Dangerous Dogs - 2nd Amendment - Former Wake Forest Coach

Outlaw Lawyer with Josh Whitaker Josh Whitaker, an attorney with the law firm of Whitaker & Hamer, and I am here today to talk about all things legal. The first thing I want to tackle is introducing our in-studio guest. And so with me today is attorney Joe Hamer. Welcome, Mr. Hamer.

Thanks for having me, Josh Whitaker. Mr. Hamer, Joseph is my law partner over at Whitaker & Hamer, and he is in studio with us to talk about a couple of items that we want to discuss. Because again, here at the Outlaw Lawyer, we want to talk about how the law affects everything, literally everything, every day. Yes, I think that's fair to say the law definitely intersects with every single aspect of our life every day.

And it's something that you may not think about, but that's what we're here to call attention to. So the first the first thing I want to talk about today on today's shows, we've had a couple of incidents over the past couple of weeks, where we've got dogs, pet dogs that have unfortunately injured, well, I think both of the ones I want to talk about today resulted in death of children, right? So we had an incident over in Garner, where a neighbor and their daughter were taking care of feeding a neighbor's dogs, they were on the neighbor's property where the dogs reside. And during that incident, they were attacked and the little girl unfortunately was killed.

The mother was injured. And so there's been some that's been in the news. And then there was one in Clayton too, I think. Yeah, and Clayton, there was another again, unfortunate incident. I believe it was actually family pets, two dogs left with I think it was a 10 month old child.

Parents stepped out, heard the dogs going crazy came back in. And yeah, unfortunately, again, another terrible incident. We can all agree horribly, horribly unfortunate. But I guess you know, we're going to discuss kind of the law in North Carolina, how it defines dangerous dogs, potential liability for that and just kind of informing around the statutes.

Right, right. So we're going to actually take a look at the law because these are horrible when you read when you read the stories and what's going on just horrible facts. And anytime a child loses their lives, it's just terrible. And it affects you emotionally.

But as attorneys, we always want to look say, Well, what what is the law? Who's responsible? What's going to go? So I'll also say, for the purposes of this, I have four dogs, which is more than any, there's more dogs than any one person should really ever have. But I have four dogs. I know you've got some dogs, several dogs, we have, we've got three dogs, one's gigantic, big Great Dane. So we'll count him as a couple of dogs.

So we'll just say we have five. So the interesting thing in the in the Garner one, so this this happened, this unfortunate incident happened. And then the owners of the the dogs, the dogs are in custody with animal control.

That's the procedure. That's set out in the statute. So if this happens, they get confiscated. And the owners wanted them back, right.

So the owners did not want them put down, they didn't want them back. So they petitioned according to was it was it a general statute, Chapter 67 dash 4.1 is what defines a dangerous dog. So they wanted to have these dogs that were going to be designated as dangerous dogs, and they wanted to keep them.

And so this statute provides how that has to happen. At the start, the the first thing you really have to understand when examining the statute is just the underlying definition of a dangerous dog. And the statute defines a dangerous dog as it's it's really one of two things. The first is a dog simply put that as without provocation killed or inflicted serious severe injury on a person. And the second piece of that is a dog that's been determined by a person or board that's designated by the county or the municipal authority responsible for animal control to be potentially dangerous, because it's engaged in a few different activities that are discussed later in the statute, but but all kind of revolve around biting, whether they've bitten or killed another animal, whether they've bit a person and maybe not inflicted severe injury, but broken a bone broken some skin.

So there's there's some wiggle room there as far as that determination goes. And then there's a person designated who hears these petitions when someone has what's going to be a dangerous dog, and they want to keep them. They have to they have to get a person that's designated to sign off on it in Garner. It's the police chief, and we got a good police chief in Garner. And he denied it.

Right. So he was the guy they had to make a petition. They said, Hey, we'll keep them muzzled on our property. We won't let them off, like all these things the statute says you have to do if you're going to hold a dangerous dog. I haven't heard the statute allows them to appeal this to the Superior Court of the county wherever they're located.

So this would be Wake County Superior Court. I haven't heard that appeal was filed. I haven't heard any comments from the dog owners. But I know the town of Garner, I think, as a community was pretty shocked when these folks wanted to keep this dog and killed this thing was a six or seven year old girl.

It's just interesting. So that's because, you know, the whole point of the statute is if someone allows you to keep this dangerous dog, you have to you have to follow these guidelines, keep them in a certain way. And if they harm anyone ever again, it's what we attorneys call strict liability.

Yeah, there's no there's no leeway for that. Because again, you know, you're you're well informed. I mean, again, we're as dog owners, we we love our dogs. We assume they're going to behave, have no reason to believe otherwise, or maybe you do. Maybe you've got a dog that's somewhat aggressive.

But once they've bitten someone once it's known again, it's just there's they don't give you any any type of leeway for that. So if somehow you're granted permission to keep a dangerous dog and someone's on your property and that dog hurts them on your property, you're still liable for any damage that dog causes because that dog has been deemed a dangerous dog. And that this never really comes up.

I was surprised to see it come up twice in the span of one or two weeks because this doesn't come up very often. At least in my practice in my life, but and yeah, and I guess it's also important to again, you know, it's the statute defines it as being unlawful for an owner to leave a dangerous dog unattended on their property, unless it's confined indoors. So there is some nuance there.

But But again, the the penalty, the penalty is going to be, like you said, strict liability. There's no real explaining away that situation, because your dog's been deemed dangerous. And you have notice of that. It's always interesting to me when we hear a news story, or we like, I think a lot of people were shocked that there was even an option that these owners could could lobby to keep these dogs after what what happened. And, you know, so it's always interesting when that kind of stuff comes up to me to go look at the statute to look at what you know, because these are laws that are elected officials have passed to try to govern, you know, this situation. And it may not be interesting to a lot of people, but it's interesting to me to go with that. To me to go look at it and see what's what's going on. So that's what I'm waiting for.

I'm waiting for the news that these owners have filed an appeal with the Superior Court overturned the local official one becomes a dangerous dog and how you may be able to keep a dangerous dog. Anything else, Joe? Nothing else there. All right. Coming up next on the Outlaw Lawyer, your Second Amendment rights are up for debate again in an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case.

How will your rights be affected? Stay tuned. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to the Outlaw Lawyer. I'm Josh Whittaker, and I'm here in studio with Joseph Hamer. Joe, do you like Joseph or Joe? I prefer Joe.

It works for me. I'm here with Joe. And one of the things we want to talk about today is we've got the Supreme Court makes news a lot of ways. So the Supreme Court makes news because they just decide to hear a case because the Supreme Court can choose whether or not they want to hear a case. So when they decide they're going to hear a case, that's news for attorneys where we get excited about it. And so they have told us for next year, one of the one of the cases they're going to look at is a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett.

And so that is a case out of the state of New York that has to do with carrying a weapon. It's a Second Amendment case. And this is important because our Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case. It almost I can't remember the exact amount of time, but almost two decades.

Long time. So after the Trump presidency, we've got a lot of new justices. And so they're taking a different approach to the Second Amendment. So the old Supreme Court for the past 15, 16, 17 years, that's how they've dealt with the Second Amendment. We've got our case law up to that point. And then they've just decided not to hear any more cases.

So there's been no new law. So now we know we're going to get a case next next year. And we want to talk about that case and kind of think about what the the court may do. Joe, can you tell me a little bit about the facts of this case? It's got somewhat of a convoluted history, there was an initial case brought for kind of a legal loophole ended up being dismissed for for a mootness issue, which again, kind of is more in depth than we really need to go with this discussion. So basically, the case originates out of New York, it was brought by plaintiffs that basically alleged that under New York's current regulations, an ordinary person cannot obtain a permit to carry a weapon in New York, they can get a license, but it's extremely narrow in its scope. And it's essentially in this case, that the license permits hunting and target practice and only those specific purposes. And so the petitioners in this case requested a license for self defense, basically broaden that definition, and they were denied.

And that's kind of where the case developed. So here, here in North Carolina, we have our concealed carry statute, you can apply for a permit, it goes through the local sheriff's department. And there's a ton of concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina, New York, like California and a couple other states, they take a different approach to weapons to guns, and to concealed carry.

And in New York, it's very, very difficult, our petitioners would say impossible to get this license. So yeah, so basically, you know, we're not in New York, but from from everything we've looked at it, it looks like in New York, people can basically they can keep guns in their home pursuant to that premise license that we discussed. And then they can transport that gun to shooting ranges.

And or, you know, for target practice, or for for hunting purposes. And again, the question becomes, can the city ban the transport of a locked handgun to either a second home or a shooting range outside of New York, or for some other purpose, like self defense, which again, was was brought up in this instance. And so here in North Carolina, so we're not used to that even being a problem, different different place, right, in New York, you know, so here we talk about concealed carry, you know, having weapons, but if you want to take your your weapons, you know, your guns to a shooting ranges, you don't have to have a permit to do that. And open carry is completely different as well. I know you're if you walk into a 711 and see someone just literally just open carrying or something. I mean, there's plenty of places, especially in the Johnston County area where we have offices located, where it is not at all uncommon to see people just open carrying like it's really like it's nothing.

Yeah. So the big deal here is New York has restrictive gun laws, they haven't really been reviewed by the Supreme Court and some of the opinion. So this case has been working its way through the system to get to the Supreme Court level. So we got a court of appeals opinion, you know, some other things to look at. And so what this has been compared to is, you know, Washington used to have a gun ban, right?

You couldn't, you know, you couldn't do you couldn't even get a permit like you could in New York. And the Supreme Court, that was one of the last decisions they made. They struck that down.

Sure, sure. And so the petitioners here are saying, Well, New York will let you get a permit or a license or whatever they called it here. But they really don't. It's so limited that you, you know, they have a procedure, but you're going to get denied. So it's, they call it a de facto ban.

Yeah. And it's interesting, because like you said, it's, it's rare, especially recently that that any Second Amendment question gets before the Supreme Court. And that's, that's really where we are. And it's all kind of, it all kind of revolves around that Second Amendment. And it's going to be very interesting, because there's going to be some determination that's going to further define that in a way that, you know, we haven't seen in decades, right? The Supreme Court Justice could do a lot of different things. The fact that they even took it, though, is big, which means it sounds like they want to make a ruling, they want to hear oral arguments.

They're interested in this, they want to further define this. Because if the state of New York wins, then we know that you can do this. Sure. Right. So any other state that wanted wanted to enact stricter gun control, where you could take your guns, what you could do with your guns, then they're going to point to this case and say, well, the state of New York had this system in place, and the Supreme Court said it was okay.

You know, and if they lose, and every other state will know that you can't do this. Sure. And so it'll be kind of a blueprint going forward, because that's always going to be a hot topic. I think during the COVID 2020, people didn't talk about guns very much.

Yeah, yeah. But it seems like we've had some recent, you know, shootings in the news and things like that. So I think it'll be a big topic again, before too long. Yeah, I think I think it's important to really understand this and to really sufficiently discuss it is to really just examine the Second Amendment, the text of the Second Amendment.

And you know, I think that's that's pretty big to the understanding of it. So so the Second Amendment is extremely short. And we've got all this case law, all these all these lawsuits, all these case laws, all these statutes, all these extremely strong personal opinions that come out of the Second Amendment. Joe, would you actually read the actual text of the Second Amendment?

I'll be glad to. And that text reads that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So that's it. That's all we have on the Second Amendment.

That is not an abridged version. That is a legitimate Second Amendment in its entirety. And so we have all these Supreme Court cases that kind of define what what this means and what this what this doesn't mean. And people are very opinionated. You know, some people read that first clause, a well regulated militia, and think the Second Amendment really just has to do with, you know, military and making sure you've got an army and you can defend yourself. And then you read the second part, the right to people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You're like, no, clearly, that means we as individuals can have any gun we want.

And I think it's an undersell to say that people are very opinionated. There's some people that this is like literally the most important issue of all the issues to several people. And, you know, just again, we're we're here not for opinions, not to do anything, but to discuss, discuss facts and to discuss that that intersection of the law with everyday life. So just a brief by brief summary, you know what the court has said recently, we've got the District of Columbia versus Heller case, which basically argues and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. It disconnects it from that militia service because, you know, that was the question of when you throw the the well regulated militia clause in there.

The argument, I guess, is that that's the purpose. But again, the courts already ruled. Nope, it's an individual right.

So that takes that out of the question. And then you had McDonald versus City of Chicago, which basically extended that ruling in the Heller case, by holding that states are also bound by the Second Amendment and the City of Chicago couldn't outright ban handguns. So again, there's been some but nothing recently as far as the real decisions that affect that Second Amendment right. The point I want to put out here on this show, we will never, this show is not designed to talk politics. We'll always just try to give you the facts. We'll always just try to talk about the case at hand or the statute at hand.

So that's that's something very important. Joe, what do you think they'll do with this case? I think it could go one of two ways. I think that that the court could just make a narrow ruling and no type of big watershed decision. And they could basically say that you're able to bear arms outside of your home, but there's got to be some methodology that allows you to do so.

And they could be very limited in the scope of that decision and how they define that right. Or this could be some huge watershed type of decision, where they do a strict scrutiny analysis and really make wide sweeping changes to current gun control law. It is hard for me to predict exactly exactly which way that goes, because again, it's something that we haven't seen in so long. Well, that'll be that'll be one we look forward to. So that's that's slated for oral arguments in early, I guess, 2022. So we won't come back to that one for a while.

But there's a lot of people watching that case. You'll hear a lot about that one. Coming up next on the outlaw lawyer COVID-19 has changed everything. What can the government make you do? What can your employer make you do?

What can the airlines make you do? We'll talk about that next. Welcome back to the outlaw lawyer. I'm Josh Whittaker in studio with my guest this week, Joe Hamer.

We are both attorneys for the law firm of Whittaker and Hamer. And we're here now to talk about COVID-19. Over the past year, it has changed everything. And there is a lot of legal repercussions that will occur as a result. It's going to change a lot of stuff. It already has changed a lot of stuff. But now as the world I hate to say gets back to normal, but as the world starts venturing out as the world gets to the new normal, we figure out, you know, how everything is going to change going forward.

We've all been waiting for CDC guidelines. Can I go to the bar? Can I go to the restaurant? But I'm super stoked right now because we've got our outlaw country tour tickets. So Willie Nelson is going to be in Raleigh in September with Sturgill Simpson.

This isn't an advertisement for that. I'm just very excited that we can buy tickets and we get to go. So we're super excited about that. So I think things are starting to get back to somewhat normal anyway. Normalcy is semi-returning. For you, normalcy is Willie Nelson tickets. For me, normalcy is my 30 and up recreational league basketball team league starting back with the town of Clayton.

I encourage all of our outlaw lawyer listeners to come and support our team Wednesday nights is what I'm guessing we'll play. But yeah, it's good to be doing things again. It's good to be able to get out of the house again. But again, there's changes and we're here to talk about how the law really intersects with that everyday life and what those changes look like and any kind of legal ramifications from that. The first thing we figured out from COVID-19 I think is that our governor has a lot more power and not just Governor Cooper, but any governor put in this type of situation has a lot more power than we all probably thought they did. Yeah, we just went through an extraordinary period of time, something completely different, a once in a real generational type of experience. And I think we all found out that the emergency powers that just the government in general has, a lot of people probably didn't understand how wide reaching that was as there was a period where it seemed like almost every day there was a some kind of new authority, some kind of new edict, some some kind of new research. Some some kind of new restriction handed down. And there's a lot of question around that.

What's the legality of it? I'm a 44 year old man, Joseph. And I don't know before last year, in my first 43 years, if a governor's decision really ever directly affected me personally before last year. And then you get to a point where it's every day, it has a drastic effect on your life, your business, everything that you're doing. So yeah, unprecedented times. So here, you know, at our law firm, because because Joe and I, we are partners over at Whitaker and Hamer, and we've got five offices and and we had to devise, just like everybody else did we didn't the law firms were essential activities, or however, Governor Cooper defined it. And so we never closed down, you know, we never stopped meeting with people. We did change procedures, you know, pretty drastically, because again, it was it was the unknown. I mean, I remember vividly us talking, and having no idea what to expect. And I remember us basically expecting any day to be shut down.

Completely every day, we kind of waited for that to come. But we kept we kept talking to any friends we had in politics or any any lobbyists, a lot of rumors going around, anybody who gives any information, because I would argue that there's no way you can shut down a law firm, even under emergency, because people still need legal services. Well, we didn't know what was gonna happen. But we did, we everybody did the mask, and we gave people masks, and we only let people in who had to come in. And we tried to reduce face to face contact as much as we could. And we really tried to toe the line, you know, a lot of some of the things that we saw other law firms doing, honestly, and again, everybody's doing this in the interest of safety and what they think is best.

But we tried to toe the line between being overly burdensome, and making, you know, our staff and our clients feel comfortable and safe. But this was the first time I can remember, you know, a governor telling people you are, you know, you are essential, you are non essential, you can be open, you can't be open in the spirit of full disclosure. I saw I own a bar, and that bar had to shut down, it was not essential.

It was, I would argue that it was very essential, but it was deemed not essential. And so kind of saw both sides of the coin with the law firm, and with the bar. But yeah, so now we know in an emergency situation, a governor can do a lot of things.

They can do a lot of things, you know, once that emergency is declared, a lot of extra in air quotes, power powers do seem to arise by example, like you said, deeming certain things essential, shutting certain things down, enforcing quarantine, changing literally every aspect of our day to day lives. And this and this is not meant as a commentary to be critical. You know, Governor Cooper was in a tough spot. You know, he had to had to take in the information at hand, he had to make decisions that affected everybody. So this is not to be not meant to be critical. It's just I am I am as a North Carolina citizen amazed at what a governor was able to do.

And then I didn't like it personally. But there wasn't a lot of lawsuits. There wasn't a lot of fight back, you know, I guess early on, everybody was scared. And then as everybody kind of figured out, you know, you saw a lot of protesting, and a lot of people, you know, voicing concern. But yeah, again, you don't you, you don't see and hear about a ton of actual formal legal complaints. And I think part of that is is based on the fact that there was, you know, sound legal footing for a lot of this.

Yeah. And so you saw the North Carolina legislature tried to pass a lot of statutes to make schools open, things like that. But the governor vetoed it. And so there is the governor exercising his emergency powers, when they try to do something through the legislature to counteract some of that. He's the man who vetoed it.

And of course, the legislature doesn't have a veto proof majority right now. So it you know, it failed. And I did see a couple of court challenges that there was one for a lobbyist union that represents bars and restaurants.

There's one I followed coming out. It was Wilmington or Greenville, but to try to get the bar open and things like that. And it got kicked out, which is which is, again, understandable, considering this is people's livelihood and tough spot for everybody. But I was I was really surprised that there weren't more efforts to contest what the governor, in his opinion, had to do.

And the ones that were were very unsuccessful, didn't get very far didn't gain a lot of traction. So it was really it was really I opposed it. It was really an eye opener.

For me, just how important the governor is in our day to day life or can be. Absolutely, absolutely. And I think going forward, you know, the God willing, you know, quarantine isolation. We're moving past that. We've got tons of folks getting vaccinated.

We're moving into, like you said, hopefully, the new era of Willie Nelson concerts and old men basketball games. But I think there's still going to be some legal questions that are going to arise as we move into this again, this new normal. And a lot of those are going to revolve around from what I've seen vaccination and, you know, certain entities basically looking at you and asking, have you been vaccinated and then being able to deny certain services or entry or things of that nature to you? Right. That was the big rumors. Again, all rumors and innuendo, but that you're going to have to show that you were vaccinated to get on a plane or you're going to have to show you were vaccinated to go to a concert or go to college or, you know, go back to work.

And so that's that's a whole list of questions. And it doesn't appear that we're headed that way. I know there's, there's definitely some lobbies that want that to happen. But I know that airlines are getting booked back up. Seems like everybody's a little bit more comfortable. I don't know what North Carolina's vaccination rate.

I think last time I checked, we were in the 40s. Yeah. And again, it's, it's just, it's, it's stunning to look at how quickly, you know, once the vaccine start rolling out the change, the change in the narrative day to day. And again, I think it's a great thing not to there.

You're not necessarily seeing a rolling death count rolling case numbers. And it all just contributes to that renewed sense of normalcy, which I think everyone can agree is a good thing for all of us. Well, we've still got more to talk about when we come back. Joe and I talked more about COVID-19. Can the airline require you to have a vaccination? Can your employer fire you for not being vaccinated? We'll talk about it next.

All right, we're back. I'm in the studio with Joe Hamer, and we're talking about COVID-19. Specifically vaccinations. That's a hot, a hot button issue on its own, whether you voluntarily want to get a vaccination or not. Whether you voluntarily want to get a vaccination, or don't want to. Joe, you've been vaccinated? I, my whole family caught COVID. So, you know, my, my antibodies felt strong. I'm not vaccine averse. But, uh, you know, since since we had it, you know, I've of the when I go to the doctor, and they're like, Hey, I've got a vaccine.

I'm like, okay, but I haven't actively sought that out. I was the same way. My doctor called me and I guess they had the Johnson and Johnson vaccine they were trying to get rid of. So they called.

Trying to fire sell it. And they said, you can come in and get this. I was like, all right. And so I did. And they paused it that day.

But then, of course, they, they brought it back. But, But you're the picture of health, man. I feel like you're doing fine. You seem better after you got the vaccine.

Healthier. You have a glow. That's right.

Your skin looks really nice. So, so right now, it's voluntary. You know, right now, no one's making anybody get a vaccine, urging it strongly. We hear about it all the time. It seems like we probably hit a window where everybody who's going to get it has probably got it. So I think across the country, it's everybody's between the 40s and 50s.

Like if you look state by state or city by city, I don't think it's necessarily difficult for anybody to get one right now. That's right. But but what I'm hearing a lot, what a lot of people are asking me is, can someone make you right?

Can the government just decide everybody has to get the vaccine or can can a business or, you know, an airline deny you the ability to either fly to to use that business on the basis that you don't have a vaccine? Yeah. What do you think? Quite the question. I think it depends. I think it depends.

I mean, those are two different questions, obviously. I read I read I can't remember who did this analysis, but I read an attorney somewhere in the country done an analysis on who can who can require you to have a vaccine and who can not require you. And so they their opinion was, you know, if you work in a if you work in a medical facility where people are compromised and you're a new hire, can they require you to be vaccinated? The answer was probably yes.

I think so. Yeah, I think if you're a private entity, you can you can ask. And so at the law firm, I suppose if we had a new employee coming on board, we could ask if you've been vaccinated and they could answer or not answer. And then we would in North Carolina is, you know, employee at will state. And so as long as it's not an illegal reason, you can hire and fire people for, you know, hair color type of shirt they have on.

You know, as long as it's not a discriminatory practice, it's an at will state. And so that was my thought, too. If, you know, I thought about it as somebody looking for employment, could that business require vaccination? I think the answer is yes. But then I was like, well, how do you really even prove yes or no?

Exactly. And I think that's the issue with all of these vaccine questions is, you know, in theory, these maybe these entities can say you've got to be vaccinated to do X, Y or Z. But like you said, how do you sufficiently prove that?

There's no I know. I know folks that get their vaccine. There's there's cards showing inoculation. There's ways of documenting it.

But is there really there's no standardized. Yeah. I mean, if someone comes to you and is like, this is my proof of vaccine, how are you going to be able to vet that? So I went out when I went and got mine at the doctor's office that day had tons of people coming. They like closed down.

All I did was vaccinations the whole day to get rid of that Johnson and Johnson stuff. And and so they gave me they had pre-prepared card saying, you got this shot, you got on such and such a date. There's no names or anything. Yeah. It's not like it's notarized. It's not they're like, here, just fill this out. It's not even laminated. So you cannot be an official document if it's not laminated. I think that's the law. I think that's the I think that's official state law. So. So, yeah. So there's two questions here. Can they can they even who can require it and when?

And then how do you how would you even prove it? Because there was a lot of talk international. I don't know what group was like an international airline industry group who really wanted the government to do something official because they they thought that they would eventually have to accept or deny people based on vaccination. And they wanted some international government entity that that would verify that you just like a no fly list or something like that, you know, and that never materialized.

A lot of people, conspiracy theorists and folks like that got a hold of it and took it on down the road. But right now, you know, I don't see a lot of situations where you could be required to have this vaccine, especially since it's also still experimental status. You know, it's not exactly as emergency use authorization. And, you know, it'll be interesting to see that it once if and when that that full status is granted, whether that will change. I tend to believe unless there's some drastic second wave or some crazy outbreak where and again, we just we talked earlier about hopefully progressing to the new normal. And, you know, hopefully we're out of the woods there. But I tend to think that that it's it's not going to get to that point to where it's and again, that doesn't mean some countries are going to not say you got to be vaccinated to come there.

There may be some travel restrictions there. And I think those, you know, that's a possibility. But I don't think it's going to rise necessarily to that level that a lot of, like you said, the conspiracy theorist and and folks that were super worried about that that happening.

I don't see that necessarily coming down the pipeline. I should I should mention me and Joe are both attorneys. We're both attorneys that are licensed in North Carolina only. We are not experts on anything that has to do with especially the science of covid-19. We are not doctors. We are not experts on HIPAA violations. We are not experts on on on any of this.

We are just two people sharing our opinions on this to become an expert with the North Carolina bar. You have to take a test and take another test to become an expert in anything. And my test taking days are are behind me long in the past.

I wouldn't take a test right now for anything. I took that covid-19 test and that's the last test I got. I did well.

I did well on that one. Well, we this won't be the last time we talk about covid-19 or how it's affecting society or how lawmakers or how governors or how the president are handling it and how it's going to affect day-to-day life as we all race to get back to some resemblance of what life used to be like before 2020. Anyway, Joe, thanks for the thanks for the information. Up next on the Outlaw Lawyer, Joe and I discuss a North Carolina Supreme Court case that is over 20 years old but is still affecting the state's education budget every year.

Next. Welcome back to the Outlaw Lawyer. I'm Josh Whitaker.

I'm here with Joe Hamer. We're both partners with Whitaker and Hamer law firm here in North Carolina, and we're going to discuss a case that has been around for a long time. This case is older than my kids. This is Leandro v. State. And so this case was filed in the 90s and it's come back up again. It comes back every year when the legislature wants to set the education budget. And so the way it's come up most recently is there's a House bill that's on the floor called sound basic education for every child. And it is a bill that is proposing to boost funding in counties where there's not a big city.

Right. So school budgets on every county on the county level, school budgets get funded by the state. They get money from the county. They get money from cities and towns. So their budget is cobbled together from all these different entities and in some of the counties where you don't have a Charlotte. You don't have a rally.

Funding for education is lower. And so the Leandro case addressed that back in 95 or no, 1994 is when this started. You know, Joe, when this case first started, I was an intern at the Institute for Justice. That was a real thing. It's still a real thing. And so we had to look at this case. And even then, people were like, this is going to be around for 50 years. Yeah.

Back then I was an eight year old boy. Joe, tell me tell me a little bit about Leandro. Yeah. So, you know, the facts on Leandro, not not overly exciting. But again, we have to discuss these facts to give you the background. Basically, the case dates back to 94.

And it's a it's an ongoing saga. You had kids from rural counties like Vance, Hoke and some others basically sued the state, claiming that the North Carolina Constitution affords everyone a fundamental right to a sound basic education. And that includes competent and well-trained teachers and principals. And it also includes equitable access to sufficient resources. And basically, those kids sued saying that the right to those things was being violated because, you know, the funding across the state was was different, like you mentioned, in different counties where there were disparities in the resources that were available. So they basically said that if state funding that was provided resulted in a different quality of education, depending on where the child lived, that that those kids also had basically an equitable right to to that same education that these kids in the more affluent counties were receiving.

Right. So the court said that in this case, the plaintiffs were correct. And so that an eight year old in Hoke County was not getting the same education as an eight year old in Wake County. And they attributed it to dollars, to resources, to staff, to books.

But but yeah, which is what I mean, that's that's logically that's the you know, the reason. And, you know, the like you said, the court ruled that this that right, that equal access to education is actually guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution. And the question since then, again, this is 1994 to the current day and this is ongoing. The question has been, how do you measure? How do you enforce this?

How do you implement this, essentially? And that's that's why it just continually seems to recur. And we're talking about it here again today. Well, the case is still technically open. And so there was I can't remember the judge's name to save my life. But there was a Superior Court judge that was over this case for 20 years and he recently retired. So there's a new judge. But these counties have to come.

They come to the judge. They present it as evidence, these plans. How are we going to balance these inequities? And so that just recently happened. And based on those exhibits, House Bill 946 was drafted again to try to balance out this this funding issue.

Send more state money to the counties that aren't getting money from from from anywhere else. And then the General Assembly has tried to tried to do this several times. This is just the most recent effort, but there's some past efforts as well.

Yeah. And I think that the reason why this is so relevant today is because, like you mentioned, HB 946, it's really the first time in the history of this case. So, you know, long period of time where we've got a truly comprehensive piece of legislation that at least attempts to provide the specific actions that the General Assembly needs to take in order to comply with that Leandro rule.

And so it's a it's it's interesting. Just a little bit about the bill. It basically funds seven priority areas. They and in essence, it just tries to tackle those goals of ensuring well-prepared and high quality principals and teachers, given some new mechanisms to measure performance and just some additional support for schools that are low performing. It's actually a five point six billion dollar plan that extends through mid 2028.

So it's a substantial, substantial undertaking that that is being proposed here. I think it's interesting that the court back in 1990 whatever said, all right, you've got this fundamental. We always think about our U.S. constitutional rights. But as North Carolinians, you have North Carolinian constitutional rights. And this is one of them.

If you're you're a child, you have a constitutional right to the same education, the same quality education that any other kid in the state would get. And we're 20 years later. And even though there's a court order, even though governors have tried, even though the legislature's tried, like we're still not meeting the most basic recommendations in the court's opinion. Sure. And it's not like people haven't been trying either.

No. And, you know, it's in 2018, the judge ordered that West Ed, which is an independent educational consultant, would actually be hired to recommend ways that the state could comply with the ruling. And the result of that was actually a 300 page document with all of the consultants recommendations for how the state could the various things that could be done in order to to protect this right and to make sure that these children are being done right by. And this HB 946 is kind of a response to to those findings and that that study that was done. Well, you know, this might be a good time to mention there's another House bill. It's always interesting to see these House bills that get that get put up and a lot of them have no shot at all to to pass. But there and I haven't read much about this one, but there's the House bill that just got put up not too long ago that had to do with what what people call critical race theory and keeping it out of the classroom. So, you know, you have the legislature, you know, in different ways, but constantly trying to legislate public education. Public education is one of the greatest inventions of all time, but it's also one of the most hotly contested.

You know, when you're dealing with people's kids and what they learn and what they don't learn. Absolutely. It's always it's always it's always interesting. But Leandro is always around.

I don't know that Leandro will ever go away. And I agree with that because it's it's not a it's not a open and shut deal. It's a it's a continuous standard that that, you know, public education is being measured by and held to. And that reassessment is occurring to to basically say whether or not the that we're doing right by the kids, the state's doing right by the kids and that public education pieces is equitable among the entirety of the state. You were talking about this when we were talking about this earlier before we got on air, you were your attorneys like to say slippery slope. So we like when we talk about decisions and what courts are doing and having court ordered changes, we always talk about a slippery slope.

Well, if you allow this, what are you going to allow next? That's a favorite attorney word. Yeah.

Yes. I say slippery slope twenty five times a day. So here, Leandro and again, it's old people have already talked about this, but it's a slippery slope because you've got a court approving or not approving proposed budgets, state budgets, county budgets.

The court is not designated with the task of appropriating funds, setting a budget. But here, because it's tied to a constitutional right, I can't think of another court case that's been open for 20 plus years where counties and towns and the state are all going to one judge. So that's kind of a weird dynamic this has created.

And yeah, I agree. And it'll be very interesting to see moving forward how, you know, the bill or future bills, how we deal with that Leandro ruling and and what the effect is on the kids. I'm going to make a bold prediction, Joe, that there is a Leandro story in the news from now until I pass away every year, at least once a year. There's going to be a Leandro story, so it'll keep coming up. Yes, I will.

I will take that bet. Well, well, if it comes up again, we'll talk about it. The law affects everything in our society. Just ask Dino Gaudio, who was recently indicted by a federal court. Coming up next, we'll talk about it.

This is Josh Whitaker. I'm back with you on the outlaw lawyer in studio with Joe Hamer. Like we always say on the outlaw lawyer, law affects everything, and that includes sports. And so we've got a local tie to this next story. Tell us about it, Joe.

Yes. So basically, Dino Gaudio, assistant coach, well, former former assistant coach at Louisville ACC School, former also head coach of Wake Forest, which which, as you referenced, is the the local tie there basically is expected and to plead guilty in the federal extortion case that was brought against him. He was charged with interstate communication with intent to extort by the U.S. attorney for the district or Western District of Kentucky. Just to give you a little bit of background, basically, Gaudio was told he wasn't having his contract renewed.

He was going to be moving on as assistant coach of Louisville. And I guess he was quite angry with this. And so the charging documents allege that in an in-person meeting with Louisville personnel back on March 17th that Gaudio threatened to report to the media allegations that the basketball program had violated NCAA rules unless they paid his salary for an additional 17 months or gave him an equivalent lump sum. So in essence, he attempted allegedly to extort the university, which, again, he is expected to plead guilty. His lawyers actually made comments stating that he takes full responsibility, that it was a lapse in judgment that he made in the heat of passion.

And that's essentially how we get here. You have to wonder what what he was thinking, you know, how how he thought this would play out, you know, because when the when the feds charge you. You're being you're being charged as serious as it gets. You know, the feds, they do they do all their research. They have all their evidence.

And when they come charge you with a federal crime, they're ready to go. You've got you've got a problem, a big problem. And, you know, you ask what he was thinking. I think that his lawyer statement that he made that decision in the heat of passion, he was fired up.

Very, very accurate. You know, Gaudio had a 30 year relationship with the University of Louisville's coach, Chris Mack, and probably did not expect the abrupt termination of his employment like that. So but again, what do you what are you thinking? So Gaudio is expected to enter a plea. We know that the maximum penalty is two years in prison or two hundred fifty thousand fine or both. I assume the since he's taken responsibility and he's doing all these things, I'm I'm expecting maybe a light prison sentence.

Yeah, I think it'll be far less than far less than the maximum, just again, based on the circumstances of the case and the fact that he's he's entering that plea. It's it's interesting because, you know, Louisville definitely been in the news in recent years for recruiting violations. Some of the more wilder accusations of recruiting violations have come down in regards to Louisville. And and and these allegations, by comparison, very tame, very low level violations, not even the type of thing that you could really sufficiently blackmail or extort a university with. Basically, it was production of recruiting videos and the use of grad assistance and practices which aren't even serious, super problematic things to deal with as far as eligibility and things like that are concerned. So if you're going to if you're going to pick a topic to use for extortion, I don't know that that's the one you pick.

I don't know that that's the one you hang your hat on. Yeah, it's just a weird story all the way around. You know, it's it you just you feel bad for him. Like you said, he's probably in a bad spot, made some bad decisions, and then you got federal federal charges. They're really going to hurt him in the long run, even if he doesn't go to prison.

It's gonna be real hard. He's not going to work in the industry that he's worked in for most of his adult life. Now he follows the Dino followed Skip Prosser Wake Forest, right? Skip Prosser died. I think, you know, we discussed facts, not opinions. And I think it's a fact that Dino Gaudio took Wake Forest basketball to their highest highs of the last several, several years. 2009 2010, Wake Forest last NCAA tournament appearance and last victory rather. That was the team with Al Farouq Aminou.

Don't know if you remember, seem to remember you were a big Al Farouq Aminou fan. So for our listeners, if you haven't determined me and Joe are not Wake Forest fans, I am an NC State fan. Joe hangs his collegiate loyalties with Duke University, unfortunately.

Neither one of us are going to do Wake Forest any favors talking about their athletic prowess or programs. But still, it's the law is everywhere. The law is everywhere.

It affects everything, even sports. Now, while you're associated by an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina, some of the guests appearing on the show may be licensed North Carolina attorneys. Discussion of the show is meant to be general in nature, and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice. Legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live had the opportunity to discuss the facts of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law in North Carolina and how these laws affect the average North Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly.