Transcript Highlights:

• Page one, a person 18 years of age or over who violates the Controlled Substances Act by distributing
• Any person who is at least 18 years of age or who violates the Controlled Substances Act by distributing
• violates the controlled substances<00:02:12.160> act<00:02:12.480> by<00:02:12.720>
• <00:15:30.800> So,<00:15:31.040> anything end of of violating this.
• So, anything end of of violating this.

Bills: SF0009

Keywords: fentanyl, controlled substances, minors, drug distribution, enhanced penalties, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , the rate of committing a new violation was 10.6 times greater for drivers with two prior convictions
• the rate of a commit with no violations the rate of a commit of<00:03:07.319> committing<00:03
• :07.640> a<00:03:07.799> new<00:03:08.040> violation<00:03:08.799> was<00
• :03:09.239> 10.6 of committing a new violation was 10.6 of committing a new violation was 10.6
• their their driving privileges violated their their driving privileges uh<00:13:35.079> but<00

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 2130, sponsored by Representative Craft, was heard and amended before being re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy. The bill responds to serious impaired-driving tragedies in St. Louis Park, including the Park Tavern crash, and aims to strengthen Minnesota’s ignition interlock requirements for repeat DWI offenders. Craft described the bill as based on data showing repeat-offender risk, arguing that current law’s look-back and interlock timelines are too limited and that the statute was also reorganized for clarity. The A1 amendment was adopted without objection. Craft explained that the amendment clarifies when the $680 license reinstatement fee must be paid: not before entering interlock, but before exiting the program, to reduce barriers to participation. He also said the bill would extend interlock requirements more aggressively for repeat offenders, expand the look-back period for prior offenses, and in some cases require treatment. He emphasized that interlock is intended to improve public safety and can support sobriety, while also acknowledging broader root-cause issues such as mental health and addiction. Testimony in support came from St. Louis Park Mayor Nadia Mohamad, Police Chief Brian Cruy, and Methodist Hospital President Jennifer Meister. They said the bill would help address gaps in current law, better account for prior offenses, and potentially prevent future tragedies. Some members raised concerns about whether the bill was a reaction to tragedy and about addressing underlying causes of impaired driving, while others supported the measure and noted the need for broader transportation and treatment options. After discussion, the committee voted to re-refer HF 2130 to Public Safety Finance and Policy, and the motion prevailed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone's been on parole, violation. Someone's been on parole, they<00:32:12.799> violated.
• It's a parking violation. >> Okay. It's a parking violation.
• >> No, it's a parking violation. >> No, it's a parking violation.
• >> parking violation. >> parking violation. >> Yes. >> Yes.
• violative in violation. violative in violation.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In parallel, the Commission is also currently reviewing alleged violations of interconnection timelines
• The writ petition alleged Brown Act violations tied to the January 5, 2023, meeting, including serial
• the state law at least on two occasions and are suing on that basis... ...to have violated the state
• There have been no complaints alleging violations of the Public Contract Code.
• When there are lawsuits, it's because we have violated people's constitutional rights, or we broke the

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee for much of the hearing because it initially lacked a quorum, then later established one and began taking votes. The state auditor gave a status update on ongoing audits, including several JALAC-requested audits in progress, other statutory audits, staffing growth in his office, and the number of new JALAC audits his office could start in the coming months. The committee also heard that one audit request on Prop. 28 was held, and another PUC-related request was moved off consent and heard on the regular calendar. Members then heard and discussed several audit requests. Senator Cervantes presented a request to audit California fusion centers, with witnesses from the FBI and ACLU supporting the need for transparency and oversight; opponents argued the request was politically motivated and could interfere with counterterrorism work. Senator Allen presented a request on CPUC enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for solar and storage projects, supported by industry and school representatives who described long delays and financial harm, while CPUC staff said the issue was being addressed through workshops and a formal proceeding. Senator Perez presented a request to audit Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 extension properties and affordable sales program, citing tenant complaints about maintenance, pricing, and transparency; Caltrans said it was working to complete sales and improve administration. Senator Umberg presented a request to audit the Orange County Board of Education over transparency, contracting, litigation spending, charter oversight, and whistleblower issues, while board representatives said there was no factual basis for an audit and that existing legal remedies had not been invoked. After quorum was established, the committee approved the consent-calendar DMV license revocation audit and then approved the PUC utility timeliness audit and the Caltrans SR 710 audit. The fusion center audit was left on call after a split vote, and the Orange County Board of Education audit continued with testimony from the board’s representatives after the committee had already moved on to other business.

Transcript Highlights:

• violating immigration laws. violating immigration laws.
• It's a violation. violation. violation. Senator<02:03:36.880> Holmstrom.
• Sometimes by law enforcement officers, even where there's a violation and it's a clear violation.
• where there's a violation and it's a<03:09:57.240> clear<03:09:57.720> violation.
• <03:09:59.000> So, a clear violation. So, a clear violation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If a local government violates the provisions of this bill, citizens may report the violation to the
• bill authorizes the Office of the Attorney General to seek a $25,000 civil penalty for the first violation
• and a $50,000 civil penalty for each subsequent violation.
• If the AG in the future thinks that a city has violated state law, the AG can take it to court.
• That violates this section. What, what does that mean?

Bills: HB 229, HB 3990, HB 5082, HB 5510

Keywords: biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, flags, display, state law, municipalities, government buildings, drug enforcement, local control, home rule, municipal charter, county policy, ordinance preemption, state preemption, attorney general enforcement, civil penalties, mandamus

Transcript Highlights:

• The second part is that if you misrepresent, if it's more of a paper violation, we can go up to $5,000
• a day. ...a little bit different, physical impacts to the environment versus a paper violation.
• One is, if there's a big physical problem, an egregious violation of the rules, we can impose a civil
• The second part is that if you misrepresent, if it's more of a paper violation, we can go up to $5,000
• : physical impacts to the environment versus a paper violation.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 2276, which addresses water projects that cross county lines. Senator Larry Luick and Danny Quissel of the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association explained that the bill would require joint boards for multi-county projects, with equal representation from each county, and would add a dispute-resolution process: mediation through the Agriculture Department, then appeal to the Department of Water Resources, and finally court if needed. An additional cleanup amendment was adopted to clarify that a district could proceed if a joint board or district refused to participate. Members raised concerns about possible county-versus-county litigation, but the committee approved the amendment and then passed SB 2276 as amended on an 11-0-2 roll call. The committee then heard the final bill of the day, Senate Bill 2267, on on-site wastewater treatment systems. DEQ Director Dave Glott presented a revised amendment reflecting prior discussion and input from local public health units and installers. The proposal would give the Department of Environmental Quality exclusive rulemaking authority, require public health units to inspect systems within 24 hours, allow MOUs with neighboring counties or health units, prohibit local rules that conflict with state standards, and create a state licensing system for installers while exempting homeowners working on their own property. It also set up permitting and appeals procedures, civil penalties for violations, and a $99,000 appropriation, with the department saying it would also rely on fee revenue and report back later on whether the program is working. Members asked about homeowner installation, local permitting, technical assistance, and whether the $99,000 appropriation and expected fees would be sufficient. Glott said homeowners could still consult with local health units and would likely still need permits, and estimated fees might be around $200 per year for installers, generating roughly $50,000 annually. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed SB 2267 as amended on a due-pass motion, with one no vote recorded. The chair then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we scratched that, and the... violations, so we scratched that.
• At the bottom, on line 221 on the same page, that's clarifying when a violation is a crime. ...when a
• violation is a crime.
• The corrupt board violated the Open Meetings Act and then... ...violated the Open Meetings Act and then
• They violated the Open Meetings Act. I watched the live stream while I got the...

Bills: HB159, HB110, HB114, HB115, HB116, HB123, HB125

Keywords: U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, public facilities, space exploration, education programs, bond issuance, Governor involvement, HB110, sunset bill, Alabama Sunset Law, State Board of Medical Examiners, Medical Licensure Commission, medical licensing, physician regulation, healthcare regulation, professional licensing, ethics law, state ethics code, public servants, board members

Transcript Highlights:

• Individuals who violate California law should be prosecuted.
• of the technical violation of, Violation of the technical violation of the structure that you've set
• How would one confirm that they, in fact, are violating the law?
• And so at that point, if they've cured it, no citation, no violation.
• The issue before us is not whether those violations should be addressed.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It violates our state constitution. It disenfranchises... It violates our state constitution.
• This is a clear violation of the Florida Constitution. Thank you for your comment.
• This is a clear violation of the Florida Constitution. Thank you for your comment.
• If you vote for this, you are violating your oath. This gerrymandered map is going to be...
• If you vote for this, you are violating your oath.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to consider HB 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts using the governor’s proposed map, EOG PCRP 26. Representative Persons-Mulicka briefly introduced the bill, and Jason Jazeel and Jason Pareda of the governor’s office presented the legal rationale and map details. Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is not prohibited, that the governor’s position is to draw districts without considering race, and that federal equal-protection principles should control over state race-based redistricting provisions. Pareda said he drew the map alone using 2020 census data and census blocks, while also considering population growth estimates, traditional redistricting criteria, and county/city boundaries where feasible. Pareda described the map as race-neutral and said it keeps 48 counties whole, 382 cities whole, and has a boundary-analysis score of about 85.7%. He walked through regional changes, including major revisions in South Florida, adjustments in Central Florida, and changes in the Tampa Bay area, explaining that population shifts and the need for exact congressional population equality drove many of the district configurations. Members questioned the timing of the special session, the use of 2020 census data versus newer population estimates, the role of the legislature versus the governor, the legal basis for mid-decade redistricting, and whether the map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Districts amendments. Motions to place witnesses under oath and to extend the committee meeting by 30 minutes both failed. During public testimony, every speaker who was heard opposed the map. Commenters argued that the proposal was a partisan power grab, would reduce Democratic and minority representation, and violated the Florida Constitution and voting rights protections. Several speakers criticized the short notice and lack of public input, while others said the map would confuse voters or split communities. The chair repeatedly reminded attendees to maintain decorum and limited each speaker to about one minute.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then it'll go to violation. So add the words “an intentional” in place of A.
• And so now we'll read: “The court may also assess a civil penalty for an intentional violation of the
• Chair, I think we put it after the wrong violation.
• There's no violation. We are absolutely supporting the U.S.
• It requires intent for the most violations.

Bills: SB40, SB104, SB136, SB164

Keywords: SB40, Driver Privacy and Safety Act, automated license plate reader, ALPR, license plate reader, vehicle surveillance, privacy, data sharing, law enforcement data, immigration enforcement, reproductive health care, gender-affirming care, civil liberties, surveillance, public records, Inspection of Public Records Act, New Mexico State Police, Department of Public Safety, data sovereignty, vehicle tracking

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't look at that as a violation of my free speech.
• The platform did nothing about it other than this didn't break a violation.
• If it were to violate Section 230, it would be thrown out.
• If it were to violate Section 230, it would be thrown out.
• That's why I Humiliated and violated, and there's nothing in place to stop it.

Summary: The committee heard several privacy and consumer protection bills, with most of the discussion focused on AI and social media. AB 1405 would create a state registry for AI auditors and set basic transparency, ethics, and qualification standards for those auditors; supporters said it would build trust and provide a foundation for future AI oversight, while some members questioned whether government should define auditor qualifications instead of industry groups. The bill was moved out on a 5-1 vote to Appropriations, with the roll left open. AB 2, by Assemblymember Lowenthal, would impose enhanced financial penalties on large social media companies when their negligence causes harm to children and teens. Supporters, including a grieving parent and Common Sense Media, argued the bill would create accountability for harmful algorithms and design choices, while opponents from TechNet, EFF, CCIA, and CalChamber warned it was vague, could chill speech, invite censorship, and raise Section 230 and First Amendment concerns. Committee members debated private right of action versus public enforcement, possible shakedown lawsuits, and whether the bill should be narrowed; the bill passed 6-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open. AB 410 would expand California’s bot disclosure law so bots must identify themselves up front and truthfully if asked, rather than only prohibiting deceptive bots in limited commercial or election contexts. Supporters said the measure would help users, especially youth and vulnerable people, know when they are interacting with AI and reduce deception online; one privacy group withdrew opposition after amendments, and other industry groups said they were no longer opposed or had no formal position. The bill passed 9-1 to Appropriations with the roll left open. The committee also approved AB 1327, which lets consumers cancel home improvement contracts by email instead of only by mail and requires phone assistance for cancellations; the Contractor State License Board withdrew opposition after amendments, and the bill passed 11-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open.

Transcript Highlights:

• while also violating people's religious rights.<00:57:55.920> Forget<00:57:56.240> the
• I believe this bill is<00:58:10.880> a<00:58:11.119> clear<00:58:11.280> violation
• > article<01:00:04.799> 12 potential violation of article 12 potential violation of article
• of this chapter, but fees any violations of this chapter, but fees and<01:25:19.280> fines<01
• <01:25:25.199> of<01:25:25.440> this HS457D J-13 for violations of this HS457D J-13

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And require a violation of federal law.
• file a civil rights violation file a civil rights violation um<01:28:27.760> with<01:28:28.000
• Um material<02:08:53.199> violations material violations material violations um<02:08:55.679><
• any<03:18:52.239> condition, material violation of any condition, material violation of any
• don't want any of us to be in violation don't want any of us to be in violation of<03:42:54.160>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee met to hear a non-germane amendment to House Bill 131, which concerns bullying and cyberbullying prevention. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the prime sponsor, said the amendment was intended to revise and improve language from last year’s SB 210 and to incorporate measures from a cyberbullying bill previously passed by the House. He described changes to school communication requirements, mandatory reporting of bullying and retaliation, stronger investigation and collaboration requirements for cross-district cases, added safety and remediation language, a required conference with the alleged perpetrator and parents if available, updated reporting deadlines, and disciplinary consequences for harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and false reports. He also noted a later amendment would be needed to insert the words “the perpetrator” in one section, and he explained that some changes were meant to align with prior legislation and legislative drafting suggestions. Committee members raised several concerns. Representative Murray questioned the treatment of private and parochial schools, the change from gross negligence to negligence, and the removal of a definition of bullying based on imbalance of power and perceived characteristics. Representative Damon also objected to deleting that definition, arguing it would narrow the scope of bullying too much. Representative Han spoke in opposition, saying the amendment was too broad, unnecessary in parts, and not ready for final action; he criticized the removal of the imbalance-of-power language, the conference requirement when parents may not participate, and the reporting obligations for bus drivers and others. Cordelli responded that some issues were already addressed in prior law or SB 210 and that private schools have their own policies. Michelle Wongran of New Hampshire Legal Assistance testified in opposition, saying the bill was being heard without enough notice and that it does far more than the committee analysis suggests. She said the amendment adds undefined retaliation language, imposes reporting duties on school vendors and contractors, may conflict with FERPA and other federal privacy rules, and includes provisions that could have serious implications for schools and students. She said she supports parental involvement and some conference provisions in concept, but urged the committee to reject the amendment or at least send it through the normal legislative process for fuller review. No vote was taken during the hearing portion described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many violations have you had?
• A ban on charities owning bars would violate IRS regulations.
• A ban on charity's owning bars would violate IRS regulations.
• Is there a penalty for that violation?
• And it's just a blanket approach with that sort of a violation or an accusation of a violation?

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• She said the State Bar Court’s hearing department found violations, and the review department affirmed
• the constitution. and not violating the Constitution himself, but the result of what he did, and all
• Going through the process of researching this, he was convicted, charged with 11 violations, convicted
• And there were other charges that were violations of...
• If you have a department of attorneys looking for these type of violations, that would be concerning.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first took up several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Rick Simpson to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and Trinidad Solis, M.D., and Gerald Talbert, M.D., to the Medical Board of California. The committee also approved reference of bills to committees and floor acknowledgments, with roll calls on each item showing unanimous support from members present and the items left open for additional votes before final tallying. The main public business was the confirmation hearing for George Cardona, J.D., for a second term as Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California. Cardona described reforms made since taking office, including new conflict-of-interest and gift rules, stronger investigative requirements, efforts to reduce backlog and improve efficiency, and monitoring of discipline disparities identified in prior studies. Senators questioned him about safeguards after the Girardi matter, the John Eastman discipline case, racial and ethnic disparities in attorney discipline, unauthorized practice of law by notarios, staffing shortages, and the use of AI in filings. Public witnesses from the State Bar, SEIU Local 1000, and others spoke in support. The committee voted 3-0 to advance Cardona’s appointment to the full Senate. The committee then heard Laura Enderton Speed, J.D., for Executive Director of the State Bar. She said her priorities would be restoring public trust, improving the discipline system, addressing the February 2025 bar exam problems, and strengthening fiscal stability and internal controls. Members asked about the State Bar’s structural budget deficit, the remote administration failures in the February exam, safeguards against undisclosed gifts and conflicts, and the status of audits and investigations. Supporters from the State Bar, the civil defense bar, SEIU Local 1000, and a longtime colleague testified in favor. The committee approved her appointment 5-0 to move to the full Senate. At the end of the meeting, members also approved the remaining governor’s appointments and procedural items, and the chair thanked Senator Jones for his service on the committee before adjourning the public portion.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and it establishes that no point shall be assessed against the person's driving record for the violation
• , and it establishes that no point shall be assessed against the person's driving record for the violation
• for<00:09:44.079> the person's driving record for the person's driving record for the violation
• we need to have some teeth in violation we need to have some teeth in this<00:09:46.880> bill
• and some may look at this and violation and some may look at this and say<00:10:16.040> that's

Keywords: Roll Call 00:13 Approval of Minutes 00:44 SB 99 Discussion 03:30 SB 99 Vote 12:45 Administrative Regs 17:56, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and heard a personal privilege statement praising Transportation Cabinet staff for helping a constituent obtain a Kentucky Uniform ID in time to board a cruise. The chair also recognized special guests and noted a page for the day. The main bill taken up was Senate Bill 99, with a committee substitute adopted before discussion. Senate Bill 99, sponsored by Senator Douglas, would strengthen Kentucky’s distracted-driving laws by prohibiting the use of personal communication devices to write, send, or read texts while operating a motor vehicle, with exceptions for emergency or public safety use and certain reporting or medical situations. The committee substitute clarified that GPS use remains allowed, including for younger drivers, and the bill also bars anyone under 18 from using a device in any manner while driving, sets a $100 fine with no points, and imposes a 90-day license revocation for minors. Supportive testimony and comments emphasized pedestrian and roadway safety, the dangers of distracted driving, and the bill’s alignment with existing CDL-related restrictions. After discussion, the committee voted on Senate Bill 99 by roll call and reported it favorably with the committee substitute attached. Members explaining their votes said the measure would save lives, reflected practices already used in trucking and bus operations, and was a reasonable enforcement approach similar to prior seat belt laws. The committee then received an informational update on five Transportation Cabinet administrative regulations, which were described as updates for federal compliance, signage standards, truck weight-limit renumbering, an OHV pilot program extension, and expanded electronic review of title applications; no substantive objections were raised. The meeting concluded with discussion of adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Against the law, it was violating state law.
• Whose privacy is being violated to find out?
• <04:12:20.520> so potential Civil Rights Act violations so potential Civil Rights Act violations
• <04:12:23.920> of<04:12:24.159> the that are violations of the that are violations
• establish when if and when violations establish when if and when violations occur<04:13:12.560><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 148, with the chair limiting testimony to two minutes and asking for no outbursts so the committee could get through eight bills that day. Representative Kofalt, the prime sponsor, said HB 148 was the same as last year’s HB 396, which passed both chambers but was vetoed by the governor. He explained the bill would allow, but not require, separation by biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, houses of correction, and certain athletic competitions, leaving local school boards and administrators discretion to set policies. He argued the bill was meant to address safety and privacy concerns and cited a Milford incident and concerns in several school districts as examples of why local flexibility was needed. Committee members questioned the lack of a definition of “biological sex” and how the bill would be applied. Kofalt said he did not think a definition was necessary because males and females are generally understood, and he said the bill would give local policymakers latitude to make practical rules. He also said the bill was intended to address situations where people might misuse transgender claims to access spaces inappropriately. In response to questions, he said he was aware of issues in Kearsarge, Milford, and Mascoma school districts and had heard of discomfort in the State House, though he did not know all the details. Several opponents testified that the bill would discriminate against transgender and non-binary people and create enforcement problems. Executive Councilor Karen Hill said the bill would roll back New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination protections and conflict with the state’s Live Free or Die values. Alice Wade, a trans woman, said she had used women’s restrooms without incident and argued the bill would invite invasive enforcement and harassment. Representative La Selig said the bill was discriminatory and that bathroom concerns were being confused with unrelated harassment by cisgender males. Betsy Harrington supported the bill, citing a girls’ soccer game at Kearsarge that she said was disrupted by a boy playing on a girls’ team. Rosie Emer and her child testified against the bill, saying bathroom restrictions would increase anxiety and risk for trans and non-binary children. Stephen Scaer and Wendy Stallings supported the bill, arguing sex is biologically fixed and that excluding males from female spaces should not require genital inspections. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• She violated probation.
• She violated probation and it was revoked. She was sentenced in January...
• She violated probation, it was revoked in May of 2000.
• She violated probation, and it She violated probation, and it was revoked.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 1 April, 2026; 11:30 A.M., 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you violate public trust, are you going to be expunged?
• If you violate<00:26:08.640> public<00:26:09.120> trust, violate public trust, violate
• >> If you violate public trust, if you hold a public office and you violated public trust, would
• I would say traffic violations. I would say it's mainly not a whole lot of felonies.
• I would say traffic violations. I would say it's mainly not a whole lot of felonies.

Keywords: 1136, house, all