goingto change minor things as far as the
writers are concerned, you will notbe able to wholesale remove them from the
process and still have to be atreatable, attributable and credited to an actual
(45:52):
person who's a member of the wGA. Yeah, wait till you see
the videos that I'm doing. Youswear that I wrote him? But but
are you a member of the wahNo, I am not so, but
but so what I'm doing is foolingeverybody else. Okay, fair enough,
let's move over to the Rock andRoll Hall of Fame. Who's in?
U surprises? Who should have beenin? That was left out? Well?
(46:15):
As far as who's in, youhave DJ Coolhirk, and a lot
of people may not know him,but everybody literally in the world knows his
work. If you've ever seen aDJ with two turntables, that is directly
attributable to DJ Coolhirk, who wascredited as the first person to put two
turntables together. And this idea ofmixing two songs back and forth where you
(46:36):
can you can extend a portion ofthe song or seamlessly blend into another song.
Then you have Willie Nelson, whoI think is just obviously he's in.
Um you have UM. I don'thave the list in front of me,
help me, Bill, I don'thave either. You have George,
you have George Michael, who's obviouslyin. And then you have groups like
Rage Rage Against the Machine where everyoneand may not know their music, but
(47:01):
if you know rock music, ifyou know music, their cultural impact cannot
be argued. So some people maytwist eyebrow at certain names on the list
because they're not fundamentally aware of whothey are. Cheryl Crowe is in.
I think that she is automatically in. Now. Kate Bush, a British
(47:22):
singer, is in, someone whoI wasn't as familiar with her impact a
singer, a dancer, a producer. But at the same time, the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasalways been about impact and not necessarily just
here in the US. All right, And here's analogy I want to make
and where I'm going with this.I didn't make myself very clear. The
(47:43):
Hollywood Walk of Fame, where there'sthree thousand people there and you hear about
major players who and you hear thison the news tonight X gets a Walk
of Fame star and you go,wait a minute, that should have happened
forty years ago. How is itpossible they're only doing it now. And
(48:05):
I'm assuming the same thing happens inthe Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,
of course, And the rock andRoll Hall of Fame is unfortunately limited by
its own parameters, where if you'reonly going to induct a certain amount of
people, that there are people whoare inducted traditionally, and there is the
Hall of Fame Committee which has alsosubmitted seven or eight names like Shaka Khan
(48:27):
and others. So you're only goingto get maybe ten to fifteen names each
year. And if you think aboutthe grand history of music, because this
is not one genre it's not justrock and roll artist, it's all genres
across the board. You will alwaysbe behind in terms of making sure the
names with the greatest impact to thegreatest influence in music more broadly are included
(48:50):
in the rock and roll Hall ofFame. So you'll never catch up,
and there will always be names likewait a minute, so and So's not
in. Are you telling me thatShaka Khan wasn't in until this year?
You'll never get up? All right? Tonight seven to ten pm, that
later with Mo Kelly, and he'sat mister mo Kelly. That's his social
address. Mo. Take care asalways, Thank you, talk to all
(49:12):
right, coming up, Well,first of all, let me tell you
I'm taking phone calls for Handle onthe Law off the air starting in just
a moment. Is Gary and Shannoncome aboard. The number is eight seven
seven five two zero eleven fifty.I do it Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'll
do at forty minutes. And sometimespeople have a very hard time coming in
over the weekend. Well, now'sthe time, and clearly I just go
zip through them because we don't haveany commercials to deal with when I'm off
(49:35):
the air. So the number iseight seven, seven, five, two,
zero eleven fifty. Coming up isGary and Shannon. So Gary,
what's the show about today? Acouple developing stories we're gonna get into.
The first one is a mixed verdictin the trial of five Proud Boys.
We'll talk about that. Also,Title forty two expected to expire next week,
We'll go to Washington, get anupdate on what the administration is planning
(49:58):
on doing, and a turn generalfrom California and the State of New York
investigating the NFL. We'll explain what'sgoing on. You've been listening to the
Bill handle A show. Catch MyShow Monday through Friday, six am to
nine am, and anytime on demandon the iHeartRadio app.
You're list Saints camp I AM sixforty The bill handles show on demand on
the iHeartRadio app camp I AM sixforty handle here. It is a Thursday
morning, May fourth, As wecontinue the show, some of the big
stories we're covering, it's first ofall, the weather. We're supposed to
have a fairly light rain. Icame in this morning and there were places
(00:24):
where I could not see one hundredone hundred feet in front of me.
The rain was coming down as hardas it was a few weeks ago when
we had those monumental ind of theWorld storms and writers strike. Guild enters.
Its day three and a lot ofpeople are meeting at the White House.
(00:45):
Google and Microsoft CEO, Facebook orMeta CEOs are coming in to meet
at the White House to discuss AIand they're being it's only to put it
this way. It is being describedas a frank discussion. Why they're talking
about hot dogs? I have absolutelyno idea. Now let's get to what's
(01:06):
going on at the schools. Ialways try to talk about LA Unified.
First of all, it is thesecond largest school district in the United States.
It is I think the poster childof an Ungovernable School District. One
school day this week, LA Unified, a double stabbing outside of a high
(01:26):
school, multiple fetnel overdoses at amiddle school, a traffic collision outside of
an elementary school that badly injuredy kid. So Karen Bass and the school superintendent,
Alberto Carvallo, and they're on thephone talking, what the hell do
we do? Well? The goodnews no students died, that's terrific news.
(01:51):
But we did have at least twostudents and a parent did die at
the school or nearest school, WilsonHigh. Two teenage genre students were abbed,
a mother struck by a car atHancock Park Elementary School and Narcan dealing
with fentyl overdoses has been administered twentysix times. Now are those huge numbers?
(02:15):
Well, I mean relative to thenumber of students. I think what
four hundred and fifty thousand students said, LA unified. But the trend keeps
going up and there has to bea lot happening. One of the things
when you talk about the violence,and this is what Carvallos said, and
this was after val date in whichnineteen children and two teachers were killed.
(02:37):
Carvallos said, LA Unified began installingcameras in hallways areas where people congregate inside
the schools, and there was animmediate not uproar, but posting saying what
the hell are you doing? Whomans the cameras? For example, one
parent said, we don't have thestaff to sit and monitor school. Isn't
(02:59):
a prison. Well, the reality, schools can be very dangerous and you
really need people that man the cameraswhat you need, or cameras to tell
people to tell the authorities where theyare. Let's say you call an active
shooter at school active shooter, andall of a sudden, you have a
command center that has all these camerasat all the schools, and you immediately
(03:21):
plug in thus school and you're lookingat the hallways, you're looking at the
cafeteria. I mean that makes sense. So for parents that say that,
I think command guys, I meanthat works. I believe we'll see this
district has totally revamped as comprehensive safetyplan still in development, and right now
(03:43):
you know how they're dealing with it. I mean, they're trying to put
cameras at the least, they're tryingto get more officers. But what's happening
is the immediate response to anyone ofthese horrific situations is the same. You
temporarily provide extra counselors, especially whensomeone has died, has been killed,
(04:06):
even accidentally killed. I remember thatwhen I was going to school and extra
police patrols. Down the street frommy house there is an elementary school.
And when my kids were little,and you'd see all of these elementary school
kids would be picked up and pickedup by their parents and then walked home.
(04:29):
We were talking about little ones.And there was an accident which someone
driving an suv was right in frontof the school and backed up and ran
over a little girlhood run in theback of the suv, and the little
girl was killed. And the entireneighborhood was completely devastated. And it was
a LA unified school district school.And what they did is they brought in
(04:55):
crossing guards, I mean front andback, and you couldn't drive through that
place without being stopped four times witha traffic traffic What do you call a
crossing guard today? No crossing guard, because it gets old, it's expensive,
gets old in the sense of thishappened what twenty years ago when my
(05:18):
little ones were little ones. Notso a little anymore. They're in their
late twenties. God, are theyreally? Are we getting that old?
Maybe you are, but I'm not. Oh yeah you are. Oh I
have an hour long Boatox appointment today. Yeah, that'd be okay. All
(05:39):
right. Another shooting and this oneis on Mark was on Market Street in
San Francisco. Now keep in mindSan Francisco has exploded in crime, and
it's a very liberal. It's notthe most liberal city in California. So
whenever you have anybody shot immediately,especially someone unarmed, we think, as
(06:00):
you can imagine, the neighborhood isin an uproar. So this has to
do with the shooting of this victim, and that's Bnko Brown. And he
is a homeless guy, well respectedand described as beloved in the neighborhood and
an activist and so all around agood guy. There is a security guard,
Michael Earl Wayne Anthony, who washired by Walgreens, and the story
(06:28):
is, as is panning out,is that Benko Brown was shoplifting at Walgreens
and Michael Earl Wayne Anthony, theguard, stopped him. And this whole
incident is being described as a shopliftingincident that went bad. So, as
is being described by the District AttorneyBrooke Jenkins, You've got Anthony stopping Brown
(06:55):
because Brown was shoplifting, and theyhad an altar case. And somehow this
altercation turned into some kind of aserious encounter and Anthony ended up shooting bank
o'brown. And so that's an easyone. You've got an unarmed person.
(07:17):
You've got a security guard who shootsan unarmed person. Okay, of course
there's going to be a prosecution.And the problem is for the neighborhood there
is no prosecution because the DA saidin a statement, the evidence clearly shows
that the suspect believed he was inmortal danger, that Michael Anthony believed he
(07:41):
was in mortal danger. Now wedon't know exactly what happened. There is
no indication that benk o'brown had aweapon. And all we're told is two
things. There was an altercation andthat Anthony believed that he was in mortal
(08:01):
danger. And here is the statementthat was made by the DA. We
reviewed witness statements, statements from thesuspect, video footage of the incident,
and it doesn't meet the people's burdento be able to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt to a jury that the suspectis guilty of a crime. It's not
(08:24):
to say that a crime was notcommitted. But according to the DA and
other prosecutors, if there is enoughevidence to show reasonable doubt, or anybody
looking at it says, well,yeah, there's doubt. It could have
gone either way, then they're notgoing to bring forth prosecution, or they're
not supposed to, because the burdenof the prosecution is to prove beyond a
(08:46):
reasonable doubt. Now, people sometimesget beyond a reasonable doubt confused with beyond
a shadow of a doubt. It'snot beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is not evidence that there isno chance that there wasn't there wasn't a
(09:07):
crime committed. And by the waythat happens, I mean and guess what
happens. The defendants lose on thatone, and big time. So the
DA says that there was enough evidencehere that a jury would look at it
and say, you know what,there's reasonable doubt. By law, the
jury has to say if it isnot proved by the prosecution, the defendant
(09:28):
walks. That's what the judge says, that's what the jury is told.
That's part of jury instructions. Ladiesand gentlemen of the jury. If there
is reasonable doubt, you must acquit, you must render a not guilty verdict.
And so the DA she says thatthe statements from the suspect video footage
(09:54):
simply doesn't meet the people's burden toprove beyond that reasonable doubt that the jury
to a jury that the suspect isguilty of a crime. We cannot bring
forward charges when there's credible evidence ofreasonable self defense. Doing so would be
unethical and create false hope for successfulprosecution. As you can imagine, the
(10:15):
neighborhood went nuts, just nuts.And why is that. It's because you
have an unarmed man who was shot, and at least we're told that he
was unarmed and that he was agood guy in the community, and he
(10:35):
was homeless, which has brought thelevel of victims to a new level.
And the mother, of course,his mother, who I always give a
pass with moms, and she saidhe didn't deserve to die. This was
a senseless death. I guess inmany ways it was. And the shooters
(10:56):
should be prosecuted and should be putin jailo that you shouldn't say that.
Moms, family members always get itpass. But I guarantee you if there
are witnesses, and there are twentyfive witnesses in the neighborhood, you'll have
twenty five people saying that the victim, especially when there's a police shooting,
the victim was on his knees,hands in the air, saying please please
(11:16):
don't shoot me, and the copsshot him. Inevitably, that will happen.
Now we're not hearing quite that,but pretty close. There was a
rally on Monday. Hundreds of peoplecrowded around the closed Walgreens and talked about
Brown and talked about how Walgreens shouldbe held accountable for Brown's death and Mayor
(11:43):
Breed should be found accountable because ofher campaign promises to eradicate homelessness and the
city's transgender youth population. Oh,on top of that, the victim was
transgender, was African American and transgender. So you put those two together and
you've got a victim on your hands. Now, the security guard, I
(12:03):
think was black, so at leastit wasn't a white guy shooting a black,
transgender, homeless person. Man,you put that one and what do
you have, Well, you havea made for TV shows what you do?
That's what happened. So local wholefood store closed downtown a year after
(12:28):
it opened. Nordstrom's closed, andthey're all upset. The people in the
neighborhood are screaming, how dare youclose these stores? It goes to show
you how unfair you are. Andthe executives at these stores are saying,
the crime is too high, we'relosing our shirts. That was Nordstrom's yesterday
(12:48):
called it a dynamic dynamics change inthat area. Yeah, it's just being
the crime. It is so crimeridden Market Street down there, you can't
walk down the street. Now thereis a Peacock. And talking about Peacock,
the network a documentary that just cameout and it has to deal with
(13:09):
Eric and Lyle Menendez. And letme give you the backstory. Remember that,
I mean that name should be instantlyrecognizable. I can't believe this went
back in nineteen ninety six. Isit really almost twenty years ago? Wow?
And these are the two brothers whoshot and killed their parents and Beverly
(13:30):
Hills are now asking the court tovacate the conviction and they're saying, there's
new evidence from this series that allegedtheir father sexually assaulted a former underage member
of Manudo. Remember in Manudo,that ridiculous boy band, one of the
first boy bands out there, RickyMartin, Yeah, the little guy,
Yeah yeah. And so one ofthe defenses. A matter of fact,
(13:56):
the main defense that Eric and Lylemanand has had was their dad abuse them
so badly that they were in suchfear of their very lives that they shot
him up and killed their mother.And this was shotguns and shooting him in
the head, And there was alot to it, and the argument was
that all they wanted was to inheritthe money and parents are worth fourteen million
(14:20):
dollars, But that was nineteen ninetysix, so today fourteen million dollars is
worth about two hundred and forty dollarsbecause of inflation. In any case,
they were going to spend the money, and their defense was that had nothing
to do with it. In themeantime, immediately after the parents died,
they go out and by rolexes andsports cars and take vacations, having the
time of their lives. Very upsetthat their parents died, clearly and so
(14:43):
that was part of the prosecution,and their defense was, oh, no,
no, we were so badly traumatizedand abuse and fearful for our lives.
That's why we killed our parents.There was never an issue as to
whether they killed their parents or not. Why did they kill the mom because
she was there and I don't thinkthat ever came out. They were caught
(15:05):
up in it, or she letshe let her dad? Yeah, do
all that, and there was nothere's no issue killed. They killed the
parents, and they argued the sexualabuse. The prosecution basically said, is
there any corroboration? Is anybody hereto testify? No, we don't have
anybody. It's just our testimony.So the jury had a couple of choices
(15:26):
manslaughter, murder, couldn't agree.It was a hung jury, and so
it's a retrial. And because therewas no corroboration, the second judge said,
you will not be able to evenenter the defense of sexual abuse.
And they were convicted life imprisonment withoutthe possibility of parole. Okay, that's
(15:48):
one, and then they appealed itdone. Now, this documentary series comes
out talking about one of the Boyone of the Minuto Boy members who are
abused by Eric and Lyle's father,the same thing. And what the Menendez
(16:08):
brothers are doing saying, Hey,this guy, our father abused and raped
young boys. That's new evidence.We need a new trial. We have
to bring this in and is askingthe appeals court to overturn either overturned the
(16:29):
conviction or ask for a new trial, which they can do one and the
same. And so those are thetwo choices. Now, is it going
to be granted because this is newinformation, There's no question about it.
However, the question is the timing. The question is is should the judge
(16:52):
have let this information on the secondtrial even into court? And we're gonna
bring Wayne in, and that's thecase. Do they have a case?
Are they going to get a newtrial? It's my own version of do
they have a case? Usually Waynebrings them aboard. I've brought one to
the table. And this has todo with a new documentary that just come
(17:14):
out from Peacock and it references anddeals with Eric and Lyle Menendez who in
nineteen ninety six killed their parents.They were tried, they were convicted of
murder on a second trial. Wayne, since you do a far better job
of recapping than I do. Canyou quickly put it together before we go
forward? Yeah, well, allright, sure. The Menendez brothers killed
(17:37):
their parents with shotguns. They shotthem a bunch of times. When they
saw their mom was still alive.After being shot several times, one of
them ran out of the car,reloaded the shotgun, came back in a
shot her in the head. Firsttrial, the jury was allowed to choose
between first degree murder or manslaughter basedon the idea that the Menendez brothers had
(18:00):
been sexually abused and also had beenthreatened with death should they ever tell anybody
about the sexual abuse at the handsof their father. And in those trials
the jury hung as to both ofthem between manslaughter and murder, meaning at
least half or so of the juriesbelieved them. They had a retrial,
and at that time the judge said, you know, there's a new Supreme
(18:22):
Court case and it says I can'tallow you or I'm concluding that I cannot
allow you to present the abuse asa defense. And that's based on that's
based on there was no corroboration,and I'm assuming that was the reason.
I'm not sure what was specifically inthat Supreme Court case. At the time
(18:45):
that the judge cited. But hedidn't just make the decision willy nilly.
He said, I'm looking at thiscase and I don't think I can allow
this. And the jury convicted themboth of first degree murder. They appealed
all the way up to the stateSupreme Court. None of that worked,
lost. Everything went into federal court, which you can do. They said
(19:06):
no, went to the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals, they said no.
Here we are now, many yearslater, and they have file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.They want to open this up again.
Mark Garrigos is one of their twoattorneys, and he is saying, there's
new evidence. Okay, let mestop you again. Would you explain a
(19:27):
writ of habeas corpus? Yeah,Well, that's basically where you say,
order order the order that this personbe brought before the court so they may
challenge their detention or their incarceration toexplain that they have an opportunity to explain
why they shouldn't be in jail.And this goes back common law, oh
(19:48):
years and hundreds of years, Ithink almost of the Magna carta. I
mean, it goes back far soanyway, so now now there's two pieces
of new evidence that they are citingthat they should be allowed to come back
into court and argue that the conviction'sno good. One of them is what's
being reported in the news that theguy who used to be in the band
(20:08):
Minuto, in a documentary about theMenendez brother says that he also was sexually
assaulted by their father. And theother piece of information that's not being talked
about is it's a letter from oneof their cousins that it was written back
at the time when they were kids, where I think it's Eric is writing
(20:32):
to the cousins saying, hey,we're trying to avoid our father. We're
trying to stay away from him becausehe's doing these things to us. That
would be contemporaneous evidence that it washappening, and they want to bring that
into evidence to open up the trial. EI either overturned the conviction outright or
new trial because of new evidence.As I said to Anne and asked you
(20:52):
to come and join me, whichI always do on these kinds of cases.
Anne said, which side gonna takeBill? And I said, I
don't care whatever that, whatever Wayneis going, whatever side Wayne is going
I'm gonna take the other side.So, uh Wayne, you say no,
right, Well, do I thinkthe problem here? Yeah? I
(21:15):
mean look, I'm not like,I'm not pulling a like. I hate
these guys, so I don't carewhat they say. They don't get anything.
They're making it sound like this isblockbuster new evidence. However, a
couple of things. One of oneof it is not really evidence at all.
It's a guy saying something happened that'snot really to me evidence, although
(21:41):
it's an allegation and it's not anallegation of abuse against one or both of
the Menendez brothers. Would that havebeen by saying, I a completely different
person who did not shotgun them todeath, I was abused by this guy.
And then the other one is yes, he was one of them,
was writing to their cousin and wastalking about some bad behavior going on.
(22:03):
But here's the thing that Okay,so the one thing is new, the
guy from the new that's new,it's not really an evidence. That's that
germane to whether or not they wereabused. The other the letter is Germaine
because it means back before they killedthem, they were saying, hey,
we're being abused there was already inthe first trial evidence that they were being
(22:26):
abused, So in a way,this is not new either, because there
already was other evidence. The issuehere is not new evidence of the abuse.
The issue is in the second trial, was the judge fatally constitutionally wrong
for prohibiting the evidence of abuse.Now, I know you are quoted a
(22:51):
Supreme Court case, and I amsaying I'm still arguing, and I will
argue for the sake of this argument, that there is enough there that that
is enough for the jury to haveat least heard that information. I'm not
saying it's right, but I'm sayingthis is not frivolous, This is not
harmless error. This is not bringingin something that wouldn't affect what the jury
(23:15):
would hear. However, you havea Supreme Court case, which, by
the way, for the light ofthe life of me, I don't understand
why the court does not allow aSupreme Court case. It had to be
something that was in a different obviously, a different set of circumstances. Couldn't
be on point that somehow the judgeconnected it and Saiter's where I'm gonna do,
(23:36):
and the appeals court all agreed withthe judge, which, by the
way, I would say that theyhave a case against that. But we've
talked about judges going squirrely. Idon't know the decision, but I would
argue that if the appeals court upheldthe lower court's decision not to allow that
kind of evidence in, it's asquirrely decision. And I don't know what
(24:00):
the the makeup of the court was. It well, it went through it
went through some understand several levels infederal court, and they they all said
there was no problem with what thejudge did. What there's why. I
know we're out of time. Butone thing, there's one wrinkle. There
was a law passed in California intwenty sixteen, somewhat recently compared to these
(24:21):
events that says, if you wereconvicted of a crime in a trial where
you were not allowed to present evidenceof abuse, you can try for another
bite at the apple, and thatlaw might make this fly for them.
Okay, So there is they areboth sides of this one. This isn't
that clear cut. Although there's nochance, by the way, I agree.
(24:42):
I agree with Wayne, I aregoing to sit there and just enjoy
themselves for the rest of their livesin prison. You think they were abused
by the father boy. I can'twait to tell you about what happened during
prison. Prison is not a funplace to be, It really isn't.
Now it is time for are Macrowith Jason Middleton Economy, Economy, where
(25:07):
are you? The economy is inthe crapper. It's time begins Macro Macro
with Jason Middleton on the Bill HandallShow. And uh, oh, there
you go, Jason chair dancing guydoing the twist. I might add,
uh wow, you're not dated atall. Jason is heard Sundays two to
(25:27):
four right here with his show allabout economics and finance. Okay, Jason,
we have so much news to cover, it is astounding. Let's start
with a big one. A matterof fact, they're all that big.
And that is exactly as you calledit, exactly as you expected. The
(25:48):
Fed raised interest rates a quarter ofa point twenty five basis points. Uh
what does that mean and how doesthat ripple down? It means everything that
costs money you just got more expensive. So everything you loan, mortgages,
which we're going to talk about ina second, because I did some math
on the radio. So you don'thave to um your credit cards, as
(26:11):
you mentioned earlier in your show,So that's all going up as well.
So, just like with an earningsreport, there are two things to look
at. There's the hard numbers,which is the point two five percent increase
that the FED came out with,and then there's the expectations, right the
forward looking stuff. And it seemsthat the Fed is ready to pause for
a while. A lot of bankersare are saying this is a this is
a hard pause until the end ofthe year. Now, the reason the
(26:32):
markets went up at first was becauseof the you know, dovish nature of
what FED chair J Powell said aboutpausing. Then after the market closed,
it went down again and after markettrading, and that was because they were
hoping to hear that they might startcutting rates later this year. I'm still
not I'm still not getting a readon that. And first of all,
it's absurd to think that J.Pal is going to come out and say,
(26:52):
yes, we are raising their rateby a quarter of percent, oh
and then we're going to cut itagain later. I mean, that just
doesn't that that's he would be Hewould get a basted for making that call
at that time. I don't thinkI don't think they're going they can do
anything until they find out what happenshere. The FED is a blunt instrument,
right and the economy they're fighting afight that's already happened. We just
don't know that it happened yet.So inflationary stuff is backward looking, and
(27:15):
they're just trying to deal with itbest they can. To know. They're
going to pause, all right,explain what the FED rate is because we're
not borrowing from the FED. Wehave nothing to do with a FED exactly,
but your banking institutions do. SoBasically, it's between five percent right
now and five and a quarter percent, depending on what you're buying from the
FED. So they're going to rollout today. It's just almost one hundred
(27:36):
billion dollars worth of bonds are goingto go out, and you can buy
those bonds. That's what banks doto bank roll themselves. And it's a
very low interest rate return, butthere is a return on it. It's
guaranteed by the federal government. Sowhen that costs more money for the banks,
the banks pass that on to us. And so that's why when the
FED goes up a quarter point itmight be even bigger on the other side,
because we saw a jump in thenational average right now for a mortgage
(27:59):
at six point eight seven percent.That's for a thirty year fixed And the
best rate I could find today wasfive point nine one percent, which is
about a half point higher than thelast time we talked a couple weeks ago
about this. Let me quickly interruptfor just a moment. News that literally
just broke seconds ago is the fourProud boys that are we're tried for seditious
compiracy have just been convicted in afederal court. So they're going to go
(28:22):
to jail for a very long time. All right, Back we go back
to the Fed. We don't borrowfrom the Fed, but we really do
because the banks borrow from the Fedand it's a past, yeah, and
then turn around and sell to usand of course make a small profit.
And that's why the banks are sowealthy. Not from that. It's on
that credit card stuff. Yeah,thirty eight percent. Yeah, that's that's
(28:44):
insane. It's the highest I've everever seen it, and I think it's
the highest that's ever been I meanperiod and within my lifetime for sure.
People used to go to prison forthat. Yeah, usury laws. Yeah,
that's some serious big You're better offdaily with the mafia shape, right,
and customer service with mafia, haveto say is one to one.
I mean it really, it's unmatched. That's true. You get conversation,
(29:07):
You have no problem talking to yourbanker. Somebody's always picking up that phone.
Yeah, yeah, that's true.Now the other big story is we
have a fourth bank that is nowtottering and may very well fail. And
I think it lost what half ofits value yesterday? Yeah, after market
trading was and it was already downthirty percent going into yesterday. All right,
(29:30):
and that's pack West Bank, yeabank number four. So tell me
how big how important this is?Is there going to be a ripple effect?
Well, that seems to be thething, right. So basically the
economy the rubric for the economy thatI use as markets and psychology, this
one has to do with more psychologythan it does with markets. Because pack
(29:51):
West actually has not seen an outflowof its deposits, it might have a
problem with its management dealing with theFederal Reserve raising interest rate so quickly,
which is what happened. SVB gotcaught with its pants now and other banks
that have been swooping in to pickthat up. Right now, as of
this morning, PacWest has ninety eightbillion dollars assets under management that includes deposits
(30:11):
and loans and everything else, soit's about half as big as First Republic.
But the psychology of it is interestingbecause you've got short sellers who are
very active and vocal on several financialnetworks and whatnot that would like to see
this kind of thing happen because they'reshorting the bank that they're betting that the
bank is going to fail. Soyou have that at the same time,
(30:33):
you might have a bit of amanagement problem, of course, but the
government but it doesn't want this tohappen again. This one stands out.
The other three that have felt theSignature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank and First
Republic did not respond to the marketconditions quickly enough, so their asset and
center management were worthless that they shouldhave been compared to other things that they
could have been investing in. Itdoesn't seem that's the same case here at
(30:55):
PacWest, at least not to thatscale. But Jamie Diamond and JP Morgan
are not going to be able toride to the rescue here if that's the
case, because they've already done that. Yeah, but why not? First
of all, I mean, JPMorgan is JP Morgan Chase is so big,
it's huge. I mean we're talkingtrillions of dollars about three point two
trial. I mean, that isinsane. That's bigger than the vast majority
(31:17):
of governments around the world. It'salso a very good at doing business too.
Don't forget that it paid about elevenbillion dollars, So eleven will get
you two hundred because that's what theypaid in order to take over First Republic
and that's how much they got back. They paid eleven billion. Now they
have two hundred some plus billion undermanagement. Now, all right, So
why wouldn't the government if the bankis going to go under and fail and
(31:41):
then the FDIC takes it over,or it's just going to go in and
sell buy the bank, why wouldn'tJP Morgan Chase do it? Because first
of all, this is Penny's Secondof all, it's a very well managed
bank. And I'm assuming the governmentreally likes JP Morgan Chase, Oh absolutely.
And they were positioned to do theFirst Republic because they had a team
they anticipated it to the point wherethey had an insular team within JP Morgan
(32:06):
so there would be no problems withregulators coming in and saying no, that
was a little bit fishy. JJamie Diamond took this for the right way,
being able to take over another regionalbank of list size of one hundred
billion dollars almost right on the oneweek after doing it. I mean,
you and I were on the airMonday morning talking about JP Morgan taking over
First Republic. I would gamble thatI'll be back with you Monday morning to
(32:29):
talk about pac West. I don'tthink it's going to be JP Morgan we're
talking about. But you think it'sgoing to fail. The FDIC is going
to command take it over. Ithink so, because I mean, just
this, the third sentence in J. Powell's commentary yesterday after raising the rates
was that the banking industry is resultingit unstable, which it is, right.
But then but then a few hourslater, fifty percent of its share
(32:52):
price of of PacWest went down.So that's that's not a run on the
bank. That's an investor hedging againstwhat they see coming, all right,
of a run on the bank.And you said that there isn't a run
on a bank here at Pac West. And the thinking is, I mean,
if I had money in the bank, any bank, I wouldn't take
(33:13):
it out because I know the FEDSare going to come in and make good
on every dime I have. I'mnot gonna lose penny one. There hasn't
been a penny loss since the FDICcame into being back in the thirties.
Why would I take money out ofa bank. Yeah, it's according to
Pac West as of this warning,seventy five percent ish of its deposits are
already covered and insured by this.Now, don't forget when when JP Morgan
(33:35):
took over First Republic, everything wascovered. So if you if you didn't,
if you were above the two hundredand fifty thousand, it didn't really
matter. And so that was thatwas covered by the by the deal that
they had to get a special exceptionfor with the government. That could very
well happen again. I just don'tsee it being very good for JP Morgan
Chase to get even bigger right aftergobbling up another bank. Yeah, it's
(33:57):
I find a bank with three anda half trillion dollars in assets. There's
too big to fail and then there'sthis Oh yeah, if it failed,
I mean it's impossible, that wouldjust wipe out the world market. Yeah,
oh totally ed. You mentioned theFDIC. You know that happened after
JP Morgan, the old guy tookeverybody into his library, locked the doors
(34:17):
and said we're not having a bankround. We're leaving here and fixing this.
And then eight years later the FDICcame in. So J. Pierpont
Morgan saw that coming and took careof it back then. That's the kind
of power Jamie Diamond has right now, but it's not the kind of pr
he wants or the heat all right. I've been talking a lot about housing
and the cost of housing, andthey have flattened, although it was reported
(34:38):
yesterday that, for example, inSan Diego, the San Diego region,
it's gone down pretty dramatically the valuethe cost of houses. So what's going
on relative to the market in general? The Fed raising the rates, what
do we see happening? Okay,well, right now the six point eight
to seven percent that's the national averagefor a thirty year fixed I did a
(34:58):
little bit of math, if you'dget it six point eight and seven one
million dollar loan is the number Iwas working with. Okay, so you're
going to wind up that loan isgoing to cost you about two point four
one when you're done paying it offafter thirty years. At six point one
three percent, that's going to beabout a half a billion dollars cheaper,
almost four hundred thousand dollars in changecheaper at that six point one three percent,
which is another average I could findon bank rate dot com. So
(35:20):
right, that just shows you thedifference of a half a point in a
mortgage over thirty years is an enormousamount of money. Yeah, Now,
long term, I don't think anybodypays attention to what it's going to cost
me over thirty years. Yeah,because you get the tax rebate first.
Now, what is it going tocost me a month a one million dollar
mortgage today's rate versus a couple ofyears ago, A couple of years ago,
oh half? So right now atsix point eight seven the national average
(35:44):
we talked about, that's a monthlypayment on a one million dollars loan of
sixty five hundred and sixty five dollars. That would have been a closer to
thirty eight hundred two years ago.Depending on because the rate was so much
lower. Okay, So with thatin mind, and don't we don't have
supply either building That is the otherproblem is no supply there. If supply
were there, you would see houses, I mean almost being given away because
(36:08):
people there's supply, people can buythem. Uh you can, well even
if if you don't qualify, you'regonna get them for such a if you
can't qualify for six point seven uhloan, you can qualify for four thousand
dollars a month. You can't qualifyfor seven thousand dollars a month. So
is there any long term now?Of course, I know values have flattened,
(36:28):
they're not going up the way theydid, and we're guessing that values
are going to actually decrease. Butgive me a timeline. Oh no,
I mean it's it's it's years out, if not a decade out. There
we have we have millennials and Genzs are coming into the home buying age
right now. That's a bubble that'scoming into a market that doesn't have supply
to support it. Therefore, I'dsay ten ten years, depending unless something
(36:50):
breaks with federal regulation and you canstart building faster. All right, Thanks,
Jason Sunday two to four pm,a Macro with Jason Middleton, Time
for Kelly and it's Musings with Mo. Mo is heard tonight on the Apple
name Mo Kelly Show. Wrong,it's Later with Moke. I know,
but I okay, sorry about thatGood morning, Good Morning Later with Mo
(37:17):
Kelly and that seven to ten pm. I'd rather have it called the Mo
Kelly Show and his social is atmister Kelly Mo. We got so much
to talk about Day three of thewriters strike. LA Times today ran their
front page is why Hollywood writers strikewon't end soon. So let's talk about
(37:39):
that. We know, well,first of all, we talk about what
the fallout is, which is beyondenormous, and uh, your your guess
is as to prognostications as to what'sgoing to happen and when. Yeah,
I think it's going to last along time. And I don't know if
the heat that the writers have generatedin the beginning of this strike is going
to be sustained able let's say thirtysixty ninety days from now, because we're
(38:02):
talking about streaming, so the averageconsumer like you and me, we won't
feel it, we won't be asimpacted as we were back in two thousand
and seven where everything was broadcast television, and we noticed the absence of certain
shows and certain productions and movies andso forth. We may not feel it
because there was a rush and planningin advance to get as much intellectual property
(38:24):
and material and content into the binas possible, so we as consumers would
not feel it and also feel asmuch empathy for writers, So it could
be very difficult for the writers tomaintain that momentum. Yeah, it makes
sense. So when you think aboutit, because when streaming, there's a
big impact on streaming when they havethese huge shows a Game of Thrones,
(38:46):
squid games that just are massive internationalhits, and without those, you know,
they just go back to regular purchasingof content, put it on.
I watch Netflix and Hulu just forall the stuff that's on it. So
the writers strike doesn't affect me,right, and it doesn't affect most people
because I can say, well,let me just go through Neckflace, let
(39:07):
me go through Disney Plus, letme go through all these streaming flatforms and
watch all the content which is alreadyavailable which wasn't available back in two thousand
and seven, and then you realizethat the average consumer is not going to
feel as emotionally connected. Now,how that impacts the writer on the ground
is means that they're going to haveThey're gonna have to be more visible for
(39:28):
a longer amount of time, beingon the picket lines, being in interviews,
and making sure it is front ofmine for everyone to stand in solidarity
with them, not just sag afterbut the lay individual and so people will
know that it's still going on,because I suspect in three or four weeks,
if we didn't talk about it inmedia, that most people would not
know about it. Yeah, Imean, I'm thinking about even the people
(39:49):
that want to sneak onto lots aren'tgoing to because they're going to honor the
picket lines. Let's talk about whatwhat the writers want. Part of it,
I understand completely parts of it.I have no idea where they're going
with this. Certainly more money,I understand, because they get less money
than they used to. Certainly residualson the big streaming shows. I can
(40:10):
understand that because residuals are part ofthe game. Now. The many rooms
saying to television shows we want aminimum number of writers on staff aren't the
shows able to decide how many writersthey want? Why are they are?
But also I would say that theindustry has been very cute, too cute
(40:32):
by half in terms of diminishing whatthey're offering writers is in fewer writers,
fewer episodes, of a fewer royalties, excuse me, residuals, and so
overall they've been chipping away at thewriter's guild overall. As far as the
amount of monetary outlay, this ispart and parcel of a larger issue wherewith
streaming they're really trying to cut cornersand make sure that they get far more
(40:57):
from the writers while offering far lessin return. No, I get fruf
overview. No I get that,I get the residuals part of it.
I understand that I don't get ourseason is ten episodes and the writers go,
no, it isn't. Your seasonis going to be thirteen episodes.
I just don't get where they're comingon that one. Well, let me
(41:19):
just try to explain it this way. They would like streaming to be treated
just like broadcast television, where youhad some twenty two episodes per season.
Now there's more of a larger contentlandscape. And then more writers get to
work. But at the same time, if you're working on a season and
you're only working for maybe nine episodes, as many seasons are on streaming right
now, you can't necessarily maintain thatas a career, where if you're walking
(41:44):
well working on broadcast television where you'dhave some twenty two episodes, and you
then are diminished by more than halfas far as potential revenue, not saying
how you may have been paid aflat rate for streaming and not getting them
out of residuals in reruns that youwould normally get it on broadcast television.
That seems like the writers to justrequests that the streaming services Hulu, Netflix,
(42:07):
that they sell commercials, they haveto sell commercials, and they have
to have twenty two seasons will tellyou how this business works. To me,
it seems ludicrous. But you knowthat's the way I take it.
One more point. I want tomake what the writers are demanding. And
I understand the money part. Iunderstand they want more writers. That's easy
(42:29):
to understand whether you're on one sideor the other. But protection against AI
man, where do you go withthat? What kind of protection? How
do you do it? What dothey think anybody can do about it at
this point, Well, they wantguarantees in writing that studios production companies will
(42:49):
not use AI to either generate contentor use AI or material already established by
humans to train a in the future. This is the correlation I would make
with the analogy I would make isthey don't want the movie studios or production
steals to imple to practice automation inthe way like if you're going to McDonald's.
(43:13):
It's one thing if you could havea machine hand out the Hamburgers and
so forth, you're not going tohave someone behind the kioscar behind the cash.
Year. The writers want to makesure that that same change is not
made in their industry where you haveautomated writers, if you will creating content
under the guise of acting as humansor using human created content to help generate
(43:36):
artificial intelligence generated content, well,how do they know. Here, I
am a writer and I go onto chat box, for example, a
chat GPT, and I throw in, okay, here's my idea bank robbery,
Norway expat Americans doing it. Boom, there's the idea. Back comes
(43:58):
a script. Change it a littlebit. It's an original piece. It's
ninety percent AI. I turn itinto the studios, that's my script.
How do they everything to know,Well, you're talking about something that would
have been done on the writers end. To presumably write something in this industry,
you have to be a member ofthe WGA and there would have to
(44:19):
be some sort of verification by thestudio that you are actually the writer of
it. So if writers themselves wantto undermine themselves with the use of AI,
that's an internal issue. They're tryingto make the writers at this point,
they're trying to make sure that theindustry that movie studios don't explicitly try
to use AI and thwart and underminewriters themselves. Now, writers want to
(44:40):
undermine themselves, that's up to them. Yeah, but to the studios police
the writers or they just take thescripts make sure it's not being plagiarized.
Except with AI, it's impossible totell. And I personal experience. My
partner and I Karen, Now weare in the infertility business and we have
we have an internet and we're doinga series of not only we have a
(45:04):
chat room and we have a website, but we all start doing videos.
You know what we're throwing in ourideas getting back AI written scripts that we
change a little bit, those areour scripts. No one knows. You
can't tell. Well, Hollywood hasalways been rife with thievery and theft of
intellectual property, so that idea isnot new. When you put in the
(45:27):
AI component, it's still a functionof copyright of inter intellectual property. So
I don't know if you can getrid of all thievery in that regard.
But if the studios want to useAI, no one's going to stop them
in that regard. If you're goingto change minor things as far as the
writers are concerned, you will notbe able to wholesale remove them from the
process and still have to be atreatable, attributable and credited to an actual
(45:52):
person who's a member of the wGA. Yeah, wait till you see
the videos that I'm doing. Youswear that I wrote him? But but
are you a member of the wahNo, I am not so, but
but so what I'm doing is foolingeverybody else. Okay, fair enough,
let's move over to the Rock andRoll Hall of Fame. Who's in?
U surprises? Who should have beenin? That was left out? Well?
(46:15):
As far as who's in, youhave DJ Coolhirk, and a lot
of people may not know him,but everybody literally in the world knows his
work. If you've ever seen aDJ with two turntables, that is directly
attributable to DJ Coolhirk, who wascredited as the first person to put two
turntables together. And this idea ofmixing two songs back and forth where you
(46:36):
can you can extend a portion ofthe song or seamlessly blend into another song.
Then you have Willie Nelson, whoI think is just obviously he's in.
Um you have UM. I don'thave the list in front of me,
help me, Bill, I don'thave either. You have George,
you have George Michael, who's obviouslyin. And then you have groups like
Rage Rage Against the Machine where everyoneand may not know their music, but
(47:01):
if you know rock music, ifyou know music, their cultural impact cannot
be argued. So some people maytwist eyebrow at certain names on the list
because they're not fundamentally aware of whothey are. Cheryl Crowe is in.
I think that she is automatically in. Now. Kate Bush, a British
(47:22):
singer, is in, someone whoI wasn't as familiar with her impact a
singer, a dancer, a producer. But at the same time, the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasalways been about impact and not necessarily just
here in the US. All right, And here's analogy I want to make
and where I'm going with this.I didn't make myself very clear. The
(47:43):
Hollywood Walk of Fame, where there'sthree thousand people there and you hear about
major players who and you hear thison the news tonight X gets a Walk
of Fame star and you go,wait a minute, that should have happened
forty years ago. How is itpossible they're only doing it now. And
(48:05):
I'm assuming the same thing happens inthe Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,
of course, And the rock andRoll Hall of Fame is unfortunately limited by
its own parameters, where if you'reonly going to induct a certain amount of
people, that there are people whoare inducted traditionally, and there is the
Hall of Fame Committee which has alsosubmitted seven or eight names like Shaka Khan
(48:27):
and others. So you're only goingto get maybe ten to fifteen names each
year. And if you think aboutthe grand history of music, because this
is not one genre it's not justrock and roll artist, it's all genres
across the board. You will alwaysbe behind in terms of making sure the
names with the greatest impact to thegreatest influence in music more broadly are included
(48:50):
in the rock and roll Hall ofFame. So you'll never catch up,
and there will always be names likewait a minute, so and So's not
in. Are you telling me thatShaka Khan wasn't in until this year?
You'll never get up? All right? Tonight seven to ten pm, that
later with Mo Kelly, and he'sat mister mo Kelly. That's his social
address. Mo. Take care asalways, Thank you, talk to all
(49:12):
right, coming up, Well,first of all, let me tell you
I'm taking phone calls for Handle onthe Law off the air starting in just
a moment. Is Gary and Shannoncome aboard. The number is eight seven
seven five two zero eleven fifty.I do it Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'll
do at forty minutes. And sometimespeople have a very hard time coming in
over the weekend. Well, now'sthe time, and clearly I just go
zip through them because we don't haveany commercials to deal with when I'm off
(49:35):
the air. So the number iseight seven, seven, five, two,
zero eleven fifty. Coming up isGary and Shannon. So Gary,
what's the show about today? Acouple developing stories we're gonna get into.
The first one is a mixed verdictin the trial of five Proud Boys.
We'll talk about that. Also,Title forty two expected to expire next week,
We'll go to Washington, get anupdate on what the administration is planning
(49:58):
on doing, and a turn generalfrom California and the State of New York
investigating the NFL. We'll explain what'sgoing on. You've been listening to the
Bill handle A show. Catch MyShow Monday through Friday, six am to
nine am, and anytime on demandon the iHeartRadio app.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.