Saturday recap: Deliberate Indifference Wisconsin is live!

本站添加: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]by our community guidelines. Well, that sounds good.

[00:00:07]What I will do is get some actual glasses on.

[00:00:51]All right.

[00:00:52]Jalo again. Jalo again. Jello again.

[00:00:56]This is Ben Hitchcock Cross talking to you. And I see American courts. I I'm sure if I was more professional, wait until um there was more people here.

[00:01:07]But, you know, like everybody else, I got stuff to do. I had a pretty good morning. I Raven got me up at 6:00. I think it was a rabbit, but I couldn't tell, which was handy for me. It was probably 5. And I got all my chores done. We went on a good walk. I saw an egret. Um, which was a little funny cuz I was playing pretty loud music while walking through the forest. Uh, but you know, you can't have birds chirping all the time. And like that, I'm going to my plan here. Uh, after I'm done gibbering, which I just only a couple days ago figured out that jibbering and gibberish are connected. Um, and to be fair, uh, the only place I really hear jibbering is when Birdie Worers's aunts are telling him to stop talking. They also say dribbling, no question about it. Um, so, and there's no dilish.

[00:02:13]Okay. So, um, it has been I would say it's like every time that one has a hearing with Serge, it's always like a big recovery. So, that's the the main point of me talking about my morning here is just to explain I think uh part of my recovery process.

[00:02:35]Um, we had to listen to a little music and get through a few things and yeah, even with 2 days of no hearing and this and that, there's always something a million things that come up. So it's still like um you know hey this is um I'm going to say two things on that subject and then a lot more things among a lot of other subjects and they are simply this like number one uh this is what having your free speech chilled feels like and um I've you know known that for quite some time. I've experienced this before. Um I've seen my clients experience that. Uh which I think I mean that's that's what I'm trying to portray here is it's it is always different when you go through it yourself. And uh the second thing and this is something that you know my this is the key thing through all my key theme through all my cases is it is different when the government does it and it is different when there's a police officer there. It is different when there's a um you know there's a big seal of the state of Wisconsin and it's talking the powers of the state of Wisconsin are uh being used to shut you up. Now, I guess we're used to that for sure, but there's still it is, you know, just like when you are a police officer or a a teacher or, you know, a truck driver for the snow plows, when they uh when the government's the one that says you're you are a you know, drug user or whatever else, it is always, you know, that's I would say the thing that is painful the most. Again, it's because the government represents all of us and you know, it's just not true.

[00:04:39]All right, Heather Noel, I don't I have no idea if we've ever connected. I don't believe so, but welcome to everybody. I see numbers fluctuating, but just like Theonius Monk, I'm going to do whatever I'm going to do. And if people want to join in, more power to you. And uh I'm kind of happy to respond to any questions or whatever else, but mostly I'm just trying to decompress here from the process without too too too much information. Fair enough. Um everybody's got to be something. So um okay, let's talk about the hearing. And this is what I'm to be clear, the subject of what I'm talking about and expressing my opinions on is the hearing that occurred on I think Wednesday of this week, the 28th of May, uh, state office building Milwaukee, Wisconsin, uh, Debbie Kether versus Milwaukee Public Schools. And to be fair, I have not reviewed everything. Uh there is cameras, there is my recordings, there are other recordings, I'm sure. And uh I believe it was streamed as well. So that is um if there are indeed 23 people here and only one people likes me, boy does that break my heart. I'm just going to cry and cry and cry. Um, so the we went to this hearing and as I'm sure almost all of you know, this is not, you know, my first ERD hearing. It's not Debbie's first ERD hearing in person.

[00:06:23]Um, I think for Debbie it's probably like fifth that she's an active participant in. That's to say ones that I know. I know she's got her own cases uh that she's representing people on herself, which again, today's going to mostly be an a series of aides here. Um but the aside that I'd like to put on here is simply this. Um you know, they don't know what they've awakened when they got Debbie Kether and Cindy Ostroski together.

[00:07:01]And I think that that's exactly what was going to happen. This is I'll be very more clear. the Department of Workforce Development is getting too um they have because the way they have treated attorneys, because the way they've treated complaintants, complainants are now starting to represent themselves and I they're given a lot more leeway. And I think that um they the DWD is starting to regret uh the way that they've treated complainant attorneys because now the complainants are getting savvy and representing each other and having hearings that the DWD hearing examiners don't really want to have. So um okay, now back to this the main thread of this story here. So I have had uh several DWD hearings and this is the big the main contention here is there are people who Maria Selzor and other administrators believe it used to be Ramona Nira but she was apparently too nice to us so they removed her is my understanding.

[00:08:11]Um but there's these basically DW DWD stands for Department of Workforce Development. They're the people who ho who hold employment tribunals in the state of Wisconsin and they believe they the management there believe that there are certain complaintants that are working with me to try to put a spotlight on the DWD.

[00:08:34]And that's that's ultimately I think what the um the key issue here and a lot of this is from Calvin Ferman's deposition. But the Maria Selzer the the main person that we're talking about got upset when we made a video um talking and the key line there is something like with uh Republican Democrats like these because the governor who they work for is a Democrat who needs Republicans and that caused a lot of problems.

[00:09:03]So um the meaning that the department of workforce development decided that they could not have that criticism and they were going to use the power of the government to prevent people from criticizing them. And in response we started putting up videos of DWD U officials, you know, freaking out for lack of a better word. And their response to that was um not positive.

[00:09:32]Okay. So, um that all seems fair.

[00:09:40]So, um, their nonpositive response here, meaning, uh, Maria Selzor and others being so upset about how we were handling, uh, and promoting and, um, criticizing their behavior on video. That I think is is the essence of the problem. the government is mad at this channel because we are portraying the government. Okay, no problem. So then um we've had a series of in we've had a series of fights with them on a couple of key issues. One of them is having these in-person hearings and the DWD has basically decided the rule says unless the parties agree the the hearing shall be in person in the county which the thing the the allegations occur. Okay, really simple. So unless they can get an agreement but they have decided to say no, you have to tell us why and then we'll decide if that's a good enough reason otherwise we're doing it virtually. Okay. Hey, that was like the one of the first main issues. And again, even if they were a jud says this and they're doing something else and they don't they sort of have think they have this power because there are like nine powers that they have and one of them says I think it's e control the course of a hearing.

[00:11:11]Okay, you can say that again. American courts and um so we have uh had I mean really just fights with hearing examiners on this subject of you know and they keep putting it around well what's your reason and the a fantastic example of this is what is the prehering conference in the case that we're discussing about and By the way, for everybody understands, that's the one piece of and there's no other contact between us and the the judge in this case. So when he comes in there saying turn off the cameras immediately, he has no there's no basis at all for him to say that you to make any decisions about anything.

[00:12:06]All we had was this prehering conference where he then left.

[00:12:12]Okay.

[00:12:14]I mean it was it that he it's it was put up a couple of days ago. I think it's three it's on Tuesday. I think uh it shows a lot about what the bias is here.

[00:12:25]So, um, when going back further, there's about two or three cases that I can remember where we came to. And the first one was with Lissa Bonitz Morgan. And this is this CA, this whole episode here is what really set everything off. And there there is conduct by the other attorneys that should be discussed, but we're not going to talk about it here, okay? But we just focus on Lissa Bonedz Morgan. Okay. So, she used to be a circuit court judge.

[00:13:01]She's now a hearing examiner at the DWD.

[00:13:03]She's hearing this case. Okay. She out of nowhere said, "No videos of any kind.

[00:13:08]Nobody can record me. It's just a thing." And we show up there and all of a sudden they have a cop, a Capitol police officer in the building the whole time.

[00:13:19]Now, keep in mind, she did say no cameras. And we said, "I don't think you have that authority. we're going to bring cameras. So, it was pretty clear to me and based on the public records request that that the bringing the police there is a different story.

[00:13:32]Pause. Time out. Key thing for everybody to understand on this hearing examiners are not circuit court judges. So, we're dealing with a person who has a completely different set of powers here.

[00:13:43]Okay. Just for example, one of our witnesses who were supposed to come was another hearing examiner just refused to come. Okay. that hearing examiner that told us to turn off the video, he had no he has no authority whatsoever to make that his colleague actually show up.

[00:14:03]He is basically even when you win the case, the commission has no authority to make the company pay you any money. They can order it and they can say every day that you violates an or offend, but they have to still go to a circuit court and a circuit court still has to enforce it.

[00:14:24]Okay? There's nothing that they can do other than control the course of the hearing and make final decisions without the approval of a circuit court.

[00:14:34]But yet they act as if that they are judges. And now one thing that happened was in the 80s they changed the name of these kind of judge hearing examiners from hearing examiners to administrative law judge. This is just by rule not by statute.

[00:14:50]Okay. And so a lot people started addressing them as judges and I'll even frequently hear in hearings people call him your honor and that may be going to their head. I don't know. So, we go to the Lissa Bonitz Morgan and there's two key things that happen.

[00:15:11]Number one, she because she refuses to allow us to have external recordings that we bring our own recording equipment and we're ready to go. All right, Tyler. We um she brings a armed police officer clearly there to prevent us from recording. clearly. Okay.

[00:15:35]So, um she takes this recording device that is supposed to be the whole we're relying on her to record everything that happens.

[00:15:46]And of course, she turns it on and up, but she takes it with her in her pocket when she goes behind closed doors and talks about how they're trying to get me arrested and about how everything that I say is lies and that she can prove it and that she took the case to show that she could eat bullies like me for breakfast.

[00:16:06]Okay. Then she also did a second thing.

[00:16:09]She failed to record an entire day of the hearing. is a really key piece of information.

[00:16:17]Okay, so number one, we got information that people other than the hearing examiner making decisions about the case. They also, by the way, said that the secretary of the Department of Workforce Development decided that we were going to go into a different room and then we were originally scheduled to be in because we were asking questions about that.

[00:16:37]And when we asked qu when uh they decided that instead of telling us the truth, now these are two attorneys. This is Lissa Bonedz Morgan and Matt White concocted a plan between them. Oh, and also uh here in examiner Carlson, John Carlson concocted a plan between them to tell us that it's the because of construction that we have to be down on this building and or down on the first floor. and she recorded herself. She still, by the way, in my state of Wisconsin, still is employed by Governor Tony Ivers to hear cases. She was supposed to, if you can't remember, hear the case of uh Jeff Peterson's case, but backed out literally at the last minute.

[00:17:27]Literally at the last minute. I don't think 24 hours ahead of time. And in my opinion, that was clearly because she couldn't handle being on camera again.

[00:17:40]I don't know if Carlson was better than her. I frankly have not seen all of the Peterson hearing. Um, but I I I have no idea how she was is continued to be to be allowed by Maria Celzer and others to continue in that position based on my understanding and my belief. I mean, what she recorded herself saying, and believe me, we've I've I have personally made a complaint to Maria Celzer about that behavior and to Colin Stra, the next level up, and they've done nothing. So, we can assume that they're just that Tony Ivers and the Democratic Party of the state of Wisconsin is perfectly fine with this behavior.

[00:18:24]That's problematic for me.

[00:18:27]It'd be problematic for me if it was Republican party. I wouldn't expect anything better from them. But we can be clear on that. And when they ask come and ask anybody from or me for their support, you know what? What do you want with Democrats like these? Who needs Republicans? And with Republicans like those who needs Democrats, right? I mean, we can play that dance all day.

[00:18:57]So, because the the the the key answer is is that in the state of Wisconsin, if you say stuff that's not true and you're an attorney and you record yourself doing it and you're a state, I represent state employee prison guards all the time for making a false entries in docu in documents for saying that they did a round when they didn't do a round. They terminate them all day long. No, I know.

[00:19:23]I mean, we may have an inspector general, but nobody that actually does that. The two bodies that are capable of overseeing that is the department Tony Ivers, the governor and the office of lawyer regulation. That's it. Nobody else can do anything because they're not judges and they're on their own. So, you can make a complaint to Tony Ivers or you can do the other thing. I don't I don't get involved in that and I don't want to say that she's being ethical or unethical or not. Okay? So, let's be very clear about that. But as a work rule violation, I believe that she violated a work rule very clearly and should not be in that position.

[00:20:00]Okay? Want to be extra clear. Not taking any position on how lawyerly that is. I do have an opinion, but I'm not expressing that here. I am taking an opinion on that is not up to the standards of civil Lissa Bonz Morgan, Matthew White, and uh John Carlson's behavior as they recorded themselves was not in keeping with the standards of the civil service of the state of Wisconsin and they should not be in those positions.

[00:20:29]I think that's that which is my opinion.

[00:20:33]But hey, because those are work rule violations.

[00:20:37]Those are that's false entries. They made a recording. They have not corrected it. Just for starters.

[00:20:44]Just for starters. Um, okay. So then again, we're supposed to have this hearing and we still are missing day six of the entire hearing. I don't remember what the hell happened.

[00:20:57]Nobody ever will. It's completely lost the time because they prevented us from recording.

[00:21:03]Also, a third thing I can say is true.

[00:21:06]Um see because when uh the actual consequences of doing something are what the people who are in charge of the consequences determine that they are. That is again not for me to determine. Not having anything to do with that one way or the other but that's the answer is that we have a department of office of lawyer regulation. It's you know the same version exists in every state and that they regulate. They're an arm of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and they regulate the ethics of attorneys in the state. Okay. So, and I again I just want to be clear because I don't want to I I'm happy to provide information, but I am not I want to be clear. I'm not saying that somebody should go do I do think they should be complained about to Tony Hvers. But in terms of what is the question of how we get rid of it, how uh who regulates them and who why are these judges allowed to do something like this? you know, if they were actual circuit court judges, they would be elected and we could go and stay and, you know, campaign against them all day long. But you can't do that cuz they're not elected. They're appointed by Tony Ivers.

[00:22:19]Lissa Bonedz Morgan, by the way, was appointed. Somebody left the position.

[00:22:23]Tony Evers appointed her to be a judge.

[00:22:25]She stood for re-election and did not win. The people of her county did not want her to be a judge in that county.

[00:22:31]and they found somebody else. The people of the state of Wisconsin, you know, the workers of the state of Wisconsin who or the parties to employ employment equal rights claims in the state of Wisconsin are stuck with this person because Governor Tony Ivers has decided that she is.

[00:22:51]So, I think we've covered that. Now, um we then get to Judge Serge and we played in two entire uh hearings with him and the latest one that we did was just awful. I mean, it it was I was probably sick to my stomach for 3 days after that. It was just awful. Um both in the arbitrary Oh, this is against Aurora. Uh he's threatened me with contempt for calling the other attorney my colleague.

[00:23:21]Just just for starters, you can't an administrative law judge or hearing examiner has no power of contempt. I frankly think it's outrageous that somebody who has no power of contempt would threaten somebody with contempt.

[00:23:41]It's outrageous.

[00:23:45]I mean, it's state violence. It's the threat of state violence 100% when you have no ability to do it. It's beyond the law, I guess I would say.

[00:23:57]So, but the other and critical thing that we're talking about here is you will see him I'm talking and I'm trying to make an object. He hears something that he doesn't want to hear and he simply mutes the record.

[00:24:11]So to be when the case would to be uh heard on appeal, whatever it is that I'm saying will not have been heard because he simply mutes me, which is why I told him very clearly that I will never have a case with him, a hearing with him that's not in person because I can't have him mute me. So, he was, if you couldn't see that in the thing, and you probably couldn't, uh, Serge during the hearing on Tuesday was starting and stopping the recording when I was saying things that he didn't want me to hear.

[00:24:41]And mostly when they, you know, what I'm talking about is criticism of his decisions in the sense that, hey, this you're violating due process. Hey, whatever.

[00:24:53]and mute which like is there a greater expression that you're not interested in uh hearing and adjudicating the facts at hand or just a neutral observer when you both mute somebody and because you don't want to hear what they have to say. I mean, it's just a a great exampam. I mean, it's just like manifest example that you're just like, "Hey, you know, it does." And not only am I not listening to you, I'm preventing other people from hearing you criticize me.

[00:25:34]That I mean, those are those other personal things um issues aside, I would say. Um so the the statement here is that Serge has absolutely zero patience and you know um I will in my Jesl like way say at least this that I think that he could certainly be criticized for falling short of the ALJ's code of conduct on at least one occasion. Um that's for sure.

[00:26:08]So um back back to that. So, um that that really is those really are the issues or um the other one that will happen and this used to happen more but it stopped happening after we would record them is we would have these prehearing conferences and uh that's exactly la but it's kind of worse than that because when a a child sticks their fingers in their ears and you know drowns out the world. They're What's funny about that and why it's comical is they're not drowning out your words for the rest of the world. And so everybody else can see how ridiculous they're being by refusing to take in that that information. But it it's, you know, it's like playing a noise machine. Um, Karen Reed watchers will know what I'm talking about.

[00:27:11]Yes, it's so we'll go over what conflict the key word that we're talking about here is bias.

[00:27:20]Okay. And the bias is when any tribunal is acting impartially is no longer a neutral third party. Okay. And the key problem that everybody has is basically two things. Number one is this. The natural inclination to believe that anybody who rules against you is biased.

[00:27:41]And the natural inclination for people to believe that anybody who thinks that somebody who's mad at somebody who rules against them is biased is uh you know they're just that's just their feelings. They're deep in their feelings. So then there's the second you know so that's sort of the natural inclination I were but in law there is a presumption that um yes I think we all did what channel did you watch it on Tyler that's the big question so in law the second issue is um they there's a presumption that your hearing exam your tribunal your judge your federal court judge your whatever justice are neutral is a presump ion. Okay? Meaning, what does that mean? That means you have to have some evidence to show that they're not there. By the way, there's like five automatic categories of non-neutrality or possibly more like married to somebody, blood ties, um, business relationship, yada direct beneficiary, things like that. Okay? For example, there's there's these cases where the judge is the police chief and the fines are going into the police budget. That's unconstitutionally biased.

[00:29:07]Says so says the Supreme Court like 60 70 years ago. Okay. No question about that.

[00:29:14]So um bias okay how does one overcome bias one overcomes bias by on basically two things okay number one in in Wisconsin we call I call them Maris statements of bias there's a case called Maris versus Cedarberg and it basically goes like this somehow a guy oh it's like a zoning thing, but the guy is front of in front of the town board as like a tribunal.

[00:29:48]Guess who you never want to be in front of is a tribunal uh as a town board.

[00:29:57]Maybe a county board comprised of 32 people, but um you know, hey. Oh, that's interesting. Lawyer, you know.

[00:30:07]Okay.

[00:30:09]I was doing um the whole um because of let me see the young thug trial. I was watching a lot of AV and uh Tyler, what the hell is their name? Is it another fight club name? And uh what is the heck is the other guy? Oh, lead attorney. definitely watching a lot of that. But hey, it's a big YouTube.

[00:30:42]So, um, the real question for true crime fans out there is, uh, who did you watch for Lorie Val number one? Okay, then we can get into two and three. But, you know, that's the real pull out your uh, okay, true crime credentials. So, now we're back. we're still on bias and we've got our mayor statement. So in that case again the town I don't know big wig said um hey um we got to get people like him. Oh this this is just a loophole that we got to fix. Um we can't have this kind of stuff stuff like that.

[00:31:31]It's paraphrasing paraphrasing. Okay.

[00:31:34]And um after that that those were held as statements of prejudgment. Okay. Which what you really like to have is a statement from a judge saying you know um you know you what what do you want?

[00:31:49]You can't fight city hall or you know something like something like that.

[00:31:52]Okay. a statement on the record by a hear judge, hear an examiner, the tribunal, the school board, whatever it is, saying we don't want no whatever's like you around here. Okay, that's what you know in in my line in employment law, that's what you really want is a statement saying like we uh by the decision maker saying I don't want women in the workplace. They're not a good fit. That's what you want to show motivation. Okay, you get a statement like that, you've got a statement on the record. Bam, you're off to the races.

[00:32:27]Now, we're off to number two. And this is Massie Cole on a few other cases that the Supreme Court and there's basically it's like this. It started bubbling up to the surface all over the place because there was these common law rules which are like straight I mean, okay, they're not related. Oh, too bad. So sad. There's no business relationship that you can prove. Oh, too bad he wasn't. Then we get to the second one and they get you know just like with race discrimination people start stop saying after enough uh cases they stop saying we don't want any I don't know orientals in the workplace man it's hard to find a YouTube specific example on that one. Um my example by the way always changes depending on the person that I'm talking to. So when I'm talking to I don't know an imaginary number of imaginary people to me it's kind of hard to pick one but I I do. So uh then you've got your statements of bias which are difficult. I mean again all you have to do is stop saying that or you say it off the record and you're home free and people figure that out quickly enough. So then we get to this third category which is the unacceptable appearance of nonfairness.

[00:33:43]added a stepping stone. Yes, that I'll put I mean I wouldn't say stepping.

[00:33:48]Sorry, I'm pausing here, but put a pin in unacceptable bias. There's a comment that said so they added a stepping stone to get to the circuit court. And that's 100% the fact. This is um this what basically this is and the way I would put it is because it's workers court, they made you do like start all over again. And even remember here in workers court in Wisconsin, you don't even get emotional damages and you're you're you only get your actual straight direct damages plus attorney's fees. And the original and the law doesn't say attorneys fees. The judges added in later. Okay. So it's not that great. We're not Minnesota by any stretch of the imagination.

[00:34:33]So, um, yeah, but I mean, not again, I have a case right now where the lurk says that somebody owes us like 60 70, let's say $70,000.

[00:34:46]I we may settle that case, but without me settling that case and going to federal court or going to federal court, they are um they are going to have a I got to make a note to myself. Just one second.

[00:35:06]You know, if if we don't settle that case, then I have to go to circuit court to get them to pay me to get a judgment against them to pay me what these guys say that they owe me.

[00:35:17]just for starters and they can go appeal that. Um, this is again after we won at uh in we lost in front of the hearing examiner. Uh-huh. One in front of Lurk because we had the recording. One in front of the circuit court cuz we had the recording. And then now here we're back again. Um, and Lurk, by the way, did not even feel like was like, "We're automatically staying any payment because until this is decided by the circuit court, which was just completely emasculating themselves as if they have no, you know, just saying, look, we know this is going to go on for another year and a half, so you'll just have to wait." I mean, what if you were really damaged?

[00:35:57]That's it's the main reason to go to the Department of Workforce Development to redress your uh employment wrongs are if you have no damages or you want to have a hearing. Other than that, it's completely useless because it's workers court. And there are a bunch of other things that are in this kind of scheme here. um certain back payments, wage payments, uh retaliation on the job for certain wage payments, um notifications. Oh, let's say um fair accommodations. Let's say somebody kicks you off at Walgreens because you're black, you can actually get punitive damages and sue them in circuit court ultimately, which you can't do in employment at all. So, how awesome is that? That's my Yeah. So, they added a a stepping stone to circuit court. Now, back to actual appearance or appearance of it's one of those legal phrases that just in saying it because it's long enough, it gets confusing and confuses the hell out of everybody. And there's been several uh Supreme Court cases in Wisconsin that have tried to explain it, but then end up confusing it even more.

[00:37:16]Okay. So, it's an uh here's what it is on the the facts in the record show an unacceptable risk of the appearance of bias.

[00:37:31]No. Damn it. If it appears on the record that there's an unacceptable risk of bias, there we go. Then then you get uh that is the third category and is then actionable on that. Okay. So, and why is that actionable is because that every hearing, it doesn't matter if it's for your dog catcher's license or at the Supreme Court, has to be a fair hearing with a neutral tribunal. Not perfect, whatever. And there's bounds and whatever, but if you get something in any of those three categories, that's an automatic deprivation of your due process rights.

[00:38:11]Okay? So, why does that matter here?

[00:38:13]So that matters in the hearing that we're talking about other and um if I was look uh there's the witness Calvin Ferman they and he knows that Calvin Ferman is going to be a witness and he doesn't know that we've subpoenaed him because he didn't give us a chance to do it and we're trying to ask him. So but I mean they know about that. Okay. Uh, and so the question is, is that is Calvin Ferman being a administrative law judge and him being an administrative law judge, is that like per se bias? No, it's not. I'm almost positive. Um, there are a couple of cases basically where somebody's like, "Hey, these are Wisconsin cases. the judge and the defense attorney or whatever went to this in the same supper club or country club or fraternal organization or whatever. Okay. And basically the decisions out of that is membership in a group is not enough. Okay. Membership in a group with somebody else is not enough to break the presumption based on standing Wisconsin law. that has changed a lot. Um there basiscon case is is basically this. A circuit court judge uh somebody one of the parties starts a Facebook page for um their case and the circuit court judge goes to that website and there's some evidence that he like or she hovered over the like button. I think didn't actually hit the like button, but hovered over it enough so that that was recorded and that was determined enough to be an unacceptable risk of appearance of bias just to line up the face facts with the standard. Okay, so we're still doing an analysis on Calvin Ferman and we're only through step one. I am at the 40 minute mark. I'm going to go get a drink of water and a few other things.

[00:40:20]Hopefully I'm XYZ and so give me like 30 seconds or so.

[00:40:27]And I'm used to when asking like an administrative law judge for permission, a getting feedback and b not getting in control. But I'm just going to pretend like I have both of those things.

[00:41:06]All right.

[00:41:07]So, Calvin Ferman um then is there actual statements of bias with respect to Calvin Ferman? And the answer for at least for here is no.

[00:41:22]Okay. Now, Ferman has stated in his deposition that he asked he talked to three people. Uh, Salzor, Bonitz Morgan, and um, I'm coming around on this and Reinhardt.

[00:41:42]Okay. Now, there's a key caveat to all that because it appears that when he tal he also sells sour talked about deliberate indifference Wisconsin and the the videos that Ferman later sued about at this meeting which we now by the way know took place on I think is September 14th 20123.

[00:42:02]So that's the key date after which the um celor basically says a bunch of mean stuff about us to the hearing examiners and they take it to heart.

[00:42:14]Okay. So do we put I kind of take this back. We put the transcript of Calvin Ferman's deposition saying that into that record. So there is evidence anyways that this he you know it's not like Reinhardt. Now we put that to Reinhardt by the way. What? Let me ask you this. Let's just say that Reinhardt doesn't know that uh Calvin Ferman I I find that hard to believe. But let's say that Reinhardt doesn't know that Calvin this is another hearing exam examiner Pioner Reinhardt is unaware that Calvin Ferman is suing Debbie Kether and yours truly for defamation when he gives legal advice to Calvin Ferman on defamation.

[00:42:59]Now, based on the facts that we know that Maria Celzer made these statements, and this is the only time that the other time that they talked about it, it seems unlikely.

[00:43:11]But Peter Reinhardt has signed his name to a decision saying that he's not biased because he just it was just general information that he was giving him about u um defamation.

[00:43:25]I'll tell everybody this. Peter Reinhardt. I just found out there's a very the third most cited case at Lurk is called Aldrich versus Lurk. And guess who took that case all the way to the Supreme Court? None other than Peter M.

[00:43:37]Reinhardt like in 1997.

[00:43:41]So, a small state and b um fascinating.

[00:43:48]I It's my opinion, by the way, that Peter Reinhardt is a great guy. Um but he is beholden because of employment powers to these uh people and he has told me you know I don't know anything about this I'm just um this is an upper management is paraphrasing I guess the Um,