Speaker 1: Do you want to be an American idiot?
Speaker 2: Solob be back on seven hundred WW Man, We've got
Speaker 2: everything going on all at the same time. We'll begin
Speaker 2: with this story. This morning, federal judge has allowed Ohio,
Speaker 2: the Buckeye State, to begin transferring unclaimed funds starting first
Speaker 2: the year of finance at new Brown Stadium and all
Speaker 2: of these millions, if not hundreds of millions, and now
Speaker 2: we're into the billions of dollars when it comes to
Speaker 2: unclaimed funds at Ohio. There's a lawsuit that was threatened
Speaker 2: by Mark dan and that has now come to fruition.
Speaker 2: It's going to challenge this US mister. Judge denied a
Speaker 2: preliminary injunction. It said Ohio's really don't face a reparable
Speaker 2: harm since they can still claim the money through twenty
Speaker 2: thirty six. However, he also rejected the state's motion to
Speaker 2: dismiss this case entirely. So the judge said, hey, it's
Speaker 2: up to me to determine if the law's constitutional. He's
Speaker 2: not here to decide if it's a good idea or not.
Speaker 2: And he may have a ruling in this as early
Speaker 2: as Tuesday on whether this preliminary injunction will be granted
Speaker 2: on this who brought the case forward along with Mark
Speaker 2: Dan As Jeff Cross to the Dan Law firm in Cleveland.
Speaker 2: He's lead council. Jeff, welcome, How are you good?
Speaker 3: How are you today?
Speaker 2: I'm doing fine. A lot to unpack here as the
Speaker 2: state tries to move like two billion dollars up to
Speaker 2: two billion on claim funds into an account of finance, stadiums,
Speaker 2: cultural projects, stuff like that six hundred million for the Browns, Cincinnati,
Speaker 2: Columbus and others are probably gonna get some but let's
Speaker 2: start here. The judge denied your request for the injunction,
Speaker 2: but allow the case to move forward. So what's the
Speaker 2: strategy here for you moving forward?
Speaker 3: Well, the case is the court noted the case does
Speaker 3: have merit, so the case will continue and we ultimately
Speaker 3: will hope to prevail in this case because we think
Speaker 3: our constitutional arguments are pretty strong here. It's fundamental to
Speaker 3: what we all understand then, what the constitution protects, which
Speaker 3: is your private property right and gives you the opportunity
Speaker 3: to object when the state tries to take your property,
Speaker 3: which is not happening here because the state doesn't give
Speaker 3: anybody notice that they're seeing people's property, putting it in
Speaker 3: a what was supposed to be a lost and found account,
Speaker 3: but now, as it turned out, is going to be
Speaker 3: used as a slush fund to give out money to
Speaker 3: various projects of the legislature.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we'll unpack this a little bit here too.
Speaker 2: Let's start with achievement laws. Obviously there are people who
Speaker 2: will not claim funds despite public notices. Will get to
Speaker 2: that element in just a second, but typically a state
Speaker 2: and I think, o, hi, it's like ten years. Basically,
Speaker 2: if you don't claim something in ten years, it reverts
Speaker 2: back to the state because they just assume you don't
Speaker 2: care or you're dead. Is that the biggest legal hurdle
Speaker 2: you got to jump over.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of challenges to what the state is
Speaker 3: doing here. First, a lot of people don't know that
Speaker 3: their property is being seized, and there's really no legitimate
Speaker 3: or practical way to protect yourself. So every bank account
Speaker 3: that you own, whether it's a savings account or money
Speaker 3: market account, or a life insurance policy or even a
Speaker 3: safe deposit back with some personal belongings that may not
Speaker 3: have economic value but might have personal value to you.
Speaker 3: You can't protect yourself from the state seizing that property,
Speaker 3: liquidating the property, and then you know, turning it over
Speaker 3: to this slush fund. And we had a gentleman testify
Speaker 3: the other day, a gentleman from Germany who had this
Speaker 3: very experience happened him. His entire retirement account, which was
Speaker 3: held at Charles Schwab, was confiscated by the State of California,
Speaker 3: liquidated without his knowledge, and he ultimately received only a
Speaker 3: fraction of what he was owned.
Speaker 2: But there's a justification here for dormant money. I mean,
Speaker 2: if it sits unclaimed for a decade, that suggests owners
Speaker 2: have forgotten it, moved without affording their information, died without
Speaker 2: their errors knowing about it, which is unfortunate for sure.
Speaker 2: But do we do you just suggest that this money
Speaker 2: sits there in perpetuity.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: I think what the High Supreme Court has been clear
Speaker 3: about is unclaim funds doesn't mean abandoned property. The High
Speaker 3: Supreme Court a unanimous decision, when when does that happen?
Speaker 3: Often right, in a unanimous decision not that long ago,
Speaker 3: said that the unclaim funds is not abandoned. People simply
Speaker 3: don't know about it. And then the state admitted on
Speaker 3: the stand repeatedly over and over again. They do not
Speaker 3: send any notice to anybody. So they're taking people's property
Speaker 3: and liquidating it without their knowledge. So you can't abandon
Speaker 3: something you don't have notice, gotcha.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, we know, I mean, this is
Speaker 2: probably one of the few things they still do, Jeff,
Speaker 2: is advertisements and newspapers where there's court decisions that you
Speaker 2: have to publicly notify people, so you put an ad
Speaker 2: in all the newspaper in each of the eighty eight counties. That's,
Speaker 2: you know, technologically back in the day that especially. I
Speaker 2: don't know if we still do that or not. You
Speaker 2: could probably tell me better, But you know, we have
Speaker 2: social media, we have public service campaigns. I mean, isn't
Speaker 2: there a duty on the part of the person who
Speaker 2: holds an account or an adult to be aware of
Speaker 2: what the law is regarding this and therefore be informed.
Speaker 2: I mean, how far should the state go to make
Speaker 2: sure someone is dead or incapacitated or simply doesn't care.
Speaker 2: You can only do so much. And I guess when
Speaker 2: I look at public notices and newspapers that seems to
Speaker 2: satisfy the courts.
Speaker 3: Why not the sun Well, two things there, One, the
Speaker 3: US Supreme Court has been repeatedly in multiple cases, very clear.
Speaker 3: It is the state's duty, not the individual's duty. It
Speaker 3: is the state's duty if they want to take your property,
Speaker 3: notify them. The other real problem here is that the
Speaker 3: data is bad, and we had plenty of people testify
Speaker 3: even the state testified that the data is not valid
Speaker 3: in a lot of cases. Isn't balid. They don't have
Speaker 3: zip code, they don't have correct addresses. There's people in
Speaker 3: foreign countries and other states of the United States, Wisconsin,
Speaker 3: New York, all over the country that publication in Tyhoga
Speaker 3: County or Hamilton County or Franklin County doesn't reach those folks.
Speaker 3: So they have no notice at all that your property
Speaker 3: has been seized by the state of Ohio. The property
Speaker 3: is going to be liquidated and handed over.
Speaker 2: Okay, what the level of notification you think is constitutionally
Speaker 2: required here?
Speaker 3: Then, well, the Supreme Court has been very clear on
Speaker 3: that too. It has to be something that's calculated to
Speaker 3: reach that person. So if your data is bad and
Speaker 3: you're not sending out any notice whatsoever, I can pretty
Speaker 3: safely say that there's no notice whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you have what potentially thirty five thousand
Speaker 2: claimants living abroad alone would never see those notices. In
Speaker 2: this day and age where you can do your work
Speaker 2: from anywhere around the world for that matter, that's problematic.
Speaker 2: They'd have to change that.
Speaker 3: And I'll say this, there are plenty of municipalities and
Speaker 3: fire departments and all kinds of local governments across the
Speaker 3: state of Ohio. They have money's in the unclaimed fund.
Speaker 3: You can't tell me the State of Ohio doesn't know
Speaker 3: where the city of Cleveland, City Cincinnati is physically located,
Speaker 3: where send the checks. They can do that. They could
Speaker 3: send them notice and tell them that the property is
Speaker 3: about to be liquidated.
Speaker 2: And we're not doing that right now. Just to be clear,
Speaker 2: they do nothing. Accept here's the website. Find it for yourself. Correct, gotcha? Gotcha?
Speaker 2: If you could point to other I guess precedent. And
Speaker 2: when it comes to notifying people, I mean I get
Speaker 2: notifications all the time for well things like class action lawsuits.
Speaker 2: I get a postcard that says you want to be
Speaker 2: part of this class et cetera. Somehow they can find
Speaker 2: me there. But the state can in this case.
Speaker 3: Believe me, if the state and if you owe taxes
Speaker 3: to the state, of Ohio they were trying to. I
Speaker 3: can't imagine why in this case where they owe you money,
Speaker 3: they're not looking for you, right right?
Speaker 2: He is Jeff Crossman. He is lead counsel in this
Speaker 2: case against the State of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case.
Speaker 2: It's going to fun on all the public Stadia Cleveland
Speaker 2: first with three hundred million or six hundred million. I
Speaker 2: guess I should say out of this up to two
Speaker 2: billion dollars unclaimed funds. So if you have an unclaimed
Speaker 2: a case, or you have unclaimed funds, whether it's a
Speaker 2: dollar or a million dollars, you have to go to
Speaker 2: the state website to check your unclaim funds and find
Speaker 2: them for yourself, as opposed to the state doing due
Speaker 2: diligence to try and find you. That's the crux of
Speaker 2: the argument he's making in the judge of federal judges
Speaker 2: rule that the case can move forward with some guardrails
Speaker 2: in place. There it's I think it was you, or
Speaker 2: it was Mark dan or I had honi you compared
Speaker 2: it to unclaimed funds to a dog shelters website. You know,
Speaker 2: I got I think just within the last year I
Speaker 2: went on and got like because of this case. Actually,
Speaker 2: I think about four hundred dollars on claim funds I
Speaker 2: founded or my name and my brother did the same.
Speaker 2: But the website, I mean, I didn't have a problem navigating.
Speaker 2: But he said, it's just like the website itself is terrible,
Speaker 2: and if it's bad, then it causes people to maybe
Speaker 2: not look for their funds.
Speaker 3: The website is pretty rudimentary. We had a film and
Speaker 3: tip right the other day who handles e commerce for
Speaker 3: BMW internationally, and you know, he's got an IT expert,
Speaker 3: and consider's some fundamental flaws in the way the database
Speaker 3: captures data, sources data, and spits it back to you.
Speaker 3: One of the things we identified originally was one of
Speaker 3: the plaintetfs in the case. His name is pretty common.
Speaker 3: It's Codd Butler. If you put that name into the database,
Speaker 3: it fits back a thousand and it cuts off there.
Speaker 3: There might be ten thousand Todd Butler's in there. You'll
Speaker 3: never know whether or not those other ones are in
Speaker 3: there because it stops giving you results after number one thousand.
Speaker 3: Then the state admitted that every day, So there's just
Speaker 3: really no way to know what property you truly have
Speaker 3: in that whole front there's no way to search it all.
Speaker 2: Imagine a government website or something the government not working properly. Jeff,
Speaker 2: I'm shocked.
Speaker 3: Well, we're here to try to correct the process that
Speaker 3: was the purpose of the laws. We're not anti stadium construction.
Speaker 3: We're not anti Cleveland Browns were all sports here in
Speaker 3: dan law. But we do think that the government should
Speaker 3: act constitutionally, and we do think that they should employe
Speaker 3: some better safeguards to make sure people's rights are protected.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it's important FACETA too. This is
Speaker 2: not about going after the Cleveland Browns or the fund.
Speaker 2: I mean, look at it this way. So I think
Speaker 2: someone made the accusation. This is about opposing public funding
Speaker 2: for stadiums and billionaire stadiums rather than property rights. But
Speaker 2: would you be in the same position if it were
Speaker 2: funding schools, hospital something, all those lies.
Speaker 3: Well unclaimed funds. The way they're doing it is unconstitutional,
Speaker 3: So you know our position is constitutionally, this doesn't make
Speaker 3: any sense if it was a public purpose, a true
Speaker 3: public purpose like building a school or building a fire station,
Speaker 3: for example, that has a much more, much stronger justification
Speaker 3: than in this case. Because it is money being used
Speaker 3: it's a taking for a non public purpose.
Speaker 4: Is there there is a problem there too, Jeff?
Speaker 2: Is there a way you'd be satisfied? I mean, are
Speaker 2: you posted using unclan funds for a public person purposes generally,
Speaker 2: or is it's problematic just the stadium funding, or is
Speaker 2: there a way to you, for you and your clients
Speaker 2: or and your planing to those who brought the suit
Speaker 2: here for them to be satisfied.
Speaker 3: Well, there are two constitutional issues here. One is the
Speaker 3: purpose of it taking, which you've identified, and secondly is
Speaker 3: the notice in the due process we need to have
Speaker 3: a a public purpose and be they have to improve
Speaker 3: the new process safeguards here they don't exist right now.
Speaker 2: Again, Jeff Crossman's here from the Dan Law firm. He's
Speaker 2: the lead counsel in this case brought against the State
Speaker 2: of Ohio, the unclaimed funds case that we've talked about
Speaker 2: here that would fund stadiums across Ohio. The only problem
Speaker 2: is it's coming out of unclaimed funds and after ten
Speaker 2: years that money would revert back to the state. And
Speaker 2: he's saying, there's just not enough notification in place, safeguards
Speaker 2: in place to make sure that your whole and that
Speaker 2: you get to get your money simply because the state
Speaker 2: would rather you not. There's a lot of entities would
Speaker 2: do that too. Right now, the way the lost hands,
Speaker 2: if money left dormant for ten plus years is presumed
Speaker 2: to abandon. I guess the question is should the state
Speaker 2: be able to react unclaimed funds? And we're talking about
Speaker 2: what makes that constitutionally acceptable? This morning on the show,
Speaker 2: where do you think this goes in the next Well,
Speaker 2: now I think too, didn't I say a Tuesday? I
Speaker 2: believe it's a day a judge should make a decision.
Speaker 2: Here he said, you confidence this is going to be Ford.
Speaker 3: The judge made a decision on the Pulomerian junction. Now
Speaker 3: we're moving forward on the case and we're going to
Speaker 3: decide whether we follow an appeal. And by the way,
Speaker 3: I should note that when the state amended the statute,
Speaker 3: it automatically created a complic of interest between the state
Speaker 3: and yourself. You know, think about say you know your
Speaker 3: investment account at Cheryl Schwab, if Charles Schwab now had
Speaker 3: an incentive not to tell you how much money was
Speaker 3: in the account or or what they were doing with
Speaker 3: the money, and that if you don't contact them in
Speaker 3: a certain amount of time, they can just take your money.
Speaker 3: We would all fundamentally agree that that's what we would
Speaker 3: call indezzlement. And essentially what's going on here the state
Speaker 3: now has a conflict of interest. They don't have any
Speaker 3: incentive to tell you that the money is there in
Speaker 3: the ways about protecting yourself. So, uh, it's a real problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it seems to be. You know, you laid out
Speaker 2: a very very good dynamic case as to why the
Speaker 2: court should side with you and the plaintiffs in this
Speaker 2: case simply because the lack of notification in the website
Speaker 2: is terrible. My last name Sloan, not terribly uncommon, but
Speaker 2: I could see if your last name is Smith or
Speaker 2: something that if I'm not able to see and find
Speaker 2: exactly the you know, Jeff Smith that's on there, and
Speaker 2: there's probably thousands in the state of Ohio, that's problematic.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if I want to find my money
Speaker 2: and that's my common name, it's going to be difficult
Speaker 2: to do so. And that's part of this lawsuit and
Speaker 2: rightly so that's exactly right, all right, So timeline here
Speaker 2: is now Judges hearing this is probably going to move
Speaker 2: forward in this case. Do you think the state eventually
Speaker 2: settles with this? Are you looking for a settlement or
Speaker 2: just an outright I mean, what what happens to the
Speaker 2: stadium funding model if you win?
Speaker 3: Well, that's an open question. I mean that was That's
Speaker 3: why we argued that it was safer to keep the
Speaker 3: money where it is until we litigate the merits of
Speaker 3: the case. And I think at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: we're still optimistic that we're going to prevail here. And
Speaker 3: if that's the case, then this money, this half a
Speaker 3: billion dollars or more has left the State of Ohio's coffers.
Speaker 3: It's going to be taxpayers that have to put back
Speaker 3: that money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jeff, all the best. Thanks for chepping on this
Speaker 2: morn now. You're extremely busy, but I appreciate taking time
Speaker 2: out to chat here. Jeff Crossmow, the Dan Law firm,
Speaker 2: lead counsel in this case, All the best, You have
Speaker 2: a great dable chat again. Thanks again, man, I appreciate you.
Speaker 2: I've got some time here maybe to talk about this. So,
Speaker 2: I don't know if you've checked the Unclaimed fun site.
Speaker 2: I have, and as I said, found like four hundred
Speaker 2: bucks or something like that. I thought it was pretty
Speaker 2: easy process myself on my name. Okay, this is me here, Boom.
Speaker 2: But I have a common but not uncommon name. If
Speaker 2: you have a very common name, I don't know if
Speaker 2: you found it extremely difficult to navigate this site or not.
Speaker 2: As I said, I didn't, but your results may vary.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of torn on this, but I tend to
Speaker 2: lean in this one towards more towards the state, and
Speaker 2: not that I want people to lose their money, But
Speaker 2: I don't know. After ten years, seems to me, with
Speaker 2: all of the information out there, you know, check all
Speaker 2: you gotta do is check this website. Now, it seems
Speaker 2: to me that that is on you. Ten years, you
Speaker 2: don't know that that money's out there. How far? How
Speaker 2: far should the state go to try and get that
Speaker 2: money back to you? Now, I think two things here
Speaker 2: are important that the state would have to simply notify
Speaker 2: you somehow, I send you a postcard or whatever it
Speaker 2: might be, to a reasonable attempt to contact you. I mean,
Speaker 2: I get contacted by people I don't want contact contacting
Speaker 2: me all the time. They can find me, but the
Speaker 2: state can't. That's problematic. And as he said, if you
Speaker 2: have a common name, it's difficult to navigate the website.
Speaker 2: That strike too, But I think if the state where
Speaker 2: to change those two elements, that to me seems like
Speaker 2: it would satisfy the claim that they're trying to hold
Speaker 2: on the money. And you can see that right, there's
Speaker 2: incentive for the state to hold your cash in an
Speaker 2: unclaimed account because now it's going to go to fund
Speaker 2: pet projects that lawmakers will definitely line up to try
Speaker 2: and get that quote unquote free money, not free, but
Speaker 2: quote unquote free money in order to well build something
Speaker 2: nice to get votes. I'm the guy who got the
Speaker 2: new Cleveland Stadium. I'm the one who got Pai Course Stadium.
Speaker 2: I'm the one that got GABP made whole again and remodeled.
Speaker 2: So there's tremendous incentive for the state here. But we'll
Speaker 2: get your thoughts onto the unclaimed funds thing. And like
Speaker 2: I said, I tend to look at and go all right,
Speaker 2: I think you fix a website and make a concerned effort,
Speaker 2: do your due diligence and trying to locate someone with
Speaker 2: those funds, then that's probably the best you can do.
Speaker 2: Outside of the public notices in the website your thoughts
Speaker 2: five one, three, seven, four, nine hundred. The big one
Speaker 2: talkback be the iHeartRadio app. You can get me there.
Speaker 2: If you're listening to the stream through your phone, We'll
Speaker 2: get do that. We'll get news. We've got weather moving
Speaker 2: in all sorts of moving parts this morning here on
Speaker 2: the Sconsolon Show on seven hundred w plony here seven
Speaker 2: hundred WLW. I I've got their news. Got through some
Speaker 2: other stuff. And last half hour I had Jeff Crossman
Speaker 2: on Dan Law from lead Counselors's lawsuit against the State
Speaker 2: of Ohio for unclaimed funds to finance well Cleveland Brown Stadium.
Speaker 2: But let's face it, it's going to finance a redo
Speaker 2: of great American ballpark money for pay Corpse Stadium, and
Speaker 2: I would think it's going to be a critical funding
Speaker 2: source for a new arena. If they can get this done,
Speaker 2: I would think that a new arena is going to
Speaker 2: be fast tracked here in Cincinnati, and not just in
Speaker 2: c but across the state of Ohio. The problem is,
Speaker 2: is this unclaimed funds thing. Is Jeff Crossman issuing with
Speaker 2: the Dan Law firmers arguing that we just don't notify
Speaker 2: people well enough in advance, and I think that's olally true.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever gotten thinking, hey, you've got
Speaker 2: unclaimed funds. You're just supposed to know where the website
Speaker 2: is for other things. I get notifications, I get mail,
Speaker 2: I get email. Somehow they can find me, but the
Speaker 2: government can't, which backs up the claim that this is
Speaker 2: now going to be even worse when it comes to
Speaker 2: onclim funds, and that they're going to make it harder
Speaker 2: for you to get your money. And the website is
Speaker 2: like I said, I did, I didn't have a problem
Speaker 2: with it, but if you have a common last name,
Speaker 2: apparently it's a bit of a nightmare you clean those
Speaker 2: two things up. I think it's a it's a go
Speaker 2: simply because I mean, l's say, you know, if you
Speaker 2: don't have an interest in finding money that's there for you,
Speaker 2: I mean, how far how much notification should we give you?
Speaker 2: It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that the
Speaker 2: website is out there. You have to you have to
Speaker 2: have an interest in finding that money to begin with.
Speaker 2: Let me get to Tammy and Cincinnati on seven hundred
Speaker 2: WW discussle and Joe Tammy appreciate holding what's up?
Speaker 5: Hi let's have a comment where I work at a
Speaker 5: small business. Every year we go through the credits that
Speaker 5: we owe to people and we have to try and
Speaker 5: track them down and pay them back because if we
Speaker 5: hold onto that money after a year, we have to
Speaker 5: send it to the states. And my question is, if
Speaker 5: we put in all the time and effort to try
Speaker 5: and find these people and we can't find them, and
Speaker 5: we send the money to the states, why is the
Speaker 5: state entitled to that money and why wouldn't it revert.
Speaker 2: That tough go back to the tach Well, how you
Speaker 2: distribute that? Does it go back to the general fund?
Speaker 2: But if it goes to general fund, then the lawmakers
Speaker 2: was to spend it on something else. At least it's
Speaker 2: earmarked for I guess something that makes sense. You could
Speaker 2: hear market. I suppose for a bunch of different things,
Speaker 2: schools and whatnot. But this is a way to remedy
Speaker 2: the cost of stadiums and not lean back on taxpayers.
Speaker 2: Largely because of what happened in Cincinnati back in the ninety.
Speaker 5: But why wouldn't like the small business that I work for,
Speaker 5: why shouldn't they get that money back?
Speaker 3: They put forth the.
Speaker 5: Effort to try and find the people. Yeah, should they
Speaker 5: have to turn it over to the state.
Speaker 2: Right, the state eventually gets that money. Well, I think
Speaker 2: it also gets back to now there's incentive for small
Speaker 2: businesses to go. Hey, you know, if we pretend that
Speaker 2: we're looking for these people, I mean, you make a
Speaker 2: case of the state. I totally understand your argument there. Yeah, Tammy,
Speaker 2: thanks for checking in this morning. Real quick over to
Speaker 2: Mason and Frank on the big one.
Speaker 6: Hey, Frank, morning, I have a sort of a humor
Speaker 6: story about unclaimed funds.
Speaker 4: About four years ago. I thought, I'm going to take.
Speaker 7: Them look it up and see if I can.
Speaker 6: Find anything, because I always if I get some money
Speaker 6: from somebody, I'll give a story of it to the church.
Speaker 6: So I go on and there was about twenty five
Speaker 6: dollars somewhere around there that was owed.
Speaker 4: To me from unclaimed funds.
Speaker 6: So I applied for it, and in about three weeks
Speaker 6: I get a check for three cents. I'm not kidding,
Speaker 6: it was three cents, so they said, so they spent
Speaker 6: fifty cents to send it to me. Then they need
Speaker 6: and then they did three follow up letters telling me
Speaker 6: to cast the check, which I was not going to
Speaker 6: ever to cast that check I'm keeping.
Speaker 2: I'm going to keep it.
Speaker 6: And needless to say, I did not donate one cent
Speaker 6: to the church.
Speaker 2: Well you could have, would be more than tithing, though
Speaker 2: you'd have to a fraction of a cent there. But
Speaker 2: what happened to the twenty five bucks?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 6: They kept the rest of it for incidental charges of
Speaker 6: some kind. So I end up with three cents check
Speaker 6: and I still have it.
Speaker 2: That's why I never I get I'm sure you do
Speaker 2: postcards for class action suits and settlements, and you're part
Speaker 2: of this class and you want the like I'm gonna
Speaker 2: get like forty two cents and the attorney's going to
Speaker 2: get forty two million, So it's not even worth my time.
Speaker 2: You know, That's exactly right.
Speaker 6: But I just had fun with and every once in
Speaker 6: a while i'd come across that letter or that's just
Speaker 6: funny for three cents frame that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go. It's like the first dollar you
Speaker 2: make in a business. I framed the three cent check
Speaker 2: right there, no doubt about it. It's like, I know
Speaker 2: how that works with the class action had a gym
Speaker 2: membership from nineteen ninety two. I'm gonna get how much Wow,
Speaker 2: we're gonna sell us for millions of dollars. Okay, Gret,
Speaker 2: how much do I get? You get forty two cents? Yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: I'm good. One more of Les's two up Portsmouth and
Speaker 2: Ross on the Scottsland Show on seven hundred WW thanks
Speaker 2: for checking in, man on Hold, I appreciate you. What's up.
Speaker 7: I'm totally against giving money to billionaires for their playgrounds.
Speaker 7: Number one. Number two our legislators was well cordoraty probably
Speaker 7: thirty years to go to figure out school funding. Number
Speaker 7: two or number three is we also have a property
Speaker 7: tax issue. I would much rather see the school funding
Speaker 7: and the property tax get taken care of with this money.
Speaker 7: Seeing how this is public funds and not our legislators
Speaker 7: funds and not rich people's funds, which should be used
Speaker 7: for the better of the people that work in this
Speaker 7: state and have funds coming to them instead of rich
Speaker 7: people and politicians. And if they want a new stadium
Speaker 7: in Cleveland, go to that city or that county and
Speaker 7: let the voters in that county decide the House and
Speaker 7: Family needs money from them and not from the whole state.
Speaker 2: Well, the state's going to wind up kicking money in
Speaker 2: just the nature of it, because the revenue that comes
Speaker 2: in from NFL football and the prestigio I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a measurable but the prestige of having two NFL
Speaker 2: teams in Ohio. They don't want to lose that for
Speaker 2: obvious reasons. And as far as the billionaires go, I mean,
Speaker 2: we can't speak of the deal that the Brown family got.
Speaker 2: It's much better than in the nineties, for sure, but
Speaker 2: relative to the one in Cleveland. You know, the six
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars, the Hasms are essentially putting up a
Speaker 2: billion of their own money in this. That's it's not
Speaker 2: like we're just giving the money away. There are stipulations
Speaker 2: along with this.
Speaker 7: Well, but it's not their money to give away, the
Speaker 7: politicians or anyone's money to give away. It's the people's friends.
Speaker 7: It's unclaimed. It stirs and if they're like our local
Speaker 7: newspaper here, which is a very poor newspaper that nobody
Speaker 7: buys it, and they put it in there, nobody sees it.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it is on it is on social
Speaker 2: you know, I get what you're saying. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: is like, do you just hold on the money. There's
Speaker 2: there's money in that fund that's more than ten years old.
Speaker 2: I mean, at some point, what do you do with
Speaker 2: the money? I think it's a legit, legit issue. It's
Speaker 2: called achievement in that there's a there's a cure period
Speaker 2: there until like ten years in Ohio that says, you know,
Speaker 2: if you don't claim the money after ten years and
Speaker 2: because reverts back to the how we want to spend
Speaker 2: it as the public fund. So you know, I think
Speaker 2: there's there's there's some there's some burden on the person
Speaker 2: who the money is owed to as well to claim
Speaker 2: it true.
Speaker 7: But do you know what if I'm fifteen years behind
Speaker 7: or got a tax built from fifteen years ago, they
Speaker 7: can miraculously find me.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no question there. And you, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: you know two bucks on of your taxes from six
Speaker 2: and a half years ago. They're going to find a
Speaker 2: way to come at you again. They can find you
Speaker 2: when they need to find you. In that, my friend,
Speaker 2: we both agree on there's no doubt about it. I
Speaker 2: got to go Ross, thanks for checking in this morning.
Speaker 2: I think it's the calls at five, one, three, seven,
Speaker 2: eight hundred, the big one talk back if you're listening
Speaker 2: to or radio app. I mean it is something else
Speaker 2: they will if they need to find you, they will
Speaker 2: find you. This one maybe not so much. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying that I agree with the state one hundred percent
Speaker 2: of this. I lean towards doing this, uh, simply because
Speaker 2: I think the best thing would have done is to,
Speaker 2: you know, attach a attax to gaming. I don't know
Speaker 2: why I didn't support that, and particularly you know when
Speaker 2: you talk about the big sports books out there, you
Speaker 2: know other day I wouldn't do the what forty percent
Speaker 2: that New York is doing fifty whatever, It something ridiculous,
Speaker 2: but you know, you could definitely do seventeen to twenty
Speaker 2: percent tax on them, and that will come out of
Speaker 2: the big It's not like you know, you're they're going
Speaker 2: to charge you more. And I think you know when
Speaker 2: you examine that, I'm not for gouging businesses no matter
Speaker 2: what device is. But at the same time, you look
Speaker 2: at going, well, you know they're making still making a
Speaker 2: lot of money, and it's not like you can go
Speaker 2: and get it out of you know, past that those
Speaker 2: costs on to the consumer when it comes to gaming,
Speaker 2: everyone's got enough money in that seemed the way to go.
Speaker 2: But for some reason decide not to do that and
Speaker 2: do this route as well, which is a lot more
Speaker 2: sticky in my opinion. But you know, you clean up
Speaker 2: the website thing, make it a little bit more user friendly.
Speaker 2: That's not hard. The other one is actually notifying people
Speaker 2: and going doing your due diligence, trying to locate so
Speaker 2: when you can. When it comes to taxes, I don't
Speaker 2: know why you wouldn't do it with the unclaimed funds. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I got to get a time out in just to
Speaker 2: happen the show. We'll switch it up a little bit here.
Speaker 2: Scotty Johnson, Chair of Law and Public Safety. I couldn't
Speaker 2: agree with Scotty Moore on the issue of going wait
Speaker 2: a minute, hold on just a second. We had the
Speaker 2: George Floyd Blm protest back in twenty twenty summer twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: and we had countless people come in, not only from
Speaker 2: Ohio locally, but many many people from out of state.
Speaker 2: As you know, any tempt there's a big protest like this,
Speaker 2: you're going to get interlopers coming in. Most of the
Speaker 2: people acted well in protests extra their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 2: We did have some issues, however, and when the city
Speaker 2: said Hey, listen, we've got a lot of people in
Speaker 2: the city right now. We're going to institute a curfew,
Speaker 2: and if you break curfew, we're going to arrest you.
Speaker 2: The problem with that, though, of course, is the fact
Speaker 2: that these people collectively got together, four hundred and seventy
Speaker 2: nine of them and sued the city and the county.
Speaker 2: And I, you know, if we pass and say there's
Speaker 2: an ordinance here arresting criminals because there's a curfew, much
Speaker 2: like Joe Niles and I understand your right to peacefully assemble,
Speaker 2: but you also have, like anything, there are limits to
Speaker 2: those constitutional rights. Kind of a yelling fire in a
Speaker 2: crowded theater. I don't know how that doesn't apply here.
Speaker 2: And bigger question is why isn't Why didn't the city
Speaker 2: just fight this thing. I'll get to Scotti on that
Speaker 2: coming up next on the show here on the Home
Speaker 2: of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WWT Cincinnati.
Speaker 4: You do want to be American?
Speaker 8: All right?
Speaker 2: Here we go, second of the show stopped flowing on
Speaker 2: seven hundred w welw busy today, busy, busy, busy. The
Speaker 2: city and the county have settled in a lawsuit, so
Speaker 2: Back in twenty twenty, during the Black Lives Matter George
Speaker 2: Floyd protests here in Cincinnati went about four hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty nine protesters, exactly four hundred and sixty nine protesters,
Speaker 2: I should say. During those protests they have alleged in
Speaker 2: their suits police brutality in humane conditions of the Hamlin
Speaker 2: County jail and as part of the settlement which has
Speaker 2: been finalized Hamlin County, the jailers pay sixty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: The city on the hook for eight million dollars. Scottie Johnson,
Speaker 2: council member, not happy about this at all, of course,
Speaker 2: Chairs Public Safety and Governance of the City of Cincinnati. Scotty,
Speaker 2: welcome back, my friend. How are you doing? Man?
Speaker 9: Doing well, Scott A little busy, but yeah, all's welly.
Speaker 4: Good to be with you.
Speaker 2: Ian you as well. I appreciate you taking time out.
Speaker 2: You know, I read your comments and saw your comments.
Speaker 2: I couldn't agree with you more on this one. What's
Speaker 2: disturbing about this is well, on a number of levels,
Speaker 2: the city paying eight million of the eight point one
Speaker 2: million dollars, some of the county only paying sixty five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars, and I think also the fact that you mean,
Speaker 2: it seems like the city and you know better than
Speaker 2: I will, it seems like the first thing they want
Speaker 2: to do is settle as opposed to actually fighting. So
Speaker 2: I couldn't imagine a jury looking at what happened in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty and going, yeah, you know what, these people
Speaker 2: are victims. I wouldn't see that happening in Hamlet County.
Speaker 2: Quite honestly, are you surprised we didn't fight this?
Speaker 9: Well, according to our law department, there was a lot
Speaker 9: of negotiation that took place, and the biggest thing that
Speaker 9: came back was there was a possibility, if we were
Speaker 9: to lose this, you could be paying double of the
Speaker 9: eight million. You know what disturbs me more than anything
Speaker 9: else is the fact that I'm still waiting on the
Speaker 9: numbers of how many of these people were actually residents
Speaker 9: of Cincinnati.
Speaker 4: And I think what.
Speaker 9: Happens, Scott is we send a very dangerous precedent that
Speaker 9: Cincinnati is a place that you can come break the
Speaker 9: law and get paid for breaking the law. Now, let
Speaker 9: me say this, nobody can doone civil rights being violated.
Speaker 9: Nobody condones mistreatment of any form or any shape, form
Speaker 9: or fashion but let's just be let's get to the
Speaker 9: meat and potatoes here. The Cincinnati police were faced with
Speaker 9: extremely difficult circumstances. And when you have a number of
Speaker 9: I guarantee you some of these people that are going
Speaker 9: to get paid are professional protests. They go from city
Speaker 9: to city and do what they believe is within their rights,
Speaker 9: and the police respond to that. We had property damage,
Speaker 9: we had police officers being assaulted, and that is something
Speaker 9: that is completely unacceptable in Cincinnati. So now you got
Speaker 9: people coming into Cincinnati to protest, that's your right to
Speaker 9: protest peacefully.
Speaker 4: But after the police give you.
Speaker 9: Instructions and lay down the law, you need to follow
Speaker 9: that law.
Speaker 4: Now when you as it.
Speaker 9: Was indicat during twenty twenty, nobody talked about police brutality.
Speaker 9: All the conversation was about how they were treated when
Speaker 9: they got to the jail in the Sally Point part
Speaker 9: area of the county jail. And now the city is
Speaker 9: getting ready to pay eight million dollars. Something doesn't smell
Speaker 9: right here at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The thing is because you had four hundred and seventy
Speaker 2: nine people a little start there, that's an extreme number
Speaker 2: of big size crowd for police officers to deal with.
Speaker 2: I look at that number, go, okay, that's pretty substantial there,
Speaker 2: and it would be reasonable based on the threats towards
Speaker 2: law enforcement, maybe based on property damage and the like,
Speaker 2: is to institute a curfew. And they're saying that that
Speaker 2: is somehow unconstitutional. You know, you're not saying you can't protest.
Speaker 2: But we know that these We know that our consocial
Speaker 2: rights are not an absolute right. The old yelling and
Speaker 2: screaming fire in a crowded theater, for example, that's not
Speaker 2: a First Amendment violation. Our thing putting up reasonable curfew
Speaker 2: for adult protesters is would stand a constitutional test, wasn't
Speaker 2: you know? I mean, you're not saying you can protest,
Speaker 2: you just have to do it and you gotta go
Speaker 2: up the street at dark. Because while we've seen what
Speaker 2: happened across the country with cities literally burning down, Scottie
Speaker 2: Johnson private property being destroyed by these protesters, that it
Speaker 2: was reasonable to an actor curfew.
Speaker 4: What's wrong with that exactly?
Speaker 9: And see that's we have a right and the mayor,
Speaker 9: and the mayor has a right to institute a protests
Speaker 9: until control is until the Cincinnati police get control back
Speaker 9: in the city. So I'm with you one hundred percent
Speaker 9: on that. Then if you look what happened after the
Speaker 9: after the four hundred and sixty nine people were arrested, Cincinnati,
Speaker 9: unlike other major cities, didn't have another day of knuckleheads
Speaker 9: running through our city.
Speaker 4: So the issue here is.
Speaker 9: As what's disturbing to me is nobody talked about police brutality.
Speaker 9: All complaints came from my recognition recognition recollection. And I'm
Speaker 9: not saying I know everything, but all complaints were about
Speaker 9: how they were treated when they got to the jail.
Speaker 9: And I'm saying that if that's the case, then therefore,
Speaker 9: why is the county writing a measly little check for
Speaker 9: sixty five thousand in the city's writing a check.
Speaker 4: For eight million.
Speaker 9: All complaints during that time were about how they were
Speaker 9: treated at the jail and the Sallyport area. I took
Speaker 9: hundreds of prisoners in there over a career. It belongs
Speaker 9: to the county. It appears based on video, that's where
Speaker 9: they were left in the Sallyport area.
Speaker 4: And if there were.
Speaker 9: Cases of brutality by this Sinnati police that's just now
Speaker 9: coming to light.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Yeah, let's focus on that, Scotty real quick. Here
Speaker 2: is because the lawsuit alleges that polices to be CPD
Speaker 2: used tear gas, pepper spray, flash bangs and crowds or
Speaker 2: maybe just flash grenades on crowds including disabled people and
Speaker 2: children that are caught up in there, that they were
Speaker 2: detained on hours on buses outside in the weather, and
Speaker 2: that would have been in the summer, with no access
Speaker 2: to toilet, water, food, blankets, shelter, or necessary medication. In
Speaker 2: the sally Port Hamilt County. It's an open air sally
Speaker 2: port there. But again, if you had four hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy nine people to process, that's going to take some time.
Speaker 2: You're going to be sitting out there. Relative to the
Speaker 2: tear gas, pepper spray and flash grenades, did Cincinnati to
Speaker 2: your knowledge, CPD officers ever deploy that.
Speaker 9: I think there might have been some pepper spray to
Speaker 9: get peak some crowds under control. I'm not sure Scott
Speaker 9: one hundred percent whether flash bangs were used, but if
Speaker 9: they were used, I get Cincinnati police are the best
Speaker 9: trained in this nation. If they were used, it was necessary,
Speaker 9: I know for a fact based on the commanders that
Speaker 9: were running that during that time. Tactically sound gentlemen, ladies
Speaker 9: and gentlemen. So if it was necessary to use flash banks,
Speaker 9: then that those were deployed. But we gotta make sure
Speaker 9: that Cincinnati is not a place you got to write
Speaker 9: to protests. I support protests if it's orderly and there's
Speaker 9: no property damage, but you don't get to come to
Speaker 9: Cincinnati act lawless and then you get a check for that.
Speaker 9: That's a problem, and we gotta make sure that message
Speaker 9: is clear. You can come to Cincinnati and protests, but
Speaker 9: you're gonna do it peacefully, and you're gonna do it
Speaker 9: under the laws that the city of Cincinnati have in place.
Speaker 2: For those people who maybe weren't around then, weren't born there,
Speaker 2: or were less paying attention, or simply forgot. Because this
Speaker 2: goes back to twenty twenty five years later, each year
Speaker 2: in my life's got in about you feels like it's
Speaker 2: about I can barely remember what I did yesterday alone,
Speaker 2: five years ago. Nonetheless, the reality of life is that
Speaker 2: something's happened during those protesters. I recall, can you enlighten
Speaker 2: us as to some of the things that members that
Speaker 2: are not all I think they're largely well behaved. But
Speaker 2: of course, as you said, there's gonna be some knuckleheads
Speaker 2: in a group like that trying to take their liberties
Speaker 2: with the law. What did you see or what did
Speaker 2: you hear at the time that would have constituted a
Speaker 2: reason to enforce this curfew that the city says, Well.
Speaker 9: You had, first of all, you had people unfortunate of
Speaker 9: people in traffic where there's here's the thanks Scott, and
Speaker 9: I'll get to that. Number one is Cincinnati police are
Speaker 9: responsible for making sure everybody safe. That's the residents not
Speaker 9: involved in protests. Those are business owners. Those are the protesters.
Speaker 9: So some were in traffic causing possibly being a hazard
Speaker 9: to getting hit by cars. The Cincinnati police were responsible
Speaker 9: for fake making. I'm sure nobody got hit by cars.
Speaker 9: You don't get to shut down traffic in Cincinnati where
Speaker 9: a possibility you get ran over by car. Then people
Speaker 9: are pointing at the police. Were where were the police?
Speaker 9: So we had people in traffic, we had people breaking windows,
Speaker 9: we had people throwing things at the police. You had
Speaker 9: people attempting to assault police. So those are things that
Speaker 9: would justify we're going to bring order back to Cincinnati
Speaker 9: and implement a curfew. How in the world a curfew
Speaker 9: is unconstitutional when you have people committing crimes is beyond
Speaker 9: my belief. So those factors led to the fact that
Speaker 9: it's time for people to get off the streets so
Speaker 9: order to be restored in.
Speaker 2: Cincinnati, Scottie Johnson, would this settlement and a grain You
Speaker 2: know with settlements there's no fault, there is given. But
Speaker 2: based on the precedent set saying that, okay, curf you
Speaker 2: can't have a curfew anymore for adults. Would does that
Speaker 2: then undermine the juvenile curfew the Cincinnati has.
Speaker 9: No we're gonna push that. No, I pray not, because
Speaker 9: let's just be frank. Young people obviously have shown in
Speaker 9: the past they don't know how to conduct themselves. Some
Speaker 9: not all don't know how to conduct themselves, and they
Speaker 9: need to be home at a specific hour. There's nothing
Speaker 9: positive for people under eighteen after midnight, Absolutely nothing positive.
Speaker 9: You need to be at home somewhere. So let's hope
Speaker 9: that's not Let's hope. And I think we need to
Speaker 9: stick to making sure our young people are safe. It's
Speaker 9: a safety issue for them also, and so we're not
Speaker 9: going to We're not going to back off. We don't
Speaker 9: need to change all policies and procedures every time somebody
Speaker 9: sues or every time somebody gets paid in a settlement.
Speaker 9: We've got a fantastic city here. We're gonna make sure
Speaker 9: that we keep it safe, and we're gonna make sure
Speaker 9: the Cincinnati Police are supported in making sure all citizens
Speaker 9: are safe. I think Scott has a re all of this, though.
Speaker 9: We've seen better communication between the city and the county,
Speaker 9: the city police and the Sheriff's department at the jail,
Speaker 9: and I think everybody was overwhelmed when you arrest four
Speaker 9: hundred and sixty nine people. But I still go back
Speaker 9: to we didn't hear complaints during the twenty twenty that
Speaker 9: they were people were being brutalized by the Cincinnati police.
Speaker 9: The complaints came as a result of how long they
Speaker 9: had to sit in the sally Port.
Speaker 4: Look, if you break the law, don't.
Speaker 9: Look for us to put a pamper on you or
Speaker 9: provide you with air conditioned and feed you and.
Speaker 4: All of those different things.
Speaker 9: You know, that's just stuff that people that professional protesters
Speaker 9: need to know that, and you need to understand that
Speaker 9: the Cincinnati.
Speaker 4: Police are here to enforce the law.
Speaker 9: They're not here to provide you with pampers and water
Speaker 9: and all of that.
Speaker 4: Different type of stuff. When you break the law.
Speaker 9: You know, I don't want to see anybody abuse or
Speaker 9: brutalized or rights violated. But when you break the law,
Speaker 9: then you need to be in for what comes with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're not Baltimore, but I subscribe to the theory.
Speaker 2: You know, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you've
Speaker 2: got a six ro you know, sitting around for six
Speaker 2: or seven hours in the heat of the sally Port
Speaker 2: while you're waiting to be processed, that's that's something you
Speaker 2: should have considered prior to your activity, or prior to
Speaker 2: being someone who's going to knowingly break the law. He
Speaker 2: is a council member. Scotti Johnson on the Scott's lun
Speaker 2: Show seven hundred WW Chair of Public Safety and Government.
Speaker 2: City settling with these four hundred and sixty nine protesters
Speaker 2: for the tune of eight million dollars roughly, but the
Speaker 2: county Hamlet County is only on the hook for sixty
Speaker 2: five thousand dollars. The lawsuit describes, as I mentioned, the
Speaker 2: protest as being held for hours on buses which are
Speaker 2: air conditioned by the way, and then outside without access
Speaker 2: to toilet or water or medication.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I remember seeing news coverage of you guys handing out
Speaker 2: bottles of water to people. Is that an acceptable level
Speaker 2: of detention your eyes of someone? The law enforcement and
Speaker 2: should the law should? Should the courts look at this
Speaker 2: and go, hey, look, these are extenuating circumstances. We were
Speaker 2: overwhelmed with lawbreakers and they knowingly violated the curfew that
Speaker 2: was in place to protect businesses and the quality of
Speaker 2: life in Cincinnati. You can protest, but we can limit
Speaker 2: where and what that protest looks like. That seemed to
Speaker 2: be from what I remember, it was reasonable at the time.
Speaker 2: How did this become so unreasonable? And why is the
Speaker 2: county only paying sixty five grand?
Speaker 9: That's that's Those are great questions, and you said it.
Speaker 4: You know we're not No.
Speaker 9: If Cincinnati leads the leads the nation in reform, we
Speaker 9: lead the nation, and we respecting people's civil rights, We
Speaker 9: lead the nation when it comes to being community oriented.
Speaker 9: So we know our track record is clean when it
Speaker 9: comes to how we treat people, in how we interact
Speaker 9: with citizens.
Speaker 4: If Cincinnati, he's God.
Speaker 9: I'm still waiting to see what numbers, how many of
Speaker 9: these people actually live in Cincinnati, and how many of
Speaker 9: them from out of town. So those are things we
Speaker 9: got to take under consideration. Also, as you said, we
Speaker 9: were overwhelmed, the county was, the jail was overwhelmed. So
Speaker 9: I think better communication has been established as a result
Speaker 9: of what happened here, But we got to make sure
Speaker 9: people understand that you need to follow the law in
Speaker 9: Cincinnati when you come.
Speaker 4: Here to protest.
Speaker 9: I'm still that discrepancy, that's huge discrepancy between sixty.
Speaker 4: Five thousand and eight million.
Speaker 9: That's still a huge question to get that. I'm still
Speaker 9: I'm still puzzled by Yeah, because.
Speaker 2: What I described outside of the maybe the flash bangs
Speaker 2: being used in tear gas, but that's reasonable considering the
Speaker 2: way some of the crowd or acting control of the crowd.
Speaker 2: But if the major crux of this was being held
Speaker 2: on buses for hours and sitting out in the sally
Speaker 2: port and no access to medication, that would be after
Speaker 2: Hamlin County takes custody of that subject. Correct, So that's
Speaker 2: outside of your control. And yet the city's eight million
Speaker 2: dollars in their sixty five grand I just I don't
Speaker 2: understand how they came to these numbers.
Speaker 9: And see here's the thing here, here's the question. Is
Speaker 9: the Sallyport into Sallyport. If you're into Sallyport, are you
Speaker 9: still under the control of Cincinnati Police and all the
Speaker 9: other agencies in Hamilton County or do you you now
Speaker 9: become under control of the county deputies once you enter
Speaker 9: the just the jail.
Speaker 4: See, I know.
Speaker 9: Time and time again in the sally Port there were
Speaker 9: times where you had disarly prisoners that the jets, that
Speaker 9: the deputies would come and assist you and take immediate
Speaker 9: control of disarly prisoners in the Sallyport area before you
Speaker 9: could even get some of these.
Speaker 4: Clowns out of the car.
Speaker 9: So that's where somebody that has been there and done it.
Speaker 9: That's where I'm saying, hold on, wait a minute now,
Speaker 9: control is after the part prisoner's process. No, the sally
Speaker 9: Port belonged. That's part of the jail. It once you
Speaker 9: enter the jail. Unless something has changed in the coming
Speaker 9: up on six years, hop and cone and that something
Speaker 9: has changed, and.
Speaker 4: Now the videos Cincinnati runs.
Speaker 9: The sally portst That's why I got a real problem
Speaker 9: with what happened here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, uh okay, So the sally part of your hearings.
Speaker 2: It kind of looks like in some areas looks like
Speaker 2: a garage you've ever seen a cop show. It's or
Speaker 2: the unit'll roll in, there's a gate or a door.
Speaker 2: You come in, it's secure. The sub subject has taken
Speaker 2: and cuffs, usually to a a window where you're literally
Speaker 2: you're transferring control from Cincinnati to the county. At some
Speaker 2: point you're actually signing or you're signing this away, and
Speaker 2: it's like a legal it's a legal exchange saying, okay,
Speaker 2: you now have legal custody of this individual or individuals
Speaker 2: the case may be. H The sally Port in Hamlet
Speaker 2: County is not you know, it's it's not an air
Speaker 2: conditioned area. It's and it's kind of like a courtyard
Speaker 2: sort of speak. But it's pretty clear that you're trying
Speaker 2: you and and all the arrests you've enacted in your
Speaker 2: professional Chris Scottie Johnson, you literally signed custody over to
Speaker 2: the county. When when when they're sitting there in there
Speaker 2: on county land being monitored by deputies and jailers, that's
Speaker 2: out of your control. And yet uh, the city is
Speaker 2: the one having to foot the bill for this. It's
Speaker 2: just it's really really interesting why we came to the sellment.
Speaker 2: You think at some point we ain't know why they
Speaker 2: came to this conclusion.
Speaker 9: I think, yeah, I think those questions are definitely being
Speaker 9: asked by my colleagues. I've got the same question. But
Speaker 9: I think the preliminary response from law has been that, uh,
Speaker 9: we we could have gone down a rabbit hole where
Speaker 9: we're paying almost double the eight million. I don't understand
Speaker 9: that part. Not an attorney, I don't know everything. So
Speaker 9: you know, the experts get to lead on this. But
Speaker 9: as you as you explained properly as a Cincinnati police officer,
Speaker 9: to even get in the sally Port, their security. So
Speaker 9: once your car passes through one gate, stuck between two
Speaker 9: gates before you even get into the big area. So
Speaker 9: that to me would say, that's county control. So once
Speaker 9: those metro buses with four hundred plus people got in
Speaker 9: the sally Port, you're now on county property and the
Speaker 9: deputy sheriffs have control. Unless something has changed over the
Speaker 9: six years.
Speaker 2: I don't think it has. I think there's that legal custody,
Speaker 2: there's that transfer issue. Scottie Johnson, I'll leave it at that, man,
Speaker 2: I appreciate you coming on this morning. Thanks for enlightening
Speaker 2: us or maybe just frustrating us even more. I have
Speaker 2: no idea, ope not take care of me. I appreciate you. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so that's what eleven twelve grand per person. Awesome SALOONI
Speaker 2: here seven hundred ww giving you a vocational leg up
Speaker 2: on everyone else. Here's our career, Sir, Julie Bouki. You
Speaker 2: probably heard the term winners never quit, quitters never win.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, we do have people who are
Speaker 2: quiet quitting, so you make sense of that. Sometimes quitty
Speaker 2: is good. Sometimes quitting is good. Pinch hitting for Julie
Speaker 2: Bouc today is our friend Andy Duke. Andy is a
Speaker 2: professional decision scientist and former professional poker player to talk
Speaker 2: about when it's okay to quit, Annie, welcome back. How
Speaker 2: are you?
Speaker 8: I'm good? Are you?
Speaker 2: Why'd you retire from poker? Did they have enough of
Speaker 2: you winning? What's going on there? Did you run some problems?
Speaker 2: Did you have to start throwing fists at people? What's
Speaker 2: going on Annie?
Speaker 6: With you?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 8: You know what. I've been doing it preteen years and
Speaker 8: I just didn't I didn't enjoy it anymore. And that's
Speaker 8: a really good reason to.
Speaker 4: Quit something reason the question we do.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we're supposed to be making our sound happy, right,
Speaker 8: and if you figure out that you're not happy doing something,
Speaker 8: you should go do something else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I couldn't do it. You know, I've got a vegas.
Speaker 2: I's got a Vegas and you go and you go
Speaker 2: to bed at some ungodly hour like it, I don't
Speaker 2: four o'clock in the morning, and you roll down back
Speaker 2: at one in the afternoon. The same people are sitting
Speaker 2: at the poker table. My ADHD will not allow me
Speaker 2: to do that.
Speaker 8: Well, you know what, Actually, I think some people with
Speaker 8: ADHD great hyper focused. So actually, poker it's full of
Speaker 8: people with ADHD. I think it's just yet I want.
Speaker 2: To chew my leg off after about an hour, I'm good. Well,
Speaker 2: let's start with this. Uh, the idea that quitters never win,
Speaker 2: Winners never quit. That's what we tell our kids. That
Speaker 2: where we were told. But and I think certainly it's
Speaker 2: a virtue, right, You've got to be persistent. You can't
Speaker 2: quit easily. You have to keep trying and trying and trying.
Speaker 2: But that makes it sound like quitting is a vice,
Speaker 2: is it.
Speaker 8: Yeah, No, it's not, as I say, the opposite of
Speaker 8: a great virtue is awful a great virtue.
Speaker 3: So I agree with you.
Speaker 8: The grit is a virtue. In order to succeed at something,
Speaker 8: you will have had stuff to stick to it. But
Speaker 8: that doesn't mean that stick to things and you'll succeed
Speaker 8: because what if, like, for example, you get a concussion
Speaker 8: on the football field, since you walk off the field.
Speaker 8: What if you are in a job with a toxic box,
Speaker 8: since you go try to find another one. Or you know,
Speaker 8: a relationship that's making you deeply unhappy. You know, assuming
Speaker 8: that you've tried to make it work and all times
Speaker 8: point to it's not going to change, shouldn't you walk away?
Speaker 8: So in fact, winners quit a lot because what they
Speaker 8: do is they try a whole lot of stuff and
Speaker 8: they quit all the things that aren't working so that
Speaker 8: they can stick to the things that are.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like this in the stock market. Now
Speaker 2: you think Wall Street, right, ultra competitive and cutthroat and
Speaker 2: that whole bra culture thing going on, and you would
Speaker 2: think that, yeah, I know, quitting is a weakness, but
Speaker 2: those guys quit all the time. You know, you pump
Speaker 2: up a stock and say, okay, this is working. Out
Speaker 2: we're going to cut and run. They do that consistently.
Speaker 2: That's how they make that's how they're successful.
Speaker 8: Well that's exactly right. I mean, that's the thing is
Speaker 8: that in order to be successful, you have to quit
Speaker 8: the things that aren't working. And a lot of times
Speaker 8: what happens with people who are trading stops is that
Speaker 8: once they own something that's losing, they find it really
Speaker 8: really hard to get rid of it. This is true
Speaker 8: of not necessarily elite traders, but you're average person who's
Speaker 8: playing in the stock market, and you know the reason
Speaker 8: is that, like, if you buy a stock at fifty
Speaker 8: and it's trading at forty, don't you want to get
Speaker 8: that ten dollars back? That's that feeling that we have, like,
Speaker 8: well if I sell now, then like I can't get
Speaker 8: that ten dollars back. But that's something called the sunk
Speaker 8: cost fallacy. What you've already lost in it doesn't matter
Speaker 8: very much is the question of would you buy it today?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 8: And if the answer is no, I would prefer to
Speaker 8: buy something else. You want to go do that. But
Speaker 8: we get stuck in these things because of our refusal
Speaker 8: to quit.
Speaker 2: That makes sense, it's human nature, right, you can't just
Speaker 2: walk away because then you can't validate all the time
Speaker 2: and effort you spent getting to where you were.
Speaker 8: Well, that's exactly right. So the sunk cost fallacy doesn't
Speaker 8: just have to do with money, right, So you could
Speaker 8: be losing money in a stock and not want to
Speaker 8: walk away. But people say all the time when you know,
Speaker 8: you're talking to a friend and they're in a unhappy
Speaker 8: relationship and you say, well, why don't you walk away?
Speaker 8: And they said, because I've put so much time into it.
Speaker 8: You know, I've put a year into this relationship. I
Speaker 8: can't walk away now, or you know, in terms of effort,
Speaker 8: you say, weren't you walking away from this job? Because
Speaker 8: they'll say, because then all of my onboarding and all
Speaker 8: of the training and getting to know the culture of
Speaker 8: the workplace that will be you know, for not, I'll
Speaker 8: have wasted it. But waste isn't really a backward looking
Speaker 8: problem because that stuff has already gone. What matters is
Speaker 8: do you want to go into work the next day?
Speaker 8: Is this the right place for you to be going forward?
Speaker 8: And we have trouble thinking about waste as a forward
Speaker 8: looking problem, like in order to try to not waste
Speaker 8: something that I've already put into it. I'm going to
Speaker 8: waste more stuff is basically what ends up happening with
Speaker 8: the sun crost fallacy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. I think
Speaker 2: that's also pretty obvious. But you can hold on to
Speaker 2: something for so long you wind up harming yourself in
Speaker 2: the end. I think there's a great analogy here with
Speaker 2: a company a lot of people knowing that as Seers, right,
Speaker 2: how literally they were Amazon before Amazon, now not in
Speaker 2: the technological sense, but in the consumer and purchasing and
Speaker 2: warehousing sense. Absolutely. They just I think that's a fascinating story.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So Sears was so huge that in the nineteen
Speaker 8: fifties they represent one percent of gross national products. This
Speaker 8: was a really big company. So yeah, so they had,
Speaker 8: you know, they had all these retail stores. Everybody went
Speaker 8: to Sears for all of their stus. But I think
Speaker 8: it's pretty well known that they went bankrupt really in
Speaker 8: the nineties. They started to really financially falter, and then
Speaker 8: by the two thousands they were bankrupt, out of business.
Speaker 8: They try and merging with Kmart at some point, which
Speaker 8: I think people called the double suicide. The critics called
Speaker 8: it because Kmart was also faltering at that point. The
Speaker 8: thing that people don't know about Sears that I think
Speaker 8: is really interesting is that Sears was also a financial
Speaker 8: services company. So in particular in the nineteen thirties, when
Speaker 8: people started driving cars to their retail locations, they thought, oh,
Speaker 8: you know, people might need insurance to these cards, so
Speaker 8: they founded a company called All State Insurance. I assume
Speaker 8: you've heard of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't know that we started that. That's interesting, right, And.
Speaker 8: They owned it actually all the way through the early nineties,
Speaker 8: and All Say Insurance the last time I checked this
Speaker 8: market cap was with somewhere around forty billion dollars or
Speaker 8: something like that. And then they also owned a company
Speaker 8: called Being Winter, which was a really big stopware for it.
Speaker 8: I think Morgan Stanley acquired it. It was forty percent
Speaker 8: of Morgan Stanley's where if they owned Discover Card, they
Speaker 8: created the Discover card, and they had cold wal Banker.
Speaker 8: So then you have to ask for people, how did
Speaker 8: they go broke if they owned all of this stuff,
Speaker 8: And it's actually a failure to quit that caused them
Speaker 8: to go broke when they started faltering in the nineties,
Speaker 8: when all of a sudden they weren't a number one
Speaker 8: retailer anymore that went to k martin Walmart at that time,
Speaker 8: and then Target pushed them out of the way. Also,
Speaker 8: when those retail locations started faltering, the shareholders were saying,
Speaker 8: you've got to do something because these retail stores are
Speaker 8: losing money. So and you know, this other stuff is
Speaker 8: making money and it's to drag on the business. And
Speaker 8: what the board decided to do was quote unquote get
Speaker 8: back to its retailing routs. So they refused to quit
Speaker 8: the retail business. And they still off all of these
Speaker 8: amazing financial services business in order to try to save
Speaker 8: the retail business. Why wouldn't they quit that when it
Speaker 8: was obvious that you should have held on to all
Speaker 8: states I mean obviously right right, right right, because what
Speaker 8: my fears they were a retail company. It was their identity.
Speaker 8: And this is a lesson for all of us that
Speaker 8: the hardest thing to quit is who you are. So
Speaker 8: the things that you define you expet to find you,
Speaker 8: whether it's your job or your beliefs or whatever it is,
Speaker 8: those are going to be the things that's hurdest for
Speaker 8: you to walk away from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, And you know,
Speaker 2: the Seers thing was. It's the killer is if you
Speaker 2: go back in one hundred years before the retail shops,
Speaker 2: most of America's are grarian, rural and people would buy
Speaker 2: their stuff with the Seers catalog that would show up right,
Speaker 2: and so they'd ship all the stuff to them. It
Speaker 2: was Amazon without the Internet, basically, is what it was.
Speaker 2: They missed out on that whole thing. And yeah, we're
Speaker 2: gonna stick with brick and mortar retail because you know,
Speaker 2: they're around the you know, the birth of the internet age
Speaker 2: and online shopping. They could have been all over that,
Speaker 2: but they chose not to. And now Sears is a
Speaker 2: is a tombstone and and all because probably they're sitting
Speaker 2: around some wood paneled boardroom looking at pictures of the
Speaker 2: founder of Sears and going, man, we can't disappoint the
Speaker 2: old man. There's a lot of analogies there, you know,
Speaker 2: and that that legacy kind of thing, and you know, well,
Speaker 2: what what the we're a retail company. Now you're your
Speaker 2: company that has responsibilities to shareholders and workers. That's basically
Speaker 2: the relationship there. You sell what people want to buy,
Speaker 2: and they didn't do that, and there's your lesson there. Now,
Speaker 2: On the other hand, regarding what we're talking about this
Speaker 2: morning on seven hundred WLW and Anny Duke is on
Speaker 2: she's a decision scientist. And the analogy that winners never quit, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: they quit all the time because they're smart. That's that's
Speaker 2: why they're winners. What what about that advice about quitting
Speaker 2: while you're ahead? Is that the extreme opposite of this.
Speaker 8: So it's really funny, you know, Scott like. So there's
Speaker 8: all this advice about quitting, most of which says, you know,
Speaker 8: never ever give up, or quitters never win. Winners never
Speaker 8: quit if first you don't try, try yet there's one
Speaker 8: that encourages you to quit it, which is quit while
Speaker 8: you're a head. And the funny thing about it, it's
Speaker 8: actually terrible advice, just like the other stuff is terrible advice.
Speaker 8: So it's clear you should shouldn't just stick to things
Speaker 8: comewhat made because context matters, right, like if you get
Speaker 8: injured in a fourse game, walk away. But quit while
Speaker 8: you're a head is really interesting because what you find
Speaker 8: with human behavior is that the time that we do
Speaker 8: tend to quit too early, at least as adults, right,
Speaker 8: kids quit too early because they can't see the reward
Speaker 8: at the end of the rainboat, right, But that's not
Speaker 8: true for adults, right. So for adults, the time that
Speaker 8: we do quit too early is when we're ahead. So
Speaker 8: if you let's say that, like in the stock market,
Speaker 8: they have something called taking and what that means basically
Speaker 8: is like, if you buy a stock at fifty, you'll
Speaker 8: decide in advance that if it gets to fifty eight
Speaker 8: you'll sell it. Right, so you'll make that decision. Ms
Speaker 8: you'll also put in an order which says, if it
Speaker 8: gets to fifty eight, I'm going to sell the stock,
Speaker 8: and it will automatically sell. What you find is that,
Speaker 8: let's say to fifty five, people will sell then instead
Speaker 8: of waiting till it gets to fifty eight. So once
Speaker 8: they're ahead of where they started, then they'll go ahead
Speaker 8: and quit and this happens. It's really interesting because what
Speaker 8: does being ahead mean? I means essentially having reached some
Speaker 8: sort of goal in your head. And so there was
Speaker 8: a really interesting study that was done with New York
Speaker 8: City cab drivers from the nineteen eighties before the days
Speaker 8: of uber, and what they found was that when they
Speaker 8: looked at their trip feet, they were driving really long
Speaker 8: hours when there weren't any fares around, and driving really
Speaker 8: short hours when there were lots of fares around. So
Speaker 8: that's weird because that's backwards. You would think they want
Speaker 8: to drive a lot when there's lots of stars, and
Speaker 8: they'd want to drive very little when they are very
Speaker 8: few fairsreat this, by the way, this pattern was costing them.
Speaker 8: They would have made fifteen percent more if they did
Speaker 8: what I just said, drive more when there were lots
Speaker 8: of fares and drive little when they're very few. So
Speaker 8: they were costing themselves a lot of money with this behavior.
Speaker 8: So the researcher said, well, what's going on? Why are
Speaker 8: they stopping so and when there's lots of fares around?
Speaker 8: And they asked the drivers, and the drivers that turned
Speaker 8: out had set like a target and earning his goal
Speaker 8: for the day, Like what, they didn't want to make
Speaker 8: three hundred dollars for the day. As soon as they
Speaker 8: hit the three hundred dollars they quit. Otherwise they would
Speaker 8: just keep going so right, So this is where you
Speaker 8: get like this quit while your head is really bad
Speaker 8: advice because what that meant was it's just them a
Speaker 8: really long time to hit their goal when there were
Speaker 8: no fares around, so they drove for a really long time.
Speaker 8: But when there were last affairs around, they quit their
Speaker 8: They quit really quickly because they got to their goal
Speaker 8: really fast. So then they considered themselves a head at
Speaker 8: that point, and so they quit as soon as they
Speaker 8: were ahead. Well, that created really bad behavior because they
Speaker 8: that's when they should have been gritty. Right, that's why
Speaker 8: I should have driving. So this is why this is
Speaker 8: just bad advice. Quit while your head. Actually really exaggerate
Speaker 8: the bias that we already have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it seems like everyone's this way, right are
Speaker 2: we Are we pre wired as humans to stick with
Speaker 2: the status quo?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, look, there are some you know, there
Speaker 8: are some people who who are going to be better
Speaker 8: quitters than others. But in general, when you look across
Speaker 8: human behavior, we love the status quo. And part of
Speaker 8: the reason that we love the status quo is this
Speaker 8: weird thing where when the status quo is going really poorly,
Speaker 8: we actually tolerate it much better than the fear of
Speaker 8: maybe if I switch and start something new it won't
Speaker 8: turn out well. So you'll hear this all the time,
Speaker 8: like you'll be talking to a friend who's been a
Speaker 8: job that they hate, and you'll say, well, why aren't
Speaker 8: you switching, like, go do something else? And we'll say,
Speaker 8: but what if I take a new job and I
Speaker 8: hate that? And it's such a strange thing to say,
Speaker 8: because it's like, but you hate the job you're already in,
Speaker 8: Like you know that for a fact. Yeah, there's some
Speaker 8: chance you might not like the new thing, but there's
Speaker 8: also a chance that you might really like it. But
Speaker 8: the status quo is a really comfortable place to be,
Speaker 8: and we don't even when we stick with the status quo,
Speaker 8: we do really think about it as an active decision.
Speaker 8: Like that same friend when you see them three weeks
Speaker 8: later and you say, have you quit yet, They'll say,
Speaker 8: I'm not ready to make a decision yet, and it's like, no,
Speaker 8: but you did make a decision for the last three reaps.
Speaker 8: You decided to stay in the job that you're in.
Speaker 8: So there's all these things that are causing us to
Speaker 8: stick to the thing we already know and be afraid
Speaker 8: of switching to new things. Even if those new things
Speaker 8: would you don't have a much better chance of being better.
Speaker 2: For it makes sense, Annie Duke, She's a decision scientist,
Speaker 2: and it's quit. The power of knowing when to walk
Speaker 2: away and quitting is not losing as long as you're
Speaker 2: doing it with the right intent and it's thoughtful. Annie,
Speaker 2: thanks again. I appreciate the time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Annie Duke.
Speaker 2: She was in for Julie this morning, taking the day off.
Speaker 2: Alonder the weather. Hope she's feeling better. To be back
Speaker 2: next week for sure.
Speaker 4: Though.
Speaker 2: We've got a news update happening. We've got weather moving in,
Speaker 2: we got snow coming that we got well not yet,
Speaker 2: we got wind, we got rain, then snow. It's going
Speaker 2: to get worse before it gets better, for sure. Full
Speaker 2: news update coming up in just minutes and when a
Speaker 2: return of the show. He's Ohio Senator Steve Hoffman, the
Speaker 2: author of Senate Bill fifty six. This is the Ohio
Speaker 2: recreational law he helped craft, and it's been changed billions
Speaker 2: of times since it came to fruition. Some disturbing elements
Speaker 2: that all bad. I'm not going to think this is
Speaker 2: the worst thing. Ever, there's some concerns with what was negotiated.
Speaker 2: Try and get this thing signed by the governor. The
Speaker 2: biggest impact, of course, is the fact that this is
Speaker 2: going to make thch beverages legal again to be sold
Speaker 2: in bars, and that whole industry is just massive. It's
Speaker 2: going to eclipse the craft beer industry before too long
Speaker 2: because craft beer is kind of a dying thing, and
Speaker 2: how thhch and fuse beverages are coming along because I'm
Speaker 2: play for a lot of people. You feel better after
Speaker 2: you drink them. It's different kind of buzz. Nonetheless, that
Speaker 2: is going to be part of this thing. At least
Speaker 2: the Fed's come to their senses hopefully and allow that
Speaker 2: to be sold. They're going to get all the hemp
Speaker 2: based products that and those derivatives, the intoxicating derivatives that
Speaker 2: are sold by some convenience stores to miners. That's getting
Speaker 2: cleaned up so you can get that dispensers. But I
Speaker 2: mentioned there's some troubling elements here too, and that is
Speaker 2: the big nanny state in effect here. Look, I'm pro marijuana.
Speaker 2: I've been pro marijuana before this law took a when
Speaker 2: it was extreme, when no states allowed you to use marijuana.
Speaker 2: I'm glad to see people come into their census finally,
Speaker 2: and I understand there's got to be some regulation, but
Speaker 2: some of this stuff just screams nanny state. From the
Speaker 2: people out of one side of their mouth who scream
Speaker 2: about how the government has to get out of your life.
Speaker 2: They have no problem getting in your life when it
Speaker 2: suits their interest. We'll get to that next with State
Speaker 2: Senator Steve Hoffman from Tip City coming up on the
Speaker 2: show right after this on the Home of the Best
Speaker 2: Bengals coverage seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 7: I do want to be an American idiot?
Speaker 2: Hi, Scott Calm back on seven hundred WLW and what
Speaker 2: feels like the I don't know one hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: seven thousandth provision to the Ohio Recreational Marijuana lows headed
Speaker 2: to the Governor's desk for his signature, and that will
Speaker 2: become law this time. All intoxicating him products can only
Speaker 2: be sold in dispensaries. It would be illegal to bring
Speaker 2: marijuana back to Ohio from another state. And there's a
Speaker 2: number of other changes, well, some minor other ones. Leaves
Speaker 2: the scratch in your head and on. That is the
Speaker 2: architect of what started the Senate Bill fifty six. At
Speaker 2: State Senator Steve Hoffman out of Justice, Tip City, Steve, how.
Speaker 10: Are you doing well on yourself?
Speaker 2: I'm doing fine. One hundred and sixty seven thousandth revision,
Speaker 2: I believe, and that's part of compromise and deals being made.
Speaker 2: But man, this thing is it really has been carved
Speaker 2: up and put back together several times for sure?
Speaker 4: Well it has. It is both.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 10: Initially the Senate had two bills that I had on
Speaker 10: one on marijuana, and then Senable Lady sixth on hamp
Speaker 10: the House put them together and mixed it all up,
Speaker 10: and this is.
Speaker 3: What we got.
Speaker 2: Okay, could take an effect by I think in March,
Speaker 2: if signed soon here by the governor. So let's just
Speaker 2: jump in and I guess to me, as a civil libertarian,
Speaker 2: what concerns me is there's a chance this is the
Speaker 2: accusations of the what the seven Democrats that devoted against us.
Speaker 2: But bring up some points about this could eliminate protections
Speaker 2: from you know, maybe losing your job if you're using
Speaker 2: and even on your own time for that matter, necessarily
Speaker 2: on the job, but could get you kicked out of
Speaker 2: your rental unit if you rent an apartment or something house.
Speaker 2: Could also negate your parting rights in Ohio. Those are
Speaker 2: pretty extreme arguments against this, and how do they how
Speaker 2: do they fit in here?
Speaker 10: I think most of those things are already in statute
Speaker 10: and are just a continuation of those so your parenting rights. Sure,
Speaker 10: the judge should should be able to decide on his
Speaker 10: opinion if you have a if you smoke every Friday
Speaker 10: night and your kids are not around.
Speaker 4: I don't think he's going to care.
Speaker 10: But he should have the ability to say, hey, look,
Speaker 10: you're smoking every day when your child is at the
Speaker 10: home and he's two years old. He should be able
Speaker 10: to have that that discretion, And that's what we leave it.
Speaker 10: And same as the as for the employer. For the
Speaker 10: employer in medical from the beginning, if if it's a
Speaker 10: drug pre workplace, it's a drug pre workplace, he has
Speaker 10: the right to terminate you, not because you smoke, but
Speaker 10: you're you're positive at the workplace.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess the one that bothers me most is
Speaker 2: a landlord myself. Is I get smoking because you say, hey,
Speaker 2: no smoking in units, but if someone vapes in one
Speaker 2: of your rentals, you could kick them out as well.
Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure I agree with that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, I wanted to give the discretion to
Speaker 10: the landlord because if you know somebody is in there
Speaker 10: and they're smoking, and it really stinks and you go in,
Speaker 10: you know, in a year later the guy moves out
Speaker 10: and Scott clones rental. You have to go clean it
Speaker 10: up and you just can't get that smell out and
Speaker 10: cost you thousands of dollars. It's after the discretion the
Speaker 10: guy that owns the buil.
Speaker 2: That's reasonable, but the vaping thing doesn't leave smell, So okay,
Speaker 2: we'll leave that one out. That's a that's an outlaiyer there.
Speaker 2: This would have been intoxic eating hemp products from being
Speaker 2: all outside of licensed marijuana dispensaries, and it closes that
Speaker 2: quote unquote loophole were you know, kids underage kids were
Speaker 2: buying stuff at convenience stores and Delta eight and getting high.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean that was the main thing that on
Speaker 10: the on the hemp side is to get you know,
Speaker 10: the things that looked like gummy bears and and things
Speaker 10: like that away from kids over twenty one. So that
Speaker 10: in the dispensary, we really just married neared the federal
Speaker 10: law that they you know they did in the center
Speaker 10: bill won the big beautiful bill, and we just spent
Speaker 10: that up. The feds gave it a year. We said
Speaker 10: those ninety days, you know after the governor signed it
Speaker 10: to these things will go away. But we did carve
Speaker 10: out the beverages because I was thinking we got to
Speaker 10: carve out the beverages because Scott Flown and his wife
Speaker 10: like to drink beverages.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's the biggest win so far. However,
Speaker 2: I will say that that only carries the THC. Beverages
Speaker 2: can be sold until the end of the year twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six, which is problematic, but that has to do
Speaker 2: with federal luck.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 10: Yeah, again, it's mirrors federal law. We also put in
Speaker 10: the bill, and that's none of the non codified section
Speaker 10: is that the House and Senate if the FED has
Speaker 10: changed that and allow for the beverages, we will come
Speaker 10: back and make a good faith effort to carve out regulations.
Speaker 10: We didn't have time to put in a tax structure,
Speaker 10: regulatory things, inspection and stuff like that. So we'll make
Speaker 10: a good if the Feds change it, will come back
Speaker 10: and make a good faith effort.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would think that the FEDS would because
Speaker 2: it is a huge industry. I mean, you know, not
Speaker 2: only were we making these seven hundred million dollars in
Speaker 2: the first year recremational marijuana but one of the biggest
Speaker 2: growing sectors if you talk to beverage producers, is the
Speaker 2: people are kind of done with craft beer and now
Speaker 2: they're moving towards the THC ones because you feel a
Speaker 2: lot better the next day we drink, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: three or four beers and you feel a little bloated
Speaker 2: and tired. You don't get that, I guess with the
Speaker 2: THC beverages, and people are buying those by now, by
Speaker 2: the bucketfull. Let's put it that way. We don't want
Speaker 2: to really, I mean, we want to be pro business here, right,
Speaker 2: You're right.
Speaker 10: I mean, look, Ryan Heist there in Cincinnati has a
Speaker 10: huge damp beverage business, and we're going to keep that
Speaker 10: and they're going to be able to do that going forward,
Speaker 10: and and uh, and they'll be able to sell it
Speaker 10: out of state.
Speaker 3: You know, we we have it.
Speaker 10: We're at five milligrams here, uh in the state of
Speaker 10: Ohio and and uh, you know other states are higher,
Speaker 10: and they'll be able to produce that and send it
Speaker 10: out of state.
Speaker 4: If they want.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure out though, the criminalizing someone bringing
Speaker 2: product back from let's say Michigan for example, here too.
Speaker 2: I don't know how you enforce that. I don't think
Speaker 2: that's enforceable. It's in a package already. How would someone
Speaker 2: know that it's purchased in Michigan and not somewhere or
Speaker 2: not in Ohio. And also the testing standards, it's some
Speaker 2: somehow Michigan's testing standards aren't up to snuff. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Can Michigans tolerate THHC better than Ohio wins. It's not
Speaker 2: like they don't regulate it to some degree. What why
Speaker 2: is that in there?
Speaker 10: I believe that there are a different standard. It is
Speaker 10: federal law, now, it's state law. Now, you can't bring
Speaker 10: it across the state line. I don't think there's gonna
Speaker 10: be the high The Democrats said yesterday that they're going
Speaker 10: to be lined up in Toledo to come across when
Speaker 10: you bring it across the state line, that's not going
Speaker 10: to happen. I think there's a different testing. Uh, you
Speaker 10: can figure it out, because Ohio has has seeds to
Speaker 10: sail tracking on on all marijuana products. But I don't
Speaker 10: think it's going to be really enforced. And why why
Speaker 10: would we put it in there?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 10: I think because uh, if it's abused, they'll be able
Speaker 10: to enforce it in the sense that if you're bringing
Speaker 10: you know, track too much, you cultivate too much, they'll
Speaker 10: be able to figure it out.
Speaker 4: And that is that.
Speaker 2: I hate the notion that it's another sneak and peak
Speaker 2: kind of thing, quite honestly, because hey, we saw you
Speaker 2: come out of a weed store in Michigan, or hey
Speaker 2: we you fit the profile. I just it's another reason
Speaker 2: for law enforce from the sneak and peak. I totally
Speaker 2: disagree with that. Okay, what about the THHD cap productions?
Speaker 2: So we'd set a new cap at seventy percent for extras,
Speaker 2: thirty five percent for flour, what does that mean to
Speaker 2: the average consumer and what's the rationale behind that? What's
Speaker 2: the research saying.
Speaker 10: I don't think the consumer is really going to notice anything.
Speaker 10: And the thirty five percent is basically that's what what
Speaker 10: you what they can grow now on on plants about
Speaker 10: thirty five percent PhD. That is not going to change
Speaker 10: the seventy per It's just you do you add more
Speaker 10: to get the level of PHC do you want in
Speaker 10: a product? It's like, yeah, you know, one hundred proof
Speaker 10: from one hundred and fifty proof from you take a
Speaker 10: little more one a little less the other. So you're
Speaker 10: gonna get to concentrate concentration that you want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then people will just take more with n't.
Speaker 2: I mean it really serves no purpose. You just gotta
Speaker 2: buy more product. I guess if you want to, if
Speaker 2: you want to, you know, a higher buzz, you're gonna
Speaker 2: just use more of it.
Speaker 10: Yeah. I mean it's you, You're gonna people are gonna.
Speaker 3: Get what they want.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just I again, those two of that makes sense
Speaker 2: to me. Uh, you know, back to the well, the
Speaker 2: transportation is one thing, but the bill requires marijuana state
Speaker 2: in the original packaging and mandates trunk storage while driving. Again,
Speaker 2: I think that's another way for stops and searches. But
Speaker 2: I don't know. I go, Okay, well, original packaging, trunk
Speaker 2: storage at the case. The contention though, is it's somehow
Speaker 2: marijuana is more dangerous than a gun.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: There are less restrictions with carrying a gun at all, Hio,
Speaker 2: there is marijuana. Does that make sense?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 10: Probably not on the whole. I think what we really
Speaker 10: we're looking at or it's not sitting there next to you,
Speaker 10: it's not readily available. Keep it in the package so
Speaker 10: that you know this stuff on a gummy, a marijuana
Speaker 10: gummy or a just a regular gummy. You can't tell
Speaker 10: the difference, and you don't want to put in in.
Speaker 10: Some kids said, oh, there's a there. Those are my gummies,
Speaker 10: not a dad's gummies, and mix things up. So if
Speaker 10: you keep them, uh, keep them in the in the
Speaker 10: original packages. And I know that you can't if you're
Speaker 10: homegrow you don't have an original package, but you know,
Speaker 10: keep that away from uh, you know, the.
Speaker 4: Kids and people.
Speaker 2: Okay, my original pe. So if I'm going over to
Speaker 2: Buddy's house and bring a couple of gummies with me,
Speaker 2: let's say, uh, I get pulled over in the officer
Speaker 2: set it, I could get a ticket for that. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm just trying to think it should be
Speaker 2: the same as alcohol. Now you can't have open container
Speaker 2: and like if you leave at a restaurant and you
Speaker 2: didn't finish your wine, they will put the cork back
Speaker 2: and then seal it in a plastic bag to show
Speaker 2: law enforce. And hey, it's not an open container so
Speaker 2: to speak, and then that should also apply to marijuana
Speaker 2: as well. But the trunk storage to me seems rather extreme.
Speaker 10: I don't disagree with you. Maybe that's farther than we
Speaker 10: should have went, but you know, trying to trying to
Speaker 10: make things, you know, close to alcohol.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he is a state senator, Steve Hoffman, and he's
Speaker 2: a physician, also author of Senate Bill fifty six, which
Speaker 2: has been chopped up a lot, and now it's going
Speaker 2: to the governor's desk to be signed. So if you're
Speaker 2: just joining some of the things that have changed, is
Speaker 2: and this is the good news here, There's there's a
Speaker 2: lot of good news in here too. It would make
Speaker 2: legal the THD beverages we've talked about till at least
Speaker 2: the end of twenty twenty six, so that's a two
Speaker 2: year grace period. And in addition to that, we're talking
Speaker 2: about the transportation concerns. You can't bring weed back from
Speaker 2: another state. You can get stopped for that. Also, you
Speaker 2: have to have it in the trunk, it has to
Speaker 2: be in the original container. There's a lot of other
Speaker 2: elements of this thing. We're also capping the amount of
Speaker 2: THHC in the product as well, public storage ban, interstate transfer.
Speaker 2: But I mentioned that as well. I look at this
Speaker 2: whole thing and go, okay, well, if this is what
Speaker 2: we had to do to get it all done. And
Speaker 2: it seems like in context. While there's some things that
Speaker 2: I question the sanity of, others like the THC beverage
Speaker 2: and the restricting of hemp sales to license suspenser as
Speaker 2: opposed to carryouts where kids can get it, are generally
Speaker 2: good things here.
Speaker 10: No, I agree. And the other thing we haven't talked
Speaker 10: about is attacked so we can roll the ten percent
Speaker 10: tax on marijuana products and the thirty six percent of
Speaker 10: locals and as soon and because that's an appropriation. There's
Speaker 10: some good and the bad things with this bill. One
Speaker 10: it gives the governor line item veto ability, and the
Speaker 10: other thing it does is that as soon as he
Speaker 10: finds it, that money that's been sitting in the state's bank,
Speaker 10: about a one hundred million dollars will be distributed. Not instantly,
Speaker 10: but you know, give them a couple of weeks. It
Speaker 10: will be good Christmas for these jurisdictions that have been
Speaker 10: waiting for a year and a half to get that money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're like seven hundred million in sales this first
Speaker 2: year and you're going to get thirty six percent of
Speaker 2: that revenue. That's significant money right there. And what are
Speaker 2: the strings attached to that to local gums, how they
Speaker 2: can spend it.
Speaker 10: They can spend it however they want. It's a ten
Speaker 10: percent pack that they're going to get. Thirty six of
Speaker 10: that ten percent, the state's going to get the other percent.
Speaker 2: Gotcha, gotcha. So they can spend on whatever they want.
Speaker 2: And that's good because there's not municipalities that simply don't
Speaker 2: have the funding that's going to help make them hole.
Speaker 10: Well, they accepted the dispensaries on the premise that they
Speaker 10: were going to say, be some negative. I don't think
Speaker 10: there's negative, but they accepted it so that knowing that they.
Speaker 3: Would get money to do stuff with.
Speaker 10: So we're honoring that that commitment that they accepted.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the ten percent tax rate on records for marijuanas
Speaker 2: is maintained. Home grow by the way, because that was
Speaker 2: a source of contention. Six plants per adult, twelve per residents,
Speaker 2: which is unchanged, and a cap a four hundred dispensary
Speaker 2: state wide. All of that does stay the same. And
Speaker 2: then of course that moment, as soon as the governor
Speaker 2: signs us in the law, the money for that will
Speaker 2: become available. And there are some concerns in here. For sure.
Speaker 2: I don't think the sky's falling at all with the
Speaker 2: Steve Hoffman. You've got to make concessions. I suppose there
Speaker 2: are some troubling things for me as a civil libertarian
Speaker 2: that leaves me scratching my head. But all in all,
Speaker 2: at least we keep that THC beverage business going until
Speaker 2: the end of twenty twenty six, and hopefully the federal
Speaker 2: government will come to their senses and say we should
Speaker 2: exempt that because there's just so much revenue involved, not
Speaker 2: just in Ohio but every state jumping on the THC
Speaker 2: beverage bandwagon. As long as it's sold in a are
Speaker 2: regulated like alcohol, that's how this whole problem should be
Speaker 2: addressed in the first place.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 10: I think we I mean, I've said it. It's very
Speaker 10: unpopular in Columbus. I think we should deregulate the entire
Speaker 10: marijuana in the next five to ten years. We should
Speaker 10: still have those provisions to make it safe. But if
Speaker 10: Scott Sloan wants to grow five thousand square feet, he
Speaker 10: should be able to grow it if he can meet
Speaker 10: the license and all the requirements that everybody else does.
Speaker 10: We shouldn't just limit it to twelve or fifteen people,
Speaker 10: because that's not capitalism, that's not the free market.
Speaker 2: Steve Hoffman got to get going, Senator, always appreciate the time.
Speaker 4: You have a great day, you too, take care. Scott
Speaker 4: got a.
Speaker 2: Roll and get news in happening right now here with
Speaker 2: traffic and weather, and the weather's concerned because we've got
Speaker 2: some snow moving in full details just seconds away. And
Speaker 2: the when return on the Scott's Loan show, Sarah's here
Speaker 2: a little snort action. We'll talk about the Bengals next
Speaker 2: seven hundred w Weld come in hot this morning, Sarah
Speaker 2: Lee with the Snort report this morning here everything sports,
Speaker 2: all the snorts, more sports, and.
Speaker 11: We just have to laugh to keep from crying.
Speaker 2: You are just unbearably happy this morning.
Speaker 11: Again. I'm just laughing and smiling.
Speaker 2: What do you have to be happy about? How dare
Speaker 2: you come in this studio after I've been slaving away
Speaker 2: for two and a half hours with that? What is
Speaker 2: wrong with you?
Speaker 12: God forbid? Somebody is joyous around here. All you cranky
Speaker 12: older gentlemen.
Speaker 2: Suck the life out of you.
Speaker 11: So we did find out that the middle.
Speaker 2: Aged women aren't much better.
Speaker 12: I'm not there yet give me a couple more years.
Speaker 2: Fifty What are you talking about?
Speaker 11: Fifteen something? Fifteen years?
Speaker 2: Anyways, you've been thirty five for seven years.
Speaker 12: I've been thirty five for like to one year negative
Speaker 12: two years. Anyways, that's beside the point. We found out
Speaker 12: that the Reds. The Reds have money. The Reds have
Speaker 12: more money than we thought.
Speaker 2: Just let's break it down here, Kyle Schwarber argument here.
Speaker 12: And look, this is the last day I'm talking about
Speaker 12: Kyle Schwarberg for the.
Speaker 11: Next five years.
Speaker 12: All right, when he comes here as a Red in
Speaker 12: when he's thirty eight years old and he can't swing
Speaker 12: the bat anymore.
Speaker 2: Right, then we'll get them.
Speaker 11: The Reds are like, well, we'll give you a million bucks.
Speaker 2: You can sit on the bench right right, hometown discount.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 12: It turns out that Kyle Schwarber does love Cincinnati, but
Speaker 12: not as much as he loves playing for the Phillies.
Speaker 11: I don't know if it's that it's twenty five million.
Speaker 2: Five million is more than twenty He's.
Speaker 12: Like, you know what, twenty five million dollars is a
Speaker 12: lot better than living in Cincinnati.
Speaker 8: So there you go.
Speaker 2: And the Pirates offered a better Dean not only four years.
Speaker 12: But I think the Pirate Soffer was four years at
Speaker 12: one twenty and the Reds were five at one twenty five,
Speaker 12: and the Philly said, hold our beer five for one fifty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll pay the luxury tax because you know it's
Speaker 2: big market. Now I got the money, we don't.
Speaker 12: Yeah, so he will be thirty three when he starts
Speaker 12: the season, thirty eight when the contract is up, so
Speaker 12: it ain't over.
Speaker 11: We could still see this guy in a Reds You.
Speaker 2: I don't think so.
Speaker 12: But who knew that the red had this one hundred
Speaker 12: and twenty five million dollars that they were just ready
Speaker 12: to bother you to go?
Speaker 2: And then people will why do you make it one
Speaker 2: thirty five?
Speaker 11: Why not?
Speaker 2: Well, I guess when it's not your money, you can
Speaker 2: spend it, right.
Speaker 12: Yeah, like I will gladly spend the RDS money, I
Speaker 12: will gladly spend somebody else's money. But according to Ken Rosenthal,
Speaker 12: this is what he said. The Reds are not expected
Speaker 12: to pursue other expensive free agents this off season.
Speaker 11: Their pursuit of Kyle Schwarber was due to the belief
Speaker 11: that he would drive ticket sales.
Speaker 2: Well, winning generally does drive tickets.
Speaker 11: Winning does a lot of good does.
Speaker 2: Whether it's Kyle Schwarber or not. Now I will contend again.
Speaker 2: You know, we've seen this movie play out before where
Speaker 2: you bring somewhere like Griffy and how did that work out? Now,
Speaker 2: granted he was older, is more beat up, but my
Speaker 2: point is it seems like when you get people who
Speaker 2: are even moderately good, decent hitters and they come here,
Speaker 2: they can't hit.
Speaker 11: And it doesn't matter where they're from.
Speaker 12: Look, I'm just looking at the fact that he hit
Speaker 12: fifty six bombs last season, and we need somebody that
Speaker 12: can hit. Who on this team right now can hit
Speaker 12: the ball like Kyas Sarberg needs somebody to hit.
Speaker 11: Noboddy, we really could have used him.
Speaker 2: You would have loved hitting at this park too. At
Speaker 2: one hundred home runs.
Speaker 12: Oh my god, this is the best ballpark to do
Speaker 12: it at. He would have hit seventy five, set a
Speaker 12: new record.
Speaker 2: Right, I guess. But at the same time, he would
Speaker 2: have could have. But it seems like we have correct him.
Speaker 2: If I'm wrong, Red's lady. But we've had a streak
Speaker 2: of guys coming here we're decent at the plate that
Speaker 2: can't hit. Great American ballbar I don't know why that,
Speaker 2: and it's been going on for twenty years.
Speaker 11: Which is really odd. Right, this is the home.
Speaker 2: I mean, he built this place short for Griffy in
Speaker 2: that short porch and he could eatn't what do you do?
Speaker 11: It's built for balls to fly.
Speaker 12: Yeah, there's a joke there that I'm gonna let go,
Speaker 12: but Barry, because I want Dave to edit that out
Speaker 12: and it'll be used with impunity.
Speaker 2: On the Stooge Report at thirty.
Speaker 12: Today, Barry Larkin said, I want to try to recruit
Speaker 12: his ass.
Speaker 11: Turns out Barry Larkin can't even get him here, Lark and.
Speaker 2: Can't get him, and I guess Lark wants to kick
Speaker 2: any extra five mel Yeah, Lark.
Speaker 12: You're gonna ball out. It turns out that nobody could
Speaker 12: have gotten here. Money truly talks, man. Anybody else would
Speaker 12: have done it. For an extra twenty five million dollars,
Speaker 12: you would have left to the way it's set up. Man,
Speaker 12: He's like, I do love Cincinnati. That's cool and all
Speaker 12: take a twenty five million dollars haircut one hundred and
Speaker 12: six days until opening day. By the way, Okay, good
Speaker 12: are there. Rud's going to get somebody to hit.
Speaker 2: That need somebody to come up and hit the ball.
Speaker 11: We gotta figure that out, Yeah, we do. And also
Speaker 11: Tito the other day had said he was talking about
Speaker 11: Ellie da la Cruz.
Speaker 12: We know that he was dealing with an injury in
Speaker 12: the second half of that season, and he goes, yeah,
Speaker 12: I wish I would have sat.
Speaker 11: Ellie a little bit more. That was on me much
Speaker 11: Did we know about this.
Speaker 2: Right in the way it was playing, Well, you knew
Speaker 2: something was there.
Speaker 12: Of course, I've got an inside source that says, oh, yeah,
Speaker 12: we saw him walking around the clubhouse.
Speaker 2: I don't think Gaffer doubling around.
Speaker 11: It's a source. I don't think Gapper sees more than
Speaker 11: we did.
Speaker 2: With those fuzzy eyeballs the screen, you can see.
Speaker 11: A lot through those screens.
Speaker 12: Look as someone that was the Easter Bunny at Tri
Speaker 12: County Mall for three seasons in a row.
Speaker 11: It's amazing what you can see through those eyes.
Speaker 12: I was the Easter Bunny from the age sixteen to
Speaker 12: eighteen years old.
Speaker 11: At Trick County Mall.
Speaker 12: Yes, I had grown men sitting on my lap and
Speaker 12: little kids drew things for me. So it's for a
Speaker 12: whole other day Wow, that's a whole other thing going
Speaker 12: on there.
Speaker 11: That is a whole other thing.
Speaker 2: What happens in the suit stays in the suit, thank you.
Speaker 12: Except we will bring those stories of the airwaves someday.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 12: That's enough with the Reds explained. Nothing else is going
Speaker 12: on with the Reds.
Speaker 2: That's it. It's College Schwarber. We're done moving on.
Speaker 12: We're not talking about the guy from Middletown anymore. I
Speaker 12: can't keep doing this. I'm not talking about the Big
Speaker 12: Red Machine and I'm not talking about Middletown.
Speaker 2: We'll be talking about the Big Red Machine soon enough,
Speaker 2: once we.
Speaker 12: Get into the season, as soon as the Bengals wrap
Speaker 12: up their season, because God knows that's happening.
Speaker 11: We got the yeah good, Just a vicious circle, that's
Speaker 11: all it is.
Speaker 1: It's Tony Perez babble night. Here we go, Here we go,
Speaker 1: Here we go. Get the whole big bobble line up.
Speaker 1: Every year hasn't been honored enough. Do something this century.
Speaker 1: Come on, y'all.
Speaker 12: The Bengals. They're back at the jungle this Sunday. They're
Speaker 12: back at practice today, which is the lesser of the
Speaker 12: two evils. Joe Burrow is twenty nine today. By the way,
Speaker 12: that was trending on social media. The Bengals wished to
Speaker 12: my happy birthday. Happy birthday to Joe. You will be
Speaker 12: celebrating that at practice today because they are back at
Speaker 12: it after a couple of days off. Zach Taylor held
Speaker 12: a press conference on Monday, and he actually had a
Speaker 12: lot of information and to share with us. I'm sure
Speaker 12: you've talked about it a ton on these airwaves. Finally
Speaker 12: got rid of Germaine Burton, who was contributing nothing to
Speaker 12: this team, making fifty six K a week or whatever
Speaker 12: crazy number it was when he made, Yeah, making an
Speaker 12: entire annual salary for.
Speaker 2: Just seventy thousand years the game. I think of sixty
Speaker 2: nine to seventy somewhere around there. Yeah, I'm just simply
Speaker 2: not sleeping through practice, not showing up, and just like.
Speaker 12: Going to the casino and not traveling with the team.
Speaker 12: And there's a bunch of allegations around him and unpaid
Speaker 12: bills and just weird things. But honestly, I agree with
Speaker 12: what Zach Taylor said. He goes, Look, I hope he's
Speaker 12: happy with his next adventure. Say, just get the help
Speaker 12: that you need. Though he needs some help.
Speaker 4: I liked it.
Speaker 2: He didn't throw shade at him and just like said, hey,
Speaker 2: we wish him all the best, good luck exactly, don't care.
Speaker 11: He was very uh about the entire thing.
Speaker 2: You have to be for the Brown family to pay
Speaker 2: you for not play?
Speaker 4: Oh my right?
Speaker 11: And what was to do with them holding on to him?
Speaker 11: I don't all wand I did.
Speaker 2: It's like the lost Savior, lost car. And we're going
Speaker 2: to hear more of the Jermaine Burton start coming out
Speaker 2: now that he's no longer with the team, right, We're
Speaker 2: gonna hear more stories about what he actually didn't did
Speaker 2: or didn't do U to.
Speaker 12: Want because we've seen the photos on social media trending
Speaker 12: where he's sitting at the casino, and we've seen the
Speaker 12: paperwork that there were some allegations with an ex girlfriend
Speaker 12: of his. A lot to get through and it sounds
Speaker 12: like he needs to get his mental health and check,
Speaker 12: which is very, very important.
Speaker 11: And then but then that comes out now not even
Speaker 11: a part of the Bengals problem.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's that's your name, but that's how much did
Speaker 2: that come back in the Bengals because you took this
Speaker 2: guy third round? He played what he had four catches
Speaker 2: last year.
Speaker 11: In US was like, I don't even know why were
Speaker 11: your career?
Speaker 2: I just wondered, shouldn't we be getting back to and
Speaker 2: based on what's happened with the defense and all this
Speaker 2: other stuff, is examining how they go about getting players.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the big It's not Jermaine Burton going
Speaker 2: off the rails.
Speaker 11: We're not good at draft.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and how did you miss Son? Someone who's that
Speaker 2: mentally unstable?
Speaker 11: It's sad, It's really it's a really sad situation. So
Speaker 11: Zach Taylor on my horse.
Speaker 2: If you're the Bengals, I would think, Yeah.
Speaker 12: Zach on Monday was like, I'm not going to give
Speaker 12: a reason. We're just parting ways. That's all there is
Speaker 12: to it. And the hits just really keep on coming.
Speaker 12: Uh uh, You're gonna need a lot of alcohol this
Speaker 12: weekend because I just checked the forecast for Sunday's games.
Speaker 12: Take off at one against the Ravens, a high of
Speaker 12: thirteen let's go thirteen degrees. That is some football weather.
Speaker 12: That ain't nothing for you.
Speaker 2: I feel like, well, the thing was, there's no win.
Speaker 2: It's unusual because of the lake there and that wind
Speaker 2: is just awful.
Speaker 11: I don't know how windy.
Speaker 2: It wasn't windy at all. There you will see what
Speaker 2: the wind. I don't think the wind's going to die
Speaker 2: down after today, but it's going to be cold.
Speaker 12: Yeah, so there's a hitting the ground. Keep Joe off
Speaker 12: the ground and those you know and Tea Haggins out.
Speaker 2: You have like a Bengals Uh, you have like a
Speaker 2: bedazzled Bengal snowsuit that you wear to thost.
Speaker 11: Absolutely not. I will be in the comfort of my home.
Speaker 2: Watching she is Sarah Lisa snow get it straight back
Speaker 2: to the show tomorrow, Kid Chris Show one of two
Speaker 2: seven EB in the morning. The Snort Report on Wednesdays.
Speaker 2: Here not much to snort about with our teams again,
Speaker 2: you just got a left to care. I got you,
Speaker 2: I gotcha all right. It is a Scott's Flown show.
Speaker 2: Willie's on the way next afternoons. It's the home of
Speaker 2: the best Bengals coverage. Seven hundred Wally Sincenati