ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2008
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 7(FIN) am
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
MOVED CSHB 7(FIN) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 247
"An Act relating to missing persons and unidentified human
remains."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to litigation brought by a vexatious litigant;
amending Rules 3, 4, 12, and 41, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, GARDNER
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) JUD
01/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/22/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/24/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/24/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/31/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/01/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/05/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/07 (H) Moved CSHB 7(JUD) Out of Committee
02/08/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/12/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 2DP 4NR
02/12/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN
02/12/07 (H) NR: COGHILL, SAMUELS, HOLMES, RAMRAS
02/12/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/21/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/05/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/05/07 (H) Moved CSHB 7(FIN) Out of Committee
03/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/07/07 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 2DP 7NR
03/07/07 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, MEYER
03/07/07 (H) NR: GARA, STOLTZE, JOULE, NELSON,
THOMAS, HAWKER, CHENAULT
03/16/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/16/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 7(FIN) AM
03/19/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/07 (S) JUD, FIN
01/23/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/23/08 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/25/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/25/08 (S) Heard & Held
01/25/08 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SB 247
SHORT TITLE: MISSING PERSONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GREEN
01/23/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/08 (S) JUD, FIN
01/30/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 226
SHORT TITLE: VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
01/16/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/08 (S) JUD, FIN
01/30/08 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
DIRK MOFFET, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 7.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff
to the Senate Finance Committee
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 247 on behalf of the sponsor.
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 247.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers (AST)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated general support for SB 247 and
offered suggestions.
CINDY SMITH, Aide
to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the fiscal note for
HB 7 and introduced SB 226 on behalf of the sponsor.
MIKE FORD, Legislative Liaison
Civil Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions related to SB 226.
PETER MAASSEN, Attorney
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 226.
JED WHITTAKER, private citizen
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to SB 226.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:38:52 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, Therriault and Huggins.
Senator McGuire joined the meeting shortly.
CSHB 7(FIN) am-FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
1:39:20 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS announced the consideration of HB 7. [Before
the committee was CSHB 7(FIN) am.]
DIRK MOFFET, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, sponsor of HB 7,
reminded the committee that during the previous hearing Senator
Therriault identified an error in the fiscal notes. The intent
is that displaying false caller ID information is a class A
misdemeanor.
1:40:43 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE joined the meeting.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a revised fiscal note would also be
forthcoming from the Department of Law (DOL)
CINDY SMITH, Aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee, explained
that the revised DOL fiscal note will be available when the bill
is heard in the Finance Committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said okay.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS found no further discussion and asked for the
will of the committee.
1:41:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI motioned to report CSHB 7 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
VICE-CHAIR announced that without objection, CSHB 7(FIN) am
moves from committee.
SB 247-MISSING PERSONS
1:42:33 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS announced the consideration of SB 247.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff to the Senate Finance Committee,
explained that Senator Green, sponsor of SB 247, asked him to
introduce the bill. He was a member of her staff when the bill
was drafted. The language comes from model legislation that was
drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice in response to
President Bush's DNA initiative. Law enforcement agencies,
medical examiners, forensic scientists, victims' advocates and
policy makers joined forces to look at ways to fully utilize DNA
technology to solve crimes and identify missing persons. They
recommend that states adopt some version of the model
legislation.
1:43:37 PM
MR. PETERSON said that Senator Green was made aware of the need
for this legislation by a constituent whose daughter went
missing for 19 months. That mother's advocacy on behalf of all
missing persons is why Senator Green decided to introduce the
bill.
MR. PETERSON emphasized that Senator Green believes that Alaska
law enforcement is doing a good job with the resources it has.
But the Department of Public Safety (DPS) admits that there is
no consistent protocol for the content, timing, and method of
submission of missing person reports amongst law enforcement
agencies. The sponsor believes that increasing cooperation among
agencies will improve the ability to locate and safely return
missing persons.
MR. PETERSON explained that SB 247 will: prohibit disposal of
unidentified human remains before DNA samples are archived;
prohibit law enforcement agencies from refusing to accept a
missing person report; provide a detailed list of specific
information that law enforcement is to gather and record about a
missing person; allow law enforcement to obtain and forward for
analysis a DNA sample from the family of a missing person who
has been missing for more than 30 days.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked where that provision is in the bill.
MR. PETERSON directed attention to page 4. He paraphrased lines
6-11 and said that DNA would not be used for any purpose other
than to help locate the missing person.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked if collecting the DNA sample is at the
discretion of the family member and not mandatory.
1:47:31 PM
MR. PETERSON replied he would need to check with legislative
legal because he doesn't see where is says that. It might be a
worthwhile amendment, he added.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how "family member" is defined.
MR. PETERSON said he would check with the drafter. If it isn't
defined, the sponsor will propose definition language.
1:48:25 PM
MR. PETERSON said that SB 247 requires all missing person
reports to be entered into the National Crime Information Center
Missing Person File, Unidentified Person File, and the state
crime information system. If a missing person is deemed high
risk, the bill provides a mechanism for law enforcement to take
immediate action. Improving the process is a worthwhile effort.
1:49:19 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that page 2 contains a
comprehensive list of information that a law enforcement agency
is mandated to gather when it accepts a report of a missing
person. He questioned how far reaching this mandate will be and
what kind of onus it will place on law enforcement agencies.
MR. PETERSON acknowledged that DPS has expressed concern about
that. And law enforcement has said that it gathers most of this
information already. "If we're going too far and violating
peoples' rights to privacy then that definitely should be taken
into consideration," he said.
1:51:16 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety, confirmed that most of the information that SB 247 calls
for is already captured by state or National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) requirements. She isn't sure what would happen if,
for some reason, the information isn't available.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked if she is concerned about the extensive
list of requirements.
MS. MONFREDA said not particularly, but someone from the Alaska
State Troopers might be better able to speak to that.
SENATOR McGUIRE referred to page 2, line 27, and opined that
asking for the name and location of a missing person's dentist
and primary care physician that is probably a HIPPA violation.
She said she'd work on language to accommodate law enforcement
making a reasonable effort to obtain the information without
violating privacy laws.
1:54:39 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS referred to the list on page 2 and said his
assumption is that the people who work these cases have a more
extensive list than this.
MS. MONFREDA said that's probably true. She imagines that the
person who reports that a loved-one is missing usually wants to
provide as much information as possible.
1:55:16 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned whether there would be a HIPPA
violation if he, for example, reports that his mother is missing
and he tells the name of her doctor.
SENATOR McGUIRE replied that wouldn't be a violation, but the
confirmation and release of the actual medical records would be
a violation. A physician isn't able to confirm or deny without
the patient's express consent.
1:56:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed some concern about privacy and
asked if the data is kept confidential.
MR. PETERSON deferred the question to Ms. Monfreda. Lieutenant
Dial could answer many of these questions, he added.
1:57:40 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 2, line 16, and questioned
why credit card numbers are required because that isn't part of
the model act.
MR. PETERSON said the drafter took poetic license. If the
committee disagrees, the sponsor wouldn't object to removing
reference to credit card numbers.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he appreciates that law enforcement
tracks people with credit card numbers. He pointed it out
because it's beyond the model, but if the bill moves outside the
model, it is a consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 1, lines 9-10, and asked
what happens if his cousin, for example, has gone missing and
there's reason to believe that he's outside the local trooper
detachment in Fairbanks. Could the troopers in Fairbanks refuse
to take the report if there's reason to believe he's in
Anchorage?
1:59:47 PM
MR. PETERSON said his understanding is that the Fairbanks law
enforcement agency would be required to accept the report. If
there's reason to believe that the missing person is outside the
jurisdiction, the report would be entered into the state crime
system. If you have a compelling reason to believe that your
cousin was in Anchorage, the Anchorage police department would
accept the report from you, he said.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the missing person has to be an
Alaska citizen.
MR. PETERSON replied he understands that is not a requirement.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that page 3, line 16, talks about the
date of last contact and he asked if more details might be
helpful.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many missing person reports the
police receive. He'd like their perspective on whether this will
create an undue burden.
MR. PETERSON said 1,500 reports are taken each year.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many reports are refused and if
there's a policy to wait 24 hours before taking a report.
MR. PETERSON replied there isn't a policy per se. He deferred to
Lieutenant Dial to provide specifics.
2:03:20 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 4, line 9, and asked how the
DNA sample would be handled and ultimately disposed.
MR. PETERSON offered to work with staff to develop language
related to disposing of the DNA once the missing person is
located. That should be included, he added.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that one of the determinations for
identifying a high risk missing person is that they have been
missing for more than 30 days. That seems like a long time, he
said.
MR. PETERSON said that is just one of the factors, but if the
committee believes that should be changed, the sponsor will
entertain the idea.
2:05:44 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 6, line 13, that encourages
law enforcement to establish written protocols. He asked,
"Wouldn't we require them to actually take that step?"
MR. PETERSON agreed the language could be changed to say "shall
establish written protocols." DPS acknowledges that it doesn't
have written protocols that are this specific, he said.
2:07:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to page 6, lines 6-7, and
commented that this puts the state potentially at risk of
lawsuit if the notice isn't done and something happens to the
missing person.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 6 and asked Lieutenant Dial
if he thinks there would be a problem if law enforcement
agencies were required rather than encouraged to establish
written protocols.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers (AST), Department
of Public Safety (DPS), stated general support for SB 247.
However, he said, some of the requirements are problematic. He
expressed a preference for the phrase "may do" versus "shall do"
and said there are also some liability concerns. Most of the
time the 25 requirements are done anyway. This can be a good
template and still give discretion to the individual agency and
officer, he said.
2:09:21 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS agreed to consider the point.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the information is kept
confidential and destroyed after a case is solved or after a
period of time.
LIEUTENANT DIAL explained that information is entered into a
report and within 48 hours it's sent to the DPS missing person
clearinghouse. The information in the report is retained until
the person or their remains are found.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he is referring to page 4, lines 22-
26.
LIEUTENANT DIAL clarified he is referring to the current DPS
policy. With regard to the requirement in the bill to collect
DNA samples and medical records, that information is destroyed
when an investigation is complete.
2:10:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a large number of people have
access to that information.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said no. Generally it's kept confidential, but
can be made available to other law enforcement agencies.
MR. PETERSON asked him to respond to Senator Wielechowski's
question about number of cases and how many are solved or
outstanding.
LIEUTENANT DIAL informed the committee that 1,200-1,500 cases
are filed with the DPS missing person clearinghouse each year
and most are found within 48 hours. Currently about 1,000 cases
are open.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a waiting period before a
missing person report can be accepted.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said no.
2:12:54 PM
MR. PETERSON told the committee that the language in the
applicability section on page 6 isn't consistent with the model
legislation. SB 247 will apply only to missing person reports
filed after the effective date of the Act.
2:14:06 PM
LIEUTENANT DIAL stated support for the goal of the legislation
and expressed hope that AST could provide input.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS announced he would hold SB 247 in committee.
SB 226-VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
2:21:45 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGGINS announced the consideration of SB 226.
CINDY SMITH, Staff, to Senator Hollis French, sponsor of SB 226,
paraphrased the following sponsor statement:
SB 226 creates a process in statute for courts to
manage the problem of lawsuits brought by individuals
who are "vexatious litigants."
A vexatious litigant is defined as a person who, among
other things, repeatedly litigates the same claims or
previous adverse decisions against the same parties,
files multiple frivolous lawsuits, repeatedly files
pleadings or motions that are frivolous or in bad
faith, or repeatedly engages in tactics that are
without merit or intended to cause unnecessary delay.
This bill allows the court to impose reasonable
restrictions on vexatious litigants' access to the
court. Under SB 226 a court can require conditions,
such as the posting of security or prefiling review of
a complaint by a presiding judge, before an action
filed by a vexatious litigant can proceed. Several
states have passed similar legislation to control the
problem of vexatious litigation. The provisions in
this bill are based on California's Code of Civil
Procedure.
Vexatious litigation needlessly burdens the resources
of the court system, and creates unnecessary expense
for individuals who are the target of this litigation
in the public and private sectors. It is certainly
important to recognize and protect the individual's
right to litigate claims in our court system. SB 226
will only affect those few cases that are clearly
without merit. This bill will provide means for
screening out extreme examples of meritless cases
before they are filed.
MS. SMITH emphasized that this is discretionary and page 3,
lines 12-31, provide a definition for "vexatious litigant." She
deferred questions about the bill mechanics to Mr. Ford and
noted that Mr. Maassen was online to testify.
2:24:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this applies only to people who
initiate lawsuits. Do we have no vexatious defendants?
MIKE FORD, Legislative Liaison, Civil Division, Department of
Law (DOL), referred to the definition of "vexatious litigant" on
page 3. The idea under paragraph (A) is that you are the
plaintiff and not the defendant, but the provision under
paragraphs (B) (C) and (D) could apply to a defendant.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked what kind of a problem this is in
Alaska.
MR. FORD explained that the problem isn't the number of people
who are engaged in this conduct, because it's a small
percentage. The problem is that a significantly small number of
people absorb a significantly large amount of court system
resources.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked if a vexatious litigant would be
"vaccinated" from this bill if he or she hired an attorney.
MR. FORD said the intent of the bill is to deal with people who
are causing the problem and acting as their own attorney. Other
tools are available to deal with attorneys who pursue cases
without merit.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS asked if this would apply to liens. He
referred to an issue related to the fish and game board that
came up when he first became a senator.
MR. FORD opined that that could be an example of abuse.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if this targets "jailhouse litigants."
MR. FORD explained that other provisions apply to that type of
litigation.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if this mirrors what was done to
address "jailhouse litigation."
2:28:32 PM
MR. FORD replied it's a mirror in the sense that it's intended
to control a certain kind of litigation.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the incarcerated people would still
be dealt with under the other section of statute.
MR. FORD said yes, this is civil litigation.
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS stated his intention is to hold the bill.
MR. FORD relayed that this is also a private sector concern.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the bill raises any constitutional
issues or if there have been challenges in other states.
MR. FORD replied he's not aware of any successful challenge.
SENATOR THERRIAULT read the analysis section of the Department
of Law fiscal note and questioned why it says the bill will
amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska. It can't do that.
MR. FORD acknowledged that the fiscal note needs correcting.
2:30:17 PM
PETER MAASSEN, Anchorage Attorney representing himself,
testified in support of SB 226. He has practiced law in
Anchorage for 27 years and in that time he's encountered very
few vexatious litigants. Describing access to the courthouse as
an important safety valve, he said that under most circumstances
he'd be suspicious of attempts to put restrictions on such
access. However, there are limits to what the court, the
Department of Law, private litigants, and private attorneys need
to put up with. "That's where SB 226 comes into play and can
provide a very good tool for the judiciary."
MR. MAASSEN explained that he's been litigating with Mr. DeNardo
since 2002. Initially State Farm Insurance hired him to
represent a landlord in an eviction suit against Mr. DeNardo. A
year later Mr. DeNardo filed suit against him, his law firm, and
Judge Gleeson for conspiring to deny discovery. That delayed
resolution of the underlying suit for a year. Ultimately those
suits were resolved but Mr. DeNardo brought further suit against
the landlords, he and his law firm, and three judges. All the
decisions were against Mr. DeNardo but each one required time
and money to put together either a motion to dismiss or a motion
for summary judgment.
MR. MAASSEN said that since this is what he does for a living he
can't get too upset, but it has impacted his personal life. When
he applied for a construction loan he had to tell the bank that
Mr. DeNardo was seeking $5 million in damages in each of several
lawsuits pending against him. This is something that litigants
in ordinary litigation shouldn't have to deal with in
perpetuity, he said.
2:34:41 PM
MR. MAASSEN, speaking as a layman, said some vexatious litigants
are probably mentally ill. "We have to feel sorry for them and
find some way to deal with them." Allowing them to vent through
the court system at the expense of private parties and their
attorneys isn't the way to do it. SB 226 is a good tool for
judges to use.
2:35:21 PM
JED WHITTAKER, private citizen from Anchorage, opposed SB 226.
Under the constitution everyone has equal protection and that
means that everyone has equal access to the courts regardless of
financial standing. Although some people may cause problems,
judges have the right to dismiss lawsuits that are frivolous.
Creating legislation to address a problem that judges can
already solve only makes government bigger and denies equal
protection.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how he would suggest dealing with
people who bring frivolous lawsuits and don't care if court and
attorney fees are charged to them because they don't have two
nickels to rub together. They're judgment proof. "How do we deal
with that aspect of the equality in the system?"
MR. WHITTAKER suggested the legislature seek advice from the
Alaska Supreme Court to see if this is really a problem because
not many people have the capacity to engage in litigation on a
pro se basis. The court system isn't perfect but judges should
exercise discretion as necessary, he said.
2:39:13 PM
MR. FORD explained that SB 226 is intended to limit access to
the court only "in a surgically precise way." The bill is
designed to address an issue that arises in very few cases but
that impacts far beyond its litigation sphere. Judges have a lot
of authority but dismissing cases is the nuclear option. "I
don't know of any cases where it's ever been used."
SENATOR McGUIRE said there's a tendency for lawyers to advocate
for their client regardless of how unreasonable the position may
be. And judges are reluctant to dismiss cases in the fear that
there might be something there. She encouraged the Department of
Law (DOL) to think about whether the language ought to be
defined in terms of the motion to dismiss and in Rule 11
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11] to make it clear that the
judge should be a gatekeeper. "There are so many merit based
cases, but these few cases … cost people. … It's a tremendous
drain."
SENATOR McGUIRE encouraged DOL and the sponsor to look at it as
a triangle. The legislature can do something, the Bar
Association can look at its cannons and rules of the court, and
lawyers can look at their own ethics and ask if the case is
appropriate irrespective of the fees.
2:43:42 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS noted that the definition says without the
assistance of an attorney and that there's also a way to deal
with attorneys who file cases without merit.
MR. FORD said the idea was focus the bill as narrowly as
possible. "So those cases that were brought without the
assistance of an attorney, but also meet this other criteria are
the cases we're talking about." An advantage to SB 226 as
opposed to relying on a judge's discretion is that it's a tool
that will be consistently applied across the state.
2:44:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he presumes this would not apply to
workers' compensation cases.
MR. FORD said it does not apply.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said access to the courts is an important
issue. The rich have access and the poor are judgment proof. In
Alaska this issue has a real impact on the middle class. When
they've been damaged, that's their redress. "That's where you
have the David and Goliath standoff. And they're on equal
footing with the multi-billion dollar corporation."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he's concerned about not only this
issue but also about defendants who work the system and fight
everything. They may lose five or ten cases and have to pay
someone $50,000, but that's nothing for a huge corporation.
In putting this together we need to give some thought on how
this will impact the majority of people in Alaska and their
access to lawsuits and a judicial system that's really stacked
against them, he said.
2:46:58 PM
VICE-CHAIR HUGGINS announced he would hold SB 226 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Vice-Chair Huggins adjourned the meeting at 2:47:01 PM.