0:11 [UNKNOWN]: Thank you. 0:31 [SPEAKER_00]: A few weeks ago, we shared that House Bill 687, also known as the Hidden Predator Act of 2019, was being sponsored by CT Wilson. 0:41 [SPEAKER_00]: House delegate Wilson's bill would in Maryland Statue of Limitations for civil claims against perpetrators of child sexual abuse and would also include a two-year look back window. 0:54 [SPEAKER_00]: A time which victims could bring claims in cases where the previous statute of limitations has expired if you've seen the keepers. 1:03 [SPEAKER_00]: you will remember delicate Wilson speaking on his experience as a survivor and how hard it is to pass laws that the archdiocese fights against. 1:13 [SPEAKER_00]: This week we want you to hear delicate Wilson speech as well as the back and forth in anapolis Maryland in March. 1:20 [SPEAKER_00]: at the judicial proceedings committee, one in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused in the United States and to this day most still have not disclosed their abuse publicly. 1:34 [SPEAKER_03]: Like Mr. 1:34 [SPEAKER_03]: Chair, note that the panel is not here to talk to here for questions, as we discussed earlier, I understand that this is the city, and the you guys don't want you on basically sponsor only, so they're here for questions because as you well know there are some legal issues that have arisen, so these are all people that are just here to any questions we might have after the presentation. 1:54 [SPEAKER_03]: If that's okay. 1:55 [SPEAKER_03]: So I have with me a Claudia Rimmington, Katherine Robb and Wendy Lane. 1:59 [SPEAKER_03]: And I just want to acknowledge thank you, Dave Lorenz, and for the survivors that have come to hear this hearing. 2:04 [SPEAKER_03]: You know, excuse me if I'm a little disheveled. 2:06 [SPEAKER_03]: This is a morphed into something a lot bigger than I thought it was gonna be when we first presented. 2:10 [SPEAKER_03]: But I know when I first spoke with the House a few weeks ago, I said I was presenting this House Bill 677 to ride a pass wrong. 2:18 [SPEAKER_03]: And I'd said that because at the time, I had worked very hard on a bill for years. 2:22 [SPEAKER_03]: And many of you were either in the house. 2:24 [SPEAKER_03]: Some of you are only in the Senate and you'd heard my presentation year after year. 2:27 [SPEAKER_03]: Give my personal story not even getting a vote in either house or the Senate. 2:32 [SPEAKER_03]: And so by the third year, I was exhausted, I'd had a lot of individuals come testify and I was had to see people go through that. 2:37 [SPEAKER_03]: So I did what I thought was the right thing to do. 2:39 [SPEAKER_03]: And I worked with individuals, including the Catholic Church, to try and craft a bill that everybody could be happy with that we could get through. 2:46 [SPEAKER_03]: And at the time, I didn't realize that gross negligence burden that was placed on individuals between 25 and 38 was a very high burden, simply, and it was hard for them to go forward. 2:56 [SPEAKER_03]: Now, that alone, that was, but what really got my attention was, and I just wanted to give me a minute to talk about some of the other things that passed in my mind, including the key schools, 20 years of sexual abuse in this conduct from the 70s through the 90s. 3:12 [SPEAKER_03]: 18 former students were victims, 114-year-old girl. 3:15 [SPEAKER_03]: This has had to have a, it became pregnant and had to have an abortion because of child sex abuse. 3:20 [SPEAKER_03]: Landon's, the Landon School, who's a report of Washington Post, Archdiocese of War of Washington, 31 clergy members, credible act, incredibly accused of sex abuse with minors from 1948 onward, including Cardinal Care Credit stepped down. 3:35 [SPEAKER_03]: Larry Nasser, we've all heard that was a gentleman from a state university, our Kelly, we've heard that one. 3:41 [SPEAKER_03]: But really, call my eye was the Pennsylvania grand jury report. 3:45 [SPEAKER_03]: 300 priests and six diocese that they investigated. 3:50 [SPEAKER_03]: and ablcated and others they couldn't find and i write to that report and i was roughly nine hundred pages thank you cladia the way that they was the even they have to be i was surprised at how well this was hidden poorly was documented priest for raping children and moving the priest around so they could have a new playground never told the police that the i said they knew they're doing a new how they were doing it they just don't how much they were doing it 4:19 [SPEAKER_03]: It was being done on our own property, and to the end, over a half a million pages of discovery was finally turned over, having to do a child sex abuse from the Catholic Church. 4:30 [SPEAKER_03]: People raped in places of worship and schools, people that weren't doing it but were aware, but it was the oldest stories. 4:40 [SPEAKER_03]: a predator priest taking photographs of little boys while they stand in the crucifix position, telling that they're opposing to be for statutes, having them take off their underwear, kicking polaroids. 4:52 [SPEAKER_03]: Or when they provided golden crosses to certain little boys, they were victimized because you know what, that was, it wasn't just a gift to keep them quiet. 5:01 [SPEAKER_03]: It was to let any priests know that this was a soft subject, this was a victim. 5:06 [SPEAKER_03]: He had already been groomed. 5:09 [SPEAKER_03]: That's what I realized that it wasn't enough. 5:12 [SPEAKER_03]: Rating a seven-year-old little girl when she was supposed to be getting her tonsils taken out the hospital, forcing a little boy to provide oral sex in the washing of his mouth on with holy water. 5:25 [SPEAKER_03]: And that's Pennsylvania, that's right at the road. 5:28 [SPEAKER_03]: Little boy drank some juice or wine at a police house and woke up with a bleeding rectum. 5:34 [SPEAKER_03]: See, this is the FBI report. 5:36 [SPEAKER_03]: This isn't something I'm making up. 5:38 [SPEAKER_03]: So whoever comes up after me and says, yeah, but not Maryland. 5:40 [SPEAKER_03]: We touch people called me from California saying, yeah, you've been a dumping ground for generations. 5:49 [SPEAKER_03]: Because they know they can get away with stuff in Maryland. 5:52 [SPEAKER_03]: This is not an attack on the Catholic Church. 5:55 [SPEAKER_03]: Because believe me, I'm not Catholic. 5:56 [SPEAKER_03]: And you've heard my personal story. 5:59 [SPEAKER_03]: But if they want to fight, I'll be damned if I don't fight back. 6:05 [SPEAKER_03]: see it was worth my attention I made a deal with the devil I did not know how much I did because while I'm sitting in a go shading with the church trying to get something we could both realize and I realized unfortunately that burden that I set was a little hot what I didn't realize is something many of you here didn't realize either. 6:22 [SPEAKER_03]: It's called the Statue of Repose. 6:25 [SPEAKER_03]: Many of you were here. 6:26 [SPEAKER_03]: I'm sure no one knows what that means. 6:29 [SPEAKER_03]: However, an hour, 2017 bill, and you might dare some testimony, because I was shocked to hear it on the third reader, excuse me, second reader, and the house. 6:40 [SPEAKER_03]: The Obley Rotominarian Mavoy, about some language that was snuck into our 2017 bill, that pretty much would exonerate the Catholic Church and perpetuating from any of what retroacted activity. 6:54 [SPEAKER_03]: That's how deceitful this is. 6:56 [SPEAKER_03]: This is an our bill, our language. 6:59 [SPEAKER_03]: Somehow, I'll min it in. 7:01 [SPEAKER_03]: And then use in defense, knowing that was never the intent of anybody in this lexley. 7:09 [SPEAKER_03]: I'm glad that people are here today and you don't have them testified, because I'm really tired of seeing people put themselves through that. 7:15 [SPEAKER_03]: I know how emotionally painful it is, how destructive it is in myself, my family, and my mental and physical health. 7:21 [SPEAKER_03]: So I am very grateful that they can sit back there and they don't have to talk again. 7:26 [SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. 7:29 [SPEAKER_03]: But it's time we stop looking and say, you know what, if we do this for these guys, then what about the builders? 7:34 [SPEAKER_03]: You understand that this is child sex abuse. 7:43 [SPEAKER_03]: I didn't even start dealing with my nose, a combat soldier. 7:46 [SPEAKER_03]: I had killed people and I couldn't deal with my child. 7:50 [SPEAKER_03]: I got the old school before I finally woke up because you know what? 7:54 [SPEAKER_03]: I had a child and that's when it dawns on most of us. 7:58 [SPEAKER_03]: When we see a child seven years old and we see the mannerisms and we see ourselves and what was taken. 8:10 [SPEAKER_03]: This is definitely not a pity when you store it because I don't care. 8:14 [SPEAKER_03]: Because right now, the Senate, interestingly, it's on a neat little precipice of historic proportions. 8:19 [SPEAKER_03]: Because you know why? 8:22 [SPEAKER_03]: Clearly, the statute of a repose which you may hear argue is the only constitutional issue could possibly have. 8:30 [SPEAKER_03]: Clearly, that was not the intent of the House. 8:32 [SPEAKER_03]: And I don't believe it was the intent of the Senate. 8:36 [SPEAKER_03]: But that language inserted creates a constantly protected invested right for child predators and the institutions at Harvard. 8:46 [SPEAKER_03]: Currently, that's the way they argue the bill. 8:50 [SPEAKER_03]: But she's been brought to like now. 8:52 [SPEAKER_03]: And the house did act because it was defend. 8:54 [SPEAKER_03]: They argued on the floor and it was slapped down 135 to three because that was never our intent. 9:04 [SPEAKER_03]: Look at the language in 2017. 9:06 [SPEAKER_03]: Many of you were here, ask yourself, was a statute of reports ever discussed? 9:11 [SPEAKER_03]: I'll tell you what it is, because I didn't know, and I still really don't get it. 9:15 [SPEAKER_03]: But it's a construction law. 9:17 [SPEAKER_03]: And I mean that in for people who are in the art of constructing buildings, it protects them from crams and perpetuity, because in 9:26 [SPEAKER_03]: Again, in the expert's smart of the media, but the reason we know that it doesn't fit, no way is because it's construction, is because the way that the statute works is. 9:36 [SPEAKER_03]: From the moment you turn the building over, from the moment you complete the restoration, from the moment you've developed the product and you turn it over, that's when it starts running. 9:44 [SPEAKER_03]: Because our website is said, we don't want people to be held 30 and 40 years down the road for faulty building, for mistakes and development. 9:53 [SPEAKER_03]: We give them a little time, 9:57 [SPEAKER_03]: the time does not start towing on the injury. 10:00 [SPEAKER_03]: It's on an act of the defendant. 10:02 [SPEAKER_03]: We have, there's case law. 10:03 [SPEAKER_03]: We have a memorandum of law. 10:04 [SPEAKER_03]: If you please read it, it makes it very clear how this could never be a stature to oppose. 10:09 [SPEAKER_03]: Even if that's what the word said because the intent of a legislator was not a stature to oppose. 10:14 [SPEAKER_03]: Because it acts on the injury. 10:16 [SPEAKER_03]: That's what a stature limitation does. 10:20 [SPEAKER_03]: Please read the law. 10:22 [SPEAKER_03]: It's very clear, it's very duplicitous that there was snuck into a bill that this body put out in 2017. 10:28 [SPEAKER_03]: And then used in our face like from this point on, you have to exonerate us from any past wrongdoings. 10:36 [SPEAKER_03]: Roachel actively, you can't come after us. 10:38 [SPEAKER_03]: But even more, you should be somewhat patly offended that they're telling you that you've tied the hands of the 2017, we've tied your hands. 10:48 [SPEAKER_03]: because there's no law that we should be writing here to prevent future legislatures from doing their job. 10:55 [SPEAKER_03]: But that's what's being told today. 10:58 [SPEAKER_03]: I'm not here on a witch hunt. 11:00 [SPEAKER_03]: I've done my research. 11:01 [SPEAKER_03]: You're gonna continue to hear it, I don't matter what happens today. 11:05 [SPEAKER_03]: You're gonna hear tomorrow, a month from now, other states that are discovering hidden acts of tradition. 11:15 [SPEAKER_03]: We always talk about being one Maryland and how we're gonna be the forefront. 11:18 [SPEAKER_03]: How can we not protect our children? 11:20 [SPEAKER_03]: And I'll say lastly, it's not about revenge. 11:24 [SPEAKER_03]: The reason this statute, the window, the two-year look back window is so important. 11:28 [SPEAKER_03]: For example, in California, because of that two-year look back window, 300 additional predators were found. 11:36 [SPEAKER_03]: And know this, they don't stop at 30 and 40. 11:39 [SPEAKER_03]: They go all the way up and take their 80s. 11:41 [SPEAKER_03]: We have a compelling state interest. 11:44 [SPEAKER_03]: This is a compelling state interest to protect our children, the petters that are still out there that won't only be discovered unfortunately by lawsuit. 11:54 [SPEAKER_03]: I know I do a lot here in the state house. 11:56 [SPEAKER_03]: It's inappropriate. 11:58 [SPEAKER_03]: I have a short temper. 12:00 [SPEAKER_03]: And I don't have a lot of friends. 12:02 [SPEAKER_03]: I had a tough childhood. 12:06 [SPEAKER_03]: But I don't want my legacy on that 2017 bill 12:12 [SPEAKER_03]: and we protected the wrong doors in the predators in front of them. 12:17 [SPEAKER_03]: They'd never have to pay for anything they did in the past. 12:21 [SPEAKER_03]: That is not just that is not right. 12:24 [SPEAKER_03]: It's not why I ran for office and I never want that to be my legs. 12:29 [SPEAKER_03]: I know it's tough because I'm sure that this is we always worry about those under the tent of the camel or those under the camel and those under the tent all that nonsense. 12:37 [SPEAKER_03]: But that's why we're here. 12:37 [SPEAKER_03]: We create laws as we go. 12:39 [SPEAKER_03]: I asked for a support in the House Bill 687. 12:41 [SPEAKER_03]: I would love to have any questions because what I would love more than ever when I lose, just for the building of vote, for the people to stand behind me that feel that their voices heard, even if you disagree, because we all deserve that. 12:58 [SPEAKER_00]: life can get overwhelming, and talking to someone can make all the difference. 13:04 [SPEAKER_00]: Better help, the sponsor of this episode, make starting therapy simple. 13:10 [SPEAKER_00]: Complete a short questionnaire and you'll be matched with a licensed therapist, and as little as a couple of days, you can connect by message, phone or video, from wherever you feel comfortable. 13:23 [SPEAKER_00]: And if the first therapist isn't the right fit, 13:28 [SPEAKER_00]: Better help include a journal for personal reflection, and daily group sessions on a variety of topics, and they accept each essay and FSA cards. 13:39 [SPEAKER_00]: with over 2,000,000 users, and a 4. star rating on trust pilot. 13:44 [SPEAKER_00]: Better help is a trusted platform for accessible mental health care. 13:49 [SPEAKER_00]: If you think you could benefit from therapy, visit betterhelp.com, choose our podcast during sign-up, and get 10% off your first month. 13:58 [SPEAKER_00]: Taking care of your mental health is a sign of strength. 14:01 [SPEAKER_00]: Start your journey today. 14:05 [SPEAKER_06]: When was the last time that you guys can all take see? 14:07 [SPEAKER_06]: What time, what was the last time that we did if any of us, I remember when I was in the house, this bill first came up, that's the wall ago. 14:15 [SPEAKER_06]: We did a two-year look back then. 14:17 [SPEAKER_06]: Does anybody remember the date? 14:18 [SPEAKER_03]: That was the Dolby Roe case was where it was tested. 14:21 [SPEAKER_03]: That was a 2003, 2007. 14:22 [SPEAKER_06]: So we had passed, remind me, we passed the law. 14:26 [SPEAKER_06]: back then that was that the year that we did the seven years statutory limited. 14:31 [SPEAKER_03]: I just don't remember the five or seven. 14:33 [SPEAKER_03]: I know it was an increase 2003 and it was our, but I don't know that the statutory limitations was increased. 14:39 [SPEAKER_06]: And the courts found that our intent was a look back when we were even if it wasn't specified in the, that was a completely life second question was, I just, I don't, I was, I was a freshman legislator, so the in the house. 14:50 [SPEAKER_06]: What, um, 14:52 [SPEAKER_06]: Was it specified in the law two-year look back in the I don't remember when you were just fighting on the law, but court. 14:59 [SPEAKER_03]: Well, the way it was because of young lady in the Robe Doke's. 15:02 [SPEAKER_03]: The courts found that they were, that our intent was to have a pirate. 15:06 [SPEAKER_06]: Okay. 15:07 [SPEAKER_06]: Anyway, my, so there was in 2003, uh, two year window was never it was never it was put in the bill. 15:16 [SPEAKER_03]: It was taken out in writing or the courts found that even though the misrored found there was a delay in a file, I believe that they allowed it to do it. 15:24 [SPEAKER_03]: What? 15:26 [SPEAKER_04]: if there was, it was in the bill, it was taken out and there was an attorney general opinion that our letter back then to Chairman Frosh saying if this was unclear, the constitutionality was unclear, it could go either way. 15:40 [SPEAKER_04]: And that there's notation in, 15:42 [SPEAKER_04]: the AG letter of this year to delegate Dumae in the footnote that says that the AG, the SSAT AG pattern row gave the same advice to Chairman Frost that it was unclear on the Constitutionally, it could be up that held. 16:00 [SPEAKER_04]: So the courts had not decided on it at that point, but at that point it was amended out of the bill. 16:08 [SPEAKER_04]: So we have 16:10 [SPEAKER_04]: As far as I know after that, I don't believe there was a map window there they've tried to put a map. 16:16 [SPEAKER_03]: And the reason that at first when I found Bill it wasn't that wasn't as important to tell I realized it would happen California. 16:22 [SPEAKER_03]: And again, the overarching goal really is not about vengeance or even a voice at this point is making sure that there are others out there we can get them. 16:29 [SPEAKER_03]: Not made by others of predators. 16:33 [SPEAKER_06]: Uncodified language and chairman rush is a rush. 16:39 [SPEAKER_06]: on. 16:40 [SPEAKER_03]: Right, that's the old bill. 16:41 [SPEAKER_06]: The bill that Kelly's bill, two thousand. 16:44 [SPEAKER_06]: It was Delores, Kelly's bill, two thousand. 16:46 [SPEAKER_06]: Great. 16:47 [SPEAKER_03]: But the unkind of online English I was discussing was a 2017 like, how does that read? 16:53 [SPEAKER_03]: It's a very convoluted. 16:54 [SPEAKER_03]: So I believe we provided some documentation. 16:57 [SPEAKER_03]: But I know it was fairly convoluted. 17:00 [SPEAKER_04]: Question is 2017? 17:03 [SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. 17:08 [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I'm looking, and I know the intent there was six to five. 17:13 [SPEAKER_03]: And the intent at that point was not to be retroactive. 17:15 [SPEAKER_03]: We had agreed that we were just, and we agreed that there was no Discut. 17:21 [SPEAKER_03]: We agreed at that time that we were trying to make it retroactive. 17:24 [SPEAKER_03]: We weren't opening up a look back window. 17:28 [SPEAKER_03]: I wouldn't know where you, I'm not in judicious. 17:30 [SPEAKER_03]: Okay, brief judicious. 17:30 [SPEAKER_03]: But everybody talked in judicious that they had no idea. 17:33 [SPEAKER_03]: But she gave me regards to the statutory pose. 17:38 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and I'd never, again, as we talked about, I'd never heard about the statute of repose until the day before we were going to already this bill, including any briefing. 17:48 [SPEAKER_03]: I'll say this, I was never briefed by the chairman. 17:50 [SPEAKER_03]: I'm not on that committee, so I'm not sure, but I know what the weed debated the bill on the House floor. 17:55 [SPEAKER_03]: Nobody mentioned the House, the statute of repose. 17:58 [SPEAKER_03]: But we discussed the bill when they discussed them committee from every committee member I spoke with, including delegate, Ed Ryan, who's now the vice chair. 18:04 [SPEAKER_03]: There was never any recollection explaining that what a statute of repose was or how would, in fact, create what I guess they argue is a vested right. 18:13 [SPEAKER_03]: And so that was very unintentional by anybody I've spoke with. 18:16 [SPEAKER_03]: And yourself included, Mr. Triano, we discussed this. 18:19 [SPEAKER_03]: We were discussing, we were learning about the statute of repose together a few days ago. 18:23 [SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, Mr. 18:23 [SPEAKER_02]: Chair. 18:24 [SPEAKER_02]: I was just going to say that somebody intended the word statute of repose being this amendment. 18:30 [SPEAKER_02]: As I'm looking at the original amendment dating from a couple of years ago, amendment number one says insert quote establishing a statute of repose. 18:39 [SPEAKER_02]: can continue. 18:40 [SPEAKER_02]: And then further down, it specifically says talks about statue of repose. 18:45 [SPEAKER_03]: I don't disagree that somebody and somebody clearly, because it wasn't those letters didn't fall together on accident. 18:51 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. 18:51 [SPEAKER_03]: The point is no legislator that I spoken with. 18:54 [SPEAKER_03]: And that's what again, where my frustration comes in because we're always told about what trust can be a process. 18:59 [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. 18:59 [SPEAKER_03]: And also we look at the codified language using quickly before we vote on a bill. 19:04 [SPEAKER_03]: So I hope it's not going to be our worry now that we have to read every single point of every bill as it goes through the house and send it to make sure nothing's being snuck in, especially the antithesis of what I was trying to do. 19:17 [SPEAKER_03]: Because the statute of repose, which again isn't properly placed, it's not its legal fiction in this setting, is an opposite of what I was trying to do. 19:29 [SPEAKER_03]: So knowing that's nothing and I will say, certainly, because that's my bill. 19:34 [SPEAKER_03]: I can say that. 19:35 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, clearly, it's your bill. 19:36 [SPEAKER_03]: Right. 19:37 [SPEAKER_02]: So I do not, again. 19:38 [SPEAKER_02]: You were a member of the judiciary committee. 19:40 [SPEAKER_02]: I was not in between the time that you finished testifying and the time that arrived on the floor. 19:44 [SPEAKER_02]: That amendment had been added by the judiciary committee. 19:47 [SPEAKER_02]: Somebody wrote it. 19:48 [SPEAKER_02]: And then the committee obviously voted in favor of it. 19:50 [SPEAKER_02]: I've been seeing them a house side. 19:52 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I'll be honest with you and we put I've got we have poured through every little bit of paperwork that we have any amendments anything going through and again I know because I know the players that I'm dealing with that I don't know who I don't know who put it in it because unfortunately when they put them in the 10 I could say I wanted in Senator Westman drop me this amendment so again the point being if nobody intended to do it. 20:15 [SPEAKER_03]: I'm not an investigator, I don't really care how it was done. 20:17 [SPEAKER_03]: Or at this point, I can tell you why it was done clearly. 20:21 [SPEAKER_03]: But it wasn't the intent of the people. 20:22 [SPEAKER_03]: And therefore, they had defrauded the body and the citizens of the state. 20:26 [SPEAKER_03]: Got you. 20:27 [SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. 20:29 [SPEAKER_01]: Yes. 20:30 [SPEAKER_03]: Briefly. 20:30 [SPEAKER_01]: Yep, very briefly. 20:32 [SPEAKER_01]: First of all, thank you, Chairman and committee members. 20:35 [SPEAKER_01]: Just a couple of things about the language within that uncodified. 20:40 [SPEAKER_01]: If you look to even Black's dictionary, 20:44 [SPEAKER_01]: A statute of repose is triggered by an event or an action of the defendant. 20:50 [SPEAKER_01]: For example, you can look to your own statute here in the state of Maryland. 20:51 [SPEAKER_01]: It, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it 20:59 [SPEAKER_01]: It is something like the completion of a construction project or putting a product into the stream of commerce. 21:07 [SPEAKER_01]: It's triggered by an action of the defendant and or alleged defendant. 21:13 [SPEAKER_01]: And I might add that even in the letter and the ben-autable brief on page, 21:20 [SPEAKER_01]: to, they say the same thing that it is the event or action by the defendant. 21:26 [SPEAKER_01]: But if you look to the language in the un-codified language piece, it is an act essentially by the plaintiff that act would be simply reaching the age of majority. 21:40 [SPEAKER_01]: Now, I know that delicate Wilson also touched on the fact that historically across the country and as well as here on the state of Maryland, that statute of repose have been used for two types of cases. 21:55 [SPEAKER_01]: Construction cases? 21:57 [SPEAKER_01]: and product's liability cases. 22:01 [SPEAKER_01]: Occasionally you'll find in a state a medical malpractice and they have exceptions there. 22:06 [SPEAKER_01]: So not only is it not the typical language and contrary to something as simple as black's dictionary, but it is also historically not used in these types of cases, which I think speaks 22:20 [SPEAKER_01]: to the ambiguous nature and the clandestine appearance of that, which made it hard for a delegate Wilson, and many others to fully appreciate that language. 22:35 [SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. 22:37 [SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. 22:37 [SPEAKER_05]: It's my first time hearing the bill and there's a lot of letters of support here. 22:41 [SPEAKER_05]: I was just curious on the green letter from the public office of the public defender and they don't take a stance, but they just point out that there's two two possible changes that would have to with like teenagers sexting each other. 22:52 [SPEAKER_03]: I had the curse moderate because yes, they're not wrong. 22:55 [SPEAKER_03]: I just wish they had a cut-up before left the house because our goal is not in trap Yeah, I know that so would and unfortunately, yes, this is the past Senate and we would have to come back to the house Because those are changes that we don't disagree with I understand we don't want it and I think we've discussed 23:08 [SPEAKER_04]: But actually not the exact changes that they had, but really if you had it look at the current bill in the house form, if we just put in on page two line six and adult, allowing or encouraging a child that would take care of the issues at the public we had a discussion with the public defender, I think he's still here. 23:38 [SPEAKER_04]: and eat. 23:39 [SPEAKER_03]: Well, a person of majority, we spoke at spoke with from the PD's office, unfortunately, they didn't bring it to us. 23:44 [SPEAKER_03]: Because it's invalid. 23:45 [SPEAKER_03]: It's fairly nuanced and small. 23:47 [SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. 23:47 [SPEAKER_03]: It really is chances of you swing somebody for what a kid. 23:50 [SPEAKER_03]: But again, we're trying to get great good legislation. 23:53 [SPEAKER_03]: So I understand that. 23:55 [SPEAKER_05]: So will you be submitting an event or? 23:57 [SPEAKER_03]: Can. 23:59 [SPEAKER_03]: OK. 24:01 [SPEAKER_03]: Basically, yeah, it's basically if you look at it to line six, because it doesn't specify a dog or a person of majority allowing or encouraging. 24:11 [SPEAKER_03]: They're worried that it could be used against children. 24:13 [SPEAKER_03]: And that's never to go. 24:15 [SPEAKER_03]: They have a child induced another child to sexting. 24:19 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. 24:20 [SPEAKER_05]: I don't want to clarify. 24:21 [SPEAKER_05]: I'm in full support of those. 24:22 [SPEAKER_05]: I just want to share this about that one. 24:23 [SPEAKER_03]: No, no, we do. 24:24 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, that's the goal isn't, that's not the goal. 24:27 [SPEAKER_05]: I know. 24:29 [SPEAKER_03]: So if you'd like to remember, Mr. 24:30 [SPEAKER_03]: Chair, I'd be more than happy to. 24:34 [SPEAKER_06]: We just had an entire bill hearing on this issue, because there are, there is a quote of appeals, especially those case related to this. 24:42 [SPEAKER_06]: Not quite. 24:43 [SPEAKER_03]: You guys, who was in a bill or house bill? 24:46 [SPEAKER_03]: Because I put in a house bill, I don't think you made it out. 24:49 [SPEAKER_03]: I put in a house bill, because I didn't, I thought the law was ambiguous, and I didn't want to trap children in sexting either. 24:54 [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, it was specifically on that issue. 25:00 [SPEAKER_06]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 25:10 [SPEAKER_07]: My name is Carrie Silverman. 25:11 [SPEAKER_07]: I'm here today on behalf of the American Tour Reform Association, which is a group of associations, businesses, nonprofit organizations and municipalities, and when Washington DC here in Aginald. 25:23 [SPEAKER_07]: group. 25:23 [SPEAKER_07]: I commend the committee for considering this legislation and doing what it can to protect children and the sponsor for his advocacy today and the many victims that are here in support of this bill. 25:34 [SPEAKER_07]: I do want to express our concerns with this bill as we would with any type of legislation. 25:39 [SPEAKER_07]: that would completely eliminate the statute of limitations and revive time-barred claims. 25:45 [SPEAKER_07]: It's unprecedented in Maryland law to completely get rid of the statute of limitations. 25:50 [SPEAKER_07]: For any type of claim, we have statutes of limitations there. 25:53 [SPEAKER_07]: They're not based, they may be viewed as arbitrary, they may be viewed as unfair. 25:58 [SPEAKER_07]: They often are in individual cases after all you are taking away. 26:02 [SPEAKER_07]: The ability of a person who may have a viable claim. 26:05 [SPEAKER_07]: of the ability to bring that claim. 26:06 [SPEAKER_07]: And we all want to have everyone have their day in court, but we still have the statutes of limitations in place for any kind of action. 26:13 [SPEAKER_07]: And it's, we have a statute of limitations that's finite, whether it's a wrongful death case involving a child who was killed, whether it's a toxic tort case, where some will develop cancer and die because of 26:26 [SPEAKER_07]: Someone else's misconduct, drunk driving cases, every kind of case usually it's three years from adulthood. 26:33 [SPEAKER_07]: In some other cases we've made it five or even ten years, and it's based on the kind of evidence involved. 26:39 [SPEAKER_07]: It's not based on the type of injury involved, how tragic it is. 26:42 [SPEAKER_07]: It's usually not based on the kind of conduct that's involved no matter how herinal it is. 26:48 [SPEAKER_07]: It's based on the kind of evidence involved. 26:50 [SPEAKER_07]: It's there so that to protect not just defendants, 26:56 [SPEAKER_07]: courts and to make sure that judges and juries, when they're deciding principles of liability, whether someone or an organization did something right or did something wrong or didn't do enough, that they do it with the best evidence available, that they do it when the witnesses are there to testify, that they do it before the documents are thrown out, and the records are thrown out, and they do it in the time where people understand what was known and 27:21 [SPEAKER_07]: how people should have acted. 27:22 [SPEAKER_07]: And that's why we have statutes of limitations now. 27:26 [SPEAKER_07]: Most states, as Maryland has said in childhood sexual abuse cases, victims need more time. 27:33 [SPEAKER_07]: And at least 40 states have enacted. 27:36 [SPEAKER_07]: specific statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse that are significantly longer than the three years you'd have ordinarily from adulthood. 27:44 [SPEAKER_07]: You increased it here to seven years and then to 20 years. 27:48 [SPEAKER_07]: So that's where we are today. 27:50 [SPEAKER_07]: And legislatures have taken that approach and they've done it prospectively for the most part and they've done it with a finite period of time. 27:58 [SPEAKER_07]: There are exceptions. 27:59 [SPEAKER_07]: Now, there are some states that have taken an approach similar to this bill, and you might feel like that is the way that states are going today, but there are only, and most of those states have significant limitations on what types of claims are revived. 28:12 [SPEAKER_07]: Putting that aside, the reason most states have not taken that approach, well, it's too full. 28:17 [SPEAKER_07]: The first of the public policy reasons that I've already discussed with you today, the other constitutional concerns. 28:23 [SPEAKER_07]: In any of states that have considered the issue, the courts have indicated that reviving a time-barred claim is considered unconstitutional because an impairs a vested right. 28:34 [SPEAKER_07]: That's regardless, I know there's been a lot of talk today about the impact of this statute of repose line, which that is at there. 28:40 [SPEAKER_07]: Now, most states don't have that issue, and I haven't seen that come up before. 28:44 [SPEAKER_07]: But just purely based on the statute as it was enacted before and the statute without that language, just on the basis of a statute of limitations, not repose most courts have said that is interferes with the vested right and that is a principle that is important to both plaintiffs and to defendants. 29:03 [SPEAKER_07]: And I'll just read to you very quickly, but the Maryland Court of Appeals itself said in a 2002 opinion, it said we have consistently held, and this is a quote, that the Maryland Constitution ordinarily concludes the legislature from retroactively abolishing an accrued cause of action, thereby depriving the plaintiff of vested rights, and from retroactively creating a cause of action, or reviving a barred cause of action. 29:30 [SPEAKER_07]: thereby violating the vested right of a defendant, so it goes both ways, just like the legislature would not say in a personal injury action, change the statute of limitations retroactively from three years to one year and take away someone's right to sue who isn't that two-year area. 29:47 [SPEAKER_07]: The same principle applies when applied to defendants, and that's based on the statute of limitations. 29:52 [SPEAKER_07]: And in 2011, the Court of Appeals again looked at this issue, again, without the 29:59 [SPEAKER_07]: And it said that extending the statute of limitations from three to seven years could apply retroactively, but only to those claims where the statute of limitations had not yet run. 30:11 [SPEAKER_07]: And it said that, and this is another quote, we would be faced with a different situation entirely at the plaintiff's claimed and barred under the three-year limitations period. 30:21 [SPEAKER_07]: So that's the law as it stands in Maryland today. 30:29 [SPEAKER_07]: There is even a greater chance that a court would view this as unconstitutional, fairly for the reason that a statute of repose is typically considered a substantive part of the law, where a statute of limitations is more procedural and taking away, changing retroactively a substantive law is typically also viewed as unconstitution. 30:49 [SPEAKER_07]: as well. 30:50 [SPEAKER_07]: So in conclusion, I would ask you to continue the longstanding tradition of always having a statute of limitations, finite one for civil claims and making changes to the law. 31:03 [SPEAKER_07]: Perspectively, we're very concerned as to how the changes made today will impact toxic tort cases, product liability cases, all kinds of a medical malpractice where things may be 31:17 [SPEAKER_07]: 30 years from now, then where they are today. 31:20 [SPEAKER_07]: It's a precedent that's being said today that will impact other kinds of things. 31:24 [SPEAKER_06]: As to the statute of limitations, constitutional claims that you're talking about. 31:28 [SPEAKER_06]: So I'm trying to look up states that have no statute of limitations. 31:33 [SPEAKER_06]: So there's some. 31:36 [SPEAKER_06]: So friends in Delaware, Delaware, Delaware has no are you familiar with that? 31:40 [SPEAKER_06]: Yes. 31:40 [SPEAKER_06]: I would assume at some point in time that was not always the case. 31:44 [SPEAKER_06]: So at some point in time, the legislature in Delaware. 31:49 [SPEAKER_06]: move from some finite statute of limitations to an infinite statute of limitations. 31:54 [SPEAKER_07]: That's correct. 31:55 [SPEAKER_07]: That's actually roughly ten or twelve years ago. 31:57 [SPEAKER_07]: Yeah. 31:57 [SPEAKER_06]: Okay. 31:58 [SPEAKER_06]: So in the state of Delaware, not that's our court system, but in the state of Delaware, have they have their courts ruled the way that you are inferring our courts would rule. 32:10 [SPEAKER_07]: There's a split in the courts. 32:12 [SPEAKER_07]: I would 32:13 [SPEAKER_07]: a majority of the courts have considered the issue have gone the way that I discussed Delaware goes a different way. 32:20 [SPEAKER_07]: They follow what I would consider as the federal approach on the U.S. Constitution. 32:24 [SPEAKER_07]: The U.S. Supreme Court has said that retroactive and to it for criminal laws, they can do it for civil laws. 32:33 [SPEAKER_07]: Delaware is one of the states that follows that approach and about a third of states do. 32:39 [SPEAKER_06]: And then that Maryland's court, what's the court? 32:42 [SPEAKER_06]: What are the, I, I, you referenced two court of appeals cases. 32:45 [SPEAKER_06]: What are the two references for that? 32:46 [SPEAKER_07]: The two references are the two of us, Comcast decision in 2002, 805, E2D, 1061, 32:55 [SPEAKER_07]: And then the Dover's row case that was mentioned earlier today from 2000 and 11. 33:00 [SPEAKER_07]: There are others. 33:02 [SPEAKER_07]: But those decisions indicate that Maryland sides on the greater level of due process protection, that the majority of other states do. 33:13 [SPEAKER_06]: There's no case on point in terms of, in terms of this specific issue in Malon, though, right? 33:18 [SPEAKER_06]: Because we, when we raised it a couple of years ago, I would assume that there were some number of cases that were broad, because we went from a seven-year statute of limitations to a 20-year statute of limitation. 33:29 [SPEAKER_07]: whom my knowledge there is no. 33:31 [SPEAKER_07]: We sit no modern case that is when you say on point. 33:36 [SPEAKER_07]: I think the quotes in the decisions aren't on point, but there is no. 33:39 [SPEAKER_07]: And I think this is why there's some in the attorney general's prior opinions. 33:43 [SPEAKER_07]: Well, we don't know for sure. 33:45 [SPEAKER_07]: is that the two decisions that I read were dealing with specifically a revived cause of action. 33:51 [SPEAKER_07]: They made statements in those decisions, which you might say is that they've made very clear statements in both of those decisions indicating what approach Marilyn follows, but they were not specifically dealing with a revived 34:02 [SPEAKER_06]: So notwithstanding, I'm not sure that the constitutional potential issue is a rationale for not moving forward with a bill like this, right? 34:10 [SPEAKER_06]: That's a periodite conversation for one for the court of appeals to have. 34:15 [SPEAKER_06]: I'm not sure that's not. 34:16 [SPEAKER_06]: I'm not sure that's the reason we should or should not move forward. 34:20 [SPEAKER_06]: We certainly aren't going to take the attorney general's opinion for anything other than just one person's opinion on a given day. 34:25 [SPEAKER_06]: So, my, I guess, you're, I'm not sure how that's this question. 34:30 [SPEAKER_07]: What has been the effect of moving their 11 states you said now have an infinite Statue of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of Limitance of 34:50 [SPEAKER_07]: I know you mentioned Delaware. 34:51 [SPEAKER_07]: I believe Florida and at least one other state have done so prospectively and there may be another one or two of them. 34:58 [SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. 34:59 [SPEAKER_06]: When you say prospectively, you're saying for any of the for actions that occur now or for individuals who were in time bar. 35:05 [SPEAKER_06]: So with that, when you say for actions that have, are you talking about somebody who may be 15 years ago now as years old in their statutes about to start rolling? 35:14 [SPEAKER_07]: When I talk about it, reviving a time-barred claim to only four cases where the statute has already run. 35:20 [SPEAKER_07]: In terms of what's constitutional, if the case is already or claim is in the middle of a statutory statute of limitations period and the time hasn't run out, there's no case law that I'm aware of that says you can't extend it for those claim, just like the Maryland Court of Appeals said in the Dover's Roe case, if you're say four years into the seven-year statute 35:43 [SPEAKER_07]: He can that's okay. 35:44 [SPEAKER_06]: That's not a constitution that you're saying the concern would be if you were eight years past the seven years statute and then we come and make a 20 year same person who you believe that our quarter of appeals at these language would say that is a time bar statute. 35:57 [SPEAKER_06]: That's a time bar claim that can't be revived by legislative action. 36:00 [SPEAKER_06]: That's my reading of the cases. 36:04 [SPEAKER_06]: What assume that those are making their way up though, right? 36:06 [SPEAKER_06]: What court decision that that case is making its way up there if our. 36:11 [SPEAKER_06]: You know, 2017 law has any effect at all and assisting individuals that a window of individuals who can be filing a lawsuit, you believe without constitutional merit, but I would assume that they're filing those suits right now. 36:23 [SPEAKER_07]: Well, in 2017 legislation as did the seven year. 36:27 [SPEAKER_07]: for you, both said very specifically in it, that they didn't revive time-bark claims. 36:32 [SPEAKER_07]: It's someone might still make bad, but I don't think that they're gonna have much of a thesis in the law for pushing that. 36:38 [SPEAKER_06]: All right, my last question is, as to this issue that Deli Gawlson was talking about, which is the statute of proposed, that's a instruction. 36:46 [SPEAKER_06]: I think we remember, 36:48 [SPEAKER_06]: something from years ago, where there was a bill about statute of proposed construction cases. 36:53 [SPEAKER_06]: I've never heard that the plaintiff's lawyer. 36:56 [SPEAKER_06]: I've never heard that terminology used in personal injury cases. 37:01 [SPEAKER_07]: Who were of any way to the statute of repose is used in just one hair in the witness who was up here and on the prior panel had exactly right in it. 37:10 [UNKNOWN]: My 37:10 [SPEAKER_07]: experience, which is you see statutes of repose most often in the construction defense claims, you see them very often in product liability claims, which are a personal retreat cases, but you see them very often, where the time period for bringing a claim will run from the sale of a product for 10 years, 10 years is the U10 or 12 years, probably about, I want to say, 30 states have a 37:37 [SPEAKER_07]: actions. 37:38 [SPEAKER_07]: And then you see them very occasionally in medical malpractice where it will run X amount of years from the treatment rather than from the injury if it's discovered. 37:47 [SPEAKER_06]: But those are relatively small number of states that we're strange law. 37:53 [SPEAKER_06]: I don't remember it at all from law school quite frankly, but like it's a strange law to say that even in construction if you think about it, right? 38:00 [SPEAKER_06]: You're going to disagree with what I'm about to say, but from the 38:06 [SPEAKER_06]: it's some guy gets a house falls on him because of some defect that somebody did something wrong. 38:12 [SPEAKER_06]: I don't know, it's 30 years ago. 38:13 [SPEAKER_06]: The guy did something wrong, but what does that matter really to the guy who had the house fall on him and somehow the statute of repose or text that that individual? 38:21 [SPEAKER_07]: Hey, personally, I'm not dealt with the statute of repose in the construction field. 38:25 [SPEAKER_07]: I have dealt with in product liability actions. 38:28 [SPEAKER_07]: And the policy underlying it there is that after a product maybe sold and it's out there for 38:34 [SPEAKER_07]: infinite potential amount of time, other it's refrigerator or whatever it might be a car. 38:40 [SPEAKER_07]: But after some of them were of years as past 12, 15, 10 years, there's just a understanding that at that point in time, if something goes wrong with it, rather than it being some kind of defect that happened at the time of the sale, it is understood that is most likely because of the wear and tear. 38:56 [SPEAKER_07]: and some other problem or misuse or something else. 38:59 [SPEAKER_07]: And so we don't want to have that mitigation. 39:01 [SPEAKER_06]: So I course that I'm glad you put it that way and I'm not sure I'd necessarily think that's rapidly fair either, but putting that aside. 39:08 [SPEAKER_06]: That seems wholly in applicable to what we're talking about here. 39:12 [SPEAKER_06]: I'm just suggesting I, I just in terms of, I don't know how these things get constructed or all of that, but that does seem that, I'm not sure that there would be parallel kind of way to think about that in this. 39:25 [SPEAKER_06]: I get your conversation about sexual imitation. 39:27 [SPEAKER_07]: And that's why I focused on that. 39:29 [SPEAKER_06]: I think that's a fair, although I'm not right necessarily agree or think that our court of appeals would agree, but that's not for us to say. 39:35 [SPEAKER_06]: That's just too lit against going at it in front of the court, and that's fine. 39:40 [SPEAKER_06]: But as far as I just I can't for the life of me, think that there's an applicability in this realm that makes any sense. 39:50 [SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, I can't speak to that issue. 39:52 [SPEAKER_07]: I don't know. 39:54 [SPEAKER_07]: has apparently the sponsor did to know how that ended up in the bill or where it came from or what it looks like. 40:01 [SPEAKER_07]: I can understand what the intent of it was, but I was not part of that and the goal of intent. 40:06 [SPEAKER_06]: I'm just not sure that it has any applicability. 40:08 [SPEAKER_06]: Just I can't. 40:10 [SPEAKER_06]: You know, I'm not sure you can just stick those words into any particular bill and say you have a vested, I've never seen that before, and I'm just You represent the nationals, so I'm just one. 40:20 [SPEAKER_07]: I'll tell you I haven't seen it. 40:21 [SPEAKER_07]: I haven't seen it. 40:22 [SPEAKER_07]: Okay. 40:22 [SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, but that's why I focused on the statute of limitations. 40:26 [SPEAKER_07]: Okay. 40:27 [SPEAKER_07]: Fair enough. 40:29 [SPEAKER_06]: And what else? 40:31 [SPEAKER_06]: No, it's a good one, okay. 40:33 [SPEAKER_06]: Thank you. 40:33 [SPEAKER_06]: Thank you very much. 40:34 [SPEAKER_06]: Thank you very much for your testimony. 40:35 [SPEAKER_06]: That does testimony on House Bill 687. 40:40 [SPEAKER_00]: House Bill 687, the Hidden Predator Act of 2019, was voted out of the House of Delegates 135-3, which allowed it to proceed to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, the Bill failed to move forward in the committee deadlocked at 5-5. 41:01 [SPEAKER_00]: In a recent interview with Bill Sponsor CT Wilson, he was asked if he would introduce the bill again next year. 41:08 [SPEAKER_00]: He said, of course, I'll probably try again, because they deserve it. 41:13 [SPEAKER_00]: These folks deserve to know that somebody's trying to fight for them. 41:17 [SPEAKER_00]: I want these predators to be terrified, looking over their shoulder for the rest of their lives. 41:24 [SPEAKER_00]: For the destruction they caused, I want them to be nervous as hell that this bill might pass one day. 41:43 [UNKNOWN]: Thank you.
Show full transcript (458 segments)
