Share This Episode
Outlaw Lawyer Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer Logo

Dangerous Dogs - 2nd Amendment - Former Wake Forest Coach

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer
The Truth Network Radio
June 11, 2021 12:00 pm

Dangerous Dogs - 2nd Amendment - Former Wake Forest Coach

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 44 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

June 11, 2021 12:00 pm

Attorneys Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer discuss various issues and cases including recent deaths of children as a result of being bitten by dogs; If COVID vaccinations will be required legally; the case of Leandro vs NC and how it is related to school budgets and the extortion case of Dino Gaudio, former head men's basketball coach for Wake Forest University.

To reach the law firm, call 800-659-1186 or visit 

See for privacy information.


Now spring court has said is wrong on this and this is what law is think about him and you will now outlaw law here with Josh Whitaker welcome to this week's edition of the out all lawyer I am Josh Whitaker, attorney with the law firm of Whitaker and Hamer and I am here today to talk about all things legal. The first thing I want cycles introducing our in studio guest and sit with me today is attorney Joe Hamer welcome Mr. Hamer thanks for having me Josh Whitaker Mr. Raymer Joseph is my law partner over Whitaker and Hamer and he is in studio with us to talk about a couple items that we want to discuss because again. Outlaw lawyer women talk about how the law affects everything literally everything every day. Yes, I think it's fair to say definitely intersects with the every single aspect of our life every day and it's something that you may not think about, but that's where your call attention to. So the first the first thing about today alone today shows you that a couple of incidents over the past couple weeks we've got dogs pit pet dogs that have unfortunately injured. What I think both of the ones on talk about day resulted in death of children right so we had an incident over and garner where neighbor and their daughter were taking care, feeding neighbors dogs there 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 there was one inkling to affect Jan in 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 parent 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 where were going to discuss kind of the law in North Carolina how it defines dangerous dogs potential liability for that just kind of informing around the statutes right right sorry actually take a look at the logs.

These are horrible when you read when you read the stories and what's going on such horrible facts and any time a child loses their lives is just terrible and it affects you emotionally but as attorneys we always look say what what is the law who's responsible, what's going to also say, for the purpose of this I have four dogs, which is more than any more dollars in any one person should really never have.

But I have four dollars and $90.

Several dogs we have. We got three dogs one gigantic big great Danes will count him as a couple say we have five so the interesting thing in the in the Garter.

Once this this happened. This unfortunate incident happened and then the owners of the dogs. The dogs are in custody with animal control. That's the procedure that's set out the statutes. If this happens they confiscated and the owners wanted them back right centers did not want to put down. They didn't want him back, so they petition according to was it was a general statute. Chapter 67 4.1 is what defines a dangerous dogs.

They wanted to have these dogs there will be designated as dangerous dogs and they wanted to keep that Mets of the statute provides how that has to happen yeah and so I guess this to start the first thing you really have to understand when examining the statute is just the underlying definition of a dangerous dog in 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 in 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 that's 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 it but all kind of revolve around biting whether they've bitten or killed another animal with a bitter 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. So in garner the statutes as each municipality so each county each city to have someone designated who hears these petitions when someone has what's going to be a dangerous dog and they want to keep on they have to adapt to get a person is designated to sign off on and garner its police chief got a good police chief and garner. He did not write see Julie was the guy they had to make a petition is in a will.

People muzzled on our property won't let them off at all these things, the statute says you have to do if you're an older dangerous dog and said it was it was denied, and I haven't heard that the statute allows them to appeal this to the Superior Court of the County where there s of the wake County Superior Court.

I haven't heard that appeal was filed. I haven't heard any comments from the dog owners. I know that the tenant garner a thing as a community was pretty shocked when these folks wanted to keep this dog killed this six or seven-year-old girl based interesting zest. You know point statute is if if someone allows you to keep this dangerous dog you have to you have to follow these guidelines keep them in a certain way after harmony. Whenever again what we attorneys call strict liability yet there's no there's no leeway for that because again you know you're you're well-informed. I mean again were asked dog owners. We we love our dogs. We assume there to behave have no reason to believe otherwise. Or maybe you do.

Maybe you got a dog that somewhat aggressive but once it bitten someone once it's known again it's it's just there's they don't give you any any type of leeway for that somehow your grant permission to keep a dangerous dog in someone's on your property and that God hurts them on your property are still liable for any damage at all costs.

That dog is been deemed a dangerous doll and I just never really comes up. I was surprised to see 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 and in you and I guess it's also important to again you know it's it. 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, that the penalty, the penalty is gonna be like you said, strict liability, there's no real explaining away that situation because your dogs been deemed dangerous and you have notice of that is always interesting to me when we hear a new story or we like having a lot of people were shocked and it was even an option that these owners could could lobby to keep these dogs after what what happened and yes is always interesting that kind of stuff comes up to me to go look at the statute to look at what you know these are laws that are elected officials have passed to try to govern the situation and it may not be interesting to a lot of people but it's interesting to me to go look at it and see what's what's going on success and I'm waiting for a wing for the good news that these owners have filed an appeal with the Superior Court overturn the local official and becomes a dangerous dog and how you may be able to keep a dangerous dog in the house to nothing else.

There I coming up next on the outlaw lawyer. Your second amendment rights are up for debate again in an upcoming US Supreme Court case, how will your rights be affected. State, I prefer Joe works for me.

I merely Joe and one of things we want talk about today. As we got Supreme Court makes newsletter away so the Supreme Court makes news because they just decide to hear the case because the Supreme Court can choose whether or not they want to hear a case of when they decided in here case that's news for attorneys. Were we excited about it and so they have told us for next year.

One of the cases they're gonna look at is a case called New York State rifle and pistol Association versus Corlett as that is the case out of the state of New York that has to do with caring a weapon and is a second amendment case and this is important because our Supreme Court has not heard a second amendment case that it almost taken from the exact amount time in almost 2 deck longtime so after the Trump presidency. We got a lot of new justices and so they're taking a different approach to the second minutes of the old Supreme Court for the past 15 1617 years that's how they dealt with the second amendment we got our case law. Up to that point and then they just decide not to hear anymore cases there's been no new law so that we know really get a case next next year and I want talk about that case and cannot think about what that the court may do joking Samuel bit about the facts of this case it's got somewhat of a convoluted history there was an initial case brought before kind of legal loophole ended up being dismissed for for a mootness issue which, again, this is more in-depth than we really need to go with this discussion. So basically the case originates out of New York. I was brought by plaintiffs basically allege that under New York's current regulations and 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 brought in 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 permanent goes to the local sheriff's department and there's a ton of concealed carry permit holders, North Carolina, New York like California a couple other states they take a different approach to the weapons, the guidance to concealed carry and in New York it's very very difficult. Our petitioners would say impossible to to get this life. So yes a basically a unit were were not in New York but from from everything we've looked at it it looks like you 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 Fina for target practice or for for hunting purposes.

And again, the question becomes can the city banned 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 and in this instance is a here North Carolina so were not used that even being a problem.

Different different place to hide in your ears. Here we talk about concealed carry. You have a weapon, but if you want to take your your weapons your guns to a shooting Rangers permit to do that and then open carries completely different as well. I know your if you walk into a 7-Eleven and see someone just literally just open carrying her son to me there's plenty of places, especially in the in the Johnston County area where we have offices located where it is not at all uncommon to see people just open carrion like it's really like it's nothing big deal here is New York has restrictive gun laws they haven't really been reviewed by the Supreme Court in some of the opinions in this case is been working its way through the system to get to the Supreme Court level so you got a Court of Appeals opinion has similar things to look at and so what this is been compared to is in Washington used to have a gun and couldn't you know you couldn't do you getting get up for a permit like you could New York and the Supreme Court is one last decisions they made a strike that sure she is of the petitioners here saying will New York let you get a permit or license or or whatever they called here what they really don't limited that your unit they have a procedure but you can get tonight so it's call it defective yeah and it's interesting because like you said it's it's rare, especially recently that that any second, and the 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 can be very interesting because there's gonna be some determination that's gonna further define that pain in a way that you know we haven't seen in decades right Supreme Court justice could do a lot of different things. The fact that they even took it though. It is big, which means sound like they want to make a ruling. They want to hear oral arguments there interested in this. They want to further define this because if the state in your commands, then we know that you can do this to her rights, or any other state that wanted wanted to enact stricter gun control where you take your guns what you do with your guns.

The negative point in this case they would stay. New York had this system in place in the Supreme Court said it was okay if they lose in every other state on the pitch can't sure and settle be kind of a blueprint going forward because that's always been a be a hot topic. I think during the cuve 2020 people and talk about guns very much yeah yeah but it seems like we had some recent shootings in the news and things like that so I think it will be a big topic again before too long. You think I think it's important to really understand this in the really sufficiently disgusted it is to really just examine the Second Amendment text of the Second Amendment and you know I think that's that's pretty big to the understanding of it. So the Second Amendment is extremely short and and we got all this case law. All these all these lawsuits all these case lost all the statutes all these extremely strong personal opinions that come out of the second image. Joe, would you actually read that the actual text of the Second Amendment. I'll be glad to in 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. That's it that's all we have on the Second Amendment is not an abridged version and legitimate Second Amendment in entirety and so we have all the Supreme Court cases that come to define what what this means and what this what this doesn't mean and people are very innocent people read that first clause a well regulated militia and thing Second Amendment religious has to do with you know, military, and making sure you got an army and you can defend yourself and you read second part, the right people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringement like that. Clearly that means we as individuals could have any gun we will, and I think it's a undersell to say that people are very opinionated people that this is like literally the most important issue of all the issues arise several people and you know just again where we're here not for opinions not to do anything but to discuss discuss facts and to discuss data that intersection of the law with everyday life. So just a brief by brief summary. You know what the court is set recently. We've got the District of Columbia versus Heller case, which basically argues and 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 casino.

That was the question of when you throw that the well-regulated militia clause in there that argument I guess is that that's the purpose. But again, the courts Artie rule note. It's an individual right so that take 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 in 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 member right here on this show we will never show is not designed to talk politics will always try to give you the facts will always try to talk about the case at hand her the statute at hand sets that something very important.

Joe anything will 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.

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 gotta 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 strict scrutiny analysis and really make wide sweeping changes to current gun control laws.

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 B that everyone would look for two sets that's slated for oral oral arguments in early August, 20, 22, so we will come back to that one for a while but there's a lot of people watching that case, you will hear a lot about that one coming up next on the outlaw air Cove in 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 talk about that next year. Both attorneys for the law firm of Whitaker and Hamer and were here now to talk about coded 19 over the past year is changed everything and there is a lot of legal repercussions that will occur as a result is going to change a lot of stuff. It already has changed a lot of stuff but now is the world I think it's back to normal. But as the world starts venturing out as the world gets to the new norm. We we figure out you know how everything is going to change going for. We've all been waiting for.

CDC guidelines can go to the bar can go to the restaurant. I'm super stoked right now. We did we get our outlaw country tour tickets so Willie Nelson's gonna be in Raleigh in September was turtle Simpson. This is an advertisement that I was very excited that we can buy tickets and we we get together so were super excited about that. So I think things are starting to get back to somewhat normal anyway yeah normalcy is semi-returning for you.

Normalcy is Willie Nelson. Tickets for me normalcy is my 30 and up recreational league basketball team league started back at with the town of Clayton.

I encourage all of our outlaw lawyer listeners to come and support our team Wednesday night festival play but I yeah it's that 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 there's there's changes and were here to talk about how the law really intersects with that everyday life and and what that is what those changes look like in any kind of legal ramifications from that. The first thing we figured out from Cove in 19 I think is that our governor has a lot more power and not just governor Cooper but any governor they 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 once in an real generational type of experience and I and I think we all found out that 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 seem like almost every day. That was some kind of new authority, some kind of new edict. Some some kind of new restriction handed down and there's a lot of question around at what's the legality of it.

I'm a 44-year-old man, Joseph, and I don't know. Before last year. My first 43 years of 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 has a drastic effect on your life, your business, everything that you're doing so yeah unprecedented times. So here you at our law firm Fiscus.

Joe and I wheat we are partners over Whitaker and Hamer. We've got five offices and and we had to devise just like everybody else did. We didn't the law firms were sensual activities are our however governor Cooper defined it as a we never close down you we never stop meeting with people. We did change procedures pretty drastically because again it was it was the unknown. I mean I remember vividly was talking and having no idea what to expect and I remember us basically expecting any day to be shut down sweetly@every day we, waited for that to come, but we kept we kept talking to any friends we had in politics or any any lobbyist a lot of rumors going around anybody gives any information is. I would argue that there's no way you can shut down a law firm even under emergencies.

People still need legal service to what we do know is that having way we did, we divided the masculine gay people mask and we only let people and had come in and we try to reduce face-to-face contact is as much as we could. In England we really try to tow 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 tow the line between being overly burdensome and making in our staff and our clients feel comfortable and safe. But this was the first time I can remember I get all governor telling people you are in a you are essential your nonessential.

You can be open, you can't be open in the spirit of full disclosure, I saw Iona bar and that bar had shed that it was not essential.

I would argue that it was very essential but it was deemed not essential.

And so, so both sides of the coin with the law firm and with the bar, but yes, and now we know in an emergency situation. Governor can do a lot of things they can do a lot of things. No one said emergencies declared it a lot of extra in an air quotes power powers do seem to arise by example. Like you said deeming certain things essential shutting certain things down and forcing quarantine changing literally every aspect of our day-to-day lives and this and this is not meant as a commentary to be critical. Governor Cooper was in a tough spot. You know he had had to take in information and had to make decisions that affect everybody. This is not to be not meant to be critical is just I I am as a North Carolina citizen amazed at what a governor was able to do and then I like it personally, but I there wasn't a lot of lawsuits there was a lot of fight backing up I get there early on. Everybody was scared and then as thereby kind of figured out you know this all on a 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 no sound legal footing for a lot of this and cease all the North Carolina legislature try to pass a lot of statutes to make schools open things like that but it governor vetoed it as if there is the governor exercising his emergency powers when they try to do something to the legislator sure to counteract some of that, he's the man who vetoed it a course legislature doesn't have a vetoproof majority right now so it failed and I did see a couple of court challenges that there was one for a lobbyist union that represents bars and restaurants are is when I followed, not Wilmington or Greenville try to get the bar open and things like that in in a got kicked out religious which is again understandable considering this is people's livelihood and tough spot for everybody when I was involved I was really surprised that there weren't more effort stick to to contest what the governor and his opinion had to do and the ones that were were very unsuccessful. Didn't get very far to gain a lot of traction.

So it was really it was really a eye-opener for me just how important governor is in our day-to-day life or candy absolutely absolutely and I think going forward. You know the God willing, you know, quarantine, isolation, were moving past that we've got tons of folks getting vaccinated were were moving into like you said hopefully the new era of Willie Nelson concerts and old men basketball games, but I think are still to be some legal questions that are gonna arise as we move into this again this new normal. And a lot of those are gonna revolve around and 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 injury or things of that nature to you right it was the big rumors that I get all rumors and in an innuendo, but that you're in a have to show that you were vaccinated to get on a plane or even after show your vaccinated schedule, conserve, or go to college or do go back to work and so that's that's a whole list of questions and he doesn't appear that were headed that way. I know there's deftly some lobbies that want that to happen, but I know that airlines are getting book back up. Seems a revise a little bit more comfortable. I don't know what North Carolina's vaccination regarding 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 to change the change in the narrative day-to-day.

And again I think it's a great thing not to their you not necessarily see in 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 will we still got more talk about when we come back. Joe and I talk more about Cove in 1910. The airline required to have a vaccination. Can your employer fire you for not being vaccinated will talk about it next year with Joe Hamer and were talking about moving 19, specifically vaccinations the hot hot button issue on its own, whether you voluntarily want to get a vaccination or don't want to Joe even vaccinated my whole family called coded so you know my my antibodies felt strong. I'm not vaccine averse, but you know since since we had it you know of of the when I go to the doctor and the like have got a vaccine.

I'm like okay but I haven't actively sought that I was the same way. My doctor called me and I guess they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, they were trying to get rid of slick stricture on baseline or sell it in a sitting come and get this guy.

And so I did and they posited that day they brought it back, but which are the picture of health. He seemed better after you got the vaccine year.

You have a glow. That's right, your skin looks really nice so it's a right now is voluntary.

You right now no one's making anybody get a vaccine are urging it strongly we hear about it all the time it seemed like we probably hit a a window where everybody who's going to get it is probably got it something across the country. It's a revise between the 40s and 50s like Gillick state by state or city by city. I don't think it's necessarily difficult for anybody to get one right now so but but what I'm hearing a lot a lot of people are asking me is can someone make right. Can the government just decide everybody has to get the faxed 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 when you think quite the question. I think it depends.

I think independent music to different questions. Obviously I read I read I can't remember who this analysis, but I read it attorney somewhere in the country done analysis on who can can require you to have a vaccine who can not require you, and so they their opinion was, you know, if you work in.

If you worked in medical facility were people were are compromised in your new hire can they require you to be vaccinated answer is probably yes I think so. Yeah if your private entity you can ask SOI the law firm.

I will I'm suppose if we had a new employee coming on board we could ask of you been vaccinated, and they can answer or not answer and then we would North Carolina's employee at will state and so as long as is not a legal reason, you can hire and fire people for you know haircolor type shirt they have on you as long as is not a discriminatory practice that will state and so that that was my fault to know.

I thought about it as semi-looking for employment that business require vaccination. I think the answer is yes.

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 gotta be vaccinated to do XYZ but like you said, how do you sufficiently prove that there is no I know I know folks that get there vaccine.

There is there's cards showing inoculation. There's ways of documenting it, but is there really there's no standardized that they me if someone comes to you and is like this is my proof of vaccine.

How are you to be able to vet that when I when I went got mine at the doctor's office and at times people come in at close down all he did was vaccinations the whole day to get rid of that Johnson & Johnson stuff and and so they gave me that preprepared card saying you got the shot got on such such a date. There's no names or anything that is nice. I just notarize this, not like you're still this outlay, not even laminated so you cannot be an official document is not limited. I think that's all I think that's the thing that's official state law. So see answers to questions here, can they can even who can required and when and how you how would you improve that there was a lot of talk international, and I don't know what group was an international airline industry group who really wanted the government to do something official as 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 just like a no-fly list of short like that you know and that never materialized. A lot of people conspiracy theorist and folks like I got a hold of it and get on down the road right now. You know, I don't see a lot of situations.

Or you could be required to have this vaccine, especially since is also still experimental status. You know it's not exactly as emergency use authorization and you know it it'll be interesting to see that it wants it it if and when that that full status is granted whether that'll change.

I tend to believe and unless there's some drastic second waiver some crazy outbreak where in again. We just we talked earlier about hopefully progressing to the new normal in you hopefully were out of the woods there, but I tend to think that that it's it's not to get to that point to where it's in again. That doesn't mean some countries are going to not say you gotta be vaccinated. Crime there there there may be some travel restrictions. There are nine I think those that's a possibility, but I don't think it's can arise necessarily to that level that a lot of like he said the conspiracy theorist in and folks that were super worried about that that happening right I don't see that necessarily coming on the pipeline I should. I should mention me in jail. Both attorneys were both attorneys are licensed in North Carolina only. We are not experts on anything that has to do with especially the science of cofinancing. We are not doctors. We are not experts on hippo violations. We are not experts on on on any of this. We're just two people sharing our opinions on this to become an expert with the North Carolina bar yet to take a test at take another test become an expert in anything. In my test taking days are behind, long in the past I went to a test right now for anything. I took that Cove 19 test and that's the last test I got. I did well. How did well on that one witness will be the last time we talk about Cove 19 or how it's affecting society or how lawmakers are how governors are how the president or are handling it and how it can affect day-to-day life as we all raced to get back to some resemblance of what life used to be like before 2020 major things for the things with information On that wall lawyer Joe and I discussed the North Carolina Supreme Court case that is over 20 years old but is still affecting the state's education budget every year. Welcome back to that wall lawyer, I'm Josh Whitaker I'm here with Joe Hamer were both partners with Whitaker and Hamer law firm here in North Carolina and wears going to discuss a case has been around for a long time. This case is older than my kids is Lee Andrew. The statements in this case is filed in the 90s and it's come back up again comes back every year the legislature wants to set the education budget as of 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 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 counting they get money from cities and towns of their budget is cobbled together from all these different entities and some of the counties we don't have a charlatan you don't have a rally funding for education is lower and so the Leandra case address that back in 95 or nine note 919 94's. When this started Job when this case first started I was an intern at the Institute for Justice that that was a real thing is still a real thing and I so we had a look at this case and and even then people like this can be around for 50 years yet. Back then I was an eight-year-old boy the Joe Tony tumbled about Leandra yes so you know the facts. Only Leandra not not overly exciting but again we have to discuss these facts to give you the background. Basically the case dates back to 294 and it's a it's an ongoing saga.

He had kids from rural counties like Vance who can 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 a state funding that was provided resulted in a different quality of education depending on where that they keep 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 rights. The court said that in this case, the plants were correct and so that an eight-year-old in Hoke County was not getting the same education as an eight-year-old and wake County and he 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 that. 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. The current day and this is ongoing. The question is 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 case is still technically open and so there was that I came from the judge's name to save my life. There's a Superior Court judge. It was over this case for 20 years and he recently retired, so there's a new judge for these counties have to come they come to the judge they presented as evidence.

These plans how are we going to balance these inequities as I just recently happened based on those exhibits house bill 946 was drafted again to try to balance out this this funding issue us and more state money to the counties that are getting money from from from anywhere else and then the general similes try to try to do this several times this just the most recent effort, or 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 attempt to provide the specific actions that the general assembly needs to take in order to comply with that Leandra rule and so it's it's it's interesting just a little bit about the bill there. It basically fund seven priority areas the end and, in essence, it just tries to tackle. You know those goals of insuring 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, that's actually up $5.6 billion plan that extends through mid-2028 so it's a substantial substantial undertaking that that is being proposed here is interesting that the court back in 1990. Whatever said are you got this fundamental will think about our US constitutional rights as North Carolina as you have North Carolina lenient constitutional rights and this is one of them. If your your child have a constitutional right to the same education the same quality education. Any other kid in the state would get and were 20 years later and even though it there's a court order.

Even though of Governors of tried even to the legislature stride like were still not meeting the most basic recommendations in the court's opinion. Sure, and is not like people have been trying either no and you know it's it ended in 2018, the judge ordered that West that which is an independent educational consultant would actually be hired to recommend ways of the state to 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 protect this right into make sure that these children are being done right by and in this HB 946 is kind of a response to to those findings and in and that that study that was done we know this might be good time to mention there's another house bill is always interesting to see these house bills that get that get put up and a lot of them have no shot it all to the past but there and I haven't heard much about this one, but there's the house bill just got put out 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 note in different ways but constantly trying to legislate public education, public education is one of the greatest inventions of all time is also one of the most hotly contested you're dealing with people's kids and what they learn and what they don't learn absolute it's always it's always is always interesting, but Leandra, who is always around. I don't know that Leandra will ever go away and I and I agree with that because it's it's not 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 an held to and that reassessment is occurring to to basically say whether or not the that were doing right by the kids the states doing right by the kids in that public education pieces is equitable among the entirety of state he retired about this one more time at his earlier before God on air. You are your attorneys like is a slippery slope. So we like we talk about decisions and what courts are doing and having court ordered changes we are stuck about a slippery slope will if you allow this. What you get. Allow next. That's a favorite returning word yet yes/a slippery slope 25 times a day is released to hear Leandra and then again, it's old people very talked about this, but it's a slippery slope as you get a court approving or not approving proposed budget. State budgets county budgets that the court is not designated with the task of appropriating funds, setting a budget, but here there because it's tied to a constitutional right I can't think of another court cases been open for 20+ years were counties and towns in an RN in the state are all going to one judge.

Yes, it's kind of weird dynamic. This is created and yeah I agree and it will be very interesting to see moving forward how you know that the bill or future bills.

How we deal with that Leandra ruling and and what the effect is Psalm on the kids to make a bold prediction Joe that when there is a Leandra story in the news for now until I pass away every year. Placements in years and be a Leandra story so keep coming up.

Yes, I will. I will take that bet will wealth comes up again will talk about it, the law affects everything in our society.

Just ask Dino Gaudio, who was recently indicted by a federal court commitment is Josh Whitaker and back with you on the outlaw lawyer in studio with Joe Hamer like we always say on outlaw lawyer law affects everything and that includes sports and so we've got a local tied to this next story just yes it basically Dino Gaudio assistant coach will former assistant coach at Louisville ACC school former also head coach of Wake Forest which which, as you references the. The local Thai. There basically is 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 US attorney for the district or Western District of Kentucky adjusting to give you a little bit of background.

Basically, Gaudio was told he wasn't having his contract renewed. He was really 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 17 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 was a lapse in judgment that he made in the heat of passion and 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.

What would the feds charge you European European chart is serious that they did in the feds that you will be do all their research.

They have all their evidence and when they come charge you with a federal crime there ready to get you you got you got a problem. A big problem and you know you asked 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 Machen probably did not expect the abrupt termination of his employment like that so but again, what you what you think and so God is expected to enter a plea. We know that the maximum total penalty is two years in prison or tuner 50,000 finer both. I assume since he's taken responsibility and he sees doing all the things I'm expecting maybe a life prison sentence.

Yeah, I think it will 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 violation.

Some of the more wilder accusations of recruiting violations that 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. It was production of recruiting videos and the use of grad assistants and practices which are even serious super problematic things to deal with as far as eligibility and things like that are concerned, so if you pick up a topic to use for extortion know that's the one you pick out all know that's the one you hang your hat on and this is just a weird story all the way around. You know if it's just you feel bad form he is like. He said he's probably in a bad spot made some bad decisions, and then you got federal federal charge there really heard them in the long run even if he doesn't go to prison.

Your heart is not in a work in the industry. He's worked in for most of his adult life policy. Dino followed Skip Prosser Wake Forest rights to Prosser, God, I think you know we 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 lower last victory rather tells the team without Farouq Aminu don't know if you remember seem to remember you are big Al Farouq Aminu had mistaken so far for listeners.

If you haven't determined means you're not Wake Forest fans.

I'm in NC State fan Joe thinks his collegiate loyalties would Duke University. Unfortunately, neither one of us argument he Wake Forest and he favors talking about their athletic prowess or programs but still irritates the law is everywhere. The laws everywhere. It affects everything even force only as an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina because appearing on the show maybe licensed North Carolina attorneys discussion of the chosen to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice, legal advice can be rendered.

Once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live the opportunity to discuss the backs of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law, North Carolina, and how these laws affect average Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime