 Thank you very much. So, Michelle, the original bill is section one. I know that. It is. Yep. And just for the record, Michelle Childs Office of Legislative Council, we're looking at the, as passed by House, are you looking at that whole big thing? Okay. So, right, section one is just that. And so this is in your statute with regard to Wendy's prior to trial. Section two and three are proposed from the Office of States Attorneys. That you have on this new bill. Yep. On this one? Yes. You should have. Oh, okay. You should have that passed by House. Yeah. And then you also have something with Eric's initials up top dated this morning. Okay. So two and three. Do you want me to talk about section one at all? Well, I think that my understanding is all it does is codifies current law. Yes. Okay. So, you know, when you're doing, when the judicial officers do. And as passed by the House is as that's where they put 221 and 422 when they got all excited. Right. At town meeting duration, decided that 221 wasn't strong enough and that 422 wasn't strong enough in terms of the way they wanted it. Okay. So that's why 422, 221, immediately in 675 and they passed them and then they announced the town meeting and they passed them. Can I ask you a procedural question? I'm going to ask about section one. I thought there was some, I thought they were going to pass 221 as. They're supposed to do it today. Okay. So they just have a couple changes. If they get to committee. The only changes they have. Is the clear. The only changes they will have when the bill comes to the House floor will be that it will be 6 months instead of 60 days up to 6 months. And the word intended in the other section. And then according to Eric, there are several technical amendments that he saw as he worked over the bill. And those are the technical and it's not going to be a strike off. So we get the clear and convincing evidence. We have 422 which is constitutional by nothing. Okay. But I'm not taking 422 up until they, until they vote out 221. So my question is why are we even looking at this? Because this is an opportunity. Section one. Part of why it's coming to law. And section two and three are an opportunity to deal with school violence. So you're saying we're going to do a strike off. Yes. Oh. Okay. This is the amendment that does the strike off. Yes. Okay. All right. I don't have to look at this thing at all. I mean you have to know it is there. Yeah. Yeah. What we're amending. I got it. Okay. What they did just before town meeting when they decided they needed to pass something and they came up with this bill. I think they just said well we need to do something. We have to have something to add it to. So they want to have this. Oh. Okay. Someone explained to me who would, who would qualify as a defendant under this section. Under section one. Yeah. So this has to do with someone is coming before the court for arraignment. So they've been charged. So they've been charged with a crime. And then the judicial officer goes through the analysis. First they do and they look at whether or not, you know what do they, what conditions do they need to set to assure the person's appearance at court for the next court hearing. And then after, and there's a number of things they can do for that. And then after that analysis they go and they say, well, the conditions that we set there are those enough to also protect the public from like any public safety, you know, issue posed by the defendant. They're just testified to that they do it routinely. Who comes under this? DUI people? It's a big, how do I know what this is? Well, it says any defendant. So it means a DUI person. No. It could mean it could, but it wouldn't necessarily. There has to be some nexus between the gun. Right. You have to, the conditions of release have to be the least restrictive to basically get at what the goal is with regard to either, you know, your first analysis under a certain appearance and second one for protecting the public. A person who committed an armed robbery. A person who committed domestic assault. Or threatened some. Or threatened domestic assault. A person who was involved in a drug deal where firearms were present. Right. If somebody's before the court for DUI, they're not going to. If it was a DUI and the guy pointing the gun at the police officer, you might, you know, that might have been part of it. Okay. Okay. So that's that. I think you can be charged with something else. I can give you a copy of the underlying law if you want to see that. Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. And so. No, I'm, I'm, the only two requirements I'm familiar with are, are they a risk of flight? Are they a danger to the public? The word nexus, I like that word. But that's not what I understand to be part of this. On the underlying. Well, I can get you guys copies of what the underlying is. So. I think maybe Pepper can help the release test. I think, so just so you know that there is the, the general catch-all for which they currently order this, which is just adding G in specific language is that the language is that the court has general authority to impose any other condition found reasonably necessary to protect the public, except that our physically restrictive condition may only be imposed in extraordinary circumstances. But I think that victims of domestic violence are samples. I want to go back and make clear the way that it's written right now, if for some reason or other, and DWI defended the courts decided that this provision should apply, I don't know what that would be, but the courts decided. I'm not going to prevent them from doing it now, but now you're codifying it to say that they definitely do. Okay. Well, I'll do it in here for James. How do they continue to discuss this and make sure that that's involved with you? I also just wanted to mention that federal law specifies that federal judicial officers have the ability to order a defendant not to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon as a condition of release when they're charged with a crime. So that's... In the federal court. In the federal court. Yup. All right. So Michelle, would you prefer to have Mr. Pepper go over? Sure, that's fine. Rather than you giving it your pinching for Eric? Sure. If the language came from Pepper, I'm happy to have him talk. I believe the language came from the office of state attorneys and sheriffs. Am I not mistaken? Tell me I'm correct. You're correct. Yes. I don't want to do the wrong thing here. Okay. James Pepper, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs and... You're basically walking us through this and maybe explaining why it's... Okay. I'm looking at draft 1.1. Well, we have 1.2. Okay. So this area is draft? John Moore? Yeah. I think John might actually sit in on this. All right. Well, John... Third person... Try to help. Sorry. That's okay. We understand that you're busy upstairs too. Well, I was. What'd they do? Throw you out? I don't know. I don't know. The defense attorney stated whatever the house does up there on Section 8 is enforceable. The people care. Okay. What's Section 8? Oh, Section 8. Okay. That's the... The magazines? The magazines. Okay. Sports Illustrated Time. Oh, okay. The bless you. The bless you. Those kind of magazines, right? So John Campbell, Executive Director of the State's Turns and Sheriffs, and I'm here just because I've been asked to clarify to make sure that it's cert times when I come to testify that you realize I'm here as testifying on behalf of the state's attorneys. I do. Okay. And because our sheriffs have different opinions. Okay. So here's what we tried to do. When all of this first happened, when I say all this is what part-time happened, and there was a discussion as to the bless you, what could be done, what could we do to possibly prevent something like this happening in Vermont. We went through the laws that we had currently in the books, and we had this couple of them that just did not fit correctly or fit well. And we have the criminal threat law, bless you. The criminal, there's mine, my third one for the rest of the day, okay? No, no, no. The older I get, the more they come in a row. I wiped out six for dinner or anything, and I'd say six won will be the charm. By the time my dad died, he was doing 16. Well, the allergies are starting. I'll tell you that. Yes, they are. So anyway, we looked at one of the areas we looked at was this 40-17, which we had this body had passed, and you were actually instrumental on this a few years back, and that is people prevented from having, from possessing firearms. So we went around around here, and we felt that we could possibly place this here in one section that the person being prohibited from possessing would be somebody who has made a threat to enter school, made some type of communications to others, whether it be communication through text or, and that would be identified as, you know, text or Facebook or in person, that they're intended to enter school grounds to, and then go in here or either put another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury or to commit or threaten to commit any crime of violence. This is one way, but I still think the best way, the better way, and we were working on this actually when you called Senator, is under the criminal threatening statute. I think that there is language that we could put in there that would be a little more direct. This is the way we had it under 40-17. I believe it works, but it's awkward in how, and it's attempt to do what we all would like to do, and that is to say if somebody has the intention to come on to a school ground to, with a weapon, whether it be a firearm in this case, to cause physical injury to another, then we want to make sure we're able to prevent that. Where does it say that on the school ground? I see two, but when you get to two B, when you talk about that, two B, commit or threaten? That's the first one. That's why I'm saying it's a little awkward. Two B is commit or threaten to commit any crime of violence. Does it say only in the school? Well, it's using a firearm. You're using a firearm to commit or threaten to commit any crime of violence. I think if you have a firearm and you're threatening to assault someone, to kill somebody, to maim somebody... I'm going to punch you out. Yeah, if you have a gun? No, it doesn't say that though, does it? No, it says firearm. You have to use a firearm to... It says you can't possess one, but it doesn't say that you threaten with a gun. Line 16 off, how? Yeah, it says for the purpose of using a firearm to a place or attempt to place another person in fear of a murder... For the purpose of using a firearm. And the purpose of using a firearm to commit or threaten to commit any crime of violence. You have to read the last sentence, the last words of line 16. So it has to be on school building, school grounds, or an institution of higher education. And then it is only in fact if it places a person in fear of a mental serious physical injury or to commit any crime of violence. So taking this... Let's say that you might have a different way of doing this, but taking this to the Sawyer case. Yep. If we could provide a good on this journal and the conducts he made. He'll give you a way. I will, if I could say this and actually be on the record is that anything that I'm suggesting here today or that the state's attorneys will be suggesting has nothing to do or is not intended to do anything with the Sawyer case or on any type of involvement if the case... But I think what our purpose... Let me use Parkland where... If David Jones were to make a threat and several students heard that threat, or he posted it on Facebook or whatever that he had a bunch of firearms on his bed and took pictures of it. And then made and talked to several of the students about this land and how to journal this would come under. Yeah. It's basically... It's almost backward. Not backwards, but it's... When I say awkward is it's really the communications... Let's take the communication first. He's got to be... He or she has to amend the communication that they are going to go on to a school to commit bodily injury. Then the second part of this is that... So what this would say is that those people are not... Anyone who makes that kind of threat is not allowed to possess a firearm. So it would be the communications first, then the fact is if they possess a firearm then there's the penalty or there's the violation of law. The violation is if they have the gun. Right, exactly. So it's not... That's why it doesn't get into what I think is what we're trying to get at. And that is... I mean, what happens if you just doesn't have the gun as possession of time or she doesn't have the gun as possession of time? It's the only time this would come into effect is if we found somebody who made the threat and they had a possession of a firearm. So that's why... And I hate to... I wasn't sure that we were taking this up this morning, but I didn't think I thought you were just going to walk through. But what I'd like to present to you this afternoon or not this afternoon, but whatever, I believe you're coming back on this tomorrow. No, no. Tomorrow is all negative news. I believe the best way to deal with this is probably through the criminal threatening statute as far as this part is concerned. We can take this up next week, but I'm a little... I don't think this... I realize things think it's awkward, but I think it's... I think it'll work. I'm just saying it's... Yeah, I just think that there are some people that might not... Well, you might not be able to use a gun. Yeah. Right? I can't threaten that I'm going to use a gun, and my gun is in my garage back home. I can't threaten you with it right now because that doesn't happen. Well, you can make the threats, and that's the whole thing with the criminal threatening is... I'm going to get you this afternoon. But this doesn't... This doesn't intervene really if you try or two. You get the penalty if you violate having a gun. Right? Well, that's the kind of thing... No, but you can't grab it on a school ground. You're absolutely right. You can't grab a person ahead of time. Well, 221 would actually grab a person. Yeah, 221. No, it wouldn't let you grab the person. It wouldn't let you grab the gun. Well, yeah. Yeah. But if you follow while the language of the statute, you start with the title. The title is persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms. If you're going to add this provision, I would suggest striking the words, conviction of violent crime, because that doesn't quite... You need the flow of the statute. Well, that first person who is going to be deprived is someone who is convicted of a violent crime, as is defined in the 4017. The next question is, who else is prohibited? And you don't necessarily have a conviction here if I'm seeing this right. At least not. Though you do need to rewrite it. I'm thinking it needs to be a little cleaner. I know where you're going, and I appreciate where you're going. I want to go where you're going. I'm not reading it. And it leaves me comfortable if you don't have the criminal threat concept behind you. If you haven't rewritten it for next Tuesday, we would appreciate that. Yeah, I would definitely have that. Can we go to the third part of this? Well, it's not the third. It's section three, so it isn't the third part. This was added by Representative Vianz in the actual bill that passed the House. No, it did not pass in anything. I know from Eric that it came from Gary, but what's not in anything that passed? Okay, well, something passed. On the floor, there was no voice. Section 1D. Section 1D. Has some changes to possession of a dangerous and deadly weapon in the school bus, school building, or in the school property. On page 26 of 28, starting on page 26, they changed. Well, they didn't do anything. They just changed. Oh, no, they changed the penalty from three years to five years. What was that for? What made them feel good? I don't know what else it did. I mean, with regard to whom? Whoever possessed a dangerous or deadly weapon in the school bus or in the school building or in the school property. What if they intend to enter another property? What if they intend to enter another property? So they made an enhanced property. The current law is current law in 404. We passed about 2000, I think, if I remember correctly, and we had a three-year felony find not more than five grand, and they jacked it up to five years and then said dangerous or deadly weapon has the same meaning instead of defined as set forth. I don't know if this is good, bad, or if it's different, but that's what they did. Excuse me. I'm not sure. I'm on his pass by the house. This is 675. Passed by the house, age 26, section 1D. I believe I think that what they had done was they were making an enhancement. They moved the first offense from misdemeanor to felony, and then they moved the, they did an enhancement. Right. I want to, I forgot ideas. In B, they went for a first offense three years and then for a second offense five. I just want me to, so I gave mine to John. That's just, just note that the subsection A is if you have a weapon, a firearm on school property, subsection B is that you have a firearm and you have an intent to injure another person. So that's where you have the felony. Well, what you should do, I think what you should do, Senator, I mean, director, is to change, is to look at this section of law. Let's see if I go for that. And work with this section of law, rather than what we had in here. Okay. So that, that's what they did in their version of, so they, which got lost because nobody know they did it because they were concentrating on making the Senate look bad. Well, you know, it's an interesting issue because they have, you know, federally, you know, you had the, even I think it was even in, the no child left behind, which we always, you know, that one, they had some language in there plus the previous gun bill buried in school properties. But I think this, in fact, this may be cleaner if we, if we could get around with that and get your threatening language in there. Yes. Then there is section three, which might enter into your representation of the sheriff's. And that is, I think what they're trying to get say is if we have a school, if they, if the school resource officer happens to be a retired law enforcement officer, they want that person to be able to have possess a weapon or fire on them. And I would think that... It sounds like a good name. It sounds fine to me. So everybody could hire somebody. Can I just ask a question about that? Are they going to be certified? Yes. Yes. I think that's... That word used to be in there. So why would you put retired instead of... Yeah, I didn't. I had nothing to do with this. Well, they have a lot of retired people. Well, I know, but... Yeah, but I think with Genette's going there. Go ahead. I'm sorry, Senator. I interrupted you. I'm just saying that it says here that if they're qualified, retired law enforcement officer, what if they're not retired? What if they work part time and they're already included? No. Yeah, they're working there now. No, if they're not working there now. So they still would be eligible because those people can already work there and continue to. This doesn't stop them. This just adds someone. On Anthony, the Southwest Supervisory Union hired a former police officer to be the head of their security. And I have no idea what he does, but he's the head of security. I don't know if he's allowed to carry a firearm, but I would prefer to see the words licensed or qualified. No, licensed. We're licensed as a police officer now. We're licensed now? Licensed. What we passed a bill the other day, moving it to... So now you go to the academy and you get certified, just like you go to nursing school and you get your degree, then you apply for your license. It's the same, being treated as the same as other professions. Director of the state's attorney. And I'm aware of the bill that was passed by it and is currently in the house. So I think what we would do is use, because I think the certification, and if they go to licensing, if that's the term that actually passes through the final, you know, whatever comes agreement is made with you all between the two governments, that's what we use. Because the one thing we don't want to have is we don't want to have a law enforcement officer, because we can't decertify at this point in time having who may have had some mental health issues. Typically a 95-year-old police officer, a retired officer, could be considered the resource officer and he may be qualified under this, but may not be physically able to. Well, we don't know what qualified means here. Qualified says nothing. There are a lot of school resource officers already, and I don't know what their status is with regard to the department. There's fewer and fewer school resource officers. It's one of the things that was cut by the Vermont State Police. The Vermont State Police used to have several, all of those were cut, and a lot of schools have gone to hiring a sheriff to patrol outside the building. I believe that's what Parkland did actually, too. In my entity, they patrol outside, but they're not resource officers, because they just walk around and make sure that there's no unsavory characters going into the school. Now, Honor Valley, where my daughter teaches, they have their person inside the building. That's probably a school resource officer, but I know Peale used to have one budget cut state. I don't believe they'd do any more. And with cut state schools, a lot of schools lost them. They had Mill River, I know. Yeah, that's what happened. He told me, I know, by catch-a-tory. Yeah, catch-a-tory. And he was, but he considered himself a school resource officer. But he was there with the state police car. Well, I know it was the state police car. But the state police had a grant. Yeah, they had a grant called Cops and Schools. At any rate, my point here is that's just, most of us feel, I would assume most of us feel it's a poor idea to arm teachers. On the other hand, if schools were able to hire either retired as long as they're licensed officers or whatever the term might be in order to perform duties of a resource officer, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. No, I don't want to do it. And this just gives that authority to somebody who, I don't know if they already have it or don't, the one who says... I'll take it to it, because I think what the goal is here, you know, he wants a representative to be in his sentence like he wants to, again, off, make sure that somebody who is retired may do it. I don't think he may have offered it on the floor or withdrawn it, or... I don't know, but I think you need to make sure that whoever is a school resource officer is fully certified, and I think, you know, we can work with language with the... I've got the whole group of people meeting with them today, actually. Equipment? Yeah, with once a year bill. So the Academy of State Police... They better not start. Well, that's not my point. I'm just going to have it. I have to be meeting with them. So I believe I can provide language that will satisfy everyone. Unless the committee is absolutely opposed to this concept. I think it's worth doing, but doing it right. Yeah. Absolutely. I think it's fine. We just need to make sure we have the right language there. I just ask the question, do you know, I don't know, when or not the mold that prevents a weapon from being on school grounds, is there any federal legislation involved there? There is, there is federal legislation, but I believe that they exempt law enforcement and the school resource officers all came out of, like when they have to come by, that's usually when you first got. I just want to make sure we dovetail properly. Yes. And I have that actually, that's currently being printed below. I was overwalking. We'll work on this next Tuesday and presumably by the time the article will be done. So, Senator, then, if I just want to make sure that my charge, I have my charge correctly, is that I... Charge is to rewrite section three. Yeah. And defend section one as to why it's necessary. We have a copy of 7554 and it looks like G currently is a place of dependent program of community-based electronic monitor developed with sprites. G are a G but there's already a G in 7554A. Can we entertain at least if we're going to work on section one? So, that might need to be rewritten as well. I'm just going to 7554. There's already a G. No, but it's sub-position. It's two. So, you have to look at this two. It's A2 is the analysis for the protecting the public. A1 is for the assurance. I misread it. I misread the law. Why I'm not able to turn anything. So, are you... So, the B or something? There'll be a new G here under L. Right. A2 to a B is where they... But they order it under B, but they not with orders. When they set it back, they might be rewriting that too. I think the whole thing was just... This is the first time that I've seen one. Maybe Auburn has a different view, but I don't... That's okay. I think... If I were looking also... All that I'm looking to try to do is bring a nexus between that provision and the charge in a violent crime. I don't know why we would remove weapons from somebody who's charged in a simple assault. Michelle, would you explain to the committee what you just explained to me, they do it under... If you turn the page to page 204 of the handout is on 7554. If you go to page two, they do it under D now. So, for the analysis around... First, they do the conditions to ensure appearance. Then they go on to subdivision A2, which is the top of the handout second page. So, if the judicial officer determines the conditions really supposed to ensure appearance will not reasonably protect the public, the officer may impose an additional least restrictive of the violent conditions or least restrictive of the combinations that will reasonably ensure protection of the public. So, the testimony previously on this was that they do see it and the judges do use that authority under A2D, which is the catch-all language about impose any other condition found reasonably necessary to protect the public. And that they do sometimes order somebody not to possess firearms during that period. And I think our general office has to buy over there is that they see it sometimes but it tends to be in personal assault cases or things like that. And... I know the courts actually do it now. We're now moving to codify it. If you have the chance to codify it in a way to make sure some judge sitting on bench decides, I don't know, they're having a bad day and they've got a DUI case in front of them and they decide that since the person had a gun at home and caught him but he's never taken on news, they want to have that coming into harness. And I think they would have to have somebody could challenge it and say it's not the least restrictive condition if there's nothing that indicates that the public is at risk. And I... I agree with you. I think that language ought to be in this provision somehow to make a nexus between what is true and what is not. But it is and not even. Or you need to do it again. You're not comfortable with the lead on how you're going to do it. I'll let... If Matt comes to the conclusion he's okay with it, I'm not going to stand in the way of it. This is an opportunity... Wait on next Tuesday and I... Senator's saying it's fairly clear Senator Nick is concerned about the DUI case kind of having the position of the requirement that completely has nothing to do with the crime. You could certainly say that they shouldn't be possessing of a vehicle. Well, that's true. It could be organized as far as I'm concerned. Driving shouldn't drive, but that's personal opinion. And that shouldn't drive. DUI 6 is... Since we're talking about possessing a firearm possessing a vehicle you see the girl who ran into the... was doing her driver's test ran into the office of the motor vehicle. No! She drove right into the office. Oh no! They've suggested she needed more training to get a license. Luckily nobody was in here. She actually drove right into the... it was like a motor vehicle and she was up playing glass window as if she drove right into the office. Let me afford it with people that there's no restriction on age of driver's license. I've seen that a few times when people have gone to... I forgot where that happened. It's kind of... Talk about having a bad day. So you might say to her condition of release is she not driving because that's a motor vehicle. Can I ask just because I wasn't here when we first started that. Was there some case that in the DUI case? We had no idea. I was just concerned about it. Senator Ndikler comes up with to leave. That's good because we need to deal with the... I think something changed. Wait, wait, wait. Okay, wait. Wait. Just wait. John. Look at me. Just look at me. Okay. All right. Alice, that is just so wonderful. That is so perfect. Was a gift to me. I don't know why, but yes. That is great. Just so you know. I'm not in favor. You have to keep on your table so you can go and restructure it. And then we help. It won't fit in the drawers. I think we've worked towards the mental health of 221. I'd like to connect with something. I think for tomorrow's discussion on the number one section A of S55, that certainly is appropriate to have a mental health. You can't eat the fluff. I don't think so. Yeah, I'm a fan of playing. I'm a little too much. I don't care. So, and then... I think that's a good idea. Any suggestions you would like them to make? I would like to see and you can work with Eric and Michelle on how to redraft and see what we can come up with to meet your goal. We actually... I like the idea of having more school resource options available. I can see a... I know several required retired cops in my area who would probably love to volunteer to do that. You know, as long as they're still... They still have to keep up their license. They have to keep up their license. We have retired doctors who work at the clinic for the Uninsured Inventant. They keep up their license. They're not working. They don't have regular patients. The reason why you will see some of the retired ones actually I believe would be concerned for their actual retirement because, as you know, if you... Wow. I can tell you this. That would be interesting. I think you would be able to get more recent retirees if we were able to... I don't know if this is possible. Maybe Senator White knows if we were able to amend I don't know if it's regulation part of the retirement would allow a recent retiree from let's say B.S.P. to act as a school resource officer and that income... because now if you're starting to work and then your retirement stops at that point until if you're working at excess hours... I think that there... that wouldn't apply here doing a part-time resource officer. If you're working for the state if you work for the state then your retirement stops and for somebody else that it does I may be wrong. Yeah, I'll check that out. I figured it because the school resource that would be public school would be state funds. Because they work for municipal departments. Not the way to go by asking for a media conference. What? I'm telling you the world has... I think that was your wife actually I've said people don't understand. One would be a committee of conference which is normal for Bill. Now the done-sets people evidently are out there or some group is out there do not delay passing by a public hearing or conference committee. In other words, just concur with house. We usually do that. We usually just concur with the house. Yeah, I don't ever remember having things added to a bill in this manner in us just concurring and holding a committee of conference on any bill, no matter how small and how trivial. That's just the public... Well, people don't understand. It's frustrating to get 100 emails every afternoon because the house is doing their thing. But people don't... they don't understand. They don't. I mean, half the people in my district still think I go to Washington, B.C. and then I get paid big bucks and so why do I go to an old car? As a chair of the committee, don't you get... Oh, we get a lot more. They don't know about that. We're on TV. You're going to find out now. Well, you get a lot more. In New York, a couple of years ago when I looked at the base hour, it was 85. But you got an additional 25 if you were chair of the committee. Right. Or if you were minority leader or like member or minority leader, we have to pay. You have to pay. All right. So, thank you very much. Thank you. And the next bill is human trafficking. Subject in your review of our hearts. We've passed a lot of laws on human trafficking. I didn't know there was anything left. Maybe Senator Sullivan who is responsible for the bill could tell us what we missed or what's changed that needs to be added to current law. Were you guys from the house actually sitting there listening while we come in and in the house? Oh, you disagree? I heard your speech on Friday night. That's good. Thanks. Let's not go back there. We won't. But I was there until 7.30 waiting for my five feet. I was on my heart. Seven. Well, please go ahead. Bill is eight. Six. Right. Thank you. Representative Falkholtz is the sponsor as well. And on the legal side, of course, I'm going to let Representative Falkholtz go with her analysis and why we brought this bill. My part is that I've worked with some victims who've been in trafficking over many, many years. And just in Vermont alone, we have had over 222 calls. And we've already had cases 44 and better. We've talked about the sex trafficking side. It's not included in the labor trafficking side. It does not include the blend. And so those are just the cases that have started that we're aware of from specific hotlines. There are many more as well. And the need for getting new trafficking victims who have had children while they were brought through is where we're going with this as well. Because when you're groomed, you can be groomed and indoctrinated. At a younger age you'll still be part of the trafficking organization as you mature to adulthood or you can even be groomed as an adult. And the result, of course, comes with further grooming and gorilla tactics. And we need to assist these people to move out and to get on with their lives and hopefully their children can have some benefit. So on the legal side, we're going to pass the buck to your representative Buck Holmes. I would imagine you were all part of passing the exception to parent-child contact that have to do with sexual assault victims who have a child. And so we see this as sort of an extension of that very important exception. Generally our policy is maximum contact with both parents for all children that's safe and appropriate. And in this situation it could be neither with a trafficked mom and the child that resulted from that relationship. I've had many cases as an attorney where I wish I could contact and the best we can end up with usually is a lot of hoops for the perpetrating parent to jump through, but there's always the possibility. And this is not a situation I would respectfully submit where that would be appropriate under any circumstances. And the only other portion that we ask to have changed had to do with annulments where annulments currently cannot be granted where the husband and wife or wife and wife or husband and husband live together consensually. But when you've got so much coercion and mind manipulation as you get in human trafficking situations I think it's an easy leap to see that no one could give their consent under those circumstances. So those are the two components and if you have any questions please answer. First off, let me just suggest this will become one of the questions on the bar exam for some future board law student. We had him. The issue of whether or not voluntary cohabitation is eliminated. How do you prove and articulate the right question? I think I see where you're going. The theory is that they have been coerced. We presume that they've been coerced. I'm sure that I'm comfortable yet accepting why that change should be made to make that presumption. Okay. Are you saying generally it shouldn't be made? Generally speaking right now we have even if they've been cohabitating that by itself is evidence that there was no coercion. You're asking to eliminate that altogether. I'm trying to grab my head around how we deal. How do we make that leap? Well first off, it's not always cohabitating by choice. There's a paradigm that has to be in the human trafficking area that they must have been there by fraud for some coercion. So that paradigm would have to be proven before the annulment would be granted anyway. So it's not like I was trafficked and I'm going to stay with you now by choice. This is an entirely different level that has to be proven when they go through the court system asking for that annulment when they're a human trafficking victim. Of course, there's always the hope that the trafficking will come forward and argue against it and that we can have a great defense against the trafficker but the chances of that happening there are very slim. But there is a paradigm that must be met because they must really prove that they are victims of human trafficking. So this isn't just, you know, a free card. So if Part B wants the annulment, raises the grounds that they are threatened by force or other form of cordial deception by a third party who we identify as the trafficker. If the spouse objects does their defense then become how do we combat that that actually happened? So in this situation are we presuming that the other spouse spouse A does not want to get the annulment. Spouse B is seeking an annulment on the grounds that they were forced to coerce but the coercion was caused not by spouse A but by third party human trafficker. So the spouse in this situation doesn't know that this person's been trafficked? I suppose that's one thing they can bring. I think that's pretty unusual and again I'm going to go back to her experience in this area but I think usually you know someone gets delivered to as the spouse and it's kind of an arranged marriage in a different culture. I mean are you thinking about that? No. That could be a situation that happens but that's an entirely different arena. As far as the person who spouse A and spouse B caused this union then there would be that correlation between the A the John or the person his place there to control that specific spouse to continue being indoctrinated through this moving process so there would be a correlation and bring the trafficker in to say that they had nothing to do with it and you know so it's going to be a hearing and it's not going to be just a file for a moment like you go to Vegas and the signs up there No but if you use Alice's example of arranged marriage for instance I think there's an argument to be made in America that an arranged marriage is a formal coercion in other cultures that's not necessarily the case and so if they come here after having been married spouse B says I was pushed into this by my parents but they've been cohabitating for ten years or whatever the case may be and is now using that as the grounds for the moment am I missing something or is there a potential problem there because part of spouse A had nothing to do necessarily with what happened with the parents in the arranged marriage other than they were doing what their cultural norms are so you have now spouse A trying to defend and I'm just wondering how this plays out so my thought would be having done some of these cases with people who do have arranged marriages still must meet the paradigm of unitracking the forced fraud and coercion so those are the three elements we can't redefine but if you have an arranged marriage it could be just fine it doesn't mean you would traffic it really doesn't you have to meet those elements to prove that in fact you weren't one trap well they have to meet forced fraud and coercion for it to be the true human trafficking on the arranged marriage slide so that's the paradigm so if you have to meet one single element and I'm going to let the lawyers do that there's going to be a fact finding but the actual human trafficking paradigm does include forced fraud and coercion not war but I will let the lawyers step in and say no it's what I'm wondering on the basis of Senator Banks bringing up is if we went too far taking out the last sentence yes because I think we're okay in the first addition but this may have taken us too far to say under no circumstances can it be an old page too can I ask a question about that too because this section does not deal with human trafficking am I right I mean the whole the whole force are fraud so if I'm not specifically right so if it's in that so if I've been living with this guy for 10 years and then we decide to get married and then I decide he's a jerk this would say that I could get an annulment right okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay thank you thank you good morning good morning this is another brilliant one schools need armed security teachers you need a bill to not sell guns to Democrats how do you do that how do you do that and then I have one one of my dear constituents senator sears other than fully apologize NRA stands against this I'll do whatever I can to vote you out of office really so thrilled with the all of these emails they are so out of control and I'm disappointed that's what you get here 81 emails between last night at 9 o'clock and this morning at 9 o'clock it's crazy you hurt the guy that said my stench was no longer allowed to do again in capital letters now he's actually threatening me in my room join the group should I tell the person that doesn't want to sell guns to Democrats with a young woman thing on Saturday across the bottom it's a Democrat pro to a pro second amendment she's a Democrat and she's pro the second amendment this is all generated by we the people of Shaspard we the people of Shaspard it's a group that expect us to do whatever they want it's called we the people of Shaspard that's easy oh yeah I started reading that one Alice Miller all those punch drunk if you haven't heard that so Bryn it's hard to hear the house did a strike all amendment I assume yes so can you walk us quickly through it I think representing Sullivan we're trying to walk us through it I think it's more appropriate for you to do it okay so for the record Bryn here from legislative council so I think that the committee already got that the gist of the bill is really it's in two parts we've got the annulment section which is section one and then we've got two and three which really deal with parent child contact and those are the parts that talk specifically about human trafficking section one doesn't speak specifically about human trafficking rather it talks about how force or fraud plays into the annulment of marriage so currently so section one currently under 516 which is the annulment based on force or fraud statute then the annulment sub chapter of the annulment and divorce chapter provides that if consent of a party to marriage was obtained by force or fraud the marriage can be annulled essentially unless the parties voluntarily cohabitated before the commencement of the action so what section one does is two things it broadens the scope of marriages that can be annulled under this force or fraud statute to include those marriages where consent was obtained by a threat of force or other forms of coercion or deception and again as the sponsors of the bill indicated it removes that restriction that marriages shall not be annulled if the parties voluntarily cohabitated prior to the commencement of the action so two things to the annulment statute it says that you're crossing that out right so that's currently currently there's a requirement that marriage can't be annulled on grounds of force or fraud if there was that so now they will be right so okay so now we move on to section two so now we're moving to this is a rights and responsibilities order again we're still on the annulment and divorce chapter so currently this section of law sets out how the court makes the parental rights and responsibilities order including the requirement that the court look to factors when already in the best interests of the child so the full statute is in here but if you turn to page four this is the part that has so under existing law under F1 this provides that a court can deny a parent child contact with a parent if the court finds evidence that the parent was convicted of sexually assault with a parent and the child was conceived as a result of that assault you'll remember that from a few years ago so what this bill does is it expands that provision and it allows the court to deny parent child contact when one parent was convicted of human trafficking and the other parent was the trafficked victim and then if you turn to page five this is subdivision F2 and under existing law this provides that a court can deny parent child contact if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent was that the parent was that one parent was assaulted by the other parent and the child was conceived as a result of that assault and in addition that terminating parent child contact would be in the best interest of the child it doesn't have to be the child well the trafficker is not the parent yeah so so that was the I was just talking about existing law so what it does here what we thought is that the moving parent was trafficked by the non-moving parent under the human trafficking statute what if the person who impregnated the person who was being trafficked was not the human trafficker but rather a client of the trafficker right then it comes under current law right so well if there's not there's so you're right that it doesn't require that the trafficked um the person who was by clear and convincing evidence found to have trafficked the other parent be the actual parent of the child that's not a requirement under this change other states in general I don't know about that so I would just mention my recollection from our work on human trafficking in the past was pretty extensive usually the trafficker the person being trafficked the victim was usually used for sexual purposes with a variety of individuals and here you talk about parents I'm wondering if it shouldn't be expanded to anyone they can claim right we're focusing on whether or not the person is the parent to focus on the victim I think not on the because I my recollection and we did a lot of work on human trafficking a few years back my recollection is that the traffickers are basically not involved I mean they're selling prostituting the client many times they're in the one that was suspected of being in Bennington was actually a woman that was the trafficker was trafficking other women she immediately left the area do you remember the ads? yeah sorry I do what is this section has to do with parents who are in court trying to get parents out of contact or custodial rights and struggling to understand your hypothetical and how it fits here well I don't know how the person would even know so I'm wondering what would disagree with your underlying premise I'm just trying to figure out how that would fit in here if they're not one of the parents well I think that the idea is that a victim who is trying to seek the rights and responsibilities for the child or terminate rights and responsibilities for the other parent if that victim proves that they were trafficked by the other parent then they should be able to terminate the contact between them well I think this just provides a presumption that the court would order that termination so the other thing I would just point out is that under F2 that provision that you don't have to necessarily be convicted of sexual assault you just have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child was a result of that sexual assault similarly this bill expands that provision to allow the court to deny parent child contact if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent was trafficked and by the way we have a document on our face I don't think I'll allow that to be filed it's very good at seeing that right I don't know which bill it was I think there's a bill on I don't know the number I'll grab it from your files after don't worry about it so if there's no conviction the court has to also find that the termination would be in the best interest of the child so section 3 now we move to the adoption act so this provision provides grounds for terminating the relationship of parent and child so a petition to terminate a parent child relationship can be filed in a proceeding for adoption by a parent who selected a prospective adopted parent for a minor and who intends to place that minor with that person or a parent whose spouse has filed a petition to adopt the other parent's minor child or a prospective adoptive parent or an agency that has selected a prospective adoptive parent so those are the circumstances under which the page so I'm just talking about a statute that's not in the bill but I'm on page 6 so we're under grounds for terminating the relationship and those are the circumstances under which a petition could be brought here same as if you're doing adoption so as you grant support authority to order the termination of parental relationship under certain circumstances for example when the parent has been convicted of a crime of violence and the facts of the crime indicate that the parent's unfit to maintain a parent child's relationship so what the change here provides that the court can order termination if the parent committed a sexual assault resulting in the conception of the child and you can find that language on page 8 that doesn't say not child that says not child if a child has been conceived in some other relationship this would enable that son or daughter of the accused to terminate their relationship that would be grounds under which the court could terminate the relationship between that child and that parent the word does not limit it to the child so I have two kids if I'm convicted of forcefully impregnating a total stranger my kids could then petition the court or my spouse could petition the court to have my parental rights terminated the spouse could and this is again under the adoption act so this is if the parent if your spouse is filing an order because they have selected an adoptive parent so this would be a situation when a parent is looking to put their child up for adoption and they are seeking to terminate the right for the other parent would it not apply in the case of someone's been married they have a child they didn't get divorced later on a spouse, a former spouse gets a sexual assault on a child conviction then the remaining parent could then I mean would it be pretty much automatic that they say they got together with somebody new that that person could adopt the child? No this would not be automatic so the court has to hold a hearing and if the court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that one of those grounds exists is that in here? Yes it is so that's on page 6 sort of the subsection A that ever sets out the grounds on which the court has to consider making this a termination so if one of these grounds exists and the court finds it's in the best interest of the child then the court has to terminate the child terminate but again that's based on finding the best interest of the child and also the court has to find if you look at this could apply to any age of child is this one still with best interest of the child applying? Yes it's a center vision under A so it's one of the grounds of the court more questions? Did you have a thought on the did you have a thought on the arranged marriage? If an arranged marriage could be an old under section 1 I think that it's really up to the court to find whether an arranged marriage would fit the definition of threat of force or other forms of coercion or deception very cohabitation has traditionally been used as a defense to one of the current standards force or fraud now we're expanding the definition of force or fraud and curtailing the normal defense to that as far as cohabitation is concerned if in a foreign country an arranged marriage was made an 11 year old girl by her parents and she ends up married and then comes to this country passes the age of 18 and lives with spouse in this country I would say that an arranged marriage with an 11 year old is something that could be argued to be a form of coercion at the very least and possibly something else over there it was not here it is now she goes by the age of 18 and doesn't do anything about it for 5 or 6 years and then suddenly wants to get an enrollment and we're removing the cohabitation defense all together as I understand so in that scenario the person who is defending if the parent if the husband wanted to defend and say no it wasn't coercion because we lived together all this time simply that's no longer available as a defense I would agree with you that it's not would no longer be an absolute defense but I don't think there's anything that would prohibit the court from considering whether the parties voluntarily cohabitated in determining whether or not marriage was attained through force or fraud or coercion or deception well the judge doing any kind of research would look at this language being added at the same time removing the cohabitation plus so I'm kind of scratching my head wondering how would a judge then go back and revert to the belief that there is a defense on cohabitation you mean he or she may draw some inference about the legislative intent I think that's a fair game Can I ask one more question? Yup So with regard to page 8 with regard to the response has to leave a sexual assault resulting in conception of a child this could this apply also or doesn't apply also within the situation of a married couple and there's a sexual assault and so a married couple has a child who maintained that it's rape within a marriage so this really could then stop that person convicted of that from having contact with other children other children that were already born within their marriage Rape within a marriage I don't think I see but that could be a possibility I don't think anything for him with that Okay so much here assuring me that there's the interest of the child who would be the person who might be subject to now not seeing a parent Yes I mean it's in subdivision A says that the court has to find that one of these grounds exists based on clear convincing evidence and that termination is in the best interest of the child to be clear this all falls under the statute of determining the relationship between parent and child and the petition to terminate as I understand it can be brought by a parent or guardian a parent whose spouse has filed a petition already before to adopt the parent's mother child a prospective adoptive parent of the mother child who has filed a petition or the agency that has selected a prospective adoptive parent for the mother and intends to place so if DCF has in custody a child that they want to place when given an adoptive placement they can use as grounds this the fact that the parent who's objecting to that was convicted of producing a child in a rape situation not this child but some other child and yes thank you very much all right thanks both he's letting me do the work he's letting you do the work second director for the states training insurance and here on behalf of the questions regarding questions that might come up under my state's termination and let me just start off if I may I do support this bill and I think that one of the one of the crimes that is probably most of us understood and greatly underestimated to me in the state of Vermont as human trafficking when this bill was passed and we worked on it I think it was a great move toward recognizing that there are people out there that are being used as in order for other people just to make money and to have financial gain and as we know it is some people I've referred to as a form of slavery and which I would concur with in most situations I see it as two areas human trafficking can either come in a situation in the service area here in Vermont where there are some people who bring people from other countries to work on farms they can through coercion or deception really want to make them come here, work on the farms not get paid or get paid little and not just farms it's also hotels it's anything where you find a service type of industry where you have people that could be here, brought into this country illegally and that's held over their head that's one area but the other area is one where I think is probably the one that goes out of the radar and that is in the area of prostitution most people will look at prostitution and they'll say Vermont is a victimless crime and let's just go ahead and go on and move on to other things I can't tell you one of the times when I was in actually Windsor County and I would have I remember in the first three cases that I received from then, say it's terminated in Canaan was where arrest came in for prostitution and so I started looking into it a little bit further and as I said Michael I think there might be something more to this and he says you know crimes of prostitution you know, find out what you can if you really think there's more then go further but understand this is that you know there are complaints coming in that we're clogging up courts with smaller cases cases that should be just give an automatic diversion or just give them a fine and get them out of here and because you just don't have the time for investigations because we don't really have the investigators if this is like local law enforcement they might do a in these cases but what they miss and because we don't have time to really go in and investigate these crimes are the fact that a lot of these women are in fact in relationships with individuals who actually have over a period of time course these women into the relationship first and then room them to the point where they now it moves on to listen I need to have some money to pay some of the bills you need to get out there and do some work and the stories I don't have to Linda has already laid the groundwork for that and actually I was I saw an entire presentation made by Representative Sullivan and it was an extremely moving and that's really what opened my eyes before I got to deal with this one case and so the after we dealt with two of the cases where it didn't seem like there was much I did start I reached out on this one case and finally found to make my story short I got in touch with the mother of the prostitutes arrested and it was a chilling story and it was one where this person was an actual college graduate and the mother told the story of how she had involved in this relationship with this guy where they all thought he was a great guy and one thing led to another the drugs got involved the next thing you know he has her out there working on the street and she came here to Vermont I outside of my time with the state's attorney I ended up working with the mother and also the woman and got her into some treatment and helped get her treatment down in Massachusetts and then later told the story about what really happened this time she had also been in touch with some of the federal officials down in Massachusetts because that was where it all came out of they just came out here to Vermont the point that I'm trying to make is that this is a situation where the crime is now irrelevant and it's not as I should say it's happening far more than what most of us think in the state and we do have obviously a lot of things to worry about with the opioid issue which is dovetailing this but also with the issues that we've just been dealing with regarding the violence but anytime that we're able to make some advances toward ending the relationships and the power and the abuse that one individual has over another because it can be a man and it could be a woman that's where not only better as a state and in what we're providing for our folks but I think we're also better as a as an entire country to show that we will not we're not going to stand by and let this let people be used and abused sexually or in other matters that are being done currently across this country so I would strongly suggest and urge that that the committees support this termination's bill and what it's trying to do and hopefully at one time when there are not a thousand different other issues that are facing you immediate problems especially as a part-time legislature we'll be able to look further into ways that we could try to do more to end the where I consider the prolific human trafficking trade here in Vermont I know of laws can solve certain problems we passed I think some of the strongest human trafficking laws in the country law enforcement has stretched that Joe was talking about in a community district that's a school is 45 minutes from law enforcement I've got a similar school in Reedsboro takes 45 minutes for state police to get there so if you're talking about an emergency and it takes 45 minutes or if you have an investigation into human trafficking I don't know where it is particularly in a rural state like Vermont on the border of Quebec, New Hampshire Massachusetts and New York folks move very quickly so I'm not sure it's legislation as much as making it a priority of law enforcement and others to investigate the cases I'm fine with this bill but I don't know what the resources there are the resources to do it would it be a problem we're fighting other problems and then we sit here spending our time talking about well I do think that the laws that we have are good laws and we could use them probably the kind of example I actually just looked quickly to see what the numbers were and last year I think there were six convictions for human trafficking but 909 cases of prostitution that came in that quickly got dumped into diversion and so and I know there were others because I know that there are states attorney's offices that don't even they don't have the time to take the prostitution cases so they don't even put them to diversion they just go out and dismiss them or they won't take them from law enforcement but if you figure there's let's say a thousand cases where we have done something got some involved and this is my personal involvement I would hazard the guess that a good number of those had to deal with people that were being trafficked by third parties whether it be a significant other being so long a type of organized crime gang or group but the laws are here we just need the resources which I know that that's a problem that has been I think it's more than even just the resources and I hate to sound like a I know I'm sorry I wasn't here for that conversation but the first time I ever became aware that this was even an issue I mean I'm such a not even like or whatever but about ten years ago now there was a huge article in I believe it was the New Yorker and it was about a smallish town you know not a tiny town but I would say is somewhere in New York and there was a house on the corner that had some young women living in it nobody paid too much attention to it they would see the young women come down and go to the corner store and buy candy and stuff and when they finally rated this house the people who were taking advantage of what was going on there and these were all young girls who had been trafficked were the upstanding community members it just it made me want to throw up I mean so we as long community members were the patrons or they were the persons who were the young they were the patrons it included I mean the council members and ministers and from the community and it's bitter and so how all the laws that exist aren't going to aren't going to change that depraved human behavior and I have to it just maybe it's not a great analogy to drug addiction and stuff drug abuse but the people are going to seek drugs if they're addicted to drugs people who are using women in this way they're going to continue to try to find that but that and again I understand you're concerned but it's not one where I think that that just highlights the need for us to protect these folks because they're being used and abused by people of power people who try to stop us from using whatever little resources we have to convict them or to get these people out of their lives that they if you want to call it a life that they live I have to say it made me look at everybody in my community a little jaundiced for a long time sorry John I've got two questions about the bill about the bill well page one removing the voluntary cohabitation that language was initially put in this statue to provide a defense on what we are now expanding and I'm wondering what the rationale is for doing that I don't know that and that was not I don't I just I don't know where are you John? page one the underlined words are expanding the concept if you will what is fraud the language that's crossed out is actually eliminating one of the defenses that was in existence prior to expanding that concept so I'm still scratching my head if you don't know the only thing that I could see here is that while you know you might have voluntary cohabitation until such time as you find the person finds out learns that that there has been some fraud or that there was something that happened they were told it let's say that they are with somebody that the partner who said that they were Joe Smith was really Dan Jones who was a serial of course I'm being extreme here but that's where I think that I could easily say that could cause a problem if that was in there so maybe some language can be worked to make sure that those that if something is found out at a later time after the voluntary cohabitation that that would still come out the person to come forward to discuss the economic who is to the page of each new language is being added if I follow this truth correctly I'm currently 61 years old if at the age of 16 I know that he was evicted of a rape that resulted in a child and I've served my debt to society I've moved on I now get into another relationship where a child is conceived if I am reading this right at the age of 61 God forbid I forgot that position at this age but if I was this automatically gives as I read it kind of strict liability against me being a parent it doesn't matter what child was born if I had another child with my wife and then my wife and I are now in the process of a divorce she hooks up with a new boyfriend she wants him to adopt seems to me this automatically results in that happening and I'm a little concerned because if you read the lines just above there you see the facts of the crime or violation in the way that the respondent is unfit to maintain a relationship with a parent child with a minor seems to me some kind of language like that ought to be attached to number 4 and the word A should become the before child otherwise this is a wide open argument for somebody who's just pissed at their ex to say hey I want my new boyfriend to have this child be adopted and that language gives carte blanche opportunity for that to happen if I see it right now okay so if I could we're talking about page 8 first let me just say that termination issues are not my forte and I read this as you were reading and first I think you needed to show that you have a look to see there are these are reasons that can be used but you still have to prove that in my clear and convincing evidence I believe if I'm mistaken that this is going to still be the best interest of the child that they have to take into all sorts of circumstances into consideration but I also would say again maybe it's my quick interpretation but that you might already be caught into that anyway under 3 when we're at the respondent has been convicted of a crime of violence and we're getting close to the new there is a number of questions here for this bill we didn't hear from Marshall or any anybody else who wants to speak on this bill hearing a number of concerns I don't know if you can address them we did find that Tennessee and Mississippi have passed these laws certainly backed into progressive legislation I think it could be fixed very quickly so I'm sorry if I can just give you my what theme I think it would be an issue that should be served Britain knows how to fix these college problems just in response to your statement John I know there has to be clear convincing evidence that it's in the message of the child to do that when Britain happens to be a billionaire there's a strong worry that to make this new relationship is working in the best interest of this kid so I'm a leery that we don't have attached the language of peers of community section 3 I don't I will let the folks that do or the experts that maybe tell me why that language is what it is but as I said I think that if you're convicted of a crime violence that you're under current why you're facing that but it does say and the facts of the crime or violation indicate that the respondent is unfit to maintain so there's a qualifier there if you okay but there isn't a qualifier under court that's why commas and periods and everything else are very important when we're drafting laws thank you can we take you up okay quickly no no I have very very quick comments on this and that's because this doesn't this impacts our area of practice in a very sort of you know kind of at the margins which is to say in doing juvenile law I'm familiar with cases that have involved juveniles in particular who have been trafficked and frankly you know we are supportive of anything that provides tools to address human trafficking that are outside of the tools that we have now because frankly the tools we have now don't really work particularly when we're talking about children victims you know really the only thing that's available right now is the system so taking kids into custody as either being having been neglected or being on the control of their parents are sort of the two ways that these kids often come into custody and frankly the you know the resources just aren't there it's just not a good system for working with those youth so we don't object to anything we don't object to this in concept we certainly are supportive of coming up with things that are not the CHIN system that help us to deal with this problem as far as the sort of specifics of it I'm not a domestic target lawyer and I never want to be so when it comes to the application of Title 15 you're talking to the wrong person and I'm going to defer on any questions that are really specifically about that I think you got to find somebody who's got a lot more experience in domestic target court to answer those questions I do think that in any effort like this there's always problems you know there's always ways that the wording could be tweaked and always different ways that you could interpret it and all I'm saying is I'm not the person to answer those questions but I am here to say that we do support the concept of the bill broadly and you know are really happy to see that there's an effort being made to address this in a way that provides some ways for people who want to get out of these situations to get out of these situations that doesn't involve turning to Department for Children and Families or turning to the prosecutors offices because and this is anecdotal but the sense that I get in working with some of my clients who have been in these situations is that those processes often are really not palatable to anybody involved including the child victims a lot of the time who are not going to want to be part of a state custody not going to be but frankly the kids that I've dealt with who have been victims of human trafficking have been very sophisticated very independent kids young people who really if you met them and talked to them you wouldn't think of them as young people you would think of them as sophisticated adults and it's because in a situation like this you kind of grow up fast and you're exposed to a lot and those are exactly the kind of people who really you know state custody type of remedies really rub the wrong way it's hard to engage those clients in the system that we have in place we just don't have the system that would engage those clients so instead we try to shoehorn them into the system we have and it just doesn't work so we're supportive of coming up with you know alternative angles to approach this problem but as far as the specifics of what this does to Title 15 and what the domestic talk judges are going to do with it that's not my area okay thank you there was a couple in Clarendon where Clarendon is just there all the time well they had they had a situation going who knows what the action is behind it but they were they were soliciting truck drivers and you know then they go as a cooker to where and we asked the preparator to park something and I was always wondering what this car was doing parked on a co-op which I used to go by all the time and I would see it there all the time and they would be trucked there later somebody got arrested and because they were being voluntarily I don't know but they were a truck driver finding complaints because they were exploring some of the truck drivers who they had connected with online