Judiciary Committee - Senate

Glad y'all are here. Uh, unfortunately we have our chair is still sick, so please be in prayer for Senator Alan Clark as he's getting over some sickness and uh but we will move forward for the people's business today. Welcome to the Judiciary Committee, Cha Caesarorum. Members, please use your mics. Those wishing to speak for or against the bill, please sign in. accordingly so we can move forward, but we're going to go here, here's a road map for everybody to understand where we're going to go. We're going to go HB 1040. 9 is the first bill we're going to look at. Second is HB 1007 and we'll make some adjustments from there, but those would be the first two. So I want to invite Senator Caldwell to the table. Please introduce yourself and you're welcome to present your bill, and I believe you have an amendment for us as well. I need to explain the amendment, please introduce yourself for the record and and you're free to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and uh members of the committee. I am presenting House Bill 1049. I do have an amendment. Is your microphone on, OK, all right, just making sure. Thank you. The green light here, the red light here. Staff is that good? I think it needs to be just pull a little bit towards you. Uh, I'll be like Bugs Bunny. Pull it, pull it out the wall. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Go ahead again. I'm Ron Caldwell, Senate District 10. I'm here to present how House Bill 1049, and we do have an amendment. The amendment only corrects an error in the sponsors and co-sponsors, so I would ask for a good vote. OK, thank you, Senator. I've got a motion to have a second. All right, all those in favor. All right. motion passes. Amendment is adopted. All right, you are free to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, this, this bill wants to define a uh a squatter, uh, first I want to tell you what the bill is not. It is not a bill on residential eviction so if you're a renter or a family member in Peach property, you need to be evicted. You have to go to the courts to do that. This is strictly a squatter's bill in the last few years we've had a problem with people coming on to private property and staying and it's been very difficult, if not impossible to remove those people and so that's what this bill does. Thank you, Senator Caldwell. This, uh, I wanted to uh bring your attention to page 2. Beginning in line 5, it defines unlawful squatting and what it means is entering and residing unlawfully on a premise where you're not authorized to do so, and so if you don't have the permission or a legal document such as a deed or a rental agreement or a lease agreement, then the authorities have the right to come out and remove you. I would answer any questions if you have any. Thank you, Senator. Members. Any questions for Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious about Senator Caldwell. I mean, I can guess at the reason, but Uh On page 3 line 3. On the pending litigation that that would be we don't want the law enforcement to get involved in a middle of a litigation that that if the courts are working that out, that should be worked out in the courts and should not try to be settled outside of the courts. That's, that's what I would have guessed at, but I prefer not to guess, so I guess my other just big picture question is, I, I understand. The issue that this bill seeks to address, but I'm just sort of wondering if as a society, It seems like as a society, Issues that we don't know how to deal with if it's mental health, substance abuse, or in this case squatting, we just put all that on the justice system and criminalize the conduct. Is there something we can do with this issue other than criminalize the people who clearly need a place to be. Or is there another approach? Um, I don't know, it's sort of a philosophical question, but just, just raising it for discussion. I don't have an answer for you on that. She Clark, we've discussed this with a multitude of different agencies and people going back probably 11 or 12 months of trying to reach an agreement on what to do, and we have had folks from that same thought process. I don't think anyone in here wants to, uh, uh, violate anyone's rights or Processes if they have mental health, but again, they, they could go back to the law enforcement and the prosecutor as to whether or not they prosecute someone they thought to deem having mental health issues. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Any other members' questions? All right, uh, nobody has signed up to speak for or against on this bill. Would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against? All right, see you nun. I have a motion to pass. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Caldwell, you're recognized to close for close. I mean I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Senator. I have a first do pass. I see it. As amended, I do pass as amended. I have a second Du pass as amended any discussion. All right, members all in favor say aye. All right, oppose like sign, congratulations, Senator, you're, you're we share and committee members. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right, members, we're going to move to Uh, House Bill 1007 and Senator Rice, I believe, is is recognized to present the bill. Good morning, Sister Terry Rice, District 5. Mr. Chair and committee, uh, House Bill 107 is represented per year, uh, we had, he had heard I was interested in in this and, and uh uh got together and told him he told me what the bill was and and got it together and filed it early on. It did, I know it's done that doesn't have to meet our standard, but it did pass the House 85 votes This is for for youth. Uh, who are in shooting sports events and you, as we all know and we hear so many bills on, uh, because we're litigious society when you ask somebody to provide maybe some property that they could have a shooting event. It's only right to give them protection. You're going to see some legislation coming. I looked over yesterday for uh some parks and tourism uh stuff on some of the bike trails and trams that that are going to require that it's just something you have to do in this society. I did watch the video of the, the house had good questions when it was originally presented, they wanted it tightened up. Uh, it was fashioned off on a uh I believe estrian uh bill and they want to tighten up and represent Perrier did that and you'll notice it says thet sponsored by Arkansas Game and Fish. commission, Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation or Arkansas 4H and of course they have Personnel there with the young people, but this is for the one and by the way, Representative Perrier testified that he had supplied, I think some of his land for this reason. He got, uh, the idea to start with. So with that, this just gives protection for people wanting in the end to help young people in, in their growth appreciation of firearm shooting and a sport that many of us love. I'd be I had to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator Rice. Any members, any questions, Senator Johnson there's other, other groups that host besides those, uh, you know, local shooting sports complexes. Uh, was there any consideration for for the possibility of giving that same. there was because this was a much broader bill before it went before our House Judiciary and and uh They, that is the reason it got tightened up. I, I would rather have have uh uh it broader myself, so maybe that's the next step. Next time, yeah, some, sometimes we have to take a, take a bite at a time. I appreciate this bill and thank you. Thank you. Senator Tucker Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I just think, I think there's an error in the bill that we need to fix. OK, if you look on page 2 lines 30 and 31. Just read those two lines. I think there's just a in the amendment process. I got messed up. spell it out for me if you will. Well, line 30 reads the signs required under subdivision C1A of this. And then there's no end to that sentence. And then there's a new subdivision B on line 31. It says the signs required under subdivision B1a of this section and then it goes on and finishes out. And Senator Clark, that's the reason we have Tucker, Clark Tucker, reason we like you on the committee. I live to serve Senator Rice so members, I will do this. Let me put Uh, I'll be glad to answer any more questions, but if it's the committees which I don't mind pulling down and see if we can get that Senator Rice, if you'll entertain one more question from Senator. Thank you. Cents for Senator Tucker, Senator Tucker's, it's not the same language that is included in all equine events carried on throughout the state of Arkansas. Yeah, we put them all over. We've been doing this for the point is that the language the way it's written. It's, it's, it's missing some of its type. Just to topple by the staff. Well, that's some new staff over there. All right, so thank you, thank you, Senator Stubblefield. Senator Rice, would you entertain pulling down if we let me pull this down and we'll get with the riders and get that corrected and bring back. All right, without objection, we'll do so. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Thank you. All right, members, we're going to move to um we're gonna remove the top of the page we see Senator King available to run a Senate Bill 143, 144, 145. I do not see him. All right, so we'll pass over that for now. Um, now we'll move to House Bill 1317 and Senator Gilmore, I believe you're presenting this bill today. Please recognize yourself for the record. And you, you'll be recognized. What was that? Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ben Gilmore, Senate District 1. And I'm happy to present when ready. Thank you, Senator. You are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this bill is pretty simple. It just adds to the code section of penalties for knowingly making a false statement or misrepresenting facts to a state-supported retirement system. Um, so with that it just basically says as you try to defraud a retirement system it's a Class D felony. Happy to take any questions. All right, Senator Tucker, you recognize? They come easy, senator. I just got one today I understand what you're doing for your bill. Just, I know it used to be a class A misdemeanor, just the thought process on bumping it from a Class A misdemeanor to a class. I just think because it's significant enough what we're talking about that it ought to be treated with a little bit more seriousness. All right, members, any other questions? I signed up. Nobody has signed up for or against the bill, Senator, are you close for Bill? I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. Make a motion to pass. Thank you. I've got a first. Do I have a second? Du pass? It looks like here. Any discussion? All right, all those in favor, see I, I and pose like sign. All right, congratulations, your, your bill moves forward. All right, members, we will move to HB 12263. Senator McKee, I believe you're presenting this bill today. Please introduce yourself for the record, and then you'll be recognized. Good morning. Members of the committee. Matt McKee, State Senate 6. Thank you. And if you'd like to introduce your guest as well for the record. I'm Daniel Shu. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County, and I'm president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. All right. Thank, thank you both for being here today. You are recognized to present your bill. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is a pretty simple bill. The basic crux of the bill can be found on page 2, line 15, unlawful removal or failure to charge an electronic monitoring monitoring device is a class A misdemeanor. This is basically just a tool in the prosecutor's tool belt that they can use to hopefully ensure that those devices aren't damaged and that they are continually charged so that those people's location can be monitored. I'd take any questions. Thank you. Members, any questions for Senator McKee? All right, see none. Do we have anybody signed up? Nobody signed up for or against. We've got a motion do pass. I'm sorry, are you close for a good vote. I'll make a motion. Thank you. We got vote first and a second. All those in favor, signal I. And you pose like sign. All right, congratulations to your bill. Let's move forward. They didn't want any questions from. All right, members, let's move to um Senator Clark Tucker, um, and your array of bills today for us, so you are recognized. To introduce yourself For the record, a Senate Bill 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177 and 175. Thank you, Mr. Chair. These are all technical corrections bills coming out of the Code Revision Commission. I'm more than happy to go through each one in tremendous detail if that's what the committee's pleasure is, but if the committee has other wishes, I'm, I'm, I'm open to hearing them. I move we limit discussion from Senator Tucker. Thank you, Senator, Senator Tucker, I believe we do have a motion from Senator Johnson before we get started. The motion to spin the rules and consider Senate Bill 170 through 177 and the batch. All right, we have a proper motion. We have a 2nd. All those in favor of the motion saying bye, say aye, and you pose like sign. All right, so we have approved the motion to batch these bills for a single vote, but Senator Tucker, I would appreciate an overview maybe of the direction of these bills and any highlights you would like to make before we, before we consider. Of course, the main point is Just to remind the members of the process between sessions, the Code Revision Commission meets, and the reason we call these technical corrections bills is because there's nothing substantive in any of these bills, and the Code Revision Commission is very careful that if something is substantive at all, then a legislator has to run a separate bill to make the change. The only bills that come out of the code origin commission with approval are ones that are purely technical in nature and the other legislators on the committee, in addition to myself or Senator Josh Bryant and then Representative Matthew Shepherd and Representative Jimmy Gazaway. And so we're all very careful about that. So that's, that's the primary reminder of the process, you know, for example, the first bill repeals a section that has expired, and it's, it's those, it's those sorts of things, and Senate Bill 172, we delete obsolete language and that obsolete language is a date that has already passed, so it's really those sorts of things that are in the bill and the in the package of bills, and I'm happy to answer any specific questions, but that's, that's the general gist of it all. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Any questions from members today? I see none, um, do you have anybody? Nobody's signed up for or against the bills, and so Senator, you're free to close for your bills. I'm closed up make a motion to pass and appreciate a good vote. OK, we've got a motion on the batching of the bill for due pass. We have a second. We may need to. So this will be, we are voting to for do pass a motion of 1st and 2nd for Senate Bill 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177, um, so we have a 1st and a 2nd for Duas. All those in favor by saying I. All those opposed like sign. Congratulations, all bills are passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Thank you. All right, um, let's see here. Let's see, we're gonna get Senator Bryant to step in. Let's see here if we can signal signal Senator Bryant. We're going to move to Senate Bill 214 Um, he should be right outside, I believe. Could we, could we see if Senator Bryant is outside with his guest. Let's see here. And then members why wait for that for clarity. Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 6 will now be moved to the deferred list um per our rules. Uh, so those will be moved to the deferred list. OK. Um, and then let's go ahead and move forward to let me get my list here. Where we at here. Just want to hear, correct? Uh, that one's also my pride in. Oh, it's Bryant as well, OK. Uh, next one will be the very last one. OK. All right, we're going to look, we're going to call HB 1282 by Representative Richardson. Is anybody here to run that bill today? Nobody? OK, we'll pass over that as well. We'll get wait one moment for Representative Bryant to step in. So members just wait one moment. You. Or did I, Senator Bryant. All right, members, we're going to take a 5 minute recess and allow the guests that's parking to walk in the building through the rain, and so we're going to give that courtesy, taking a 5 minute recess, we'll come right back. Here we go. Members will call back into order. Thank you for the, the courtesy of a few minutes to get gathered here. We want to want to recognize Senator Bryant and your guest, please introduce yourself. We will be hearing Senate Bill 214. Please introduce yourself, both of yourselves for the record, and you're free to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Joshua Bryant 0 District 32, and my guest today is Kendall Green. Thank you. You recognize? Present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, this issue is brought to me by Representative Hawk when she served in the House a couple of years ago, I guess it was last year, before she didn't run for election and What she had was a constituent issue that dealt with um A convicted 2nd degree murderer that was walking the streets of Fayetteville. Um, and this the unjust and unfairness that it was to the victim's family who encountered and said, Murderer on the streets, so the inquiries were made and what we found out was there is a section of code that allows for meritorious furlough that are promulgated rules by the department and with the exception of qualified as you can see in the bill, the original language, with the exception of capital murder, murder in the first, kidnapping, rape, other offenses of sexual nature, offenses concerning sexual exploitation and concerning children. sexual performances. If you get convicted of any of those things, you are not qualified for meritorious furlough. Well, the intent of the bill is to add murder in the second degree because as we know, that's a lot of times a plea down to Something that could probably have been a capital or a first degree charge, and so with the second degree it was intention it was murder, it was intentional, it just wasn't premeditated, and so What I like to do is let Ms. Green share her testimony on the issue and then I can go a little more detail about the program and answer any questions. Good morning. My name is Kendall Green, and I want to personally thank Senator Bryant for his invitation to speak today and for all of you who are here willing to listen, um, I'm here to speak on behalf of this bill 214 introduced by Senator Bryant in 2018, my son's father, Trenton Coney, was murdered. I was pregnant with our son at the time and it was incredibly devastating. Ever since then, I have raised our now 6 year old son Maverick, and he's wonderful. When the trial concluded in 2019, Christopher Rankin, Trenton's killer, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Last year, I found out that the man who murdered Trenton had been receiving meritorious furlough and meritorious furlough is when an inmate is allowed out of the prison for good behavior, unsupervised for 48 to 72 hours. I was aware that this was happening, as I believe we had already been registered for notifications as victims through the victim assistance program, there was an error made in registration, and that is why we had not received these important notifications. Immediately after discovering this, I contacted the prison and the leadership of the program. Oh The warden over the unit informed me he had been receiving furlough and that it would not change, and essentially there was nothing I could do about it. I was disheartened at the response as I felt that I had not been given the option to be heard. How could a man who is convicted of murder get to leave the prison unsupervised and returned to their family for the weekend. I wish more than anything that Tritton could come home to spend a weekend and meet his son, and I wish he was able to see Maverick and teach him things along the way. This is important to me because as Maverick and I walk through the world daily without Trenton, his murderer is eligible for freedom. And I know the day that will will come when Christopher Rankin will have served his sentence and eventually will be released from prison. All I ask is that for the time in which he serves to remain in prison, no amount of good behavior can bring back Trenton's life and no amount of good behavior can make my child have a father. I know that there must be other families out there who grieve just as I do and have experiences as well. I'm not only speaking for my family, but for others. I believe that by adding second degree murder to the list of ineligible offenses for meritorious furlough, we as Arkansans can take a step further by saying that we will not tolerate violent crimes that destroy lives. And we will set a standard and hold people accountable beyond sentencing. Thank you for your time and I hope that this bill is passed. Thank you, Ms. Green chlamydia, I don't think I could say it any better than the way she just presented this issue. I did reach out or actually Department of Corrections reached out to me upon filing the bill just to make sure I had full information. There's approximately 522 inmates incarcerated for second degree murder in the state of Arkansas, roughly 26 participate in a meritorious program. The qualifications for meritorious program as identified by rule has not been convicted of one or more offenses listed on this sheet, so that's the first. first criteria to be eligible is don't be listed on this sheet. They've been in a department custody for a minimum of one year, has not had any major disciplinary violations for a period less than 6 months immediately prior to applying for this furlough has not received furlough in the preceding 6 months, does not have any pending felony detainers has approved, has an approved sponsor willing to accept and transport as an immediate work supervisor if if applicable, and then an inmate serving a life sentence must have his or her application approved by senior levels of the department, so I think this is just the first and best step to make sure that people that ruin lives serve their sentence to the fullest that we offer that we mandate. So with that I'd be happy to entertain any questions. Thank you, Senator. Members. Any questions on the bill, Senator Stuberfield, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Bryant, how many, how many people do we have now that are convicted of meritorial, I mean, second-degree murder. The department said the number is 522. And how many are out? being able to use meritorious furlough. I believe that number was 2. 6 so I can pull it up here, 522 in the program. And I'm sorry, 29, 29 have received this program. Are you have you utilized or are you utilizing this program and are those, are those 29, are they, uh, wearing bracelets and Reporting to parole officers or what are they doing to my knowledge they are not. I would ask if the, I think the department may be here to answer some more details to that question. OK, Chief Wade was unable to make it as far as to my knowledge, no, they, they registered the program. They have a sponsor, and they're, you know, they're released and they have to come back on a certain day and go back into the general population. and does this bill cover stalking as well? Uh, the bill, my language is just only at second degree murder. There is kidnapping, rape, other offenses of sexual offense as defined under different codes, so maybe one of those existing codes will take in, I'm sorry, next page line what's going to be new 9 is stalking, so. OK, it's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Senator Gilmore, recognized. No, I, I was just going to speak to one of the questions, but Senator Bryan answered it. I think it's a great bill, and I would move due pass at the appropriate time. Members, any other questions? All right, no one signed up for or against on this bill. I do want to say, Ms. Green, thank you for being here. Thank you for, for allowing us to, to hear your story and for for voicing your story, it's having a big impact and just, just the fact that you're here today is a big, is a big and big haul, I know, especially with the weather and thanks for having to juggle, but thank you for bringing your story today. Thank you. OK, Senator Soapfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What what percentage of these individuals A repeat offenders. Senator, I did, I did not get that information gathered for repeat offenders. They're just currently under incarceration for second degree murder, right? OK. All right, any other questions for members? All right, Senator, you are free to close for your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote committee. Thank you. You. We've got a first and a 2nd motion of due pass. Any discussion on the on the motion? All right, members all in favor of Du pass please sign on 5 by saying I impose like sign. Congratulations, Senator, it passes the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Greene again. All right, members, we're gonna go to House Bill 1071, which is also by Senator Bryant. Senator Bryant, please introduce yourself again for the record, and you are free to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. House Bill 1071 brought by Representative Richardson is just, he likes to call it a little bit of a cleanup bill because when the Frank Roys Act was passed in 2016, it did not envision the use of artificial intelligence as a as a means or a medium to generate images that might violate the copyright of our name, image and likeness or voice in production when it comes to intellectual property rights. So that just adds adds to include without limitation generation through means of artificial intelligence. In several sections of code and then also includes the word for voice by a production of also means of artificial intelligence. The last section that was added as a cine amendment by myself in consultation with your colleagues was the original language had the property rights granted by the subchapter are not considered intellectual property for purposes of 47 USC Section 230. Well, that section of code deals with exactly that. the property rights under under federal code and so basically what we're saying is even though the protections are granted by federal code for certain things if it's property right by our code, it doesn't qualify for that code and so I have stricken that language to make sure we're aligned with tidal the property rights under under federal code and so basically what we're saying is even though the protections are granted by federal code for certain things if it's property right by our code, it doesn't qualify for that code and so I have stricken that language to make sure we're aligned with tittle 47 Section 230. Um Thank you, Senator. Members, any questions on this bill? Yes, Senator Rice is recognized. Thank you. Um. Page 27 where it talks about voice. Uh, it says a simulation of the voice of the individual, including without limitation, simulation, divorce. Of the individual that is generated through means of artificial intelligence. If I could talk like Johnny Cash just on my own without AI. That would not be illegal if I just sounded like Johnny Kaye. I'm not saying I'm Johnny Cash. It's just, you know, there's commercials come on and we hear this sometime and they do a pretty good job. Did you know that person's been dead a number of years, and this product wasn't even out then. But they use that is this strictly for the AI part. It is for utilizing that voice to sound like the individual for commercial purposes by AI AI, OK, but if I just sound like that person, I could do that and that wouldn't be restrictive as long as you're not utilizing it for commercial purposes. OK. But if, if I wanted to sound like Frank Burrow. I was here when the bill was passed in this room. But if I, if I sounded like Frank Boyle just talking. Without any AI, I would be in violation. No, not unless you're that's what I'm guessing at. Listen, OK. We're we're clear on that. I'm not going to trap somebody. OK, thank you. Members, any further questions? I see none. No one has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator, you're free to close for your bill. I'm closed. I think it's it's a good bill that keeps up with our technology and protects the Intellectual property rights of the intention of the original bill does. Thank you, Senator. We've got a motion to pass in a second. Uh, any discussion on the motion, seeing none. All those in favor signal by saying aye, and you pose like sign, congratulations, Senator, your bill passed. I do want to say, Senator Bryant, going back as a personal privilege for myself here to 214. Please thank former Representative Hawk for her efforts in this as well. She's dearly missed and a dear friend of mine, and so thank her for her efforts on on the great work there as well. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will do. All right, members, uh, last bill is from Representative Richardson, HB 1282. Representative Richardson you are free to introduce yourself for the record and recognize to present your bill. Good morning. Good morning members Jay Richardson, District 49, North Fort Smith. We introduced. And again, I'm Daniel Shu. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney in Sebastian County and also president of the Arkansas prosecuting Attorneys Association, and I'm the legislative chairman of the Arkansas prosecutor. I would like for a bald man, I wear three hats. Thank you for being here and Senator Boyd, please recognize yourself for the record as well. Senator Justin Boyd from Fort Smith. Thank you, Representative Richardson. You're free to present your bill. So HB 1282 I bring to you committee is is specifically tailored to to correct the unauthorized practice of law. We had a situation in our area in Fort Smith where we had some, as a matter of fact, I'm going to wait and allow our prosecuting attorney to give you the background to how this bill came about. Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Chairman, committee. I was approached by several attorneys initially and then Mr. Xu, would you mind pulling that microphone a little bit closer? It's a little hard to hear sometimes on that. I was approached initially by several attorneys and then later by several citizens after the case was tried, but I went to my sheriff, and it's very troubling. We had 2 individuals that there's a procureur statute that you're probably not aware of and basically it allows chiropractors to have runners to tell people after auto accidents, hey, you know, I'm a chiropractor and I'm available. I can help you. Well, they were going far beyond what the statute allowed. They were advising on whether to settle, whether to sign waivers. They were The things that are specifically prohibited by the statute, they were giving legal advice. Uh, anytime there's anything to do with the legal system, I go to my sheriff because he's the bailiff and custodian of the courthouse, in essence, and I went to my sheriff and I said, even though this is a class A misdemeanor, would you please investigate this because of the number of complaints. He did, and we got a confessions, recordings, documentation, tried the case back in March of 2024 and then it was again after that the floodgates opened and I got many more complaints, but unfortunately, being a class A misdemeanor had a one-year statute of limitations, so I could not prosecute those cases, but this case we tried. They were convicted. They got a one year suspended sentence, $500 fine. And we're specifically prohibited from engaging in acts that should be done by an attorney. In trying the case, there was a A specific issue, and that was that they didn't get their money from the insurance company. It wasn't a direct payment. They were getting their money from the chiropractor, and that troubled the judge. The judge You know, clearly was struggling with that, but ultimately they were convicted. And people that are Victims of accidents are very vulnerable. The more injured they are, the more vulnerable they are. And I mean this is not for really for lawyers, this bill is to protect the public and what it does is it's a very simple change. And subsection A, it used to read obtain a direct economic benefit. Now it reads to obtain any economic benefits, so it would cover that third party technicality defense that Really should not be a defense in my opinion. I will take any questions. All right, members, any questions today from from the from the body. All right, see you, no. We, we did have a Mr. Daniel Sho signed up to speak for the bill, Mr. Xu, I'd give you the opportunity here if you'd like to add any other comments today. No, sir. OK, thank you. Um, and we don't have anybody else signed up, anybody else in the room for or against. Not seeing any members. What's the will of the committee? Oh, I'm sorry, are you close to? Thank you, sir. We've got a motion to pass. We've got a second due pass any discussion on the motion, seeing none members all in favor signal by saying aye pose like sign. Congratulations, your bill has passed. Thank you again for being here. All right, members, uh, one more announcement just to make sure it was clear before. Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 6 have been moved to the deferred list, and um again, thank you for the ability and a chance to get to chair this committee. I am upset that Senator Clark, Senator Alan Clark is out today, but I do see a question from Senator Gilmore. Not a question, Mr. Chair, just to comment and wanted to say congratulations on your first time cheering judiciary, and well done. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. And the crowd goes wild. I appreciate that. We are adjourned. Thank you.